Describe The Mandatory Rotation Of Audit Firm Accounting Essay

Describe The Mandatory Rotation Of Audit Firm Accounting Essay Introduction From the 2008 financial crisis, the weakness of audit system has exposed in several aspect. European Parliament and public consider that the auditors fail to play during the financial crisis. The European Commission said that the auditors only consider majority of banks had exposed a great quantity of loss from 2007 to 2009 in both on and off balance sheet in the financial crisis, however, it is a hard work for the public and stakeholders to know how the auditors to give the clean auditing reports to their principal. In addition, the European Commission takes into account preventing the concentration in the audit industry, which including restricting the choices and competition. Further, they also consider the independence of the audit firm and the reduction of the expectation gap. All things the European Commission do is to increase the quality of audit, so they think that the current auditing system should be reform. According to KPMG (2012), because of the failure of auditors in financial crisis, the lobby of small firms and the US has taken action on the independent issue. Meanwhile, in order to adapt to the environments, which contain changes to financial reporting and increasing the risk and going concern issue for the companies. The European Commission came up the proposals on 30th November 2011 to address the matters that appeal in the financial crisis and rebuild the confidence of the audit system. The proposals define the role of auditors and propose more restrict provisions for audit firms. It aim at strengthening the independence and professional skepticism of auditors, making the audit industry more diversification, enforcing the regulation, promote the cross-border stipulation of audit services and relieving the burden of the small and medium-size enterprise. To enhance the independence of audit firm and prevent the concentration of the audit industry is the main purpose of the propos als. The Elliott and Jacobson (1998) suggested that audit independence is an absence of interests that create an unacceptable risk of material bias with respect to the reliability of financial statements. The basic goal of audit is to assure the information which provide to shareholders are reliable. Further, as for audit independence, the direct role is to provide auditing serve and make the cost of capital market more efficiently. Consider about preventing the concentration, should make the audit industry more dynamic, such as decreasing the power of the Big Four audit firm (KPMG, Deloitte, Pricewaterhousecoopers and Ernst Young). In addition, the dynamic of audit market give the opportunities for small and medium-size enterprise to benefit from the internal market. In order to strengthen the independence of audit and make the audit market more dynamic, the European Commission brought up the proposals to perfect the audit system, the key elements of the proposals is mandatory rotation of audit firms, mandatory tendering, non-audit services, and European supervision of the audit sector, Enabling auditors to exercise their profession across Europe, Cutting red tape for smaller auditors. This essay is aim at discussing the issue of mandatory rotation of audit firm, one of the key elements to enhance the independence of audit industry. The essay will divided into three parts, firstly, it will describe the mandatory rotation of audit firms; secondly, it will analyses the argument for and against this issue; finally, it will come to a conclusion. Describe the mandatory rotation of audit firm In order to strengthen the auditor independence, the European Commission is considering introducing mandatory external rotation. In the previous years, only internal rotation is required, which means only auditors should be rotated, because they think that auditors may make less suggestions because the routine activities of audit. However, the internal rotation cannot enhance the independence of the auditors, because the audit firm and audited entity build up partnership, no matter which auditors engage in the audit procedure, they have closely relationship, the independence of auditors cannot be enhanced. Therefore, current environment has suggest that the internal rotation is not sufficient, the external rotation should be taken in account to achieve the independence of audit. The proposal required the audit firm should be rotated after at most six years (with some exception). In addition, it should be after at least four year before the same audit firm can be entrusted again by the client, this is stated as the cooling period. The cooling period ensure the mandatory rotation can be implemented effectively, because if there is not the cooling period, the client can entrust the same audit firm after a short time, so that the closely relationship cannot be avoidance. There is a exception that the period of rotation can be extend to nine years if joint audits are engaged. This means that if an audited entity entrust at least two audit firm, it can extent the period of rotation to nine years, because the joint audit can make each audit firm work harder to avoid another audit firm find out their failure, this can increase the quality of the audit, so called four-eye principle. Hence, the joint audit is encouraged. According to Bocconi, which do a survey of the effect of mandatory rotation in Italy. The investigate shows that 69 % of managers of listed companies approve of rotation. 14 % consider it negatively. The survey presents a positive result, because they consider that in previous years, auditors focus on routine activities rather than making improvement. The people including in the survey agree the mandatory rotation in Italy can strengthen the independence. Discussion of the mandatory rotation The argument for the mandatory rotation of audit firm Firstly, the mandatory rotation of audit firm can reduce the risk of familiarity threat. If there is not mandatory rotation, the audit firm may have closely relationship with the audited entity, which would lead to several problems. For instance, the proposal (2011) of the European commission suggests that the audit firm tend to know well about the management of the audited entity, so that they may think the audit work as a routine work, which just repeating the work annually, and they pay less attention to make an improvement and find out the mistake the audited entity made. In addition, the auditor may be less suspicious of the audited entity, instead, they may decrease the difficulties so as to maintain the good relationship with the partner. The long period of engagement will cause routine, which may affect the competence and the quality of audit, hence, the mandatory rotation is necessary for reducing the familiarity threat. Secondly, according to Hoyle (1978), short term engagement will encourage the auditors to do better. If the audit firm fails to make the improvement in their auditing period, however, the next audit firm detects the unreported information, the reputation of the previous audit firm may be affected, so that the auditor will minimize the errors for managing the reputation. Further, the mandatory rotation can avoid the mistake or unreported information continue, because the next audit firm will scrutinize the document provide by the former audit form. Also, the long term engagement of the same auditor may cause the auditor trust the previous auditing procedure, so the rotation can reduce the risk of the auditor regards the engagement as the repetition of the last years work. Therefore, the mandatory can improve the quality of audit. Thirdly, the rotation provide the small and medium-size entities good opportunity to enter the competition in the segment of market. Although, the Bocconi study (2002) showed that the mandatory rotation did not provide the small and medium-size entity opportunity to compete in the audit market, they cannot compete against the large audit firm for the public-interest entities. However, take the mandatory tendering into account, the situation can be changed, the rules allow the small and medium-size entity to bid in the tendering, so that the rotation and joint audit enlarge the choice of audit firm for the audited enterprise. Therefore, combined with the mandatory tendering, the mandatory rotation can encourage the competition of the audit firm and provide more opportunity for small and medium-size entity to enter the audit market. Last but not least, the rotation can reduce the risk of fraud, which the audited entity collude with the audit firm. If both of the audited entity and audit firm fraud the public, when rotation implement, the fraud will be exposed by the coming new audit firm. The scandal of Enron can give a good example of this, if the rotation enact, the deceptive accounting may be found early or the audit firm will not collude with Enron in order to prevent the impairment of the reputation. So the mandatory rotation can reduce the risk of fraud. The argument against the mandatory rotation of audit firm According to the Bocconi study (2002), the opinion the audit firms and managers argue is that the cost of auditing fees as well as man-hours will increase under the mandatory rotation. It takes time for the incoming audit firm to read the sufficient document to know the audited entitys business. If the incoming audit firm do not know the audited entity enough, the quality of audit will decrease. Further, because there are many kinds of industry, it is difficult to maintain the industry specialization and may cause lack of choice of audited entity. According to Chi et al. (2004), they do not agree the mandatory rotation, they hold the opinion that the rotation may have negative impact on the quality of audit. They show the explanation that in the last year of audit before the rotation, the auditors may abandon their independence because they do not need to worry about the loss of quasi rents for they will not be re-elected. These can lead to the decrease of the last periods auditing quality. Bigus and Zimmermann (2007) said that because of the rotation, the quasi rent had been decreased, which implies the rotation may not increase the independence of audit firm. Consequently, the mandatory rotation cannot increase the quality and independence of audit firm as expect. Conclusion When come up the new proposals, there will have different voice because of the different role they play. As for the rule of the mandatory rotation of audit firm, according to the European Commission, the Big Four hold the opposed attitude, they insist there is studies that have certify the mandatory rotation affect the quality of audit firm; the Mid Tier Firms and small and medium-size entities also do not stand by the rule, they consider the increase cost and harm to the quality of audit firm; the investors had divergent opinion; some of public authorities did not favor of the mandatory rotation, while others think the rule will be beneficial, one of the idea regards to the issue they came up it to allow the committee to decide whether the rotation of a firm should be needed. To sum up, the new rule of the mandatory rotation of audit firm may be beneficial, but only under certain situation. For example, the cost of fees and man-hours can be low to change audit firm; the negative impact of last period of audit before rotation can be avoid. So that, the proposal can be beneficial if more detail and rules can be add in to make the mandatory rotation more perfection.

Inspiration of Arundhati Roy to an Activist Essays -- Activism Music

November 2nd, 2004 was a difficult evening for me. Having helped stage protests against the invasion of Iraq, having urged friends to support the HRC and the struggle for gay marriage, it was difficult to watch the election returns come in, making it seem as though all I had done had been futile. One of the things that got me through was Arundhati Roy’s CD, Come September, which I’d left in my car’s CD player. Driving home from the grocery store I heard her read an excerpt of her article, â€Å"The End of Imagination,† in which she offers a skeptical friend another way of dreaming: The only dream worth having, I told her, is to dream that you will live while you’re alive and die only when you’re dead. â€Å"Which means exactly what?† she asked, a little annoyed. I tried to explain, but didn’t do a very good job of it. Sometimes I need to write to think. So I wrote it down for her on a paper napkin. This is what I wrote: To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget.1 When I think about it, the words are rather trite, easily imaginable within a pop song or a greeting card. These words, however, were being spoken by Arundhati Roy, and in the car I, like many others who have drawn inspiration from her words, from Howard Zinn, to Judith Butler, to Ani DiFranco, felt a little more able to go back in my house, unpack my groceries, and face the next four years. T... ...d from the CD version of â€Å"Come September.† 9 When I first wrote this paper, I wrote it as a presentation. I took this quote off of an article found on Lexis Nexis and did not mark down the information. I have since been unable to find my print out or log on to Lexis Nexis, as it has to be through a university computer. A final version of this paper will include the citation. Sorry, folks. 10 Taken from Singh’s interview, available online at http://www.narmada.org/archive/tehelka/eh100200arundhati1.htm. Seen Works Cited for complete citation. 11 Taken from Bunting’s article, available online at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0307-01.htm. See Works Cited for complete citation. 12 Taken from the interview with Howard Zinn following â€Å"Come September.† See first footnote. 13 Taken from the interview following â€Å"Come September.† Please see first footnote. Inspiration of Arundhati Roy to an Activist Essays -- Activism Music November 2nd, 2004 was a difficult evening for me. Having helped stage protests against the invasion of Iraq, having urged friends to support the HRC and the struggle for gay marriage, it was difficult to watch the election returns come in, making it seem as though all I had done had been futile. One of the things that got me through was Arundhati Roy’s CD, Come September, which I’d left in my car’s CD player. Driving home from the grocery store I heard her read an excerpt of her article, â€Å"The End of Imagination,† in which she offers a skeptical friend another way of dreaming: The only dream worth having, I told her, is to dream that you will live while you’re alive and die only when you’re dead. â€Å"Which means exactly what?† she asked, a little annoyed. I tried to explain, but didn’t do a very good job of it. Sometimes I need to write to think. So I wrote it down for her on a paper napkin. This is what I wrote: To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget.1 When I think about it, the words are rather trite, easily imaginable within a pop song or a greeting card. These words, however, were being spoken by Arundhati Roy, and in the car I, like many others who have drawn inspiration from her words, from Howard Zinn, to Judith Butler, to Ani DiFranco, felt a little more able to go back in my house, unpack my groceries, and face the next four years. T... ...d from the CD version of â€Å"Come September.† 9 When I first wrote this paper, I wrote it as a presentation. I took this quote off of an article found on Lexis Nexis and did not mark down the information. I have since been unable to find my print out or log on to Lexis Nexis, as it has to be through a university computer. A final version of this paper will include the citation. Sorry, folks. 10 Taken from Singh’s interview, available online at http://www.narmada.org/archive/tehelka/eh100200arundhati1.htm. Seen Works Cited for complete citation. 11 Taken from Bunting’s article, available online at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0307-01.htm. See Works Cited for complete citation. 12 Taken from the interview with Howard Zinn following â€Å"Come September.† See first footnote. 13 Taken from the interview following â€Å"Come September.† Please see first footnote.

Behavioral Problems with Budgeting and Beyond Budgeting Model

All organizational Managers have to do certain management functions such as planning, control, coordination, staffing, motivation, leading, communication and organizing.These functions differ from organization to organization due to different organizational cultures, nature of activities and its complexity, size, staff profile in terms of values and skills, internal political activity its intensity and is level external environment in which they exist in terms of social, political, legal and environmental issues they face and its nature in terms of stable or dynamic and the Management philosophy of the senior and executive level of management.The traditional Budgeting is a tool for planning and control activities such that it enable the organization direction as well to coordinate activities and compare actual performance with Budgets so that to identify variance and investigate the causes and determine whether they are controllable or uncontrollable and revise plans if the organizat ion cannot achieve the panned performance because of uncontrollable factors. The traditional budgetary process has many advantages.The advantages are that it forces managers to formulate detailed plans for achieving the targets for each department and operation, promotes coordination and communication, clearly defines the areas of responsibility for the achievement of the budgets, enables remedial action to be taken as variance emerge, motivates employees by participating in the budgetary process of setting or formulating the budgets, improves allocation of scarce resources. Economizes management time by using the principle of management by exception. However they have serious drawbacks, They are mostly of a behavioral type. Page: 2The drawbacks of the traditional Budgets are that budgets may be perceived by the lower level managers and employees as it is imposed by the senior management and thus affects labor relations as well it may also tend to have inaccurate record keeping, In addition budgets may increase conflict over the resource allocation or they may blame others if they don’t meet the targets as well in practice it is difficult to reconcile individual goals with corporate goals and the plans cannot be accurate in a dynamic environment and detailed planning consume considerable time and resources of managers and they mayPerceive it as a futile activity. The budgeting also may induce mangers to spend all what they get even though they can spend less because of the attitude â€Å" we better spend it or we will lose it†. In the traditional Budget as a plan and control tool managers can also over estimate expenditure because of the fear they will be blamed if expenditures are not within the budgets and sales budgets will be under estimated for the reason that the sales people may fear if they don’t meet the sales target and for the fear of losing performance pay if such a rewarding system exists.In a global economy in the current 20t h an 21st century the changes in technological economic social and political climate have become more rapid and dynamic as well unpredictable than ever before and the competition has increased mostly in all industries at least in advanced industrialized countries and in some parts of Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and in Middle East. In this context if organizations are not adaptive and responsive in a timely manner to meet customer needs compared to its competitors and Page: 3have products tailored to satisfy these needs organizations must react quickly and its planning and decision making mechanisms must be flexible and managers must be able to make decisions and must have the authority and responsibility to react quickly and organizations must devolve power to managers of profit centers and decentralize organizations and performance measured in general terms relatively measured comparing different profit centers and be customer focus culture at all levels in general terms an d allow managers to make decisions to make returns on equity more than its competitors by satisfying customer needs profitably and have an information system to assist such process rather than plan in detail which is traditionally done which may stifle innovation and flexibility of the organization in a dynamic environment. The Beyond Budgeting Model is a model to address the limitations and behavioral disadvantages of the traditional budgeting in organizations. As well it is not a new planning tool but it is a new management idea. That is to change the organizational structure and organizational culture from a hierarchical organization to a network organization and decentralize decision -making and to devise a management information system, which enables mangers to share knowledge and instill new ideas and empower managers to make decisions to respond to unexpected events and to create an entrepreneur culture.That is to make the organization to become more flexible and adaptable an d create systems processes and products, which satisfy customer needs profitable, compared to its competitors and monitor emerging needs and respond quickly Page: 4 to satisfy the emerging needs more effectively than its competitors and benchmarking its processes and products on a continuous basis. There fore the success or failure of Beyond budgeting depends on how the model is introduced in the organization and the phase of its introduction and how management has overcome resistance to change and how mangers are trained and the phase of overcoming competitive culture and become a more co-operative and team culture and the possibility of this happening in the organization.So in effect the success or failure of Beyond Budget Model itself depends on how it is implemented and whether the managers perceive this as another method imposed by the senior management and how senior management can overcome such behavioral constrain. If this can be done given the managers profiles in terms of their entrenched management practices and the senior managements effectiveness and their leadership qualities to change behavior Beyond Budget may become a more adaptive process and may overcome some grave disadvantages of the traditional budgeting system. That is in other words to be a workable model the Beyond Budget Model must have the appropriate culture and structure introduced effectively. In practice it is not an easy task and there is no silver bullet. However in practice it has been implemented in some organizations particularly in large, small and medium organizations.But the number of organizations adopting this model is very small even in large organizations. As well this model is mostly applicable to knowledge industries mostly than other organizations and the traditional model with good budgeting practices may work effectively than the Beyond Budget Model. For example Sevenska Handelsbanken a Swedish retail bank with Page: 5 branches all over Northern Europe and in Gre at Britain have had no Budget since 1970. (http://www. juergendaum. com/news/02_24_2003. htm). As well other examples of Beyond Budget model implemented successfully are Toyota an Automobile manufacturer, Aldi a German Retailer, South West Airlines, the American Airlines. (http://www. 12manage.com/methods_fraser_beyond_budgeting. html). In addition there are also other less well-known examples adopting Beyond Budget Model. They are Ahlshell, the Swedish materials wholesaler, ISS, the International Danish facilities service group, World Bank and small non-profit Sight savers International, a UK charity. (http://www. 12manage. com/methods_fraser_beyond_budgeting. html). As mentioned above in page 4 these examples demonstrates the Beyond Budget Model can be successful in any size however it is mostly applied by Knowledge Industries and the examples are very few this may be due to the fact this model is a recent model and it may increase in the future.However there are many organization s using the traditional budgeting model indicates the traditional model at least to be perceived by these organization to have some value to them as well it may be effective for many organizations or they adopt good budgeting processes. In summary it can be argued that the Beyond Budget Model certainly can overcome some behavioral problems in budgeting. However it has its own behavioral issues to be resolved to be more effective and in some circumstances it may not be effective and traditional budgeting process may work more effectively than Beyond Budget model as discussed Page: 6 Above. Its effectiveness is dependent on many factors as well as discussed above. Applying these behavioral issues as discussed above to the scenario one must assume about the organizational culture and organizational structure.If suppose one assumes the organization is a centralized organization and the top management believes in the beyond budgeting process and value the usefulness of budgeting and mana gers want to compete with other managers with resources and there exist considerable political activity then it can be argued it is very difficult to implement by top management the beyond budgeting model due to excessive conflict and empire building processes which may inhibit the successful implementation of the new Beyond Budget model. Any new model will have resistance due to changes in the status quo and managers may resist changes to protect their power and turf in the organization.There fore if the senior management does not have the leadership to influence and overcome resistance and change behavior and introduce the model in a phase which, is perceived by the managers and staff as imposition it may affect their performance and effective implementation, That is the top management must consider behavioral issues involved in introducing Beyond Budget model because it is a radical change from the traditional model and the culture may resist such change and it may be counter pro ductive and may not reap benefits theoretically expected by introducing this model. As well even if managers in this scenario do not like detailed budgets they may not have the skills and motivation and hindsight to plan and if the organization is a centralized organization not a decentralized organization the beyond budget model may not work in such circumstances. In effect management must consider Page: 7 the behavioral implications and behavioral issues of this model before considering this model and not considering good budgeting processes and use of technology and tools for budgeting as the traditional budgets have several advantages to organizations as well to its own behavioral limitations.As discussed above the Beyond Budget Model do not overcome all issues in Budgeting and even it addresses some issues it has its own behavioral issues to be resolved to be effective in all organizational circumstances and the behavioral issues may vary from one organization to another. It is also necessary to recognize to change a culture takes time and any culture cannot be changes in short time. This is a very important to consider because the Beyond Budget model is a radical change in culture and insists and based on considerable behavioral modification and change. This is a very important limitation of this model in practice and management must be aware of this before planning to introduce this in to organization without giving prior considerations of the complexity and the radical nature of its model in terms of behavioral implications, which is very difficult to predict.

The Definition and Usage of Optimality Theory

In linguistics, the theory that surface forms of language reflect resolutions of conflicts between competing constraints (i.e., specific restrictions on the form[s] of a structure). Optimality Theory was introduced in the 1990s by linguists Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky (Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, 1993/2004). Though originally developed from generative phonology, the principles of Optimality Theory have also been applied in studies of syntax, morphology, pragmatics, language change, and other areas. In Doing Optimality Theory (2008), John J. McCarthy points out that some of the most significant work on OT is available for free on the Rutgers Optimality Archive. ROA, which was created by Alan Prince in 1993, is an electronic depository of work in, on, or about OT. Its a fabulous resource for the student as well as the veteran scholar. Observations At the heart of Optimality Theory lies the idea that language, and in fact every grammar, is a system of conflicting forces. These forces are embodied by constraints, each of which makes a requirement about some aspect of grammatical output forms. Constraints are typically conflicting, in the sense that to satisfy one constraint implies the violation of another. Given the fact that no form can satisfy all constraints simultaneously, there must be some mechanism selecting forms that incur lesser constraint violations from others that incur more serious ones. This selectional mechanism involves hierarchical ranking of constraints, such that higher-ranked constraints have priority over lower-ranked ones. While constraints are universal, the rankings are not: differences in ranking are the source of cross-linguistic variation. (Renà © Kager, Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1999) Faithfulness and Markedness Constraints [Optimality Theory] holds that all languages have a set of constraints which produce the basic phonological and grammatical patterns of that particular language. In many cases, an actual utterance violates one or more of these constraints, so a sense of well-formedness applies to that utterance which violates the least number or least important constraints. Constraints can be classified in two types: faithfulness and markedness. The faithfulness principle constrains a word to match the underlying morphological form (such as plural tram -s in trams). But words like buses or dogs do not follow this constraint (the first falls foul of the constraint that prevents the pronunciation of two consecutive /s/ sounds and the second places a /z/ instead of an /s/). These two examples, though, follow markedness constraints, and in these cases the particular markedness scores higher than the faithfulness constraint, so the alternate forms are allowed. Differences between languages, then, are a ma tter of the relative importance given to particular constraints, and a description of these constitutes a description of the language. (R.L. Trask, Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed., ed. by Peter Stockwell. Routledge, 2007) Constraint Interaction and the Domination Hierarchy [W]e assert that the constraints operating in a particular language are highly conflicting and make sharply contrary claims about the well-formedness of most representations. The grammar consists of the constraints together with a general means of resolving their conflicts. We argue further that this conception is an essential prerequisite for a substantive theory of UG. How does a grammar determine which analysis of a given input best satisfies a set of consistent well-formedness conditions? Optimality Theory relies on a conceptually simple but surprisingly rich notion of constraint interaction whereby the satisfaction of one constraint can be designated to take absolute priority over the satisfaction of another. The means that a grammar uses to resolve conflicts is to rank constraints in a strict domination hierarchy. Each constraint has absolute priority over all the constraints lower in the hierarchy. [O]nce the notion of constraint-precedence is brought in from the periphery and foregrounded, it reveals itself to be of remarkably wide generality, the formal engine driving many grammatical interactions. It will follow that much that has been attributed to narrowly specific constructional rules or to highly particularized conditions is actually the responsibility of very general well-formedness constraints. In addition, a diversity of effects, previously understood in terms of the triggering or blocking of rules by constraints (or merely by special conditions), will be seen to emerge from constraint interaction. (Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, 2004) The Richness of the Base Hypothesis Optimality Theory (OT) does not allow for constraints on the inputs of phonological evaluation. Output constraints are the only mechanisms for expressing phonotactic patterns. This idea of OT is referred to as the Richness of the Base hypothesis. For instance, there is no input constraint that forbids the morpheme *bnik as a morpheme of English. The output constraints will penalize such a form, and evaluate this form in such a way that the optimal output form is not faithful to this form, but different, e.g. blik. Since forms such as bnik will never surface in English, it does not make sense to store an underlying form bnik for blik. This is the effect of lexicon optimization. Thus, the phonological output constraints of a language will be reflected by the input forms. (Geert Booij, Morpheme Structure Constraints. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology: General Issues and Subsegmental Phonology, ed. by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, Keren Rice. Blackwell, 2011) Optimality-Theoretic Syntax [T]he emergence of OT syntax seems to fit into the general tendency in syntax to blame the ungrammaticality of a sentence on the existence of a better alternative. This view on grammaticality is also found in [Noam] Chomskys Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), although Chomsky takes optimization to play a much more modest role than OT syntacticians do. Whereas Chomskys only criterion for evaluation is derivational cost, the inventory of violable constraints assumed in OT syntax is richer. As a result, the OT constraints interact and conflict with each other. This interaction is exploited by the assumption that constraints are ranked, and that parametrization can be reduced to differences in ranking between languages. Chomskys economic conditions, on the other hand, have no such direct parametrizing effect. In the Minimalist Program, the locus of the parametrization is the lexicon. (Introduction to Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, ed. by Joost Dekkers, Frank van d er Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer. Oxford University Press, 2000)