Topic outline

  • Elementos de Matemática Financeira

    Juros simples e compostos. Capitalização.

    Desconto simples, comercial e racional

    Amortização. SAC e Tabela Price

    Análise de fluxo de caixa - indicadores

    Análise de alternativas de financiamento.

    Exercícios

    Números índice

    Valores reais e nominais. Correção monetária.


  • Objeto e Método da Economia

    Economia (Economy) e Ciência Econômica (Economics)  Sistema econômico, sistema social, e meio ambiente

    Instituições, organizações e as soluções do problema econômico. Os métodos da Economia


  • O mercado e a alocação de recursos

    Oferta, demanda e equilíbrio de mercado

    Estática comparativa em economias fechadas e abertas

    Os preços e a alocação de recursos

    Falhas de mercado: externalidades, bens públicos e falha de informação


  • Teoria neoclássica da firma

    Tecnologia e função de produção

    A firma no longo e no curto prazo

    Rendimentos de fatores e rendimentos de escala

    Maximização de lucros e minimização de custos


  • Noções de Teoria dos Jogos

    A matriz de ganhos (payoff) de um jogo; Equilíbrio de Nash; Dilema do Prisioneiro e outros jogos padrão

    Estratégias mistas; Jogos sequenciais; Jogos repetidos


  • Estruturas de Mercado

    Concorrência Perfeita. Monopólio.

    Oligopólio (Bertrand e Cournot)


  • Economia da Informação

    Estrutura de custos nas indústrias da informação. O problema da precificação de bens complementares.

    Aprisionamento (lock in) e custos de mudança (switching costs). Externalidades de rede.


  • Desenvolvimento econômico e inovação tecnológica

    Crescimento econômico na teoria neoclássica

    Schumpeter: a destruição criadora

    Inovações induzidas pela oferta e pela demanda

    Paradigma tecnológico e trajetória tecnológica


  • Estudos sobre a Engenharia de Biossistemas

    REDES DE COLABORAÇÃO EM ENGENHARIA DE BIOSSISTEMAS NO BRASIL

    A Engenharia de Biossistemas e uma especialidade entre as engenharias que ainda esta se moldando, no Brasil e no exterior. No caso brasileiro, existe um pequeno numero de instituicoes de ensino e/ou pesquisa que reunem professores/pesquisadores que tem se ocupado com a docencia e pesquisa em Engenharia de Biossistemas. Com o objetivo de se determinar como essa moldagem esta se processando, aplicou-se a algumas das comunidades de ensino existentes, as tecnicas de Analise de Redes Sociais. Para isso, os CVs Lattes (Plataforma Lattes, CNPq) dos membros dessas comunidades, foram utilizados para determinar as parcerias em coautoria na producao de artigos cientificos em cada comunidade analisada. Como resultado determinou-se, entre os pesquisadores lideres em cada comunidade, uma significativa dispersao das areas de pesquisa e tambem um baixo indice de colaboracao interna nas coautorias em cada comunidade estudada.

     

    Biosystems Engineering: Unification or Redomaining?

    Concepts arising from philosophy of science and technology can fruitfully help to identify the emergence of a new technologic domain, such as Biosystems Engineering. The contributions of Arthur [1] and Dosi [2], largely inspired in Kuhn's scientific progress model, stress three basic elements shared by science and technology: the organization of scientific and technological domains, the concept of scientific or technological paradigm and the corresponding community of practitioners. We try to identify some attributes of new technological domains in the infant Biosystems Engineering. Is there any deep novelty here, a new paradigm, or is it just a new bottle for old wine? Do old problems deserve new approaches? Or traditional approaches are just grouped in a new way I. INTRODUCTION New domains always appear from some established field. The original parts and foundational intuitions are constructed or borrowed from one or more pre-existent domain. The computers didn´t appear from processors or buses, but from practices and components of the 1940´s valve technology. The technology emerges from itself. (Arthur, [1], p. 204) A new domain, when it emerges, it is never identified at once. It seems little more than an agglomerate of concepts and methods put together by chance. In this stage the new born domain still belongs to its field of origin. After some time this cluster acquires its own vocabulary and its own way of thinking. The new domain will, little by little, move away from its original domains and the practitioners acquires are mindful of belonging to a distinct group. As time goes by the choice of a domain to accomplish some purpose may change. The movement of wings surface and airplane´s tail has changed from the mechanical and hydraulic domain to the digital domain (fly-by-wire). Arthur [1], p.73, says that in this case the airplane´s controls were dominated in a different way, or " redomained ". Frequently innovations may be an improvement of a given technology, but the more meaningful are, as a rule, a " redomaining ". The same purpose or functionality is translated in to a new set of components withdrawn from another domain.

     

     

    INFORMAL ACADEMIC NETWORKS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO DEPARTMENTS OF BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN BRAZIL

    We attempted to analyze informal organizations of researchers sheltered in two departments of Biosystems Engineering, an emerging branch of Engineering. We did it by mapping and analyzing co-authorship among researchers. Biosystems is one of the most recent branches of Engineering, with roots grounded in problems and technics detached from Agricultural Engineering, Environmental Engineering, and Agronomics. The scope of this new field is not yet a unanimity among its practitioners. Despite the size of the two Departments studied be almost the same (24 researchers in ZEB, 26 in LEB), LEB is significantly more connected than ZEB. In ZEB just 9 (37.5 %) researchers had co-authored inside department at least one paper published from 2012 to June of 2014; in the same period, 21 (80.8%) of LEB researchers had shared the authorship of at least one paper. As expected at the light of their characteristic graphs, LEB performed better than ZEB. From 2012 to June 2014, LEB`s members published 212 complete papers, while ZEB`s published 150 ones. The average per researcher was 8.15 in LEB, and 6.25 in ZEB. The production of ZEB is also more concentrated in ZEB than in LEB. This fact is consistent with domination numbers of ZEB and LEB characteristic graphs. The history of ZEB and LEB sheds light on its informal organization. LEB seems to be an offspring of previous accumulated activity in the fields that originated Biosystems Engineering. The creation of ZEB was possibly top-down oriented.