Determinants of the levels and changes in non‐executive director compensation

This study examines the economic and director‐specific determinants of non‐executive director (NED) compensation in the Australian setting. We find that NED compensation is associated with firm size, complexity, growth, risk and liquidity. It is also associated with director reputation, experience, connectedness and the directors' involvement with the firm. The additional compensation paid to the chairperson is positively associated with their prior experience and negatively associated with NED reputation and involvement. We find inconclusive evidence on the association between changes in NED compensation and firm performance.     

Localized competition in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship predicts that the relationship between new knowledge and entrepreneurial activity depends on the commercialization efficiency of incumbents. We extend the theory to contend that localized competition impedes entrepreneurial activity by reducing the incentive to exploit new knowledge, and we test this conjecture using spatial panel estimation. We find a positive relationship between new knowledge and entrepreneurial activity, which is negatively moderated by localized competition. We also find that greater agglomeration counteracts the moderating effect localized competition has on the relationship between new knowledge and entrepreneurial activity.     

Alternative explanations for the association between market values and stock-based compensation expenditure

The relation between stock-based compensation and market values has been tested previously in the literature, but the empirical findings are inconsistent: both negative and positive relations have been documented. The objective of this study is to provide an explanation for why both negative and positive relations between stock-based compensation expenditure and market values can be consistent with rational markets.We argue that stock-based compensation can be used either as a reward for past performance or as an incentive for future performance. We predict that there is a negative relation to market values when stock-based compensation is granted primarily as a reward to chief executives for past performance, while there is a positive relation when stock-based compensation is used to provide incentives for enhanced future performance. This prediction is tested on a sample of 259 firm-year observations for the period 1999–2004 using an instrumental variables approach, where the sample is classified into the ‘reward’ and ‘incentive’ groups on the basis of prior period performance and option characteristics. Our findings are that there is a positive association between stock-based compensation expenditure and market values for the ‘incentive’ group, but we find overall an insignificant relation for the ‘reward’ group. A number of sensitivity tests confirm the main findings.     

What is an Entrepreneurial Opportunity?

The nature and source of entrepreneurial opportunity are important issues for understanding how markets function and come into being. In addition to describing the forum held on the topic and summarizing the contributions of the articles that appear in the special issue, this article shares a number of lessons learned during the workshop and the editorial process. We explore three of the most important reasons for confusion about the opportunity construct: (1) the “objectivity” of opportunity, (2) the perceived importance of one particular individual in determining the direction of the social world and (3) what distinguishes the sub-class of “entrepreneurial” opportunity from the broader category of opportunity in general. Finally, we offer some directions for future research by illuminating important issues that emerged from the workshop but that remain largely unanswered by the papers of this special issue.      

Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy in American Capitalism

American capitalism differs from all other forms of industrial capitalism is its historical focus on both the creation of wealth (entrepreneurship) and the reconstitution of wealth (philanthropy). Philanthropy is part of the implicit social contract that continuously nurtures and revitalizes economic prosperity. Much of the new wealth created historically has been given back to the community, to build up the great social institutions that have a positive feedback on future economic growth. This entrepreneurship-philanthropy nexus has not been fully explored by either economists or the general public. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that American philanthropists – especially those who have made their own fortunes – create foundations that, in turn, contribute to greater and more widespread economic prosperity through knowledge creation. If we do not analyze philanthropy we can understand neither how economic development occurred nor what accounts for American economic dominance.     

Entrepreneurship and competitiveness dynamics in Latin America

This study analyses the relationship between entrepreneurial dynamics and the level of competitiveness in Latin American countries. Based on a stage of economic development model, we demonstrate that Latin American countries under the model followed different paths related to competitiveness. These different paths can explain the effect of specific competitiveness conditions on entrepreneurial dynamics in Latin America.

Innovation of entrepreneurial firms

An empirical test is provided of the effect of the degree of obsolescence on the effect of firm size and monopoly profits on a firm's ability to innovate. Recent theory suggests that innovation depends on firm size and monopoly profits only if the firm conducts product improvement as well as new product innovation. This is due to the allocation of limited entrepreneurial attention between improving current products and innovating new products. Current products are subject to obsolescence and innovation requires technological opportunities. The firm conducts product improvement as well as new product innovation only if the degree of obsolescence is sufficiently low relative to the level of technological opportunity. This theory provides an explanation for previously unexplained empirical observations. We find preliminary support for the hypothesis that product improvement reduces the positive effect of firm size on new product innovation and sufficient product improvement may reverse the negative effect of monopoly profits on new product innovations. In addition, product improvement reduces the positive effect of technological opportunity on new product innovation.     

Patents, knowledge spillovers, and entrepreneurship

We develop an endogenous-growth model in which we distinguish between inventors and innovators. This distinction implies that stronger protection of intellectual property rights has an inverted U-shaped effect on economic growth. Intellectual property rights protection attributes part of the rents of commercial exploitation to the inventor that would otherwise accrue to the entrepreneur. Stronger patent protection will therefore increase the incentive to do research and development (R&D) and generate new knowledge. This new knowledge has a positive effect on entrepreneurship, innovation, and growth. However, after some point, further strengthening of patent protection will reduce the returns to entrepreneurship sufficiently to reduce the overall growth rate.