Businesss Research

Question : Q. 1 What is the Problem Discussed in the Paper? Q. 2 What is Main Hypothesis of the Paper? Q. 3 In the Literature, how many Studies have been Reviewed to Establish the link With Previous Research? Q.4 What type of Data is used in the Study? Q.5 What is the Methodology of the Study? Q.6 What are the Main Findings and Conclusions of the Study? Answer : BUSINESS RESEARCH 1 The main problem under discussion is the global financial crisis of 2008. The author has indicated that this is the worst evet crisis since the Great Depression. The explains that there are good lessons that economist can now learn from the global financial crisis of 2008 because there is a vast data to assist in the interpretation of the causes of crises as well as suggest actions to take and those to reject to speak to these causes of the crises. 2 The main hypothesis of the paper is how to build a resilient economic system. The author is convinced that we must understand the lessons learnt from the global financial crisis alongside other 100 or so other crises already experienced to build such a system. The author suggest that we can understand the global financial crisis as a result of the regulation failure. 3 It is not clear the number of studies that have been reviewed to establish the connection to previous studies. However, it is based on a revised version of the lecture presented at the Seoul National University on 2009-10-27. The author remains obliged to Jill Blackford and Eamon Kircher-Allen for the preparation of the lecture for publishing. The lecture is anchored on study supported partially by the Ford and Hewlett Foundations with a fuller articulation of several of the ideas as well as references to the study on which they are anchored being entailed in freefall (America, Free Markets as well as the Sinking of the Global Economy, New York: WW Norton, 2009.) 4 The study has used the data on the global financial crisis. 5 The methodology of the study is a systematic review of literature. 6 The study concluded that even though banks can be blamed for causing this crisis, we should as well blame ourselves somehow due to our failure to manage our response to crisis effectively. People failed to manage the crisis in a manner that ensures we utilize our resources full potential. The author concludes by acknowledging the importance of Keynesians tools and intellectual frameworks to speak to crisis aftermath. However, he remains in serious doubt whether people will make good use of Keynesian frameworks and tools.