Do democracies have higher current account deficits?

In this paper we argue that democracies tend to run (larger) current account deficits than autocracies. Our argument is based on the different incentives faced by democratic and autocratic leaders. The main theoretical hypothesis is tested on a dataset of 121 countries over the period 1980–2012, using 5 year averages and a fixed effects panel data model. Special focus is given on the issue of endogeneity by estimating an IV Fixed Effects model. Relying on the idea of the regional waves of democratization and the special role of the Christian Church on the third wave of democratization, we use as instruments of Democracy the level of democracy in neighboring countries and also the share of Christian adherents in each country. Both instruments turn out to be valid determinants of democracy. The empirical findings suggest that autocracies run lower current account deficits than democracies. These results are found to be robust across alternative empirical specifications.     

Beyond product innovation: deciphering process-oriented innovators,complementarities and performance effects

Relatively little attention has been paid to the understanding of process innovation, compared to the well-researched product innovation. This paper contributes to improve our understanding of process innovation and its specific process capabilities and performance by exploring, across many industries, 4,608 process-oriented innovators. Process innovation is defined as adoption of technologically new or significantly improved production methods, including changes in equipment, organisation or methods of product delivery. Process-oriented innovators or process seekers are those firms which usually only introduce process innovation, and no product innovation. These have received less attention by scholars. Results show that process innovation without also organisational innovation complements constrains innovative performance. Complex process-based innovation complementarities result from the simultaneous development and integration of new machinery and organisational innovations.     

Female entrepreneurial leadership factors

This article presents the foundations, current structure and trend of academic research into leadership factors in female entrepreneurship to provide scholars in the field with an overview of the followed research directions and to explore whether the same traditional patterns are reproduced in gender studies on entrepreneurship and leadership. For this purpose, a bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science database from 2000 to 2020 was used. With a performance analysis of variables (e.g. authors, publications, journals and countries), and thanks to scientific mapping, the links among these variables were studied. The results show that the trend of publications increased from 2015, but with little influence and output. The most influential and productive countries are the USA and Spain. 35% of the journals are based in the USA and 25% in England. The most influential ones deal with entrepreneurship, business, management and leadership. Although the foundational base is influenced by the author Ahl, known for calling for new research directions related to women entrepreneurs from a social construction perspective, the most influential articles continue to investigate gender with a dominant male bias. The network analysis reveals cooperation between different countries and authors with the USA dominating. The ambiguity of entrepreneurial leadership field due to the overlap of entrepreneurship and leadership disciplines reveals through the co-citation of journals different specialisation areas: business and entrepreneurship, management and psychology, organisational behaviour. This work provides researchers with an overview that encourages them to overcome the dominant male normative lens from new epistemological perspectives.

     

Aristotle vs. Plato: The classical origins of capitalist & socialist political economies*

Competing definitions of justice in Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics indicate the existence of two distinct economic systems with different priorities. The three-class society of the Platonic economy (guardians, auxiliaries, producers) gives rise to guardians who by virtue are expected to enforce output targets on producers directly or through auxiliaries. The three-class society of the Aristotelian economy (rich, middle, poor) facilitates the emergence of different ruling coalitions and compensates the efficiency losses of central planning with political gains derived from representative governance. In the Aristotelian economy, the middle class is better off than in the Platonic economy (auxiliaries), because a just society (polity) is achieved under its coalition with the rich. I argue that the equilibrium solutions of the Platonic and Aristotelian economic systems provide analytical insights on the origins of capitalist and socialist political economies.     

Profitability and size of newly established firms

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal - Does size matter for new firms and do they need to be large to be profitable? From small to large firms, a wide range of arguments have...