Pavel (2013) studied the efficiency in procurement between local monopolies, which are mostly sectoral authorities, and the public sector to determine which was more efficient regarding handling procurement matters. The public procurement process is thus compared about how the public and local monopolies manage them together with the efficiency of the procurement processes set by the companies. The study’s aim was to determine the setting of prices on procurement by private and public sectors. The study used information from an information system concerning public procurement activities. The paper formulates a hypothesis proposing that local monopolies are more efficient than public sector authorities in organization procurement are. The study uses two model where the first model uses the price achieved as a dependent variable while the second model uses the number of bids in comparing the two sectors.
The various contracts associated with the two sectors were analyzed by the use of regressions. The study found that the public sector gets many bids when compared to the private sector or local monopolies. Public sectors are less effective than the local monopolies about the procurement process. The study found the difference between the two sectors to be 5.8%. However, the percentage is a bit low most public procurement processes are carried out more efficiently that in local monopolies. The hypothesis, in this case, is proved right according to the research was done and the data generated in the study. Therefore, the study has proved that the hypothesis has true, and therefore, the researcher made the correct predictions about the study in question.
The next article by Roux and Thöni (2015) which studied the issue of collusion among firms and determined to prove various hypotheses regarding punishment of any malpractices by the firms in colluding with others. The study’s aim was to investigate targeted punishment, which further pushes firms to collude. The experiments used in the study were those oligopoly experiments of Cournot. The experiments are used to differentiate between targeted punishment and general punishment. Strong punishment in this regard according to the study helps companies to maintain and establish collusion. The article thus explores the targeted punishment about the increasing or decreasing quantities that result from the punishment especially when firms collude.
We explore targeted punishment as an elucidation for the collusion between many firms. In a series of Cournot oligopoly experiments with various numbers of ﬁrms, we compare production decisions in and out of the companies with the possibility to target punishment at speciﬁc market participants. We ﬁnd strong evidence that targeted punishment enables ﬁrms to establish and maintain collusion. More so, we ﬁnd that the collusive eﬀect of targeted punishment is even stronger in markets having a high number of competitors suggesting a reversal of the conventional wisdom that collusion is easier the fewer the ﬁrms. For the first hypothesis since there is not targeted punishment the sum of all quantities increase with the increase in firms was proved untrue as more of the quantities drastically reduced. The second hypothesis concerning the decrease in quantities due to the targeted punishment go mixed results and therefore the hypothesis was not accurate as a result. Targeted punishment according to the third hypotheses, which postulates that there is a reversal of conventional wisdom in dealing with the possibility of targeted punishment on firms. The possibility of punishment especially that of targeted punishment increases the quantities overall while the targeted punishment consequently increases.
Hypothetico deductive methods similarities and differences
The two researchers have used different approaches in dealing with their hypothesis. The hypothetico deductive method by the first researcher is similar to the second researcher in that both use information obtained from secondary sources. The data obtained is finally used to determine whether the hypothesis is true or not. In both articles, the hypotheses are proved to some extent. In the first article, the hypothesis is one, and it is proved correct while in the second article the third hypotheses are accurately proved from the data obtained. The difference sin the articles is the use of hypothesis since in the first study on public procurement uses one hypothesis while the second article on the collusion of firms that uses four hypothesis to prove the data and study.
The rules that can be used in the hypothetico deductive methods include the use of similar data analysis methods that will help to ensure that the data analyzed is by the set standards. As such the research follows on the various methodological approaches that will collect valuable data to prove whether the hypothesis is true or not. Another rule will be to set up a relevant hypothesis according to the study. Researchers will be required to think over their study topics and come up with one or more hypothesis that is relevant to the study, and that will help to find out the conclusions that are helpful to answering the problem in question. Therefore, the rule will be to ensure that the hypothesis is relevant and thus to the point to ensure that the objectives of the study are met.
Importance of the rule
The rule is important in that it helps the researchers develop methodologies that are relevant to the study in questions and ensure that they think over their hypothesis about the results they get. Such a rule will help the researchers engaging in the scientific method to widen their scope while creating a research study regarding widening their thinking not only to focus on the hypothesis but to focus further ahead of the results and to ensure that the suggested solutions to the problem as in tandem with the study objectives. In creating various predictions about the study, it is important to ensure that that the predictions give relevant possible forecasts to the solutions of the problem at hand and as such help the researcher to think on the research topic. The hypothesis in such a case should be realistic and not blown out of proportion to make it easier for the researcher to put in place methodologies that are achievable and that can produce better results.
Research is an important part, especially when considering the hypothetical deductive method. Experimental methods are an important part of the study and it is important in ensuring that the researchers focus on proving a problem they have discovered especially one which can normally be tested in a lab or with observations using scientific methods. Since research is an important part of business especially when coming up with solutions to a problem, it is important to ensure that the scientific methods are used in ensuring that the study is conducted in a clear and concise manner.
Order Unique Answer Now