Industrialisation in a small grain economy during the First Globalisation: Bulgaria c. 1870–1910

In Bulgaria the share of secondary production in GDP remained constantly low between c. 1870–1910. To explain the country's exceptionally weak growth, we use endogenous and unified growth theory. Gerschenkron and Palairet blame a self-sufficiency-oriented peasant economy for rising labour and raw material costs in industry, which destroyed the competitiveness of Bulgarian manufacturing and prevented industrialisation. We refute the existence of any long-lasting cost increases in industry after 1878. Quite the opposite was true: the expansion of Bulgaria's secondary sector was restricted by detrimental changes on the demand side, for which peasants were not responsible. Recent research claims that, around 1910, Bulgarian textile production was significantly lower than in 1870. Our study brings to light new data and information that clearly disproves this view. Until around 1910, a booming modern manufacturing sector more than replaced the country's proto-industries’ textile outputs, which had plummeted dramatically during the early years of the newly founded Bulgarian state. However, as the rise of modern manufacturing in textile production coincided with the decline of the entire large sector of traditional manufacturing, secondary production as a whole stagnated.     

Teaching the coase theorem: Are we getting it right?

The authors examine current textbook representations of Coase's analysis of negative externalities [Coase, 1960]. Standard treatments identify Coase's ideas with Stigler's Coase Theorem: a zero transaction cost world in which efficient solutions emerge automatically, regardless of legal rules and the initial allocation of rights. Yet Coase's seminal paper breaks from this mode of analysis. The authors use this intellectual history to distinguish two approaches to negative externalities: blackboard (Pigou, Stigler, Samuelson) and Coasean. They survey 45 microeconomics textbooks and find that 80 percent misrepresent Coase's arguments. They argue that a Coasean approach increases students' critical thinking skills by challenging them to move beyond simple laissez faire or interventionist solutions.     

Capital Allocation: Evidence,Analytical Methods,and Assessment Guidance

Capital allocation is one of top management's primary responsibilities. Although always important, it is critical today because corporate operating returns on invested capital are at an all‐time high, while recent growth and investment have been modest, and corporate balance sheets in the U.S. have substantial cash. Yet few senior executives are sufficiently well‐versed in finance theory and methods to allocate capital as effectively as possible. Further, incentive programs that focus on meeting earnings per share often encourage behavior that is not in the best interests of long‐term shareholders. In this report, the authors begin with the premise that the goal of corporate capital allocation is to build long‐term value per share; and with that view in mind, they examine the main sources and uses of capital by the largest 1,500 U.S. companies during the last 30 years. More specifically, the authors identify the amounts of capital allocated to each of seven important alternatives, including major uses of capital such as M&Amp;A, capital expenditures, R&D, and distributions of capital to investors such as dividends and stock repurchases. And after reviewing the past allocations of capital to each of these alternatives, the authors summarize the academic research on the effects on corporate values of each of these uses of capital. The authors report that U.S. corporations fund most of their investments internally, and that M&Amp;A and capital expenditures have long been, and continue to be, the largest operating uses of capital, though both capital expenditures and growth in assets have fallen in recent years. At the same time, both corporate cash holdings and distributions to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks are at record levels. But even with such high payouts, R&D spending as a percentage of revenue by U.S. companies has remained high, and actually increased during the past decade. Finally, the authors provide a framework that can be used either internally or by outsiders to evaluate the capital allocation practices and effectiveness of a management team. This framework asks management to assess its past performance, provide realistic projections of future returns on invested capital, and evaluate their own incentive programs—all while renewing their commitment to the five principles of thoughtful capital allocation: (1) zero‐based capital allocation; (2) funding of strategies, not projects; (3) no capital rationing; (4) zero tolerance for bad growth; and (5) continuous monitoring of the value of all assets and business, and willingness to take action if and when such values are larger outside than inside the firm.     

Auditor–client management relationships and roles in negotiating financial reporting

We carry out an interview based field study of chief financial officer (CFO)–audit partner dyads to examine the assumption that the roles played by each side and the nature of the relationships are similar across negotiations. These dyads freely discussed with us their relationship, a specific issue negotiated and it’s resolution process. Employing the lens of social positioning negotiation research, we find these negotiations are ‘fluid’, with continual redefinition not only of the substantive issues under negotiation, but also of the negotiation roles and relationships (i.e. ‘shadow’ negotiations). The CFO’s actions and expectations in these ‘shadow’ negotiations appear to define the auditor’s role and the relationship’s parameters, but both can evolve over time. The audit partners express a desire to be in the “ideal” relationship where they assume the role of the ‘expert advisor’ (as opposed to a ‘police officer’) but they seemingly have no explicit strategy to move the relationship toward a ‘proactive’ (rather than ‘reactive’) state. Furthermore, the audit partner is always the ‘relationship manager’ whose job it is to see that client management remains “happy”. These roles and relationships negotiated in the ‘shadows’ also affect how the negotiation process unfolds, including the set of alternative accounting treatments considered during negotiations. Finally, audit firms appear to manage the assignment of partners to engagements based on CFO preferences and remove those partners who are in “poor” relationships, irrespective of why the relationship is considered by the CFO to be “poor”. Implications for the broader research program on auditor–client management negotiations are discussed.     

Efficiency in the international insurance industry: A cross-country comparison

The purpose of this paper is to provide new empirical evidence on frontier efficiency measurement in the international insurance industry, a topic of great interest in the academic literature during the last several years. A broad efficiency comparison of 6462 insurers from 36 countries is conducted. Different methodologies, countries, organizational forms, and company sizes are compared, considering life and non-life insurers. We find a steady technical and cost efficiency growth in international insurance markets from 2002 to 2006, with large differences across countries. Denmark and Japan have the highest average efficiency, whereas the Philippines is the least efficient. Regarding organizational form, the results are not consistent with the expense preference hypothesis, which claims that mutuals should be less efficient than stocks due to higher agency costs. Only minor variations are found when comparing different frontier efficiency methodologies (data envelopment analysis, stochastic frontier analysis).     

Duality for pathwise superhedging in continuous time

Finance and Stochastics - We provide a model-free pricing–hedging duality in continuous time. For a frictionless market consisting of $d$  risky assets with continuous price...