• No se han encontrado resultados

ETAPA II: INTRODUCCIÓN DE LA EMPRESA

TEC = TET Dónde:

6. Espera: Cuando un operario espera por el resultado de otra operación para poder continuar su proceso, cuando un equipo falla y la persona no

2.6 HERRAMIENTAS DE LA MANUFACTURA ESBELTA 1 LAS 5 ´S

AIPSO Facts (various years), (Johnston, RI: AIPSO).

American Insurance Association, 2005, State Rate and Form Law(Washington D.C.: AIA Law

Publications).

Berry, William D, Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson, 1998, Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-1993, American Journal of Political Science, 42: 327-348.

Berger, A., J.D. Cummins, and M. A. Weiss, 1997, The Coexistence of Alternative Product Distribution Systems: The Case of Property-Liability Insurance.” Journal of Business 70 (3): 515-546.

Besley, T., & Coate, S., 2003. Elected versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence, Journal of the European Economic Association, 1: 1176-1205.

Boylan, Richard T., 2005, What Do Prosecutors Maximize? Evidence from the Careers of U.S. Attorneys American Law and Economics Review 7: 379-402

Che, Yeon-Koo, 1995, Revolving Doors and the Optimal Tolerance for Agency Collusion. RAND Journal of Economics 26 (3):378-97.

Cohen, Jeffery E., 1986, The Dynamics of the “Revolving Door” on the FCC, American Journal of Political Science, 30(4): 689-708.

Cummins, J. David, Richard Phillips and Sharon Tennyson, 2001, Regulation, Political Influence and the Price of Automobile Insurance, Journal of Insurance Regulation, 20 (1):9-50.

Eckert, Ross D., 1981, The Life Cycle of Regulatory Commissioners. Journal of Law and Economics 24 (1):113-20.

Formby, John P., Banamber Mishra, and Paul D. Thistle, 1995, Public Utility Regulation and Bond Ratings, Public Choice, 84(1-2): 119-136.

Gormley, William, 1979, A Test of the Revolving Dorr Hypothesis at the FCC, American Journal of Political Science, 23:655-83.

Gely, Rafael and Zardkoohi, Asghar, 2001, Measuring the Effects of Post-Government-Employment Restrictions, American Law and Economics Review, 3(2): 288-301.

Grabowski, Henry, W. Kip Viscusi, and William N. Evans. 1989. Price and Availability Tradeoffs of Automobile Insurance Regulation. Journal of Risk & Insurance 56 (2):275-299.

Harrington, Scott E., 2000, Insurance Deregulation and the Public Interest. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.

________., 2002, Effects of Prior Approval Rate Regulation of Auto Insurance in Deregulating Property Liability Insurance: Restoring Competition and Increasing Market Efficiency (J. D. Cummins, ed.) (Washington: Brookings –AEI Joint Center): 285-314.

Heckman, J., 1978, Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error, Econometrica, 47:153-61.

Laffont, J-J., 1994, The New Economics of Regulation Ten Years Later, Econometrica 62(3): 507-537. Laffont, J-J., and David Martimort, 1999, Separation of Regulators Against collusive Behavior, RAND

Journal of Economics, 30(2): 232-262.

Lee, L-F. , 1983, Generalized Econometric Models in Selectivity, Econometrica, 51:507-12.

Martimort, David, 1999, The Life Cycle of Regulatory Agencies: Dynamics and Transactions Costs, The Review of Economic Studies 66: 929-947.

McFadden, D. (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in Frontiers of Econometrics, (ed. by P. Zarembka) (New York: Academic Press).

Maddala, G.S., 1983, Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, (New York: Cambridge University Press)

National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) (various years), The Insurance Legislative Fact Book and Almanac (Troy, NY: NCOIL).

Peltzman , Sam, 1976, Toward a More General Theory of Regulation, The Journal of Law and Economics (19): 211-40.

Salant, David J., 1995, Behind the Revolving Door: A New View of Public Utility Regulation. RAND Journal of Economics 26 (3):362-77.

Spiller, Pablo T. 1990. Politicians, Interest Groups, and Regulators: A Multiple-Principals Agency Theory of Regulation, or “Let Them Be Bribed”, Journal of Law and Economics 33 (1):65-101.

Smart, Susan R., 1994, The Consequences of Appointment Methods and Party Control for Telecommunications Pricing, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 3(2): 301-323.

Smith, Eric and Randall Wright, 1992, Why Is Automobile Insurance in Philadelphia So Damn Expensive? American Economic Review 82(4): 756-772.

Stigler, George, 1971, The Theory of Economic Regulation, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2(3-21).

Tennsyon, Sharon, Mary Weiss, and Laureen Regan, 2002, Automobile Insurance Regulation: The Massachusetts Experience, in Deregulating Property Liability Insurance: Restoring Competition and Increasing Market Efficiency (J. D. Cummins, ed.) (Washington: Brookings –AEI Joint Center): 25- 80.

Viscusi, Kip, Henry Grabowski and William Evans, 1989, Price and Availability Tradeoffs of Automobile Insurance Regulation, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 61(2): 275-299.

Code

1 state-made rates

2 prior approval without a deemer provision 3

4 file-and-use (file on or before effective date)

5 use-and-file (file within specified period after effective date) 6 filing only (no time period specified)

7 flex rating (prior approval of change outside of permissible range) 8 file-and-use or use and file in a competitive market

State Rating Law 1 Rating Law 2 Rating Law 3

Alabama 3:1972-2005 Alaska 3:1972-2005 3:2005 Arizona 3:1972-1980 5:1981-2005 Arkansas 3:1972-1979 4:1980-2005 California 6:1972-1988 3:1989-2005 Colorado 5:1972-1983 4:1984-2005 Connecticut 3:1972-1983,1994-1999 4:2000-2005 Delaware 2:1972-2005 Florida 3:1972-1974,1987-2005 4:1975-1986 Georgia 4:1972-1987 3:1988-2005 Hawaii 3:1972-2005 Idaho 5:1972-2005 Illinois 5:1972-2005 Indiana 4:1972-2005 Iowa 3:1972-1987 8:1988-2005 Kansas 3:1972-2005 Kentucky 3:1972-1982 8:1983-2005 Louisiana 3:1972-2003 7:2004-2005 Maine 3:1972-2005 Maryland 3:1972-1984,1990-1998 4:1985-2005 Massachusetts 1:1972-2005 Michigan 3:1972-1980 8:1981-2005 Minnesota 4:1972-2005 Mississippi 3:1972-2005 Missouri 5:1972-2005 Montana 6:1972-2005 Nebraska 3:1972-2005 Nevada 4:1972-1989 2:1990-2005 New Hampshire 2:1972-2003 3:2004-2005 New Jersey 2:1972-2003 7: 2004 - New Mexico 3:1972-1975,1988-2005 4:1976-1987 New York 4:1972 2:1973-1995 7:1996-2005 North Carolina 2:1972-1976 3:1977-2005 North Dakota 3:1972-2005 Ohio 4:1972-2005 Oklahoma 3:1972-2005 Oregon 4:1972-2005 Pennsylvania 3:1972-2005 Rhode Island 3:1972-2005 South Carolina 3:1972-1998 7: 1999-2005 South Dakota 3:1972-1979 8:1980-2005 Tennessee 3:1972-2005 Texas 2:1972-2003 4:2004-2005 Utah 3:1972 5:1973-2005 Vermont 3:1972-1984 8:1985-2005 Virginia 3:1972-1973 4:1974-1989 8:1990-2005 Washington 3:1972-2005 West Virginia 3:1972-2005 3:2005 Wisconsin 5:1972-2005 5:2005 Wyoming 3:1972-1983 8:1984-2005

* - Rates are deemed approved if no regulatory action within a specified period;includes states that required prior approval of deviations from bureau rates and Alabama's modified prior approval law,which requires prior approval of changes in expense and profit loadings.

prior approval with a deemer provision*

Appendix A

Types of Rating Laws by State,1972-2005

Table displays for the rating law in force for each state. Sources: Harrington (2002) and American Insurance Association (2005)

Variable

Intercept 0.035

(0.905)

Percent Private Sector Employees in Insurance Industry -41.069 ***

(12.020)

Ave. Loss Per Car in State to Ave. Loss Per Car in Nation 0.351

(0.377)

Lagged(Percent Car Years in Residual Market) 6.617 ***

(1.283)

Lagged(Percentage Increase in Ave. Loss Per Car) 1.115

(0.721)

Percent Premiums by Direct Writers -1.172 *

(0.621)

Indicator = 1 if commissioner is elected 1.200 ***

(0.142)

Percent Liability Losses Incurred in No-fault Coverage -0.757

(0.512)

Liberal Ideology Index 0.007 ***

(0.003)

Real Per Capita Income ($2004) 0.000

(0.000)

Population Density 0.001 ***

(0.000)

Percent Miles Driven in Urban Areas 1.327 ***

(0.446)

Poverty Rate 0.009

(0.022)

Log-Likelihood Function Value -448.82

Pseudo R-Squared 20.84%

***, **, * denotes statistical significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively.

Probit Regression Results of the Choice of

Documento similar