Problematizing socioemotional wealth in family firms: a systems-theoretical reframing

The concept of socioemotional wealth (SEW) seeks to present an independent paradigmatic basis for family-firm research, and in doing so aims to establish a sound basis for the scientific legitimacy of family-firm research. Establishing that legitimacy requires scholars to demonstrate that SEW is based on coherent assumptions on several theoretical levels. This paper uses the problematization methodology to challenge the coherence of the theoretical assumptions underpinning SEW and to advance theory development. The results of this problematization show that SEW is built on a theoretical level close to the object of research (in-house assumptions), but that more deeply-rooted theoretical levels (e.g. paradigmatic assumptions) are not sufficiently elaborated. Moreover, the original conceptualization is based on a positivist-mechanistic view, which hinders SEW reflecting the complex reality of family firms. Based on the results of this problematization, new systems theory is applied to reframe SEW’s theoretical grounding. Thereby the main contribution of the paper is a critical reflection on the theoretical underpinnings of SEW (in particular root-metaphor and paradigmatic assumptions), serving as the basis for advancing a coherent theoretical understanding of this important concept in family business research.     

Sun,Lixing: The fairness instinct: The Robin Hood mentality and our biological nature

Journal of Economics -     

Product Market Reform and Innovation in the EU*

European Union countries have implemented widespread reforms to product markets to stimulate competition, innovation, and economic growth. We provide empirical evidence that the reforms carried out under the EU Single Market Programme (SMP) were associated with increased product market competition, as measured by a reduction in average profitability, and with a subsequent increase in innovation intensity and productivity growth for manufacturing sectors. Our analysis exploits exogenous variation in the expected impact of the SMP across countries and industries to identify the effects of reforms on average profitability, and the effects of profitability on innovation and productivity growth.     

The Biodiversity Bargaining Problem

We employ cooperative bargaining theory and Nash’s ‘rational threats’ idea to cast light on the biodiversity bargaining problem. The problem of global environmental negotiations is argued to be of the nature of a bargaining problem, in which bargainers must agree on the distribution of cooperative surplus in order to move to the bargaining frontier. We discuss the importance of both efficiency (bargaining frontier) and fairness (recognition of characteristics of bargainers) in the choice of the appropriate contract. We show that the incremental cost contract, used to resolve the biodiversity bargaining problem, is of the form of an extreme point contract that fails to recognise the contributions of the South to the production of cooperative surplus. A rational response to such a contract is the use of threats of biodiversity destruction. Contracts must evince both efficiency and fairness in order to represent lasting solutions.     

Strategic responses to food safety legislation

This paper assesses the responses made by food companies to changes in food safety legislation. Such responses are assessed in three ways. Firstly, an assessment is made as to why strategic responses to such legislation might be different to general strategic behaviour. Secondly a conceptual framework is presented and an examination of supply chain organisational response is made. Finally, the paper addresses the question of external marketing responses to food safety legislation. The paper concludes that food safety legislation is different, and often requires very swift strategic actions to be effective. Like other forms of legislation, however, food safety issues can also provide incentives and opportunities to well-managed and market-orientated firms.     

Capital investment practices: A survey of large corporations in Malaysia,Singapore and Hong Kong

This paper presents the results of a survey on the capital investment practices of large corporations in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. Our findings are fairly consistent with those from similar U.S. surveys. However, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong companies seem to use multiple techniques, both simple and sophisticated, in evaluating investment projects, while U.S. companies appear to make great use of discounted cash-flow rate of return. Although Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong companies often make annual cash-flow forecasts over the life of a project, they do not undertake much analysis of risk involved in the project. Moreover, there is room for improving the practice of project implementation, the post-audit of implemented projects, and the use of post-audit data.Dr Wong Kie Ann is with the School of Management, National University of Singapore; Dr Edward J Farragner is with the Department of Finance, DePaul University, U.S.A.; and Mr Rupert K.C. Leung is with the Department of Business Management, Hong Kong Baptist College.