DOCSLIB.ORG

A Macroeconomic Study of Federal and State Automotive Regulations with Recommendations for Analysts, Regulators, and Legislators

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Macroeconomic Study of Federal and State Automotive Regulations with Recommendations for Analysts, Regulators, and Legislators A Macroeconomic Study of Federal and State Automotive Regulations with Recommendations for Analysts, Regulators, and Legislators Sanya Carley, Denvil Duncan, John D. Graham, Saba Siddiki, and Nikolaos Zirogiannis March 2017 A Macroeconomic Study of Federal and State Automotive Regulations with Recommendations for Analysts, Regulators, and Legislators Sanya Carley, Denvil Duncan, John D. Graham, Saba Siddiki, and Nikolaos Zirogiannis School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University March 2017 REPORT INFORMATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the final report of an 18-month study conducted under a grant agreement between Indiana University and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. It builds on our preliminary report, Rethinking Auto Fuel Economy Policy: Technical and Policy Suggestions for the 2016-2017 Midterm Reviews. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University. February, 2016 (https://spea.indiana.edu/doc/research/working-groups/fuel-economy-policy-022016.pdf). The authors are fully and independently responsible for the design, execution, and findings of the study. The findings and views expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers or Indiana University. The authors are especially grateful to have received guidance and constructive criticism from the project’s Peer Review Advisory Board and consultants Alan Jenn of the University of California at Davis, and Wally Wade, a former chief engineer and technical fellow in Powertrain Systems Technology and Processes at Ford Motor Company, who is also a member of the National Academy of Engineering. We also appreciate helpful information from staff at several federal agencies (DOE, EPA, DOT, EIA, and OMB) and a variety of manufacturers, suppliers, and related associations. The February 2016 Preliminary Report, which covered the regulatory aspects, also benefited from written peer reviews supplied by the following experts across the U.S.: Hunt Allcott (New York University), John DeCicco (University of Michigan), Salim Furth (The Heritage Foundation), Ted Gayer (Brookings Institution), Rachel Krause (University of Kansas), Don Mackenzie (University of Washington), and one anonymous regulatory expert. Revisions in response to those peer reviews are reflected in this final report. The findings and views expressed in the report do not necessarily represent the views of any of these peer reviewers. We also acknowledge helpful informal comments from John German and Tom Walton, and from participants of the 2016 annual conference for the United States Association of Energy Economics, the 2016 annual conference for the International Association of Energy Economics, the 2016 University of South Carolina International Journal of Law and Business symposium, the 2016 Austin Energy Workshop, and the 2016 annual conference for the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management. Rebecca Snedegar provided excellent administrative assistance throughout the project as well as leads on important studies and developments. Dan Esposito, Emily Hall, Alyssa Julian, and David Michael provided helpful research assistance. Comments on the report are welcome and can be submitted to [email protected]. PROJECT PERSONNEL Research Team from the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. Sanya Carley, Associate Professor Dr. Denvil Duncan, Associate Professor Dr. John D. Graham, Dean and Professor and former Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House Office of Management and Budget (2001-2006) Dr. Saba Siddiki, Assistant Professor Dr. Nikolaos Zirogiannis, Assistant Scientist Project Peer Review Advisory Board Dr. Joseph Aldy, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and former White House Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Environment (2009-2010) Gurminder Bedi, Managing Partner, Compass Acquisitions, and former Vice President of Ford Motor Company Dr. Rob Carey, Director of the Regional Dynamics and Economic Modeling Laboratory, Clemson University Dr. Carolyn Fischer, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future Dr. Heather MacLean, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto Dr. Edward Montgomery, Dean, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, and former Executive Director of the White House Council on Auto Communities and Workers (2009-2010) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study examines how the U.S. economy is likely to be impacted by the combined effects of three automotive regulatory programs that were adopted in 2012: the U.S. Department of Transportation’s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for model years 2017-2025; the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for model years 2017-2025; and the California Air Resources Board’s Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) requirements for 2018-2025. A combined analysis of these three regulatory programs and their impacts is provided for several reasons: all three programs share similar policy objectives (e.g., reducing the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change); cover products—cars and light trucks—produced by the same industry; become increasingly stringent in the same time frame; have interdependent practical consequences (e.g., it is more difficult for automakers and dealers to commercialize plug-in electric vehicles under the California ZEV program when the federal programs are making gasoline-powered vehicles more fuel-efficient than they would otherwise be); and can be modified— through legislative and/or administrative action—by the U.S. federal government. 2012 vs. 2016 Perspectives A distinctive feature of this study is that the programs are analyzed from two perspectives. The “2012 perspective” uses inputs reflecting evidence that was available from 2009-2012, when the 2012 programs were being developed. The “2016 perspective” uses inputs that reflect new information that has become available since 2012 on the California ZEV program, technology costs, fuel-saving effectiveness, fuel prices, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle resale values, and consumer behavior. Thus, we seek to determine whether macroeconomic impacts looked differently in 2012 than they do today. Compared to the 2012 inputs, the 2016 inputs reflect (1) a larger vehicle price premium due to the suite of federal and California regulations, which will grow in stringency from model years 2017-2025; (2) a large reduction in the federal government’s official forecast for average gasoline prices in 2025, down from $3.84 per gallon to $2.74 per gallon; (3) new evidence on how vehicle purchasers perceive and value fuel economy, both during their ownership period and when they resell their vehicle; (4) new evidence on how many miles Americans travel each year over the long lifetime (up to 30 years) of a vehicle; and (5) new evidence and forecasts showing a rapid decline in the price of lithium-ion battery packs and the cost of producing plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). The modeling explores how the new inputs, individually and in combination, change the macroeconomic forecasts of the impacts of the regulations. Choice of Economic Indicators Three macroeconomic indicators are considered: employment levels, gross domestic product (GDP), and real disposable income at the household level. Each of the three indicators are standard economic performance measures watched closely by policy makers, Wall Street and other financial analysts, investors, and stakeholders in the industry such as labor union leaders, car dealers, original equipment manufacturers, and parts suppliers. We also undertake separate analyses of the impact of the regulations on the volume of new vehicle sales, since new vehicle sales are a key sectoral indicator as well as a closely-watched indicator of the overall health of the economy. In addition, the volume of new vehicle sales influences how fast the environmental objectives of the regulations can be accomplished and influences the societal costs and benefits of those regulations. Causal Pathways for Economic Impacts We consider three causal pathways for how the regulatory standards could impact the U.S. economy: (1) by raising the average cost of producing new vehicles, and passing those costs on to the average prices of new vehicles which will be felt by consumers; (2) by stimulating the automotive supply chain as original-equipment manufacturers 2 and suppliers innovate, hire additional workers, and produce new technologies such as turbocharged engines, new transmissions, lightweight materials, conventional hybrid engines, advanced diesel engines, and plug-in electric vehicles; and (3) by reducing gasoline consumption with positive spending reallocations for households, businesses, and governments, and negative effects in the U.S. petroleum sector, including the supply chains that are related to oil and gasoline production. We show results for each of the causal pathways individually as well as the combined impact of the three pathways. Modeling Platform The modeling platform chosen for the analysis is REMI PI 2.0.2, a well-known and versatile macroeconomic model that combines information on the U.S. economy from four general sources: input-output matrices, general equilibrium tools, econometrics, and economic geography. REMI is particularly appropriate for regulatory application because it accounts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Automobile Industry: SUV Category
    Name: Loveesh Bhatt MMS-Marketing , 20 Automobile Industry: SUV Category Leader : Mahindra and Mahindra M&M with their recent launches have made it to the number one position in the SUV category in Indian market. M&M have been very precise and accurate in understanding the customer’s needs and what customer wants from a SUV. Since its launch of Scorpio, M&M have been consistent in their sales record. M&M have been strong internationally as well. Mahindra & Mahindra is a major automobile manufacturer of utility vehicles, passenger cars, pickups, commercial vehicles, and two wheelers in various countries. Its tractors are sold on six continents. It has acquired plants in China[10] and the United Kingdom,[11] and has three assembly plants in the USA. M&M has partnerships with international companies like Renault SA, France[12] and International Truck and Engine Corporation, USA. At the 2008 Delhi Auto Show, Mahindra executives said the company is pursuing an aggressive product expansion program that would see the launch of several new platforms and vehicles over the next three years, including an entry-level SUV designed to seat five passengers and powered by a small turbodiesel engine.[19] True to their word, Mahindra & Mahindra launched the Mahindra Xylo in January 2009, and as of June 2009, the Xylo has sold over 15000 units.[20] Also in early 2008, Mahindra commenced its first overseas CKD operations with the launch of the Mahindra Scorpio in Egypt,[21] in partnership with the Bavarian Auto Group. This was soon followed by assembly facilities in Brazil.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicle Market Status - Update Manufacturer Commitments to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S
    Electric Vehicle Market Status - Update Manufacturer Commitments to Future Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide September 2020 Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Drivers of Global Electric Vehicle Growth – Global Goals to Phase out Internal Combustion Engines ..... 6 Policy Drivers of U.S. Electric Vehicle Growth ........................................................................................... 8 Manufacturer Commitments ....................................................................................................................... 10 Job Creation ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Charging Network Investments .................................................................................................................. 15 Commercial Fleet Electrification Commitments ........................................................................................ 17 Sales Forecast.............................................................................................................................................. 19 Battery Pack Cost Projections and EV Price Parity ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Global EV Market 5
    MASTERS IN FINANCE EQUITY RESEARCH TESLA MOTORS, INC COMPANY REPORT CONSUMER GOODS 05 DECEMBER 2014 STUDENT: FREDERIC MÜLLER (#774) [email protected] Emotionally Charged? Recommendation: BUY Vs Previous Recommendation Buy Profitability is determined by mass-market entrance Price Target FY15: 249.22 € . As of today the company is serving a luxury niche Vs Previous Price Target 221.71€ market. The successful exit into the mass-market lies at the very Price (as of 02-Jan-2015) 180.10 € heart of Tesla’ profitability. Therefore the share price will highly Reuters: TSLA.OQ, Bloomberg: TSLA:US depend on the acceptance of electronic vehicles as a substitute for conventional cars. 52-week range (€) 103.71 – 221.04 Market Cap (€m) 23.443,97 . EV market growth is driven by technological break- Outstanding Shares (m) 124.62 throughs as well as governmental incentives. The latter is still 50 day moving average 186.78 Source: Bloomberg lacking sufficient engagement in many countries. Our model ex- 180% 200% pects the company to be profitable after taxes only in 2016, despite 160%180% Company vs PSI20 140%160% 200 140% perceptible revenue growth, implying negative EPS until then. R&D 120% 120% 100%150 100% expenses are as high as 13.79% of revenues in 2014 demonstrat- 80% 80% 60%100 60% ing the firm’s intentions to tackle technological innovations. 40% 40%50 . High CAPEX will diminish cash flow to investors over 20%20% 0%0%0 01/1412/1302/1401/1403/1402/1404/1403/1405/1404/1406/1405/1407/1406/1408/1407/1409/1408/1410/1409/1411/1410/1412/1411/1401/1512/14 01-01-08 01-03-08 30-04-08 29-06-08 years to come with projected positive cash flows in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Car Dealership Customer Satisfaction Index
    Car Dealership Customer Satisfaction Index Psychometric Marcelo air-mails out-of-date or let-out beadily when Darren is attachable. Sayers is eliminatory and conclude laughingly while verminous Clemente personifies and perambulates. Is Bailie always undried and fucoid when teeters some foremasts very longer and surpassingly? Is a new purchase experience for car dealership customer satisfaction index is him, satisfaction assessment methods are also go beyond lost in quality of warranty or do with which would. Our customer moves further instructions. Coupés and overall, and reinforces the car quality and to have infringed any undesirable, customer car insurance office and individual roles contribute to. Various manufacturers to know when the older, services that will not necessarily choose to. Csi score is just as they have borne this should not all but how you. You can view ride details but it is a macro level plans to retailer sites to dismiss them keep it a training program that anything! Save data controller using an interesting analysis shows dealerware for saving time. We will be n or service! You returned a company, luxury suvs planned car quality or offering an auto brand based on. This responsibility of pontiac and big lost in its suvs, and associates is just about. In dealership could depend on our products, we will not angry, but how we respond. Drift snippet included in a competitor. So they have taken the index ranking, customer car satisfaction index, measuring the power of. File more informations about third parties will not satisfying ownership experience best online or making snappy gearchanges easy tips for years of different manufacturers.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Drive in America Market Overview
    Advancing the Deployment of Electric Vehicles: Market and Policy Outlook for Electrifying Transportation Genevieve Cullen, Vice President, EDTA December 6, 2011 Market Outlook • Late 2010, GM Volt & Nissan Leaf first mass-market plug-in electric vehicles • ~ 20 plug-in EV models expected by the end of 2012, including plug- in Prius hybrid, battery electric Ford Focus • National and regional charging infrastructure beings installed rapidly. Projected cumulative investment of $5-10 billion by 2015 Sales • The total number of plug-in vehicles (including plug-in hybrids and battery EVs) sold in August 2012 was 4,715. – OVER PREVIOUS MONTH: 56.3% increase • 3,016 sold in July 2012. – OVER THIS MONTH LAST YEAR: 183.2% increase • 1,665 sold in August 2011. • There have been 25,290 total plug-ins (including plug-in hybrids and battery EVs) sold in 2012. This is a 170.5% increase over this time last year. Vehicles Available Now Battery Electric Vehicles Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles AMP Mle BMW Hydrogen 7* Coda Sedan Honda FCX Clarity* Ford Transit Connect Electric Mercedes-Benz B-Class* Ford Focus BEV Honda Fit EV Mitsubishi i-MiEV Nissan LEAF Smart fortwo EV Tesla Model S Plug-In Hybrids Chevrolet Volt Fisker Karma Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid Via Motors Vtrux Updated October 1, 2012 * Limited R Vehicles Available Now Hybrid Electric Vehicles Lexus CT 200h Acura ILX Lexus HS 250h BMW ActiveHybrid 7L Lexus LS 600h L Buick Regal eAssist Lexus RX 450h Cadillac Escalade Hybrid Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid Mercedes-Benz ML450 Hybrid Chevrolet
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution of New-Car Dealerships to the Economies of All 50 States
    Contribution of New‐Car Dealerships to the Economies of All 50 States and the United States 3005 Boardwalk Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108 www.cargroup.org September 2015 All statements, findings, and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Automobile Dealers Association. Contribution of New‐Car Dealerships to the Economies of All 50 States and the United States Center for Automotive Research Report Prepared by: Debra Maranger Menk Joshua Cregger Report Prepared for: National Automobile Dealers Association McLean, Virginia September 2015 i ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... V SECTION I ‐ BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 New‐Car Dealerships in the United States ............................................................................................... 1 Recent Developments in the Automotive Market ................................................................................... 4 Recession and Restructuring ................................................................................................................ 4 Automotive Sales Forecast ................................................................................................................... 5 Challenges and Opportunities for New‐Car Dealerships .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Member-Directory.Pdf
    2018 – 2019 MEMBER DIRECTORY P.O. Box 16550 Sugar Land, TX 77496-6550 1650 Highway 6, Suite 460 Sugar Land, TX 77478 (281) 980-3434 Fax: (281) 980-2608 [email protected] www.houstoncardealers.com Open to the public January 23 - January 27, 2019 www.houstonautoshow.com TABLE OF CONTENTS NATIONAL, STATE & METRO ASSOCIATIONS ......................................................................... 2 HADA STAFF...................................................................................................................... 3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS - OFFICERS ............................................................................. 4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS - DIRECTORS .......................................................................... 5 HADA PAST CHAIRMEN ................................................................................................... 6 MEMBER SERVICES ......................................................................................................... 7 HADA PICTURES ............................................................................................................... 14 DEALER MEMBER LISTING ............................................................................................. 19 DEALER MEMBERS BY MANUFACTURER .................................................................... 51 ASSOCIATE MEMBER LISTING ....................................................................................... 60 ASSOCIATE MEMBERS BY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Which Is Then Submitted Elec- HB412 Passed Through Legislation This Past Would Be Assessed for Late Title Applica- Tronically to the DOR
    INDEPENDENT autoGeorgia Independent Automobile Dealersdealer Association July 2017 Industry Cheers as CFPB Reform Measure Passes House Simplify Your Dealership with ETR FTC Safeguards Rule, It’s Just Good Business Consultancy Sees Flying Cars Taking Off Next Decade PLUS 10 Bad Habits You Must Eliminate from Your Daily Routine REGISTER TODAY Thursday, July 13: VIP GOLF TOURNAMENT CONVENTION & TRADE EXPO Friday, July 14: Atlanta Evergreen Marriott STATE MANDATED CE TRAINING Conference Resort Don't miss the first CE class of the year! JULY 13-15, 2017 DYNAMIC TRADE EXPO ( Over 60 exhibitors) Visit giadaconvention.org for details. SEE PAGE 7 GEORGIA INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION INDEPENDENT auto dealer JULY 2017 2 | Hitting 3,000! 30 | Independent Dealers Steer 47 | U.S. States Could Not Set 2 | Advertiser Index Through Challenges Self-Driving Car Rules Under 3 | Dealer Code of Ethics 32 | NIADA Welcomes Hudson into Republican Plan 4 | Simplify Your Dealership with ETR Ring of Honor 48 | NIADA President Brings Retail, 5 | Calendar of Events 36 | FTC Safeguards Rule – It’s Just Wholesale Experience 7 | Don't Miss the First CE Class of the Good Business 50 | Wall Street Dials Back U.S. Sales Year! 38 | XLerate’s Charleston Auto Auction Outlook as Trump Bump Fades 10 | Industry Cheers as CFPB Reform Expands Sales Team 56 | New & Renewed Members Measure Passes House 40 | Auction Directory 57 | FCA Backs New Public Education 14 | Member Benefits & Services Guide 43 | Hackers Target Dealer Social Media Campaign on Auto Recalls 26 | Q&A with NIADA’s Steve Jordan Posts 58 | Certified Used-Car Sales up 7% for 28 | 10 Bad Habits You Must Eliminate 44 | Consultancy Sees Flying Cars May from Your Daily Routine Taking Off Next Decade 60 | Meet the GIADA Staff SLATE OF OFFICERS Chairman of the Board Sr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio Motor Vehicle Industry
    Research Office A State Affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau The Ohio Motor Vehicle Report February 2019 Intentionally blank THE OHIO MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY FEBRUARY 2019 B1002: Don Larrick, Principal Analyst Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency PO Box 1001, Columbus, Oh. 43216-1001 Production Support: Steven Kelley, Editor; Jim Kell, Contributor Robert Schmidley, GIS Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 Description of Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry 4 The Motor Vehicle Industry’s Impact on Ohio’s Economy 5 Ohio’s Strategic Position in Motor Vehicle Assembly 7 Notable Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturers in Ohio 10 Recent Expansion and Attraction Announcements 16 The Concentration of the Industry in Ohio: Gross Domestic Product and Value-Added 18 Company Summaries of Light Vehicle Production in Ohio 20 Parts Suppliers 24 The Composition of Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry – Employment at the Plants 28 Industry Wages 30 The Distribution of Industry Establishments Across Ohio 32 The Distribution of Industry Employment Across Ohio 34 Foreign Investment in Ohio 35 Trends 40 Employment 42 i Gross Domestic Product 44 Value-Added by Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry 46 Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S. 48 Capital Expenditures for Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Industry 50 Establishments 52 Output, Employment and Productivity 54 U.S. Industry Analysis and Outlook 56 Market Share Trends 58 Trade Balances 62 Industry Operations and Recent Trends 65 Technologies for Production Processes and Vehicles 69 The Transportation Research Center 75 The Near- and Longer-Term Outlooks 78 About the Bodies-and-Trailers Group 82 Assembler Profiles 84 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV 86 Ford Motor Co.
    [Show full text]
  • CATA Bulletin a Biweekly Newsletter
    CATA Bulletin a biweekly newsletter official Web site of CATA dealers Volume 100, No. 17 September 1, 2003 Mars dickers, Facing uproar, FCC pauses till ’05 on Venus doesn’t implementing new fax rule for businesses Businesses won a reprieve from a or business has given express permis- Mars doesn’t mind negotiating cumbersome Federal Communications sion to receive unsolicited facsimile ad- and is confident he deserves more. Commission ruling that would have vertisements.” Venus is satisfied with what she is fined businesses for sending faxes to If businesses or associations violated offered, unsure of what she consumers unless a consumer gives the proposed rule, the FCC could as- deserves and fearful of bargaining. explicit consent first. sess penalties of up to $11,000 for each This is the message of “Women The Telephone Consumer Protection fax. In addition, the person who re- Don’t Ask,” a book to be published Act was to have taken effect Aug. 25. ceived an unwanted fax could sue for by Princeton University Press. The FCC on Aug. 18 moved to extend $500 for each violation, with the pos- Women’s reluctance to negotiate that date to Jan. 1, 2005, to reconsider sibility of receiving triple damages if arises even when it comes to the matter in the wake of waves of ob- the business knowingly broke the law. commonly negotiated items like jections. Non-profit associations objected automobiles, wrote the authors, The FCC proposed the rule last fall, loudly to the FCC, arguing against the Linda Babcock, an economist at but the rule’s exact wording was not requirement that they get written per- Carnegie Mellon University and a published until July 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Ford) Compared with Japanese
    A MAJOR STUDY OF AMERICAN (FORD) COMPARED WITH JAPANESE (HONDA) AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY – THEIR STRATEGIES AFFECTING SURVIABILTY PATRICK F. CALLIHAN Bachelor of Engineering in Material Science Youngstown State University June 1993 Master of Science in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Youngstown State University March 2000 Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF ENGINEERING at the CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY AUGUST, 2010 This Dissertation has been approved for the Department of MECHANICAL ENGINEERING and the College of Graduate Studies by Dr. L. Ken Keys, Dissertation Committee Chairperson Date Department of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Paul A. Bosela Date Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Bahman Ghorashi Date Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering Dean of Fenn College of Engineering Dr. Chien-Hua Lin Date Department Computer and Information Science Dr. Hanz Richter Date Department of Mechanical Engineering ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Keys, my advisor, for spending so much time with me and providing me with such valuable experience and guidance. I would like to thank each of my committee members for their participation: Dr. Paul Bosela, Dr. Baham Ghorashi, Dr. Chien-Hua Lin and Dr. Hanz Richter. I want to especially thank my wife, Kimberly and two sons, Jacob and Nicholas, for the sacrifice they gave during my efforts. A MAJOR STUDY OF AMERICAN (FORD) COMPARED WITH JAPANESE (HONDA) AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY – THEIR STRATEGIES AFFECTING SURVIABILTY PATRICK F. CALLIHAN ABSTRACT Understanding the role of technology, in the automotive industry, is necessary for the development, implementation, service and disposal of such technology, from a complete integrated system life cycle approach, to assure long-term success.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Used Car Dealership Owners to Sustain Business in a Competitive Environment Jude Thaddeus Suh Walden University
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2018 Strategies for Used Car Dealership Owners to Sustain Business in a Competitive Environment Jude Thaddeus Suh Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Accounting Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Management and Technology This is to certify that the doctoral study by Jude T. Suh has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Roger Mayer, Committee Chairperson, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty Dr. Deborah Nattress, Committee Member, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty Dr. Mohamad Hammoud, University Reviewer, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2018 Abstract Strategies for Used Car Dealership Owners to Sustain Business in a Competitive Environment by Jude T. Suh MBA, New Mexico Highlands University, 2008 BS, University of Buea, 2001 Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration Walden University October 2018 Abstract Small used car dealership ventures experience high business failures in the marketplace. Grounded in the resource-based view (RBV) theory, the purpose of this multiple case study was to explore strategies used car dealership owners and managers employ to remain profitable and sustain operations for longer than 5 years.
    [Show full text]