A comprehensive look at luxury brand marketing research from 2000 to 2016: a bibliometric study and content analysis

The purpose of this study is to examine how scholarly research on luxury brand marketing has evolved in the twenty-first century. This literature review focuses on 242 articles related to luxury marketing. The contributions of these articles are thoroughly analyzed, combining qualitative interpretations with bibliometric citation analysis that uses a social network of referrals. This study identifies the most influential universities, research outlets, and scholars in the recent evolution of luxury marketing research. The study also identifies current and future research streams, geographic scope, and underlying research methodologies, and it reveals the most frequently used theories and prominent constructs in luxury marketing research. There are few studies that have examined the literature review of the luxury marketing discipline. No previous research has investigated luxury branding by means of a bibliometric analysis and qualitative assessment within such a large scope. Building on the results of this analysis, researchers can target their studies precisely and, thus, increase the contributions of their empirical research.

     

When does low interconnectivity cause systemic risk?

We analysed a systemic liquidity crisis by using a unique money market data-set in which the coded identity of the counterparties of each trade is known. Contrary to recent findings, we did not observe a positive relationship between interconnectivity and systemic risk. We have concluded that our conflicting findings can be related to the degree of market concentration on the borrowing side of the funding market. High level of concentration in the borrowing side led to lower interconnectivity but higher systemic risk prior to the crisis. We conclude that measures of market heterogeneity should be used to generalize the relationship between systemic risk and interconnectivity.     

Keeping it real or keeping it simple? Ownership concentration measures compared

We analyze the distributional properties of ownership concentration measures and find that measures come from different underlying statistical distributions. Consistent with theory, some measures that are classified to represent a monitoring dimension have a positive influence on firm performance; other measures that are interpreted to represent a shareholder conflict dimension are negatively related to firm performance. However, other measures deviate from this pattern, and therefore, we cannot conclude that simple measures can replace complicated measures. Some measures are more suitable for analyzing the relationship between management and owners, whereas other measures are more suitable for analyzing the relationships among owners.