You are on page 1of 16

A FORMATIVE MODEL FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER

SATISFACTION WITH A DEGREE COURSE

GIOVANNA NICOLINI FRANCESCA DE BATTISTI

Working Paper n. 23.2003 - Settembre

Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Aziendale


Universit degli Studi di Milano
via Conservatorio, 7
20122 Milano
tel. ++39/02/50321501
fax ++39/02/50321450
E Mail: dipeco@unimi.it

Pubblicazione depositata presso gli Uffici Stampa della Procura della Repubblica e della Prefettura di Milano
A Formative Model for Measuring Customer Satisfaction with a
Degree Course

Giovanna Nicolini - Francesca De Battisti

Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Aziendale


Universit degli Studi di Milano
giovanna.nicolini@unimi.it
francesca.debattisti@unimi.it

1. Introduction

Customer satisfaction with a service/product (p/s) can be measured through a survey


of the actual perception of the users or otherwise comparing their actual perception with
their expectations. More appropriately in the first case quality is considered, in the
second customer satisfaction (CS) (Cronin et al.1992,1994). Therefore to measure the
CS we have to compare the evaluations of the user with his expectations connected to
an ideal p/s. For some kinds of p/s such expectations are typically subjective, they
have to be gathered ad hoc; for others they can be suggested by the provider the p/s
referring to an optimum p/s; in this way the expectations are collected in an objective
way.
This paper proposes an index founded on objective expectations, with the aim of
measuring the CS of a service such as a university degree course (DC) provided by
the Italian universities. In fact the quality of university teaching has been tested for
many years now submitting a questionnaire to the students attending the courses and
present at the end of each course; the questionnaire is divided into four dimensions:
particular organisation of the teaching, characteristics of the teaching, characteristics
of the exercises, general organisation of the teaching within the overall degree course.
A different number of attributes are associated to each dimension, with a different
question linked to each attribute, and the student answers using an item scale.
Afterwards we substitute items for scores, with m as the minimum value and M the
maximum, the same for all the questions. By means of an item scale the student tells his
personal satisfaction, while the expected satisfaction will be considered objectively the
same for all the questions and equal to the maximum value M on the same scale. It
follows that the level of satisfaction, for each question, can be defined by a function
measuring the differences between the scores observed and the maximum M. The
function chosen G is similar to that proposed by Minkowsky with parameter . And
since such a function is concerned with a single question, we have to use a model to
combine them in an overall CS measure.
To this end formative models are proposed; SERVQUAL is an example, it is a global
measure obtained by the weighted mean of the dimension indexes, which are simple
means of the differences between the scores observed and those expected by each

1
individual. In SERVQUAL the problem of weighting is concerned only with the
dimensions and is often solved by asking the interviewed to give a weight to the
dimensions themselves (with the constraint that the sum of weights is equal to one).
The index proposed in this paper is within the logic of the formative models, but
nonetheless presents some particulars regarding: a) a second level of aggregation, b) a
different number of respondents. In fact, in this case the means of the dimensions do not
lead to a CS global measure (as in SERVQUAL), but only to a partial measure
regarding the teaching; it is the combination of these latter measures that lead to the
overall CS index for DC. Lastly the different teaching courses are attended by a
different number of students and moreover often item non-response is verified.
While point a) is easily solved, point b) requires careful examination to establish
opportune weights for the different levels.
In paragraph 2 the index G is briefly set out, in paragraph 3 the method for
calculating the overall index is shown and lastly, in paragraph 4, the variability within
and between the intermediate levels (dimensions and teaching) is analysed to obtain the
overall variability measure.

2. Distance Indexes G

Let n be a population size of individuals giving their personal satisfaction with an


attribute y of a service dimension; let y k , with k = 1,..., K ; m y k M , a score on an
evaluation scale and nk , with k
n k = n , the number of individuals choosing y k . To
obtain a function of the differences between the values y k and the maximum value M
we use the measures of distance proposed by Minkowski:

1
1 K

= y k M nk
*
G . (1)
n k =1

The index (1) can be normalised taking it to its maximum value (Fabbris, 2000):

1

K
* y k M nk

1

G 1 K
y k M f k ,
k =1
G = = = (2)
Max(G ) ( M m) n
*
M m k =1


where f k = n k n . We observe 0 G 1; in fact, G is equal to zero when all the units
of the population are gathered at the maximum value, it is equal to one when all the
units are gathered at the maximum distance from the optimum and take on increasing
values because of their gap from the optimum. Moreover such an index can be used
with any score scale and it is independent of the type of scale chosen (Fabbris, 2000).
Taking in formula (2) = 1 and = 2 we have the following indexes:

2
K
1
G1 = (M yk f k ) (3)
M m k =1

and
1
1 K 2
G2 =
M m k =1
( yk M ) 2 f k

, (4)

thereafter called natural index and quadratic index of Customer Satisfaction.

3. Partial and Global Indexes of CS

Referring to the CS of a Degree Course (DC), index (3) or (4) is calculated by the
distribution of answers associated to each question of the questionnaire submitted to the
students attending a teaching course. Within the logic of formative models a linear
combination of question indexes has to be considered to define those of dimension, a
linear combination of the latter to define the teaching indexes and lastly combining the
teaching indexes to obtain the overall DC index. To this end, since the base of the
formative model is the question index and since for each question there is a different
number of respondents1, a system of weights must be defined for the combination of the
indexes. The idea is to split up the data gathered into question clusters with a different
number of answers. In this way the population referred to is no longer made up of the
students but of the questions in the questionnaire, which will then be collocated on
different levels, corresponding to a different frequency of answers. For example the
dimension index is calculated by the arithmetical mean of the question indexes
weighted for the different frequencies of answer. This kind of weighting holds good at
any level we want to consider the index.

Before analysing in detail the partial indexes we should introduce the following basic
symbols:
k=1,,K answer score index;

d=1,2,,D dimension index;

h=1,2, , H teaching index;

jd=1d,2d,,Jd question index of dimension d (where Jd is the total of


questions of the dimension itself);

hd y jd k = y k score k of question j of dimension d for each teaching h;

hd n jd k frequency of answer for score k of question j of dimension d for


each teaching h;

1
The number of respondents to the single questions is variable both because of the different number
of students present at the single courses, as well as for the item non-response.

3
hd n jd total of answers to question j of dimension d for each teaching
h;

hd f jd k = hd n jd k / hd n jd relative frequency of answers for score k of question j of


dimension d for each teaching h;

Jd total frequencies of answer to all the questions of dimension d


hd n =
jd =1
hd njd for each teaching h;

D total frequencies of answers to all the questions about teaching


h n = hd n h;
d =1

h n* number of questionnaires completed for teaching h.

3.1 The Natural Index of CS

Given the symbols, index (3) becomes:

1 K

hd G1jd =
M m
M (y k )( hd f jd k ) (5)
k =1

and is the question index, that is the index made considering the distribution of the
answers to the j-th question of the d-th dimension in the questionnaires collected for
teaching course h.
To define a dimension index we have to aggregate the indexes (5) for the Jd
questions of the dimension we are examining. For this a simple mean of the indexes
hd G1 jd could be used if all the dimension questions have the same number of answers;

otherwise it would be necessary to fall back on a weighted mean, using as weighting the
total number of answers hd n jd to the single questions2.
Therefore, under the hypothesis of question clustering with different number of
answers, the dimension index is as follows:

Jd

( hd G 1j d )( hd n jd )
1 Jd K
(y
j d = 1d
hd G 1 = = M k )( hd f jd k )( hd jd ) (6)
Jd
M m

j d = 1d k =1
hd n jd
j d = 1d

2
As above hd n jd is very variable according to the questions jd; if not and every student answered all
*
the questions, hd n jd would equal to h n .

4
Jd
where the values hd j d = hd n j d
j d = 1d
hd n jd are the relative frequencies of answers of the

same dimension.
We note that formula (6) can also be defined considering the overall answers to Jd
questions, as following. In fact, starting from formula (6) and simplifying suitably, we
get:

1 Jd K
hd G1 = M
M m
(y
)( hd f jd k )( hd jd ) =
k
j d =1d k =1
1 Jd K
hd n j d k hd n j d
1 K
n.k
=
M m
M k n y =

M yk hd
=
j d =1d k =1 hd jd hd n M m k =1 hd n

1 K

=
M m
M ( y k )( hd f .k ) (6bis)
k =1

where hdn.k is the answer frequency of score k for all the questions of dimension d and
hdf.k is the relative frequency.
Naturally, using formula (6bis) the information about the question indexes is lost,
that is the information about the satisfaction level of each single attribute is lost.
Furthermore, in the absence of blank answers (see note (2)), formula (6) is like a
simple mean of the indexes hd G1 j d , as follows:

Jd


j d = 1d
hd G 1jd
hd G1= . (7)
Jd

Now we can define an index of a higher level, that is the teaching index hG1
including all dimensions. In the same way as before, we calculate the weighted mean of
Jd
dimension indexes hd G 1 , using as weighting the quantities
jd =1d
hd n jd = hd n . Therefore

we have:

(
d =1
hd G1 )( hd n)
h G1 = D
. (8)

d =1
hd n

In formula (8) for hd G1 we put formula (6) and, simplifying appropriately, we get:

5
D Jd

(
d =1 jd =1d
hd G1jd )( hd n jd )
h G1 = D Jd
; (8bis)

d =1 j d =1d
hd n jd

that is like the weighted mean of the question indexes, with weights equal to the number
of answers. So, we can arrive at the teaching index without considering the dimension
indexes; in this way however the information about indexes hd G1 , useful in comparing
the different teaching, are lost.
Moreover, with no blank answers, we simplify formula (8) in the following way:


d =1
hd G1 J d
h G1 = D
(9)
Jd =1
d

and the teaching index is still a weighted mean of the dimension indexes, but with
weights equal to the number of questions of each dimension.
In the same way, the overall CS index is made (Degree Course index): it is the
weighted mean of the teaching indexes h G1 , with weights equal to the total answers of
all the questions of each teaching course:

(
h =1
h G1 )( hn)
DC G1 = H
. (10)

h =1
h n

In this case too, with no blank answers, formula (10) is thus simplified:

( h G1 )( hn* )
DC G1 = h =1
H
, (11)

h =1
h n *

so DC G1 is still a weighted mean of h G1 , but with weighting equal to the number of


questionnaires completed for each teaching course.

3.2 The Quadratic Index of CS

If the overall CS index is made by formula (4), with the symbols given, we have the
quadratic question index:

6
1
1 K 2
hd G2 j d = k
M m k =1
( y M ) 2
hd f jd k ; (12)

we must then find a suitable method of summary for such indexes, always under the
hypothesis of question clustering. Since formula (12), excluding the factor 1/(M-m), is a
weighted quadratic mean of the gaps ( y k M ) and since for such a mean, like the
arithmetical one, associative properties are valid, we propose a dimension index hd G2
given by the weighted quadratic mean of the indexes (12), with weighting equal to the
total number of the answers to Jd questions of the dimension itself; that is:

1
Jd 2
hd 2 jd hd jd
2
( G )( n )
G = jd =1d . (13)
hd 2
Jd

n
hd j d
jd =1d

If in formula (13) we put formula (12) for hd G2 jd , simplifying we get:

1
1 K 2
hd G 2 = k
M m k =1
( y M ) 2
hd f . k . (13bis)

Like formula (6bis), formula (13bis) gives again the dimension index without taking
into account the clustering hypothesis and considering the overall distribution of the
answers to Jd questions of the same dimension; but in this case, as pointed out, the
information about the single attributes is lost.
Likewise the quadratic dimension indexes can be gathered to calculate the quadratic
teaching indexes and, from these, the quadratic degree course index, with the same set
of weighting as indexes G1.

4. The Overall Variability of CS Indexes

As shown in paragraph 3, the overall CS index, calculated by the natural index (3) or
the quadratic one (4), is a complex index, made under the hypothesis of question
clustering for every level.
In fact it becomes interesting to evaluate the variability on those levels thereafter
suggesting opportune breakdowns.

4.1 Breakdown of the Overall Variability of the Natural Index G1

The overall CS measure, given by formula (10), is a weighted mean obtained by


three levels of aggregation of the partial indexes; however the basis for defining the
overall index is the natural question index given by formula (5); it follows that the

7
distribution of the answers to the each question of the questionnaire may be substituted
by index hd G1 jd with weighting hd n jd 3. So the overall variability is:

Jd

( )
H D
2
hd G1jd DC G1 hd n jd
Var ( hd )
G1jd = E ( hd G1jd DC G1 ) =
2 h =1 d =1 jd =1d
H D Jd
. (14)

h =1 d =1 j d =1d
hd n jd

Jd
If we consider the partial indexes hd G1 and h G1 , and
jd =1d
hd n jd = hd n , the numerator

of formula (14) can be broken down like this:

Jd Jd

( ) ( )
H D H D

hd n jd =
2 2
hd G1jd DC G1 hd G1jd hd G1 hd n jd +
h =1 d =1 jd =1d h =1 d =1 j d =1d
(15)
H D H D

(
h =1 d =1
hd G1 h G1 )
2
hd n + ( h G1 DC G1 )
h =1
2

d =1
hd n.

H D
If formula (15) is divided by h =1 d =1
hd n , the three addends to the second side are

equal respectively to:

E h [E d (Var ( hd G1 ))] = Var ( d G1W ) (16)

[
E h E d ( hd G1 h G1 ) = Var ( d G1B )
2
] (17)

E h ( h G1 DC G1 ) = Var ( h G1B ).
2
(18)

Formula (16) is a measure of the variability within the dimensions, formula (17) instead
is the variability between the dimensions of each teaching course, while formula (18) is
the variability between the teaching courses. It follows that formula (16) together with
formula (17) is a measure of the variance within the teaching courses:

Var ( h G1W ) = Var ( d G1W ) + Var ( d G1B ). (19)

For formulas (19) and (18), the overall variability is broken down as follows:

3
The question index is a synthesis of the answer distribution ( y , n ), with variance
hd j d k hd jd k

E ( hd )
y jd k , where = h d j
2
d
k
( hd y jd k )( hd n jd k ) h d j k hd n j k . However this
d d

last represents the variability of answer scores; in this case it is of no interest, as the aim of this paper is to
analyse the variability of the indexes hd G1 jd .

8
Var ( hd )
G1 jd = Var ( h G1W ) + Var ( h G1B ). (20)

Instead, if we want to know the variability of teaching indexes, we can use in a


partial way formulas (16) and (17) getting:

Var ( h G1 ) = E d (Var ( hd G1 )) + E d ( hd G1 h G1 ) ,
2
(21)

where the first addend to the second side of formula (21) represents the variability
within the dimensions and the second addend the variability between the dimensions of
the same teaching course.

4.2 Breakdown of the Overall Variability of the Quadratic Index G2

The above formulas show that, when the CS index is obtained using the measure of
distance (3) it is possible, according to clustering, to breakdown the overall variance
within the partial variances and such breaking down holds good also for the CS indexes
at different levels. In fact, the higher level partial indexes are equal to weighted means
of the lower level partial indexes. Such a coincidence does not exist when the CS index
is given by the distance measure (4) which is a quadratic mean. In this case CS partial
indexes and the total one are quadratic means, while for the variance we have to refer to
arithmetical means. So with indexes G1 the means of the squares of the differences
between the lower level partial indexes and the higher-level partial index are variances,
while for the indexes G2 they are not. It follows that, for the latter the breakdown of the
overall variance under question clustering hypothesis is still valid, however formulas
(16), (17) and (18) must be formally different. In particular, indicated as hd G2 the
weighted arithmetical mean of the question indexes hd G2 jd with weighting hd n jd ; with
h G2 the weighted arithmetical mean of the dimension indexes hd G2 with weighting
hdn and, lastly, with DC G2 the weighted arithmetical mean of the teaching indexes h G2
with weighting h n , the formulas become as follows:

[ (
E h E d E jd ( hd G2 jd hd G2 ) )] = E [E (Var (
2
h d hd G2 ))] = Var ( d G2W ) (22)

E [E ( ]
G2 h G2 ) = Var ( d G2 B )
2
h d hd (23)

E h ( h G2 DC G2 ) = Var ( h G2B )
2
(24)

These are the variances within and between the partial levels.
Instead, if we want to compare the variability between the quadratic partial indexes,
formulas (22), (23) and (24) must be modified as follows:

9
H D

( G2 hd G2 )
2
n
[ ( ( ) )] = Var (
hd hd
G2W ) +
2 h =1 d =1
E h E d E jd hd G2 jd hd G2 d H D
(25)

h =1 d =1
hd n

( G2 h G2 ) h n
[ ]
h
E h E d ( hd G2 h G2 ) = Var ( d G2 B ) +
2 h =1
H
(26)
h =1
h n

E h ( h G2 DC G2 ) = Var ( h G2B ) +
2
( DC G2 DC G2 ) .
2
(27)

So the overall variability measured by E ( hd G2jd DC G2 ) 2


is the sum of formulas
(25) , (26) and (27).

5. Conclusions

Two indexes to measure the CS of a university degree course have been proposed in
this paper using the same formative model. Such indexes are normalised and are made,
the first DC G1 , on a linear function of the distances between the actual satisfaction for
the different attributes and the expected satisfaction, objectively measured; the second
DC G 2 with the same distances of satisfaction but using a quadratic function. The first is
therefore like an arithmetical mean of absolute standardised gaps stating dissatisfaction
gaps with maximum quality (Fabbris, 2000); the second instead considers the same
gaps as a quadratic mean. For the properties of the means we observe that DC G1 DC G2 .
With the index DC G1 both the high and low gaps are considered equally, while with
DC G 2 the higher gaps take on greater importance. So the second index is used if we
want to emphasise a situation of great dissatisfaction; if the opposite is the case it seems
more natural to use DC G1 .
In the formative models it seems possible to breakdown the two indexes into three
levels which can be considered in different ways, thus providing different possibilities
for analysis, such as comparisons within the same level or between different levels.
The system of weighting, very important for a formative model, is equal for both
indexes, and has been created hypothesising the data collected from question clustering
to which different weight is given according to the actual number of answers received.
The indexes proposed are descriptive of the satisfaction of the student population
who attend teaching for a degree course. However the reference to the student
population is relevant only when the data is gathered, not when it is elaborated. In fact
for this the basic unit is not the student, but the single question of the questionnaire. The
number of students appears as number of different answers; so this coincides with the
weighting adopted.

10
REFERENCES

Cronin J.J., Taylor S.A. Jr. (1992), Measuring Service Quality: a Re-examination
and Extension, Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Cronin J.J., Taylor S.A. Jr. (1994), SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling
Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations Measurement of Service
Quality, Journal of Marketing, 58, 125-131.
Fabbris L. (2000), Un indice per misurare il divario tra la qualit attuale e quella
ottimale di un servizio, edited by Civardi M. and Fabbris L., Metodi e tecniche per le
rilevazioni assistite da computer (volume 3), Valutazione della didattica con sistemi
computer-assisted, CLEUP, Padova, 169-178.
Montinaro M., Nicolini G. (2002), La Customer Satisfaction: analisi storica e
validazione campionaria, edited by Frosini B.V., Magagnoli U. and Boari G., Studi in
onore di Angelo Zanella, Vita e Pensiero, Milano, 523-543.
Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithmal V.A. (1988), SERVQUAL: a Multiple-Item
Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality, in Journal of Retailing,
1, 11-40.
Zanella A. (2001), Valutazione e modelli interpretativi di customer satisfaction: una
presentazione dinsieme, Universit Cattolica del S. Cuore, Istituto di Statistica, Serie
E.P., N. 105.

11
La serie dei Working Papers del Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Aziendale pu essere richiesta
al seguente indirizzo: Sezione Working Papers - Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Aziendale -
Universit degli Studi di Milano, Via Conservatorio 7 - 20122 Milano - Italy - fax 39-02-50321450
- Email: Dipeco@unimi.it. A partire dal numero 98.01, i working papers sono scaricabili dal sito
Internet del dipartimento, allindirizzo:
http://www.economia.unimi.it

The Working Paper Series of the Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Aziendale can be requested
at the following address: Sezione Working Papers - Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Aziendale
- Universit degli Studi di Milano, Via Conservatorio 7 - 20122 Milano - Italy - fax 39-02-
50321450 - Email: Dipeco@unimi.it. From number 98.01, working papers are downloadable from
the Internet website of the Department at the following location:
http://www.economia.unimi.it

Papers gi pubblicati/Papers already published


94.01 D. CHECCHI, La moderazione salariale negli anni 80 in Italia. Alcune ipotesi interpretative basate sul
comportamento dei sindacati
94.02 G. BARBA NAVARETTI, What Determines Intra-Industry Gaps in Technology? A Simple Theoretical
Framework for the Analysis of Technological Capabilities in Developing Countries
94.03 G. MARZI, Production, Prices and Wage-Profit Curves:An Evaluation of the Empirical Results
94.04 D. CHECCHI, Capital Controls and Conflict of Interests
94.05 I. VALSECCHI, Job Modelling and Incentive Design: a Preliminary Study
94.06 M. FLORIO, Cost Benefit Analysis: a Research Agenda
94.07 A. DISANTO, La scissione di societ e le altre operazioni straordinarie: natura, presupposti economici e
problematiche realizzative
94.08 G. PIZZUTTO, Esistenza dell equilibrio economico generale: approcci alternativi
94.09 M. FLORIO, Cost Benefit Analysis of Infrastructures in the Context of the EU Regional Policy
94.10 D. CHECCHI - A. ICHINO - A. RUSTICHINI, Social Mobility and Efficiency - A Re-examination of the
Problem of Intergenerational Mobility in Italy
94.11 D. CHECCHI - G. RAMPA - .L. RAMPA, Fluttuazioni cicliche di medio termine nelleconomia italiana del
dopoguerra
95.01 G. BARBA NAVARETTI, Promoting the Strong or Supporting the Weak? Technological Gaps and
Segmented Labour Markets in Sub-Saharan African Industry
95.02 D. CHECCHI, I sistemi di assicurazione contro la disoccupazione: un'analisi comparata
95.03 I. VALSECCHI, Job Design and Maximum Joint Surplus
95.04 M. FLORIO, Large Firms, Entrepreneurship and Regional Policy: "Growth Poles" in the Mezzogiorno over
Forty Years
95.05 V. CERASI - S. DALTUNG, The Optimal Size of a Bank: Costs and Benefits of Diversification
95.06 M. BERTOLDI, Il miracolo economico dei quattro dragoni: mito o realt?
95.07 P. CEOLIN, Innovazione tecnologica ed alta velocit ferroviaria: un'analisi
95.08 G. BOGNETTI, La teoria della finanza a Milano nella seconda met del Settecento: il pensiero di Pietro
Verri
95.09 M. FLORIO, Tax Neutrality in the King-Fullerton Framework, Investment Externalities, and Growth
95.10 D. CHECCHI, La mobilit sociale: alcuni problemi interpretativi e alcune misure sul caso italiano
95.11 G. BRUNELLO - D. CHECCHI , Does Imitation help? Forty Years of Wage Determination in the Italian
Private Sector
95.12 G. PIZZUTTO, La domanda di lavoro in condizioni di incertezza
95.13 G. BARBA NAVARETTI - A. BIGANO, R&D Inter-firm Agreements in Developing Countries. Where?
Why? How?
95.14 G. BOGNETTI - R. FAZIOLI, Lo sviluppo di una regolazione europea nei grandi servizi pubblici a rete
96.01 A. SPRANZI, Il ratto dal serraglio di W. A. Mozart. Una lettura non autorizzata
96.02 G. BARBA NAVARETTI - I. SOLOAGA - W. TAKACS, Bargains Rejected? Developing Country Trade
Policy on Used Equipment
96.03 D. CHECCHI - G. CORNEO, Social Custom and Strategic Effects in Trade Union Membership:
Italy 1951-1993
96.04 V. CERASI, An Empirical Analysis of Banking Concentration
96.05 M. FLORIO, Il disegno dei servizi pubblici locali dal socialismo municipale alla teoria degli incentivi
96.06 G. PIZZUTTO, Piecewise Deterministic Markov Processes and Investment Theory under Uncertainty:
Preliminary Notes
96.07 I. VALSECCHI, Job Assignment and Promotion
96.08 D. CHECCHI, L'efficacia del sistema scolastico in prospettiva storica
97.01 I. VALSECCHI, Promotion and Hierarchy: A Review
97.02 D. CHECCHI, Disuguaglianza e crescita. Materiali didattici
97.03 M. SALVATI, Una rivoluzione copernicana: l'ingresso nell'Unione Economica e Monetaria
97.04 V. CERASI - B. CHIZZOLINI - M. IVALDI, The Impact of Deregulation on Branching and Entry Costs in
the Banking Industry
97.05 P.L. PORTA, Turning to Adam Smith
97.06 M. FLORIO, On Cross-Country Comparability of Government Statistics:OECD National Accounts 1960-94
97.07 F. DONZELLI, Pareto's Mechanical Dream
98.01 V. CERASI - S. DALTUNG, Close-Relationships between Banks and Firms: Is it Good or Bad?
98.02 M. FLORIO - R. LUCCHETTI - F. QUAGLIA, Grandi e piccole imprese nel Centro-Nord e nel Mezzogiorno:
un modello empirico dell'impatto occupazionale nel lungo periodo
98.03 V. CERASI B. CHIZZOLINI M. IVALDI, Branching and Competitiveness across Regions in the Italian
Banking Industry
98.04 M. FLORIO A. GIUNTA, Planning Contracts in Southern Italy, 1986-1997: a Prelimary Evaluation
98.05 M. FLORIO I. VALSECCHI, Planning Agreements in the Mezzogiorno: a Principle Agent Analysis
98.06 S. COLAUTTI, Indicatori di dotazione infrastrutturale: un confronto tra Milano e alcune citt europee
98.07 G. PIZZUTTO, La teoria fiscale dei prezzi in uneconomia aperta
98.08 M. FLORIO, Economic Theory, Russia and the fading Washington Consensus
99.01 A. VERNIZZI A. SABA, Alcuni effetti della riforma della legislazione fiscale italiana nei confronti delle
famiglie con reddito da lavoro dipendente
99.02 C. MICHELINI, Equivalence Scales and Consumption Inequality: A Study of Household Consumption Patterns
in Italy
99.03 S.M. IACUS, Efficient Estimation of Dynamical Systems
99.04 G. BOGNETTI, Nuove forme di gestione dei servizi pubblici
99.05 G.M. BERNAREGGI, Milano e la finanza pubblica negli anni 90: attualit e prospettive
99.06 M. FLORIO, An International Comparison of the Financial and Economic Rate of Return of Development
99.07 M. FLORIO, La valutazione delle politiche di sviluppo locale
99.08 I. VALSECCHI, Organisational Design: Decision Rules, Operating Costs and Delay
99.09 G. PIZZUTTO, Arbitraggio e mercati finanziari nel breve periodo. Unintroduzione

00.01 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, A.e. Convex Functions on Rn


00.02 S. M. IACUS YU A. KUTOYANTS, Semiparametric Hypotheses Testing for Dynamical Systems with Small
Noise
00.03 S. FEDELI M. SANTONI, Endogenous Institutions in Bureaucratic Compliance Games
00.04 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, Integral Representation of Functions: New Proofs of Classical Results
00.05 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, An Optimization Problem in IFS Theory with Distribution Functions
00.06 M. SANTONI, Specific excise taxation in a unionised differentiated duopoly
00.07 H. GRAVELLE G. MASIERO, Quality incentives under a capitation regime: the role of patient expectations
00.08 E. MARELLI G. PORRO, Flexibility and innovation in regional labour markets: the case of Lombardy
00.09 A. MAURI, La finanza informale nelle economie in via di sviluppo
00.10 D. CHECCHI, Time series evidence on union densities in European countries
00.11 D. CHECCHI, Does educational achievement help to explain income inequality?
00.12 G. BOESSO A. VERNIZZI, Carichi di famiglia nellImposta sui Redditi delle Persone Fisiche in Italia e in
Europa: alcune proposte per lItalia
01.01 G. NICOLINI, A method to define strata boundaries
01.02 S. M. IACUS, Statistical analysis of the inhomogeneous telegraphers process
01.03 M. SANTONIi, Discriminatory procurement policy with cash limits can lower imports: an example
01.04 D. LA TORRE, Luso dellottimizzazione non lineare nella procedura di compressione di immagini con IFS
01.05 G. MASIERO, Patient movements and practice attractiveness
01.06 S. M. IACUS, Statistic analysis of stochastic resonance with ergodic diffusion noise
01.07 B. ANTONIOLI G. BOGNETTI, Modelli di offerta dei servizi pubblici locali in Europa
01.08 M. FLORIO, The welfare impact of a privatisation: the British Telecom case-history
01.09 G. P. CRESPI, The effect of economic policy in oligopoly. A variational inequality approach.
01.10 G. BONO D. CHECCHI, La disuguaglianza a Milano negli anni 90
01.11 D. LA TORRE, On the notion of entropy and optimization problems
01.12 M. FLORIO A. GIUNTA, Lesperienza dei contratti di programma: una valutazione a met percorso
01.13 M. FLORIO S. COLAUTTI, A logistic growth law for government expenditures: an explanatory analysis
01.14 L. ZANDERIGHI, Town Center Management: uno strumento innovativo per la valorizzazione del centro
storico e del commercio urbano
01.15 A. MAFFIOLETTI M. SANTONI, Do trade union leaders violate subjective expected utility?
Some insights from experimental data
01.16 D. LA TORRE, An inverse problem for stochastic growth models with iterated function systems
01.17 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, Some remarks on second-order generalized derivatives for C1,1 functions
01.18 A. BUCCI, Human capital and technology in growth
01.19 R. BRAU M. FLORIO, Privatisation as price reforms: an analysis of consumers welfare change in the UK
01.20 A. SPRANZI, Impresa e consumerismo: la comunicazione consumeristica
01.21 G. BERTOLA D. CHECCHI, Sorting and private education in Italy
01.22 G. BOESSO, Analisi della performance ed external reporting: bilanci e dati aziendali on-line in Italia
01.23 G. BOGNETTI, Il processo di privatizzazione nellattuale contesto internazionale
02.01 D. CHECCHI J. VISSER, Pattern persistence in european trade union density
02.02 G. P. CRESPI D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, Second order optimality conditions for
differentiable functions
02.03 S. M. IACUS D. LA TORRE, Approximating distribution functions by iterated function systems
02.04 A. BUCCI D. CHECCHI, Crescita e disuguaglianza nei redditi a livello mondiale
02.05 A. BUCCI, Potere di mercato ed innovazione tecnologica nei recenti modelli di crescita endogena con
concorrenza imperfetta
02.06 A. BUCCI, When Romer meets Lucas: on human capital, imperfect competition and growth
02.07 S. M. IACUS D. LA TORRE, On fractal distribution function estimation and applications
02.08 P. GIRARDELLO O. NICOLIS G. TONDINI, Comparing conditional variance models: theory and
empirical evidence
02.09 L. CAMPIGLIO, Issues in the measurement of price indices: a new measure of inflation
02.10 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, A characterization of Ck,1 functions
02.11 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, Approximating continuous functions by iterated function systems and
optimization problems
02.12 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, A survey on C1,1 functions: theory, numerical methods and applications
02.13 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, C1,1 functions and optimality conditions
02.14 D. CHECCHI, Formazione e percorsi lavorativi dei laureati dellUniversit degli Studi di Milano
02.15 D. CHECCHI V. DARDANONI, Mobility comparisons: Does using different measures matter?
02.16 D. CHECCHI C. LUCIFORA, Unions and Labour Market Institutions in Europe
02.17 G. BOESSO, Forms of voluntary disclosure: reccomendations and business practices in Europe and U.S.
02.18 A. MAURI C.G. BAICU, Storia della banca in Romania Parte Prima -
02.19 D. LA TORRE C. VERCELLIS, C1,1approximations of generalized support vector machines
02.20 D. LA TORRE, On generalized derivatives for C1,1 vector functions and optimality conditions
02.21 D. LA TORRE, Necessary optimality conditions for nonsmooth optimization problems
02.22 D. LA TORRE, Solving cardinality constrained portfolio optimization problems by C 1,1 approximations
02.23 M. FLORIO K. MANZONI, The abnormal returns of UK privatisations: from underpricing to outperformance
02.24 M. FLORIO, A state without ownership: the welfare impact of British privatisations 1979-1997
02.25 S.M.IACUS D. LA TORRE, Nonparametric estimation of distribution and density functions in presence of
missing data: an IFS approach
02.26 S.M. IACUS G. PORRO, Il lavoro interinale in Italia: uno sguardo allofferta
02.27 G.P.CRESPI D. LA TORRE, M. ROCCA, Second-order optimality conditions for nonsmooth multiobjective
02.28 D. CHECCHI T. JAPPELLI, School Choice and Quality
03.01 D. CHECCHI, The Italian educational system family background and social stratification
03.02 G. NICOLINI, D. MARASIN, I Campionamento per popolazioni rare ed elusive: la matrice dei profili
03.03 S. COMI, Intergenerational mobility in Europe: evidence from ECHP
03.04 A. MAURI, Origins and early development of banking in Ethiopia
03.05 A. ALBERICI, Strategie bancarie e tecnologia
03.06 D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, On C^(1,1) constrained optimization problems
03.07 M. BRATTI A. BUCCI, Effetti di complementariet, accumulazione di capitale umano e crescita economica:
teoria e risultati empirici
03.08 R. MacCULLOCH S. PEZZINI, The role of freedom, growth and religion in the taste for revolution
03.09 L. PILOTTI N. RIGHETTO, A.GANZAROLI Web strategy and intelligent software agents in decision process
for networks knowledge based
03.10 G. P. CRESPI D. LA TORRE M. ROCCA, Mollified derivatives and second-order optimality conditions
03.11 A. BUCCI, R&D, imperfect competition and growth with human capital accumulation
03.12 G. NICOLINI A. LO PRESTI, Combined estimators for complex sampling
03.13 M. FLORIO S. VIGNETTI, Cost-benefit analysis of infrastructure projects in an enlarged European Union:
an incentive-oriented approach
03.14 M. FLORIO, Electricity prices as signals for the evaluation of reforms: an empirical analysis of four European
countries
03.15 A. FILIPPIN, Discrimination and workers expectations
03.16 A. FILIPPIN, Discrimination and workers expectations: experimental evidence
03.17 D. VANDONE, Il mercato italiano dei fondi di investimento socialmente responsabili
03.18 M. FINI, Uno sguardo sul concetto di differenziale dalle origini ai giorni nostri: tra storia e teoria
03.19 M. SANTONI F. ZUCCHINI, Legislative output and the costitutional court in Italy
03.20 A. MARINI, Programmazione multi-obiettivo: teoria e applicazioni
03.21 M. FLORIO M. GRASSENI, The missing shock: the macroeconomic impact of British privatisation
03.22 A. ALBERICI, La banca cooperativa da banca della comunit locale a bene utile alle comunit servite
03.23 G. NICOLINI F. DE BATTISTI, A formative model for measuring customer satisfaction with a degree course

You might also like