SoP

SoP (plural SoPs)

1. Alternative letter-case form of SOP (“system/systems of provision”).
   • 2020, Kate Bayliss, Ben Fine, “Insights from Operationalizing the Systems of Provision Approach”, in A Guide to the Systems of Provision Approach: Who Gets What, How and Why, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, →ISBN, Introduction, page 75:

     In retrospect, it is worth mentioning that, going into the 1990s, the range of SoP applications expanded from private commodity consumption to public consumption—especially as the neoliberal drive to denationalize was peaking but being augmented by an accelerating pressure for privatization through new forms of state/private partnerships.

   • 2021, Maria Jose Romero, Elisa Van Waeyenberge, “Beyond typologies: what questions should we be asking?”, in Jasmine Gideon, Elaine Unterhalter, editors, Critical Reflections on Public Private Partnerships (Routledge Explorations in Development Studies), Abingdon, Oxfordshire; New York, N.Y.: Routledge, →ISBN, chapter 3 (Beyond typologies: What is a Public Private Partnership?):

     The SoP analysis seeks to connect the financing, funding, governance, production, and use of public services and allows for a comprehensive analysis of broader distributional implications of particular formations across the financing, funding, governance, production, and consumption nexus.

   • 2025, Benito Mignacca, Federico Tassone, Giacomo Dei, Stefano Lorenzi, Giorgio Locatelli, Marco Enrico Ricotti, Paolo Trucco, “Small modular reactor deployment and a system of provision approach”, in Trevor M. Letcher, Vasilis M. Fthenakis, editors, Energy and Climate Change: Our New Future, London: Academic Press, →ISBN, part D (Nuclear energy), chapter 19 (Small modular reactors: economic, safety, and environmental aspects), page 495:

     The SoP approach could help identify barriers, misconceptions, and societal attitudes toward nuclear power, which can impact the acceptance and adoption of SMRs.

2. Alternative letter-case form of SOP (“sum of parts”).
   • 2006, Bruce G. Hatcher, Roger H. Bradbury, “Marine ecosystem managements: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?”, in Donald R. Rothwell, David L. VanderZwaag, editors, Towards Principal Oceans Governance: Australian and Canadian Approaches and Challenges (Routledge Advances in Maritime Research), Abingdon, Oxfordshire; New York, N.Y.: Routledge, →ISBN, part IV (Ecosystem-based management), page 210:

     WiG-SoP? / [ECOSYSTEM (science)] Yes (unequivocal) emergent hierarchical / SCALE <DEPENDENCE> / [MANAGEMENT (governance)] No (< SoP?) reductionist sectoral […] WiG-SoP = Whole is Greater than Sum of Parts; […]

   • 2008 fall, Shahed Imam, Richard Barker, Colin Clubb, quoting a technology analyst, “The Use of Valuation Models by UK Investment Analysts”, in European Accounting Review, volume 17, number 3, Abingdon, Oxfordshire; New York, N.Y.: Routledge Journals on behalf of the European Accounting Association, →DOI, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 526:

     All my price-targets are a blend between DCF and Sum of the Parts (SoP). So for all of our stocks, we have one DCF value and one SoP value and the price target is between these two.

   • 2015, Thomas C. Wilson, “Evidence from the Insurance Industry”, in Value and Capital Management: A Handbook for the Finance and Risk Functions of Financial Institutions (Wiley Finance Series), Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley, →ISBN, part 2 (Better Information – Measuring Value), chapter 6 (Valuing Financial Services – The Evidence), page 87:

     Of the different measures, the unadjusted or “clean” market-consistent values best reflected both the analysts’ Sum of Parts (SoP) valuation (−50%) and the actual average share price development (−45.5%) for the firms from year-end 2007 to 2008. […] It was also substantially much, much more flattering than the average decline in analyst SoP valuations (−64.4%) and the actual average share price decline (−57.7%) for the companies in this group.