orders@superbacademics.com
+1 914 979 2828
+1 914 979 2828

Design and methodology

 

 

P​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​art 1: Abstract (1 page) The purpose of this assignment is to write an abstract for your capstone project. The function of an Abstract is to provide a brief, descriptive summary of the essay/report. The function of an Abstract is to inform the reader of the contents of the report /essay so that the reader can see in advance the key areas covered and the main points of the argument. An Abstract clearly states the purpose and direction, the main arguments and the conclusions reached. It is a mini version of the paper. If writing an investigative report which includes research findings, then it is usual to include in the Abstract the aims or objectives, methods, findings or results, conclusions and implications. Your capstone abstract must be approved by the Capstone Advisor and or Faculty Chair before the final draft. Keep these guidelines for abstracts in mind: Provides a professio​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​nal, scholarly synopsis of the capstone project States the purpose of the capstone clearly and succinctly Provides a brief rationale for the capstone project. Describes the design and methodology of the main activities of the project Describes the expected results or the outcomes of the capstone. Provides a summary statement that shows the possible implication of the capstone project to student’s clinical practice setting or profession. Utilizes 250-300 words maximum, using 12 point font, either, Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier. At least one peer reviewed reference within the last 5 years Part 2- 3 pages * Anticipated Conclusion *Possible Limitations *Potential Implications to Practice *Conclusion for the whole project I made some changes to the project and i will upload them later. At least 3 peer reviewed references within the last 5 years please answer all bullet poi​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​nts

Sample Solution

In 1998, a report by the OECD advisory group which formulated the basis for the issuance of the 1999 OECD Principles for Corporate Governance stated that companies that strengthened their corporate governance arrangements should be advantageously placed in terms of attracting capital.
Around 2000, the US was riding high, but the perception was short lived and changed with the post 2000 stock market decline caused by the fall in dot com driven bull market in shares as well as major US corporate scandals such as Enron. As a result, the US model of corporate governance was discredited again.

To address the corporate governance failures of the day and to incorporate the concerns of emerging markets, the OECD Principles were revised in 2004. In this revision, input was incorporated from consultations of five Regional Corporate Governance Roundtables; Asia, Eurasia, Latin America, Russia and Southeast Europe, including additional special meetings from 43 non member countries. This casts the OECD Principles in their revised form as both a facilitator of convergence and a result of moves towards harmonisation.
There has clearly been a positive response by a number of jurisdictions towards adoption of the Principles, but as should have been expected, this was not without challenges. It would appear though that some of the criticisms raised against adoption of the principles appear exaggerated. A variety of reasons have been given, and it seems the major problem arises from the fact that different countries are at different levels of economic and legal development. This makes a direct transplant of one system over another impracticable. However, the principles are flexible and non-prescriptive in nature. They only offer guidelines which can be modelled to suit particular circumstances.