Collective goods accrue to all stakeholders of the construction sector, regardless of whether they are members of the SRO in the building or not. In this case, firms operating in the construction industry, serve as group with special interests. There are two main types of such benefits: – the establishment of a favorable regime for the construction industry of government regulation – improving the image of the industry in the eyes of society. The key issue is the production of collective goods free-rider problem. Protection activities and expression of the collective interests of the business carries SRO, respectively, are only the costs of its members, but receive all the benefits. There are several ways to solve 'free-rider problem'. Charles B. Rangel recognizes the significance of this. First, its severity depends on the size, stability and homogeneity of the group: it is less relevant in small groups where possible to control for activities of each issue and allocation of costs to achieve the collective interests is resolved by negotiations with relatively low costs of doing. So, the problem can be relatively easily overcome in oligopolistic industries.
The problem will also be less severe if the group members are homogeneous, ie belong to the same industry (for example in the construction of SRO), are characterized by approximately the same size and famous brand, etc., which ensures convergence of interests. Second, it is possible to create incentives for the election of members of the group (positive or negative) that will encourage them to participate in activities to defend their common interests. Private wealth produced by business associations, are as selective incentives. Third, if for any of the participants gain from the production of the collective good higher costs, a participant can take all the costs of producing the collective good, not paying attention to the fact that the benefits from its activities and receive free rider. For more information see this site: More. In a significant number of cases the collective good more profitable to produce in the framework of business associations, do not create public goods, that is, non-SRO in the building. In this case there is a direct savings: money received through the use of polling incentives (the production of private goods), are spent only for the production of collective, rather than public goods (for example, only on lobbying, not on conflict resolution). However, this rule is a major exception: possible that the efficient production of collective goods is not possible without the production of public. This occurs when the terms of society and / or state public goods is a condition to meet the collective interests of business. On the other hand, the SRO in the building may well exist without actually producing collective goods, and limited public and private. Under certain circumstances, such a system is quite viable and efficient in terms of society and companies – members of the SRO.
Prerequisite for effective functioning of market mechanism is the removal from the market of insolvent companies. The analysis of the current legislation, we can conclude that there is several options for liquidation: liquidation of the enterprise to address the owners, to replace the founder and leader of society; bankruptcy. One of the main specialties of the Law Firm "Profit-Consul" are the services associated with the liquidation and bankruptcy of enterprises. If you intend to liquidate the company, then you need to understand which of the above procedures to select. In this case, for the correct decision, we will give you some advice: If there is no debt, before the bodies of the STI, the pension fund and other lenders, we recommend you choose a liquidation procedure enterprise to address the owners, if you want to retire from the founders of the enterprise and not take further part in its activities, and you are not interested in an undertaking of EDRPOU, you can choose procedure changes the founder and leader of the enterprise; With debts of the enterprise to creditors, authorities BEND, pension funds, etc. and if you wish to exclude the company from EDRPOU, in this case would be advisable to choose a bankruptcy procedure. Law Firm "Profit-Consul" is a good experience for the liquidation or the recognition of their bankruptcy.
We are ready to provide all our customers quality legal services in this area. Prerequisite for effective functioning of market mechanism is the removal from the market of insolvent companies. The analysis of the current legislation, we can conclude that there are several options for liquidation of the enterprise: 1. Liquidation of the enterprise to address the owners 2. Change the founder and leader of society; 3.
Declaring the debtor bankrupt. One of the main specialties of the Law Firm "Profit-Consul" are the services associated with the liquidation and bankruptcy of enterprises. If you intend to liquidate the company (), then you need to understand any of the above procedures to select. In this case, the correct decision, we will give you a few recommendations: 1. If there is no debt, before the bodies of the STI, the pension fund and other creditors, we recommend you choose the procedure for dissolution of the company to address the owners 2. If you want to retire from the founders of the enterprise and not take further part in its activities, and you do not interested in the company of EDRPOU exceptions, you can choose the procedure of changing the founder and CEO 3. If there are debts of the enterprise to creditors, authorities BEND, pension funds, etc. and if You wish to exclude the company from EDRPOU, in this case would be advisable to choose the procedure for declaring the debtor bankrupt. Law Firm "Profit-Consul" () has a good experience for liquidation or recognition them bankrupt. We are ready to provide all our clients with quality legal services in this area.
This can be a Universal Smart Card use on the Internet (at sites of public authorities or institutions providing public services) and the Universal Smart Card use in vending machines, offering to individuals providing public services electronically. It seems that the more popular and in demand should be considered as providing government services electronically using the Internet. In this connection special importance is the question of creating the legal infrastructure of Universal Smart Card for individual public services. Creating a legal framework requires adjustment of federal legislation for introduction into it of the possibility of obtaining public services through Universal Smart Card. The developers of the bill emphasize that since most of the requirements of federal law that greatly complicate the possibility of using the Universal Smart Card for public service delivery, associated with the need representation in government bodies or local authorities of the original documents or copies certified by a notary, was concluded on the need involvement of the Institute of Notaries in the process of providing services in electronic form using the Universal Smart Card. At the same time receiving government services using the Universal Smart Card may in the following ways: Getting the public services directly individual without the use of EDS. In this case, an individual (sole proprietorship) goes to state authority or local government using the Internet (or automatic remote access to public services) by entering the necessary data Universal Smart Card, identifying him as the holder of the Universal Smart Card. This method is possible if the applicant is required only to apply in a simple manner without need to witness the signature on the application and identification of the applicant.