Private benefit

Second, intervention is justified because social costs may exceed private costs as well as private benefits. For example, when an individual chooses to take a personal automobile to work instead of mass transit, the individual driver receives the short-term benefits (privacy, comfort, speed, and convenience) while the negative social costs (greater air pollution, highway construction, traffic jams, and resource depletion) are shared by all. Intei vention usually is an attempt to lower the social costs. Flowever, the prob-... 

In general, economic inefficiency in resource allocation would be the result of a divergence between private benefits or costs and social benefits or costs, i.e. the result of externalities. Private costs (or internal costs) are directly taken by the buyer. Private costs for a transport user would, for example, include expenses for wear and tear, energy cost of vehicle use, transport fares, taxes and charges, as well as welfare effects such as own time costs. 

The Action Plan notes, for example, that in Sweden farmers are encouraged to produce organic for its public good attributes even though they sell into a conventional food chain. The private benefits are reaped by consumers who have organic foods available to them, but private benefits should be subject to market rules. Given that any organic product embodies both these benefits, analysis of the market becomes very complex indeed. 

Theoretical research on the economics of infectious diseases describes an important limitation of subsidies to stimulate demand for vaccines. The private benefit from being vaccinated partly reflects the prevalence of the disease. To the extent that the price faced by the consumer falls, increases in the quantity of vaccinations demanded are likely, followed by... 

The expected private benefit depends on a number of market characteristics and public policies, including market size, intellectual property rights, price regulation, and the magnitude of prizes for innovation. Some public policies, such as the Orphan Drug Act, may affect both the costs and the expected private benefits of R D investment. 

In the debate about whether it is financially rewarding to farm organically, the question of what to include in the final analysis remains. The private benefits to the farmer are included. From society s point of view, another relevant factor is the difference in off-farm effects between the two management systems. This is notoriously difficult to quantify but is still relevant for the full picture of the total efficiency of the systems. In some of the studies discussed, this factor is already included in the form of subsidies and premium prices, though these extra revenues must also cover the extra cost of small-scale marketing. 

To minimize information asymmetry between providers and patients, there is a need for new services to help patients make informed choices on clinical options, lifestyle choices, and financial viability. Individuals may need relevant information for decisions such as choosing appropriate providers, treatments, tests (predictive and diagnostic), and medications (Adams et al. 2008). In a system where private benefit plans exist, families may need advice on optimizing their choice of benefits. Individuals also need to understand the risks and predicted outcomes of then-lifestyle choices, and what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. Finally, people may need advice on how to pay for health services. The new services can proactively devise holistic healthcare, financial, and retirement plans, and advise people of then-financing and insurance options. 

Before discussing the research gap, there are several terms that need to be clarified including cooperation, coordination, integration, and collaboration value creation and value appropriation common benefits and private benefits and collaborative advantage and competitive advantage. 

According to Khanna et al. (1998), common benefits are those that accrue to each partner in collaboration from the collective assimilation and application of the learning. These benefits are gained from operations that are related to the collaboration. Private benefits are those that a firm can produce unilaterally by assimilating skills and learning from its partners and applying and internalizing them to its own operations that are typically unrelated to the collaborative activities. 

In contrast, collaborative advantage is joint competitive advantage and come from a relational rent, a common benefit that accrues to collaborative partners (Dyer and Singh 1998). This type of rent cannot be generated individually by either collaborative partner. In addition, Lavie (2006) model extends prior research on joint value creation in dyadic alliance by considering unilateral accumulation of spillover rents that produce private benefits. 

According to the relational view and the ERBV (Dyer and Singh 1998 Lavie 2006), the link of SCC CA (i.e., H5) focuses on the joint value creation process. Firms generate common benefits (i.e., relational rents) through supply chain collaboration. The link of CA->FP (i.e., H7) focuses on the value appropriation process. Firms improve their performance by appropriating relational rents. The direct link of SCC FP (i.e., Hs) focuses on the spillover rents (and internal rents) that generate private benefits to the focal firm, which is not related to collaborative advantage. Such private benefits directly impact firms performance. 

These results echo the literature acknowledging both common benefits and private benefits (Hamel 1991 Khanna et al. 1998 Lavie 2006). For small firms, SCC helps them jointly create value with their partners but their interfirm learning and joint knowledge are difficult to internalize or transfer to other business areas due to their small scale and scope of operations. Thus, SCC can cause little spillover effect that generates private benefits. In other words, SCC can achieve almost no benefits that are not related to the collaborative advantage, and thus it has no direct impact on firm performance. So the impact of SCC on firm performance is completely mediated by collaborative advantages for small firms. 

For medium and large firms, it is easier for them to internalize and transfer what they have learned from supply chain collaboration to other related business areas due to their diversified businesses and large scope of operations. These spillover effects generate private benefits and thus SCC directly impact firm performance as well as indirectly improve firm performance through collaborative advantages by jointly creating value with their partners. This explains the partial mediation effect of collaborative advantage on the relationship between SCC and FP. 

Multivariate analysis of belt use isolate the separate efl ects of several individual variables at the same time. In my own work I employ an individual benefit-cost approach and multivariate probit analysis to explain voluntary seat belt use and nonuse. For a national sample of over 1,800 drivers in 19721 find that the probability of use is higher the greater are the expected net private benefits of belt use. 

---