Lack of streamflow observations makes model calibration difficult and limits model performance improvement. Satellite-based remote sensing products offer a new alternative as they can be actively utilized to obtain hydrological data. Recently, several studies have shown that artificial intelligence-based solutions are more appropriate than traditional conceptual and physical models. In this study, a data-driven approach combining various recurrent neural networks and decision tree-based algorithms is proposed, and the utilization of satellite remote sensing information for AI training is investigated. The satellite imagery used in this study is from MODIS and SMAP. The proposed approach is validated using publicly available data from 25 watersheds. Inspired by the traditional regionalization approach, a strategy is adopted to learn one data-driven model by integrating data from all basins, and the potential of the proposed approach is evaluated by using a leave-one-out cross-validation regionalization setting to predict streamflow from different basins with one model. The GRU + Light GBM model was found to be a suitable model combination for target basins and showed good streamflow prediction performance in ungauged basins (The average model efficiency coefficient for predicting daily streamflow in 25 ungauged basins is 0.7187) except for the period when streamflow is very small. The influence of satellite remote sensing information was found to be up to 10%, with the additional application of satellite information having a greater impact on streamflow prediction during low or dry seasons than during wet or normal seasons.
The concentration of economic power takes the form of one or a few firms controlling a substantial portion of the economic resources and means in a certain economic area. At the same time, to the extent that these firms are owned by a few individuals, resource allocation can be manipulated by them rather than by the impersonal market mechanism. This will impair allocative efficiency, run counter to a decentralized market system and hamper the equitable distribution of wealth. Viewed from the historical evolution of Western capitalism in general, the concentration of economic power is a paradox in that it is a product of the free market system itself. The economic principle of natural discrimination works so that a few big firms preempt scarce resources and market opportunities. Prominent historical examples include trusts in America, Konzern in Germany and Zaibatsu in Japan in the early twentieth century. In other words, the concentration of economic power is the outcome as well as the antithesis of free competition. As long as judgment of the economic system at large depends upon the value systems of individuals, therefore, the issue of how to evaluate the concentration of economic power will inevitably be tinged with ideology. We have witnessed several different approaches to this problem such as communism, fascism and revised capitalism, and the last one seems to be the only surviving alternative. The concentration of economic power in Korea can be summarily represented by the "jaebol," namely, the conglomerate business group, the majority of whose member firms are monopolistic or oligopolistic in their respective markets and are owned by particular individuals. The jaebol has many dimensions in its size, but to sketch its magnitude, the share of the jaebol in the manufacturing sector reached 37.3% in shipment and 17.6% in employment as of 1989. The concentration of economic power can be ascribed to a number of causes. In the early stages of economic development, when the market system is immature, entrepreneurship must fill the gap inherent in the market in addition to performing its customary managerial function. Entrepreneurship of this sort is a scarce resource and becomes even more valuable as the target rate of economic growth gets higher. Entrepreneurship can neither be readily obtained in the market nor exhausted despite repeated use. Because of these peculiarities, economic power is bound to be concentrated in the hands of a few entrepreneurs and their business groups. It goes without saying, however, that the issue of whether the full exercise of money-making entrepreneurship is compatible with social mores is a different matter entirely. The rapidity of the concentration of economic power can also be traced to the diversification of business groups. The transplantation of advanced technology oriented toward mass production tends to saturate the small domestic market quite early and allows a firm to expand into new markets by making use of excess capacity and of monopoly profits. One of the reasons why the jaebol issue has become so acute in Korea lies in the nature of the government-business relationship. The Korean government has set economic development as its foremost national goal and, since then, has intervened profoundly in the private sector. Since most strategic industries promoted by the government required a huge capacity in technology, capital and manpower, big firms were favored over smaller firms, and the benefits of industrial policy naturally accrued to large business groups. The concentration of economic power which occured along the way was, therefore, not necessarily a product of the market system. At the same time, the concentration of ownership in business groups has been left largely intact as they have customarily met capital requirements by means of debt. The real advantage enjoyed by large business groups lies in synergy due to multiplant and multiproduct production. Even these effects, however, cannot always be considered socially optimal, as they offer disadvantages to other independent firms-for example, by foreclosing their markets. Moreover their fictitious or artificial advantages only aggravate the popular perception that most business groups have accumulated their wealth at the expense of the general public and under the behest of the government. Since Korea stands now at the threshold of establishing a full-fledged market economy along with political democracy, the phenomenon called the concentration of economic power must be correctly understood and the roles of business groups must be accordingly redefined. In doing so, we would do better to take a closer look at Japan which has experienced a demise of family-controlled Zaibatsu and a success with business groups(Kigyoshudan) whose ownership is dispersed among many firms and ultimately among the general public. The Japanese case cannot be an ideal model, but at least it gives us a good point of departure in that the issue of ownership is at the heart of the matter. In setting the basic direction of public policy aimed at controlling the concentration of economic power, one must harmonize efficiency and equity. Firm size in itself is not a problem, if it is dictated by efficiency considerations and if the firm behaves competitively in the market. As long as entrepreneurship is required for continuous economic growth and there is a discrepancy in entrepreneurial capacity among individuals, a concentration of economic power is bound to take place to some degree. Hence, the most effective way of reducing the inefficiency of business groups may be to impose competitive pressure on their activities. Concurrently, unless the concentration of ownership in business groups is scaled down, the seed of social discontent will still remain. Nevertheless, the dispersion of ownership requires a number of preconditions and, consequently, we must make consistent, long-term efforts on many fronts. We can suggest a long list of policy measures specifically designed to control the concentration of economic power. Whatever the policy may be, however, its intended effects will not be fully realized unless business groups abide by the moral code expected of socially responsible entrepreneurs. This is especially true, since the root of the problem of the excessive concentration of economic power lies outside the issue of efficiency, in problems concerning distribution, equity, and social justice.
Price promotion typically reduces the price for a given quantity or increases the quantity available at the same price, thereby enhancing value and creating an economic incentive to purchase. It often is used to encourage product or service trial among nonusers of products or services. Thus, it is important to understand the effects of price promotions on quality perception made by consumer who do not have prior experience with the promoted brand. However, if consumers associate a price promotion itself with inferior brand quality, the promotion may not achieve the sales increase the economic incentives otherwise might have produced. More specifically, low qualitative perception through price promotion will undercut the economic and psychological incentives and reduce the likelihood of purchase. Thus, it is important for marketers to understand how price promotional informations about a brand have impact on consumer's unfavorable quality perception of the brand. Previous literatures on the effects of price promotions on quality perception reveal inconsistent explanations. Some focused on the unfavorable effect of price promotion on consumer's perception. But others showed that price promotions didn't raise unfavorable perception on the brand. Prior researches found these inconsistent results related to the timing of the price promotion's exposure and quality evaluation relative to trial. And, whether the consumer has been experienced with the product promotions in the past or not may moderate the effects. A few studies considered differences among product categories as fundamental factors. The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of price promotional informations on consumer's unfavorable quality perception under the different conditions. The author controlled the timing of the promotional exposure and varied past promotional patterns and information presenting patterns. Unlike previous researches, the author examined the effects of price promotions setting limit to pretrial situation by controlling potentially moderating effects of prior personal experience with the brand. This manipulations enable to resolve possible controversies in relation to this issue. And this manipulation is meaningful for the work sector. Price promotion is not only used to target existing consumers but also to encourage product or service trial among nonusers of products or services. Thus, it is important for marketers to understand how price promotional informations about a brand have impact on consumer's unfavorable quality perception of the brand. If consumers associate a price promotion itself with inferior quality about unused brand, the promotion may not achieve the sales increase the economic incentives otherwise might have produced. In addition, if the price promotion ends, the consumer that have purchased that certain brand will likely to display sharply decreased repurchasing behavior. Through a literature review, hypothesis 1 was set as follows to investigate the adjustive effect of past price promotion on quality perception made by consumers; The influence that price promotion of unused brand have on quality perception made by consumers will be adjusted by past price promotion activity of the brand. In other words, a price promotion of an unused brand that have not done a price promotion in the past will have a unfavorable effect on quality perception made by consumer. Hypothesis 2-1 was set as follows : When an unused brand undertakes price promotion for the first time, the information presenting pattern of price promotion will have an effect on the consumer's attribution for the cause of the price promotion. Hypothesis 2-2 was set as follows : The more consumer dispositionally attribute the cause of price promotion, the more unfavorable the quality perception made by consumer will be. Through test 1, the subjects were given a brief explanation of the product and the brand before they were provided with a