A number of studies have shown that modulating cortical activity by means of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) affects performances of both healthy and brain-damaged subjects. In this study, we investigated the potential of tDCS to enhance associative verbal learning in 10 healthy individuals and to improve word retrieval deficits in three patients with stroke-induced aphasia. In healthy individuals, tDCS (20 min, 1 mA) was applied over Wernicke's area (position CP5 of the International 10-20 EEG System) while they learned 20 new "words" (legal nonwords arbitrarily assigned to 20 different pictures). The healthy subjects participated in a randomized counterbalanced double-blind procedure in which they were subjected to one session of anodic tDCS over left Wernicke's area, one sham session over this location and one session of anodic tDCS stimulating the right occipito-parietal area. Each experimental session was performed during a different week (over three consecutive weeks) with 6 days of intersession interval. Over 2 weeks, three aphasic subjects participated in a randomized double-blind experiment involving intensive language training for their anomic difficulties in two tDCS conditions. Each subject participated in five consecutive daily sessions of anodic tDCS (20 min, 1 mA) and sham stimulation over Wernicke's area while they performed a picture-naming task. By the end of each week, anodic tDCS had significantly improved their accuracy on the picture-naming task. Both normal subjects and aphasic patients also had shorter naming latencies during anodic tDCS than during sham condition. At two follow-ups (1 and 3 weeks after the end of treatment), performed only in two aphasic subjects, response accuracy and reaction times were still significantly better in the anodic than in the sham condition, suggesting a long-term effect on recovery of their anomic disturbances.
The article analyzes contracting challenges faced by Italian health care authorities and U.S. procurement officials in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, and it provides practitioner-derived lessons for improving procurement in times of disaster. The lessons we have learned so far emphasize (a) the need to recognize the strategic role of procurement, (b) empowering procurement officials, (c) formalized coordinative mechanisms cannot ensure effectiveness without trust among different governance levels, (d) the ability to identify reliable and proactive suppliers of personal protective equipment, (e) the importance of stimulating the economic market to diversify the production of needed materials and to ensure a more risk-resilient supply chain, and (f) the critical role of public–private collaborations to ensure responsiveness and resilience of health care systems.
Drawing on the financial models of 10 PFI projects commissioned by the UK National Health Service (NHS), this article identifies the returns that are projected to be earned by private investors and evaluates these through the application of corporate finance methods. The paper begins with a description of the PFI model in the NHS and identifies the risks to which private sector costs and revenues are subject. An analytical framework grounded in capital budgeting techniques is outlined, and used to measure and evaluate investor returns. Cost of capital benchmarks are used as comparators to (1) assess the Internal Rate of Return for each project, and (2) as discount rates to calculate Benefit-Cost Ratios. On both criteria, returns to investors on this group of PFI projects are shown to be much higher than would be sufficient to remunerate investors for the risk they bear.
Several governments across the world have introduced a variety of instruments to enhance investor appetite for public private partnership (PPP) projects. This paper provides a comprehensive categorization of these instruments, the risks they target and their effects, at project and system level, to support policy makers to design the most appropriate instruments to attract private capital into infrastructure development.Keywords: PPP; guarantees; credit enhancement; infrastructure asset class; risk
Box -Impact:The use of financial instruments to attract investors into PPP projects may have significant fiscal and economic implications. Therefore, it is crucial for policy makers and public managers, working for local, national or supranational public organizations, to understand the options available, the mechanisms through which these instruments reduce investor risk, and the possible unintended effects. The paper, grounded in the analysis of the main trends in capital markets, offers a threefold categorization of PPP risks, which is a useful scheme to identify the risks that may be addressed with the policy instruments to sustain the PPP bankability.
The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the Italian State Credit Guarantee Scheme (Central Guarantee Fund). The paper analyzes the impact of the program on SMEs’ profitability considering the firm size and sector. The analysis is performed using propensity‐score matching estimators and the Difference in Differences regressions on a proprietary sample of about 38,000 SMEs in the period 2007–2009. Overall, the Central Guarantee Fund generated an increase in the profitability of guaranteed firms during the period of economic downturn. However, significant differences emerged across firms by size and sector. The effect is positive and robust only for micro‐ and small‐sized firms, and the most relevant improvement in the profitability is recorded for firms operating in the manufacturing sector. This implies that more customized programs are necessary to reach a higher value for money in entrepreneurial policies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.