Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable merit in thinking of the modern multidivisional corporation as an economy within itself. There is an important similarity between the interaction of divisions within a corporation and the perfectly competitive economic model formulated by Leon Walras1. When we look at modern corporations from this viewpoint we discover that much of what we know in general equilibrium economics may have considerable application inside modern corporations. Some of our existing theorems help clarify distinctions between decentralization and central control in corporate management in the same way that they clarify the distinctions between the market economies and those that run by central decree. They help distinguish which divisions must be centrally managed and those which can be left to look after themselves. This viewpoint offers new insights too—that, for instance, the products transferred between divisions may quite logically have two transfer prices instead of one. This viewpoint also permits an easy synthesis of the existing literature on transfer pricing. While the transfer pricing issue is especially important for multinational and international corporations which transfer goods and services between divisions located in different countries, the principles generally apply to any multidivisional corporation. The purposes of this paper are to present a simple, but general analytic model of the multidivisional corporation, to use it to make a synthesis of the existing literature on transfer pricing, and to make some important new discoveries. 1 Léon Walras, Elements of Pure Economics, édité et traduit par W. Jaffe (London : George Allen and Unwin, 1954). Kenneth Arrow fait mention de cette similitude dans son article : « Optimization, Decentralization and Internal Pricing in Business Firms », Contributions to Scientific Research in Management, 9-18, Western Data Processing Centre, Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1961.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".