Public-Private Partnerships Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Public-Private Partnerships - Essay ExampleBesides, it encourages competition and promotes quality service delivery. Lastly, its application can help in a proper and unspoilt utilization of public resources (Savas, 2005).Despite its positive contributions in the country, the effective application of PPP can be affected by political interference, bureaucratic procedures in the procumbent system, poor policy formulation and implementation (LeRoux, 2007). These, if not properly checked, can be quite disastrous in the success of PPP in the country.Definitely, the information provided in this book can be of great importance to anyone who wants to venture into public administration. It imparts crucial knowledge that can help in preparing them to be informed and open-minded public administrators. First, it provides a proper understanding on the differences between PPP and PPE. Secondly, it teaches on the effectiveness of a proper application of these concepts in the management of public re sources. Moreover, it teaches on the obstacles that can derail effective application of PPP. Last, but not least, the article informs on the best strategies that can be employ to address such challenges. All these can be quite invaluable to a prospecting public

The troubled history of the Airbus A380 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 3

The troubled history of the Airbus A380 - Essay ExampleIn addition, Soft Systems Methodology allows to identify analyze multiple levels of the problem with purpose of finding the just about effective solutions that take into account relationships and dependencies that might not be clearly seen using the Hard Systems Methodology. The analysis and evaluation have shown that the role of systems and operations focussing is underestimated by Airbus management in the movement of managing separate projects and overall handicraft operations. In addition, effective systems and operations management strategies have not been corporate in spite of appearance the company well enough due to lack of agreement, strong leadership and communication, among other factors. Business process reengineering, total quality management, Lean and Six Sigma approaches to service have been analyzed with the purpose of determining the most effective for Airbus to use. The analysis has shown that business pr ocess reengineering would be the most appropriate for Airbus approach because it implies implementing radical changes deep down rather narrow time frames. Rapid changes, in their turn, show to be the most effective in attempts to radically improve organizational performance. It is recommended that Airbus uses business process reengineering approach for improving its systems and operations management. Furthermore, decision making and supporting systems, much(prenominal) as transaction processing systems, management information systems and decision support systems should be incorporated into organizational operations in order to align information systems and operations management of the company. Introduction Airbus is, as the company writes about itself, a technology-oriented organization that created its first jet in 1974 (Airbus.com, 2011). In 1991 the company started working an idea of creating a super-large passenger aircraft. The jet would become the largest airplane ever made. Consequently, the work on its creation was sure to be complex and demanding. However, it took the company 14 years, since 1993 when Airbus started working of the development of the super jumbo, for the new aircraft to take off in bountiful service in 2007 (Slack, Chambers and Johnstone, 2010). As Slack, Chambers and Johnstone (2010) report, it took the company so many years to, finally, complete the project, because of a number of problems within the organization. Most of them, such as weak organization of production processes, poor leadership or use of incompatible software by different departments, are related to of systems and operations management practices of Airbus. Therefore, the goal of the given report is to determine and analyze how systems and operations management concepts are used by the company and how systems and operations management is integrated into the business. Soft Systems Methodology will be used for analyzing the situation and making recommendations about h ow the Airbus information systems and operations management should be updated to support and improve their business efficiency. Furthermore, people, technology and organisational issues involved in improving the operations at Airbus will be assessed and analyzed in order to clarify how in particular Airbus privy improve its business processes through the update and improvement

Understanding of the material presented on social learning and general Essay

Understanding of the material presented on social learning and world(a) stretch out theories - Essay ExampleThe ecumenical strain theory is a criminology branch that has a perspective that criminal behavior is a result of pressure by negative emotions such as fussiness which results to negative or strain relationships with others.The social learning and the general strain theories have some similarities and differences that explain more concerning them. The difference between the two that, general strain theory puts emphases on the negative relationships with others while the theory of social learning focuses much on the cognitive information acquired through the learning sour. The general strain theory involves a pauperismal element of emotions that are negative while social learning involve a general learning process of either negative or positive things around the human beings (Agnew 67). For general strain theory, motivating occurs before the negative performance, but for social learning theory, motivation occurs when the desired behavior is achieved, although reinforcement is applied whenever a learner shows undesirable action.The social learning theory has some general similarities with the theory of general strain. two of the two theories focus on the behavior one acquires from their environment they live. Both theories influence the development of a human being under any stipulate circumstances. They both explain how the human surrounding influences the relationship that he will have to the people around or even objects (Agnew 68). The two theories have motivation and reinforcement as the key factor that influence the action one engage in. They are both behaviors centered as compared to the other theories. The two theories jut out that both behaviors of conformance and criminal like behavior are some kind of behaviors that one acquire and maintain, or even change through interaction with others.The most convincing theory between the two mentio ned theories is the social learning theory. This theory can easily handle behavior

Free

Free Will and Moral Responsibility Es wordThis exhibition of essays has its roots in a conference on sinless leave and honorable right held at Monash University in November 2005, though tho a a couple of(prenominal) of the papers presented at the conference soak up made it into the current volume. We would wish to thank both the participants at this conference and the contri justors to this volume, as well as Cambridge Scholars publication for inviting us to instal the collection together. Grateful acknowledgement is too made to the editor of the online journal, Sorites, where Nick Trakakis paper, Whither Morality in a Hard Determinist innovation?, was originally create (in vol. 19, December 2007). Finally, thanks to Shannon Weekes for her assistance in compiling the Index. INTRODUCTION NICK TRAKAKIS AND DANIEL COHEN Much of the interest of the let loose ordain debate depends on the assumption that unbosom willing is necessary for moral debt instrument. In part icular, it is because state seems so important for our practical lives that debates or so the compatibility of free will and determinism seem so urgent.How constantly, much of the discussion in this volume bypasses this link. Instead, questions argon embossed that directly concern business, much(prenominal) as whether it is compatible with determinism (see, for example, the essays by Fischer, Widerker, and Pereboom) and whether it is compatible with indeterminism (for example, the exchange betwixt Levy and Kane). For the purposes of this introduction, we have non attempted to summarize the various ways in which the contri exclusivelyors construe the metaphysical foundations of moral righteousness.Instead, we wish to address a more than preliminary matter. In the first part of this introduction, our aim is to say whatsoeverthing intimately what we mean when we say that nigh whiz is morally liable. It is surely important to clarify this in the lead addressing any prov ided substantive issues because, if we dont clarify the implication of this key term, in that respect remains a significant danger that antithetical participants in the debate about the possibility of moral responsibility will manifestly talk past each early(a).This suggests that in order to conduct a fruitful debate participants adopt firstly to agree on the nature of their subject-matter and, perhaps, to disambiguate distinguishable dimensions of the debate that arise if the term moral responsibility has varied connotations. In the second part of the introduction, we will discuss a neglected Wittgensteinian perspective on the notions of freedom and responsibility, a perspective that may cooperate to clarify slightly of the confusion that arises when we ask what it means to say that a person is free or amenable. 1. The Meaning of Responsibility.Before proceeding to ask whether hatful argon, in fact, ever morally responsible, it seems that an important preliminary matter needs to be rectifytled. That is, we need to ask what we mean when we say that a person is x Introduction morally responsible. As will quickly become clear, settling this preliminary matter is, in fact, much harder than it first seems. Many of the controversies concerning the possibility of responsibility emerge even when we try to say just what responsibility means. Lets start with a claim that seems relatively uncontroversial.We will simply claim that person A is responsible is a prescriptive claim. That is to say, it is a claim to the effect that it is appropriate to handle A responsible in certain dowery (circumstances, for example, where A has acted wrongly and where no mitigating, justifying, or excusing factors ar present). However, this floor of the meaning of A is responsible raises at least two further issues. Firstly, we need to say more about what it means to hold some single responsible and, secondly, we need to say more about the nature and tooshie of the norms that govern appropriate responsibility attribution.It is important to keep in mind that our goal, in clarifying these two questions, should not be to settle any question regarding whether people be, in fact, ever morally responsible. Rather, we command to settle the terms of this debate before it begins. To this extent, we need sufficiently impersonal tales both of the nature of responsibility attribution and of its normative basis so that we dont beg any substantive questions before debate has even begun. As we will try to submit, however, this is a rather toughened goal. The hardly neutral account of the nature of responsibility attribution renders the normative question deeply controversial.And the only neutral account of the normative basis of responsibility attribution renders the nature of responsibility attribution deeply controversial. Holding Responsible thither appear to be two plausible contending views regarding the nature of responsibility attribution. On cogni tivist accounts, holding A responsible implicit in(p)ly involves believing something to be true of A, while on noncognitivist accounts, holding A responsible essentially involves holding some conative attitude towards A. (Cognitivists may, of course, argue that responsibility attribution is to a fault usually associated with some conative attitude.However, they will maintain that it is possible to hold some whiz responsible without holding such conative attitudes. Similarly for noncognitivist accounts, mutatis mutandis. ) Non-cognitivism appears to provide the most successful neutral basis on which to premise the debate concerning the possibility of responsibility. This is because thither seems little room for debate concerning the conative attitudes that specify normal responsibility Nick Trakakis and Daniel Cohen xi attribution. In particular, few would disagree that responsibility attribution is strongly associated with the reactive attitudes identified by P.F. Strawson, i. e. , resentment, indignation, anger and so on. 1 If one wishes to argue, however, that the reactive attitudes, while prevalent, are inessential to responsibility attribution, it is much harder to locate any common ground concerning the effects that are essential to responsibility attribution. iodin may suggest, for instance, that to hold A responsible is to believe that she is the source of some bad behaviour. Deep controversies quickly emerge on this view, however. One strength take sourcehood to involve a mental claim, for instance that A really wanted to act wrongly.2 However, others might object that any such crafty psychological account fails to explain why it is fair to blame A for the wrongdoing (see Smilanskys contribution). One might object, in this vein, that any such psychological story is unable to show that an agent really is the source of her having certain desires or values (see McKennas contribution), and that sourcehood thus requires some more obscure metaphysical basis (e. g. , agent-causation). Alternatively, one may suggest that sourcehood involves some impossible requirement such as that an agent was self-created.3 On this view, holding someone responsible is essentially impossible. 4 Our goal is to account for the meaning of responsibility in neutral terms so as to provide a basis for positive debate about the conditions (and the really possibility) of responsibility. It appears, however, that the cognitivist view of responsibility attribution quickly leads to debates that already beg these important questions before debate has even begun This suggests that the high hat theory-neutral account of the meaning of responsibility essential explain holding responsible in non-cognitivist terms.The Normative Basis of Responsibility Attribution Recall that, for the purposes of this discussion, we have assumed a normative account of responsibility according to which A is responsible means it is appropriate to hold A responsible in certain con ditions. Having addressed how best to interpret what holding A responsible might mean, without begging any important questions, we need now to turn to a second question raised by the normative account when exactly is it appropriate to hold someone responsible? In other wrangle, what are the norms that govern appropriate responsibility attribution?Again, there are two plausible contending views appropriateness may be explained either in terms of practical norms (taking holding responsible to be kindred xii Introduction to the performance of an action) or by way of doxastic norms (taking holding responsible to be analogous to the formation of a belief). Again, only on one of these accountsthe doxastic viewis it possible to offer an appropriately uncontroversial explanation of the norms implicit in responsibility attribution. On the doxastic view, one ought to hold A responsible if and only if it is true that A is responsible.On this view, the normative basis of responsibility attribu tion straightforwardly derives from the normativity of belief. It is clear that the doxastic account presupposes the cognitivist view discussed antecedent, according to which holding A responsible involves believing something about her. Given this view of the nature of responsibility attribution, the normative question concerning when responsibility attribution is appropriatehas a straightforward answer. Unfortunately, as we saw, there is no uncontroversial way to account for the truth-conditions of A is responsible, on the cognitivist assumption that it involves belief.So, despite the advantages of the doxastic view in providing a neutral account of the normative basis of responsibility attribution, this view at the same succession precludes us from obtaining a neutral view regarding the nature of responsibility attribution (i. e. , the truth-conditions for the belief that A is responsible. ) Might we find an account of the normative basis of responsibility attribution that is co nsistent with the preferable non-cognitivist view outlined earlier? This would have to involve an utility(a) view, according to which responsibility attribution is justified in virtue of practical norms.However, if responsibility attribution is governed by practical norms, then things are much slight straightforward. One may suggest that the relevant practical norms are just moral norms, so that A is responsible states something like It is morally obligatory (or, perhaps, permissible) to hold A responsible. This view may appear immediately puzzleatic because the appropriateness of responsibility attribution will now depend on further questions that are deeply controversial (for instance, questions concerning the debate between consequentialism and nonconsequentialism see Vargas contribution).A more fundamental worry arises concerning the methodological appropriateness of appealing to moral norms. One may argue, for instance, that the nature of moral obligation, itself, depends on the foundations of responsibility, which is, of course, the question at issue. Haji (in his contribution) argues that the best metaphysical basis of responsibility (i. e. , event-causal libertarianism) renders moral obligation essentially lucky. This suggests that there would be something viciously circular in explaining the meaning of responsibility Nick Trakakis and Daniel Cohen xiii in terms of some claim about our moral obligations. (See also Trakakis contribution. )To avoid these worries, one may appeal to practical norms that appear to be more fundamental than any particular moral system. For instance, R. J. Wallace offers a normative account of responsibility that appeals to fairness. 5 This is meant to provide a normative basis for responsibility that remains neutral on more substantive moral issues. (See also Smilanskys contribution. ) Clearly, however, appealing to practical norms launches us into further debates that already beg the question at issue.Again, such an accou nt seems ill-suited for the purpose of setting up a neutral definitional framework on which to premise further debate. A Dilemma Our aim has been to find some neutral definition of responsibility to enable further non-question-begging debates about the possibility and conditions of responsibility. It seems that this goal gives rise to a tricky dilemma. The best theory-neutral account of holding responsible is the non-cognitivist account. However, this account appears incompatible with the best theory-neutral account of the norms that govern responsibility attributionthe doxastic account.The doxastic account, in turn, seems compatible only with the most taskatic account of holding responsiblethe cognitivist account. This is a puzzling result. Even though responsibility intelligibly gives rise to very complex issues, it is surprising that it is not possible even to define the terms of the debate without deep controversy. The worry thus remains that debates about the possibility and conditions of responsibility are essentially question-begging, insofar as different participants to the debate conceive of its key terms differently.Must we conclude, then, that different people and different theorists are indeed talking past each other when they debate about the possibility of responsible action? This, of course, would be a depressingly deflationist stopping point. There is a possible way out, however, that is rarely canvassed. If the question concerns the meaning of responsibility, one might suggest that there are, perhaps, other ways to settle things. In particular, isnt the meaning of a term determined by our use of the term? (Or, at least, isnt use a good guide to meaning?)Thus, appeal to real-world attributions of responsibility may illuminate the meaning of the term responsible. Such a methodology is sometimes rejected on the grounds that real-world attributions are rife with internal inconsistency (see, for example, Cohen xiv Introduction and Salings contri bution). tho perhaps a closer look at the Wittgensteinian solution to the problem of freedom and responsibility will throw new light on the matter. 2. Making Sense of Free Will A Wittgensteinian Account Wittgenstein published very little during his lifetime, and even less on the topic of free will.He does, however, make some pertinent remarks in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that mirror in some respects the contemporary debates on free will. As is well known, the early Wittgenstein claims to have definitively solved the central problems of philosophy, and by implication this would include the perennial problem of free will. Wittgensteins strategy proceeds by separating perceive from nonsense. The realm of sense is delimited in the light of his picture theory of meaning, according to which a proposition is meaningful (or capable of expressing a fact) only if it can represent or picture a contingent state of affairs.What cannot thus be stand for is consigned to silence, or as Wittgenstein famously put it at the conclusion of his book, What we cannot speak about we moldiness pass over in silence (proposition 7). 6 In the course of the book, however, it soon becomes clear that what can be meaningfully said are only the propositions of natural science, thereby leaving out of the realm of sense a daunting number of statements which are regularly made and used in vocabulary, including the propositions of logic, aesthetics, religion, and (most relevant for our purposes here) traditional metaphysics and ethics.But unlike the positivists, Wittgenstein does not assume that what is laughable is of no value. As he stated in a letter to a prospective publisher, Ludwig von Ficker My work consists of two parts the one presented here sum total all that I have not written. And it is precisely this second part that is the important one. 7 Further, ethical and metaphysical truths that cannot be said or formulate in sayable (sensical) propositions can nonetheless be sh own There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical (6. 522).In line with this austere outlook, Wittgenstein hints in the Tractatus that the very concepts at issue in the free will debateconcepts such as freedom and responsibilitycannot be meaningfully expressed. Although in propositions 5. 1361 (We cannot infer the events of the future(a) from those of the present) and 5. 1362 (The freedom of the will consists in the impossibility of knowing actions that still lie in the future) he seems to reject determinism as false and to arrogate freedom of the will as true, rather than rejecting both as nonsensical, here we arguably have a Nick Trakakis and Daniel Cohen xv minimalist conception of free will as nothing more than ignorance or uncertainty regarding the future, as opposed to a substantive commitment to the metaphysical idea of a will that could be free or unfree.This is confirmed in later passages where Wittgenste in takes the law of causalitythe principle that every event has a causeto be not a law but the form of a law (6. 32), adding a few propositions later that, If there were a law of causality, it might be put in the following way There are laws of nature. But of course that cannot be said it makes itself manifest (6. 36).The law of causality, in other words, is not itself a law of logic nor a law of nature (or an empirical generalization), nor a synthetic a priori proposition, but rather something purely logical (6. 3211), a senseless principle that tells us, not something about the world, but only something about the form our thinking about the world must take. But what is formal, according to the Tractatus, can only be shown, not said. On this view, then, the law of causality, and by extension any substantial or metaphysical doctrine of determinism, cannot be affirmed or denied, but must be placed in the category of ineffability or nonsense.Similarly, the denial of determinismviz. , indeterminismis bound to result in nonsense. At one stroke, then, Wittgenstein seems to have fade out the free will problem. Contemporary discussions of free will often take a quasi(prenominal) turn. For example, concepts such as free will and moral responsibility are routinely rejected as internally incoherent or contradictory, or as incompatible with determinism or indeterminism (or both), and like the early Wittgenstein this result is achieved simply through a kind of armchair or a priori reflection on the conditions of possibility of free will and responsibility.A glaring instance of this is Galen Strawsons pessimist conclusion that free will, of the sort that is necessary for genuine moral responsibility, is impossible, for in order to have that kind of free will (according to Strawson) one would per impossible have to be the ultimate cause or origin of oneself, a sort of causa sui. But what is neglected in this procedure is attention to particulars, to the variety of ways i n which concepts such as free will and responsibility function in different discourses and social practices.This, of course, is the message of the later Wittgenstein, the Wittgenstein of the philosophical Investigations8, which effects a fundamental change of perspective from the realm of an idealized logical language with rigorous definitions and analyses to the vagaries of everyday life and action out of which arise the multifarious language games. The earlier reduction of language to representation is now seen as incapable of doing justice to the rich fabric of gracious language, and so xvi IntroductionWittgenstein famously moves from a conception of meaning as representation to a view of meaning as use language as a kind of doing rather than a kind of picturing. We are therefore exhorted to look and see (PI 66) whether there is anything in common in the variety of uses to which a word is put. We cannot simply assume that words like freedom and responsibility must have a hidden essence, or a universally applicable meaning that can be explicate in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.Rather, we need to look to the complicated network of overlapping and criss-crossing similaritieswhat Wittgenstein calls family resemblancesbetween various words as these find smell in ordinary life and in various language games. Each language game, however, has its own unique grammar (or network of rules which determine what linguistic or conceptual moves are allowed as making sense) and its own criteria of truth, rationality and intelligibility which may or may not be shared by other language games.What counts as freedom of the will may therefore differ widely depending on which language game is being played freedom, for some phantasmal believers, requires the extinction of ones will, while for purposes of legislation freedom may be conceived of as requiring a significant degree of self-determination. Underlying this view is the rejection of the mathematical ideal o f the Tractatus, typified by statements that are put forward as impersonal, unambiguous and impervious to context, and whose truth is intended to be timeless and without qualification.Language, for the later Wittgenstein, is a much more dynamic, alter and activity-oriented phenomenon. And to be faithful to the richness and complexity of this phenomenon demands an appreciation of the bewildering and sometimes conflicting ways in which words and conceptsfree will and responsibility includedare used. It may be instructive to briefly compare (the later) Wittgensteins treatment of spectral belief with his remarks on free will and voluntary action.Consider, for example, how Wittgenstein, in his Remarks on Frazers Golden Bough, responds to the phenomenon of religious innovation, to the fact that different religions seem to say different and incompatible things about (e. g. ) the nature of divine or ultimate naturalism and the nature and destiny of the gentle race Was Augustine in erro r, then, when he called upon God on every page of the Confessions? Butone might sayif he was not in error, surely the Buddhist holy man wasor anyone elsewhose religion gives expression to completely different views.But none of them was in error, take out when he set forth a theory. 9 Nick Trakakis and Daniel Cohen xvii Against philosophers and anthropologists like James George Frazer, who construe religious doctrines as hypotheses or theories that can be confirmed or disconfirmed in light of empirical evidence, Wittgenstein views each religion as embodying a unique form of life that finds expression in language games whose rules (relating to truth, rationality, intelligibility, and so on) may diverge quite dramatically from those of science.On this view, the various religions of the world are not in the business of constructing hypotheses and searching for evidence, and so they are not in competition with one another, at least in the way that scientific theories may vie for the mant le of verisimilitude. The problem of religious diversity is therefore dissolved. No language game, religious or otherwise, has a monopoly on truth and on the meaning of truth.Wittgenstein is thus opposed to both the religious exclusivist, who maintains that there is one religion which is privileged with respect to truth and soteriological effectiveness, and the scientistic philosopher who argues that the methods and techniques of science (perhaps construed broadly enough to include philosophy and logic) are our only authoritative guide to truth. Instead, Wittgenstein places all language games on an equal footing, allowing a thousand flowers to bloom. Thus, as David Pears has perceptively pointed out, Wittgensteins later work has an extraordinary levelling effect.It does not engulf one kind of discourse to another on the contrary, it is always the differences between them that are emphasized, and particularly the difference between factual discourse and the other kinds. But it does bring all the great philosophical questions which arise within them back to the same level, ordinary human life, from which philosophy started. Philosophy is the voyage out, and the voyage back, both of which are necessary if the logical space of our ordinary linguistic practices is to be understood. 10One of these great philosophical questions is, of course, the question of free will and moral responsibility. On this matter, as with questions to do with religious faith, Wittgenstein refused the dominance of science on modern thinking rather than constructing systematic theories that dictate from on high necessarily from a position that holds up science as the model for all other discourseshow the phenomena in question are to be understood, we are brought back time and again to particular facts and examples rooted in everyday language and practices.Taking such an approach to free will can produce startling results. For one thing, the belief in free will begins to look more like a r eligious commitment than a theoretical or scientific belief. Wittgensteins Kierkegaardian (or, more pejoratively, fideistic) account of religious belief is well known xviii Introduction It strikes me that a religious belief could only be something like a passionate commitment to a system of reference. Hence, although its belief, its really a way of living, or a way of assessing life.Its passionately prehension hold of this interpretation. 11 But his somewhat similar account of free will has received less attention, despite the ever-expanding publishing industry on free will In the sense in which asking a question and insisting on an answer is expressive of a different attitude, a different mode of life, from not asking it, the same can be said of utterances like It is Gods will or We are not master of our fate. The work done by this sentence, or at any rate something like it, could also be done by a sway Including one which you give yourself.12 Life is like a path along a mountain ridge to left and right are slick slopes down which you slide without being able to stop yourself, in one direction or the other. I keep seeing people slip like this and I say How could a man help himself in such a situation And that is what denying free will comes to.That is the attitude expressed in this belief. But it is not a scientific belief and has nothing to do with scientific convictions. 13 Thus, belief in free will, much like religious belief, does not purport to express an empirical fact, but is rather expressive of an attitude, a mode of life, an imperative to live in a certain way. In the two lectures he delivered at Cambridge on freedom of the will, Wittgenstein went on to characterize belief in free will as groundless, as not supported by evidence or arguments14, again indicating parallels with religious faith.To better appreciate this view of free will, one might introduce certain ideas from the Philosophical Investigations and, especially, On Certainty. 15 In the former work, Wittgenstein speaks of our beliefs as founded upon a bedrock certainty If I have exhausted the justifications for following a rule I have reached bedrock, and my spade is turned.Then I am inclined to say This is simply what I do (PI 217). Similarly, in OC 341 Wittgenstein states, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn (cf. OC 88). Although Wittgenstein refers here to propositions as acting as hinges, it is commonly thought that in the more mature phase of his epistemological work Wittgenstein thought of practices rather than propositions as primary.This, then, is no traditional foundationalism, where an inferential relationship is thought to obtain between the set of beliefs that comprise the foundations and the other beliefs we hold, with the former justifying the latter. Instead, for Wittgenstein what lies at the bottom or at the foundations of our lang uage Nick Trakakis and Daniel Cohen xix games are not specific beliefs or propositions, but ungrounded ways of acting (OC 110, 204), communal practices (OC 128, 298), and forms of life (OC 7, 358). It is in this spirit that Wittgenstein quotes from Goethes Faust In the beginning was the deed (OC 402).Nonetheless, our practices and forms of life can be said to show or manifest the beliefs (or quasi-beliefs) and assumptions upon which we base our lives, including such beliefs as I have two hands and The world has existed for more than 10 minutes. However, in foe to G. E. Moore, Wittgenstein describes these as certainties rather than knowledge-claims, for they are not grounded in evidence or open to verification, but express an attitude and a way of acting, and so are not true or false, reasonable or unreasonable, but simply therelike our life (OC 559, cf. 162, 205).It would be arguably in charge with this epistemological account, in conjunction with the later Wittgensteins remarks o n free will, to say that belief in free will (and moral responsibility) may also function, at least in some contexts, as one of the bedrock certainties, as one of the things that stand fast for us in our actions and practices (cf. OC 116), or as the framework within which our ethical practices operate and are made intelligible. There are close parallels here with existentialist philosophy, where to exist as a human being and to be free (almost) come to the same thing.Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, famously stated that we are condemned to freedom, not free not to be free. In a similar vein, the Russian religious existentialist Nikolai Berdiaev, dubbed the philosopher of freedom, eschewed traditional accounts of freedom, which treat free will as an object that could somehow be perceived, investigated and proved or disproved from the outside, and pick out instead the Kantian position that freedom is a postulate of action it is something we must presuppose to even think of a world in w hich human life and human agency are possible.Wittgenstein would have been sympathetic to this outlook, for like the existentialists he is primarily concerned with concrete social and linguistic practices and seeks to provide a philosophical understanding of human existence that is not restricted to the explanatory framework of science (or even that of much traditional philosophy). For Wittgenstein, therefore, belief in free will, just as much as belief in God, is not threatened by scientific discoveries we couldnt say now If they discover so and so, then Ill say I am free.16 In line with this view, Wittgenstein spends some time in his lectures on freedom of the will in attempting to show that even if a deterministic account of the world were demanded by our best scientific theories, belief in free will need not be affected at all. 17 But he is not thereby putting forward a case for compatibilism All these arguments xx Introduction might look as if I wanted to argue for the freedom of the will or against it. But I dont want to.18 Wittgenstein does not follow the traditional course of attempting to resolve the free will problem by proving one position or refuting another. His aim, as with other traditional philosophical problems, is to expose the problem as some kind of deep muddle or confusion arising largely from misunderstandings of the workings of language. One repeated criticism of this view is that it appears to render the language games of science, religion, and ethics entirely self-contained and cut off from each other, if not also immune from criticism from without.This, indeed, is a common misconception of the Wittgensteinian account of religion, and in response Wittgensteinians such as D. Z. Phillips have emphasized the many important connections between religious and nonreligious forms of life which (it is held) must be recognized if religious belief is not to degenerate into superstition. Similarly, Wittgenstein points out that scientific discoveri es may have a bearing on ascriptions of free will A discovery might influence what you say on the freedom of the will. If only by directing your attention in a particular way.19 But despite these connections between the scientific and non-scientific domains, Wittgenstein insists that the distinctiveness of each language game must not be overlooked. In particular, the languages of ethics and religion must not be assimilated to the kind of fact-stating discourse and fact-finding activities that characterize the empirical sciences.

Support Speech, Language and Communication Needs of Young People Essay Example for Free

Support Speech, Language and Communication Needs of Young People EssayEarly identification of speech, language and communication delay is highly important as the chance of improving these skills be increased. Outside agencies can be informed and your child will receive the specialist support they require. If these delays are not identified the delay will continue and the child may suffer from lack of confidence and will more than likely experience frantic problems. Other aspects of development will also be affected, e.g. cognitive, social, emotional and behavioural.If a child does suffer from this type of delay there a number of outback(a) agencies that would be involved. These include Health visitor, speech and language therapists, play therapists and family doctor.During this time when late development is recognised the agencies to be firstly made aware of your concerns would be a health visitor or family doctor. If they thought your concerns were to be warranted they would contact other outside agencies and be capable of offering additional support. The specialised therapists would take a shit together in constructing the correct pathway of help and support.When children are learning it has been proven that the method of play has been very successful. There are many slipway in which play opportunities can support the development of a childs speech, language and communication.

Comparative Study of Advanced Classification Methods

Comparative Study of Advanced Classification MethodsCHAPTER 7 exam AND RESULTS7.0 Introduction to Softw atomic number 18 probeingSoftware riddleing is the butt against of executing a program or system with the intent of finding errors or termed as bugs or, it involves any activity aimed at evaluating an attribute or capability of programming system and determining that it meets its required issues. Software bugs leave almost always outlast in any parcel module with moderate size not because programmers are careless or irresponsible, but because the complexity of software is generally dogged and humans have only limited ability to man come along complexity. It is also true that for any complex systems, design defects can never be solely ruled out.7.2 interrogatory ProcessThe basic goal of the software development process is to produce data that has no errors or very few errors. In an effort to detect errors soon after they are introduced, each phase ends with a verificatio n activity such as review. However, most of these verification activities in the early phases of software development are based on human evaluation and cannot detect all errors. The testing process starts with a test plan. The test plan specifies all the test examples required. Then the test unit is executed with the test elusions. Reports are produced and analyzed. When testing of some unit complete, these tested units can be combined with other untested modules to form new test units. Testing of any units involves the followingPlan test casesExecute test cases andEvaluate the result of the testing7.3 Development of Test CasesA test case in software engineering is a tack of conditions or variables under which a tester will determine whether an application or software system is correctly working or not. The mechanism for determining whether a software program or system has passed or failed such a test is known as a test oracle.Test Cases follow certain format, given as followsTes t case id Every test case has an identifier uniquely associated with certain format. This id is used to track the test case in the system upon execution. Similar test case id is used in defining test script.Test case Description Every test case has a description, which describes what functionality of software to be tested.Test home Test category defines business test case category like functional tests, negative test, accessibility test usually these are associated with test case id.Expected result and the actual result These are implemented within respective API. As the testing is done for the web application, actual result will be available within the web page.Pass/fail Result of the test case is either pass or fail. Validation occurs based on evaluate and actual result. If expected and actual results are same then test case passes or else failure occurs in test cases.7.4 Testing of practise SoftwareThe various testing done on application software is as follows.Integration Test ing7.4.1 Integration TestingIn this phase of software testing item-by-item software modules are combined and tested as a group. The purpose of integration testing is to verify functional, performance and reliability requirements place on major design items. These design items, i.e. assemblages (or unit group of units), are exercised through their interfaces using black box testing, success and error cases being off-key via appropriate parameter and data foreplays. Simulated usage of shared data areas and inter process communication is tested and individual subsystems are exercised through their input interface. Test cases are constructed to test that all components within assemblages interact correctly, for example across procedure calls or process activations, and this is done after testing individual modules, i.e. unit testing.The overall idea is a building block approach, in which verified assemblages are added to a verified base which is then used to defy the integration te sting of further assemblages, In this approach, all or most of the developed modules are coupled together to form a complete software system or major part of the system and then used for integration testing. Integration testing is a systematic technique for constructing the program coordinate while at the same time conducting test to uncover errors associated with interfacing. The objective is to take unit-tested modules and build a program structure that has been dictated by design.The top-down approach to integration testing requires the highest-level modules be tested and integrated first. This allows high-level logic and data flow to be tested early in the process and it tends to minimize the need for drivers. The bottom-up approach requires the lowest-level units be tested and integrated first. These units are frequently referred to as utility modules. By using this approach, utility modules are tested early in the development process and the need for stubs is minimized. The t hird approach, sometimes referred to as the umbrella approach, requires testing along functional data and control-flow paths. First, the inputs for functions are integrated in the bottom-up pattern.7.4.1.1 Test Cases for Support Vector MachineSupport Vector Machine is tested for the attributes which fall only on positive degree side of hyperplane, attributes which fall only on negative side of hyperplane, attributes which fall on both positive and negative side of hyperplane and the attributes which fall on the hyperplane. The expected results match with the actual results.Table 7.1 Test Cases for Support Vector Machine7.4.1.2 Test Cases for Naive Bayes ClassifierNaive Bayes Classifier is tested for the attributes which belongs to only severalize 1, attributes which belongs to only class -1, attributes which belongs to both class 1 and class -1. The expected results match with the actual results.Table 7.2 Test Cases for Naive Bayes Classifier7.5 Testing Results of Case StudiesA pa rticular example of something used or analyzed in order to depict a thesis or principle. It is a record study of real life situation or of an imaginary scenario.7.5.1 Problem Statement Haberman DatasetHaberman data set contains cases from the University of Chicagos Billings Hospital on the survival of patients who had undergone surgery for breast cancer. The task is to determine if the patient survived 5 years or longer (positive) or if the patient died within 5 year (negative).relation habermanattribute get on with integer 30, 83attribute Year integer 58, 69attribute Positive integer 0, 52attribute Survival positive, negativeinputs Age, Year, Positiveoutputs Survival fosterage SetTest Set weight unit vector and gammaw =0.09910.07750.2813gamma = 0.3742Predicted Class strike off of test set discombobulation matrix of the classifierTrue Positive(TP)=8.000000False Negative(FN)=27.000000False Positive(FP)=8.000000True Negative(TN)=110.000000AUC of Classifier = 0.517792Accuracy of cl assifier = 77.124183Error rate of classifier = 22.875817F_score=31.372549Precision=50.0Recall=22.857143Specificity=93.220339Confusion Matrix for SVMFig 7.1 cadence chart of SVM for various Performance mensurablePredicted Class Label of Naive Bayes ClassifierTrue Positive(TP)=10.000000False Negative(FN)=25.000000False Positive(FP)=11.000000True Negative(TN)=107.000000AUC of Classifier = 0.5202Accuracy of Classifier =76.4706Error commit of Classifier = 23.5294F_score=35.7143Precision=47.6191Recall=28.5714Specificity=90.678Confusion Matrix for NBCFig 7.2 Bar Chart of NBC for various Performance MetricTab 7.3 Comparison of SVM and NBC for various Performance Metric Fig 7.3 Bar Chart for Comparison of SVM and NBC7.5.2 Titanic Data setThe titanic dataset gives the values of four attributes. The attributes are social class (first class, second class, third class, and crew member), age (adult or child), sex, and whether or not the person survived.relation titanicattribute Class real-1.87 ,0.965attribute Age real-0.228,4.38attribute Sex real-1.92,0.521attribute Survived -1.0,1.0inputs Class, Age, Sexoutputs SurvivedTraining SetTest Setw = -0.10250.0431 -0.3983gamma = 0.3141Predicted Class label of test setconfusion matrix of the classifierTrue Positive(TP)=154.000000False Negative(FN)=181.000000False Positive(FP)=64.000000True Negative(TN)=701.000000AUC of Classifier=0.426392Accuracy of classifier in test set is=77.727273Error rate of classifier in test set is=22.272727F_score=55.696203precision=70.642202Recall=45.970149specificity=91.633987Confusion Matrix for SVMFig 7.4 Bar chart of SVM for various Performance MetricPredicted Class label of Naive Bayes ClassifierTrue Positive(TP)=197.000000False Negative(FN)=138.000000False Positive(FP)=148.000000True Negative(TN)=617.000000AUC of Classifier = 0.4782Accuracy of Classifier = 74Error Rate of Classifier = 26F_Score = 57.9412Precision = 57.1015Recall = 58.806Specificity = 80.6536Confusion Matrix for NBCFig 7.5 Bar char t of NBC for various Performance MetricTab 7.4 Comparison of SVM and NBC for various Performance MetricFig 7.6 Bar Chart for Comparison of SVM and NBCDepartment of CSE, RNSIT2014-15Page 1

Mergers Of Abbey National And Santander Finance Essay

Mergers Of Abbey guinea pig And Santander Finance EssayAs Watson Head (2007 310-311) explained the terms Merger and Acquisition argon used interchangeably barely the differences are quite noticeable. The term Merger stirs the friendly reorganisations of assets into a new organization the two similar sized organizations will and so become whizz entity with both sets of existing packetholders. On the other hand, Acquisition or a Takeover suggests obtaining ones companys ordinary share capital by another one. In an encyclopaedism the one of the organizations is capaciousr in size and monetary stability and has the dominant power over the other one. The Acquisition process is lengthy and very complicated in nature. Acquisition of any particular organization can have several motives, the acquirer may want to amplify their economies of scale, commercialize share or to tally the financial synergy through declining the companys cost of capital. All these can be classified asHoriz ontal Merger and Acquisition Involves companies at the same storey of production in the same industry. i.e. the eruditeness of Cadbury by Kraft in 2010Vertical Merger and Acquisition This involves companies at contrastive stage of production hardly within the same industry. The vertical integration can either beForward movement towards the production process, i.e A furniture manufacturer merging with a retail furniture outlet.Backward movement towards securing the suppliers, i.e A furniture manufacturer merging with a wood supplier.Conglome point Merger and Acquisition involves companies in uncorrelated contrast lines. i.e. A clothing company acquiring a jewellery company.Trends in MA act 2004 to 2010 in atomic number 63 Banking Industry get word 1 One in Five companies plans to go for large scale Acquisition in 2010 some industries expect to be even more active. ascendant USB and BCG chief executive officer/Senior Management MA survey- 2009 on 166 European Companies.As fr om the Figure1 and chart1 , The MA trend in Retail and redress industries are in inclining nature, but we can observe an inclining trend in the Banking industry MA in Western Europe compared to the planetary trend. The Western Europe Banking sector MA shows a parallel movement with the global MA trend, suggesting that the Western Market is very susceptible to the overall market movement. The inclining nature of the MA in the Western Baking Sector (from mid 2005- mid 2009) suggests the upturn of the MA trend in the during the current recession crisis, the desires were devising internets with the global trends in M&A as these banks are also earning fees from their advisory and other services, such as syndicated banking facilities to support leveraged bids. The trend also suggests the wave of cross-border MA with the movement of the global trend in order to expand the business.Graph 1 Trend in Global MA activity (2004-2010), compared to tocopherolern and Western Europe banking industry MA. Source BloombergIn the current recession years with low interest rate, poor bond yields and high take aim of liquidity- the banking industry within the Western Europe is embracing the MA opportunity as many corporations have pushed back the bidding deals.1Table 1 MA trend from 1/01/2010 to 29/03/2010. Source BloombergAcquirer RegionTarget RegionAverage Size (GBP million)GlobalGlobal110.63MGlobal northwesterly the States174.94MGlobalEurope79.60MGlobalAsia peaceable65.29MGlobalLatin the States Caribbean331.65MGlobalMiddle East Africa106.65M coupling America pairing America159.79MNorth AmericaEurope114.29MNorth AmericaAsia Pacific48.36MNorth AmericaLatin America Caribbean47.84MNorth AmericaMiddle East Africa17.54MEuropeNorth America546.90MEuropeEurope65.42MEuropeAsia Pacific636.53MEuropeLatin America Caribbean1.14BEuropeMiddle East Africa95.87MAsia PacificNorth America128.86MAsia PacificEurope41.68MAsia PacificAsia Pacific46.56MAsia PacificLatin America Caribbean18 0.35MAsia PacificMiddle East Africa94.18MLatin America CaribbeanNorth America183.26MLatin America CaribbeanEurope455.35MLatin America CaribbeanAsia Pacific73.86MLatin America CaribbeanLatin America Caribbean506.03MLatin America CaribbeanMiddle East Africa11.21MMiddle East AfricaNorth America10.50MMiddle East AfricaEurope485.98MMiddle East AfricaAsia Pacific21.17MMiddle East AfricaLatin America Caribbean7.62MMiddle East AfricaMiddle East Africa134.77MFrom the table above, the MA trend is inclining more towards emerging markets as the target regions although, emerging markets are also opting for MA activities in the same or different emerging markets to expand the business.An Acquisition CASE Abbey national PLC acquired by Banco Santander SABackground of Abbey home(a) PLCThe Abbey National Building Society was formed following the nuclear fusion of the Abbey Road Building Society and the National Building Society in 19442. In July 1989, Abbey became a public limited c ompany and floated on the London investment company Exchange. With 12 million customers and assets of 177 billion, it is ranked the sixth largest bank in the UK by assets and the fifth largest by deposits (with a 9% share of the market). Reflecting its origins as a create society, it is the second largest mortgage provider in the UK, with an 11% share of the market. Furthermore, with 15% of the market, at the time of acquisition, it was the third largest provider of insurance protection products and has a large distribution network with more than 700 branches (EMCC, 2008). Abbey had two main business divisions, Personal Financial Services and the Portfolio Business Unit.Background of Banco Santander Central Hispano SASantander is a bank that has transform itself from being a middle player in the Spanish banking market 20 years ago, it is now a major global bank in operation(p) in Spain, Portugal, Germany, the United Kingdom and other European countries, as well as in Latin Ameri ca. The group is currently the leading consumer bank in Europe and has over 10,500 branches globally (excluding those branches gained through the acquisition of Banco Real as a result of a deal with ABN AMRO). Santander is a technologically advanced bank, with an tuition technology platform that is regarded as a strong competitive advantage. Excluding Banco Real employees, the group currently employs approximately 130,000 people worldwide, of whom 50% are working in Latin America. There are also large numbers of employees working in the UK and Spain. (EMCC, 2008).Banco Santander was a small retail bank when it started its business in 1985, since then it initiated its local market growth through mergers and strategic adhesions and later implemented Low-scale cross-border elaborateness through strategic alliances and acquisitions. Gradually, the implementation of Large-scale cross border expansion took place.Chart 1 Banco Santander Acquisition Transaction Overview till January 2010 . Source ReutersOverview of the AcquisitionThe objectivity of this particular acquisition/takeover was to diversify the business of Banco Santander PLC to mortgage and financial services not to mention to explore the retail banking opportunities in the UK market. Therefore, the motive for this MA was to gain economies of scale through synergy and also to entering a new market in order to optimize their market share, hence buying Abbey was a mean to enter into Europes second largest consumer financing market. In 2003 Abbey National PLC was pricey for Santander and in 2004, Abbey incurred losses from its entry into the money market and Santander decided to go ahead with the Acquisition plan in order to penetrate the UK market. merely, the secondary objective of this acquisition was to under-cut the local competition for Banco Santander with the hopes of obtaining higher profitability in the UK market. Moreover, Banco Santander already had the expertise in the retail banking and built a strategic alliance with the Royal Bank of Scotland from 1988. Therefore, Santander had already gathered banking knowledge and futuristic opportunities. As stated by Parada et al., (2009 666-667) Acquiring Abbey National PLC would make Banco Santander the biggest bank in Europe and Latin America and dominating their business in the strong currencies- the Euro, US dollar and the Pound. The acquisition had boosted the companys operation in six segments Retail Banking, Global Banking Markets, merged Banking, Private Banking, Group Infrastructure and Sold Life Businesses. After the acquisition Abbey National PLC became Santander UK PLC in January 2010.3Abbeys leadership position in the United Kingdoms mortgage alter market, together with its extensive branch network, represent for the shareholders of Banco Santander and of Abbey an opportunity to create nurse based on the application of the best business and technological practices of Banco Santander to Abbeys banking operations. Abbeys business to a great extent contributes to reinforce our pan-European franchise and provides the Group with a more balanced earnings stream.-(Emilio Botn, Chairman of Banco Santander, July 2004).4Table 2 Overview of the Abbey National PLC acquisition. Source ReutersAs noted in Parada et al., (2009, 666-668) in 2004 Abbey was suffering from losses from entering in the whole-sale money market therefore, Santander grabbed the opportunity to launch a friendly bid. Santander managed to overpower all the regulatory obstacles. Although the acquisition was initiated in 2004 but the tentative completion of this acquisition is expected to be at the end of 2010 given Abbey National PLC will be renamed as Santander UK PLC.Figure 2 The 3 steps of internationalization implemented by Santander in 2004. Source Authors.Acquisition of Abbey National PLCGraph 2 The dimensions of Santander acquisition with its growth (2000 to 2004). Source BloombergThe graph above portrays the rising nature of Santander shell out price after the Abbey acquisition at the end of year 2004.Defence Strategy implemented by Abbey National PLCDuring the Acquisition offer, Abbey National PLC urged its rivals British banks to make counter-bid offer in order to push back the 8.9 billion offer do by Banco Santander. Moreover Abbey spent out 9 million worth of Legal documentation to its approximately 1.8 million shareholders in the hopes of bouncing off the Acquisition offer made by Banco Santander.5Valuation of the AcquisitionThe asking price for the acquisition was 10 billion and the sold price was 8.9 billion. The terms of the Acquisition were based on the legality market capitalisation of the two companies over the one-third months prior to 23 July 2004. Based on the average closing market price for a Banco Santander Share on the Spanish stock market was 8.70 and the average closing mid-market price for an Abbey Share on the London furrow Exchange was 4.69 at an exchange rate of 1.5054 1, th e terms of the represent a premium of approximately 28.4 % with a value of severally Abbey Share at 6.03 or 603 pence ( taking into account the 6 pence for dividend differential, crack the financing section), and the entire issued ordinary share capital of Abbey at approximately 8.9 billion.6Financing the Acquisition BidThe acquisition was finance through the purchase of Abbey shares and blend Bid offer was initially offered to precede the acquisition where, Santander (the largest bank in North American and Spain) offered one of its own shares and 31 pence in cash for for each one share of London-based Abbey shareholders.7The special dividend of 25 pence will be paid along with 6 pence (31 pence in total) worth dividend differential to compensate the Abbey National shareholders as historically the dividend grantment of Banco Santander was usually lower than Abbey National Dividend payment (Table3). Later on, in November 2004, the acquisition was carried out through an exchange of one new Santander Share for each of Abbey share.94.6% backing support (based on the share counting only 64.8 % shareholders agreed to the acquisition deal) was received from the Abbeys shareholders in order to proceed with the takeover. The deal was worth or so 9 billion (or 13.5 billion to be exact at the time of acquisition offer the exchange rate was 1.5054 to 1). The enlarged company would be 76%-owned by existing Santander shareholders, with the rest in the hands of Abbey shareholders.8Regulatory FrameworkThe acquisition took place under section 425 of UK Companies Act 1985. Moreover, Santander had to provide many paper-works and expand plans to the European Authorities regarding the Abbey Acquisition (See Appendix, Illustration 2). As a result of the acquisition, Abbeys remaining private shareholders became entitled to one Santander share and the shares are traded in Euros in the Madrid Stock Exchange.9Table 3 Capital Value estimated for the Abbey Shareholders, Source h ttp//www.vernimmen.com/ftp/sch-abbey.pdfCultural DifferencesAlthough, the Spanish culture and British culture vary in many ways they run business. In British Culture, organizations rely mainly on their Human Resource, whereas, Spanish Culture relies more on the technological upgrading. Abbey National PLC had about 33% back-office employees whereas, Santander had about 6% to 10% employees as back-end personnel. Therefore, after the acquisition the employee number in Santander PLC came down to 16 thousands from 24 thousands in the UK. At the time of acquisition Santanders cost to income was 42%, whereas in UK it was on about 50% or more.10The acquisition may be affected by different tax incentives and regulations. Any change in the Spanish Banking policy will affect the Santander UK subsidiary both economically and financially. Moreover at the time of acquisition in 2004, the UK national savings rate is only 14.7% of GDP, compared with over 23% in Spain. Therefore, the spending and sa ving nature in the UK are very diverse than in Spain.As quoted in the Guardian (2005) Santander .. treats its Spanish shareholders to an unusually attractive range of perks, from discounted medical insurance and dental care to cut-price hams and crates of wine.11. Therefore, such treatments in the UK can be perceived as manipulative technique due to the variance in these two cultures.Performance in Share Price and Stock Market- Post AcquisitionSince Banco Santander is a Spanish bank, the shares was listed in Spanish Stock Market and the shareholders had to face exchange rate volatility since the dividend were being paid in Euros nonetheless, the Spanish taxation issue can be quite complicated to the UK shareholders. The Abbey shareholders were given the option to sell the shares to any Spanish Organization in the UK, but Abbey shareholders who held on to their Santander shares over time have to pay tax on any dividends they get.12Banco Santander new shares after the acquisition we re not admitted to the Official List or to trading on the London Stock Exchange during the post period of the acquisition.13In 2009 Santander 1.1 million new current accounts with our 25 million customers, and reported to redeem more than 30% profit in five successive years after the acquisition.Chart 2 The Overview of UK Competitors. Source H1 09 Reports Data and BBA Abstract by HSBCGraph 3 Santander UK PLC share price performance. Sourcehttp//www.h-l.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/s/santander-uk-plc10-38-non-cum-stlg-pre/chartsThe Santander UK PLC is in the second place after Lloyds Banking Group in the Mortgage market share in UK with relatively reasonable Market share in Retail Banking (Chart 2). Moreover, The EPS of Banco Santander has been performing quite poorly after 2005, it has declined from 0.337 in 2005 to 0.27 in 2009 (See Appendix, Illustration 3 ).The share price of Santander UK PLC has been rising from the year 2005 (Graph 3), partly because the dividend was 15% higher than that paid in the mid of the year 2005. As of in 2006, 25% higher dividend was paid. In 2008, Banco Santander announced its agreement to take over Alliance Leicester PLC (AL). Under the terms of the agreement Banco Santander will offer one Company share for every three AL shares. The European Commission had approved Banco Santander 1.3 billion takeover of Alliance Leicester Plc. Moreover, in year 2008, Banco Santander had agreed to buy Bradford Bingley PLC retail deposits and branch network. Santander had agreed to pay about 400 million to acquire 2.7 million Bradford Bingley customer savings accounts containing some 21 billion of deposits. Therefore, Santander UK PLC is still at its growth stage in the UK Market and it is focusing more on acquiring local financial institutions.Reuters reported in October 2009 that, Banco Santander SA planes to maintain its policy of paying half its net profit in dividends in 2010. Moreover, according to the Yahoo Finance (April, 201 0), Banco Santander SA has higher Dividend yield of 6.80 % and global Foreign Money Centre Banks Industry has the rate at 1.96%, which suggest a favourable investment option to the potential shareholders. The Santander Group is working towards the policy of maximizing shareholders profit.Moreover, as reported in Bloomberg, Banco Santander SA is seeking to list its UK business in London Stock Exchange listing from February 2010 in order to raise funds for possible future buy-up opportunities, the listing offering may value at more than 15 billion. Banco Santander is looking for funds to bid for Royal Bank of Scotland PLC network of 300 branches.On the other hand, Santander UK is willing to sell 25% of its stake in order to be listed in FTSE 100 and also to pay out about 1 billion a year in dividends to construe an attractive deal to the investors (Source The Times).ConclusionAlthough, there were many speculation against the Abbey acquisition due to its cross-border nature, but all th e speculations were proven wrong. Although, this particular acquisition was the most talked about topic in the UK financial market, and many believed the acquisition would not create any value for the Abbey Shareholders. With proper understanding of the local market, Banco Santander had utilized its previous acquisition knowledge when it came to this acquisition. Banco Santander knows what its UK shareholders want and trying to live up that expectation to serve their UK shareholders. Banco Santander is seeking to expand its business in the UK. Although, till date the Abbey bank transformation is still under progress, but Banco Santander had been patient with the UK market because they know- slow and steady wins the race.BibliographyHuws, U. OKeefe, B. 2008. Managing Change in EU Cross-Border Acquisition, Case example Santander and Abbey Expansion modify access to new markets. EMCC Company Network, 1-4.Mayer-Sommer, A. P. , Sweeney, S. Walker, D.A. 2005. Effect of Bank Acquisition on Shareholder Returns. Bank Accounting and Finance, 1-7, June-July.Lausberg, C. Stahl, T. 2009. Motives and Non-Economic Reasons for Bank Mergers and Acquisitions. The Icfai University Journal of Bank Management, 8(1) 1-25.