Suchergebnisse

This article provides a statistical analysis of core contentions of the 'varieties of capitalism' perspective on comparative capitalism. The authors construct indices to assess whether patterns of co-ordination in the OECD economies conform to the predictions of the theory and compare the correspondence of institutions across subspheres of the political economy. They test whether institutional complementarities occur across these subspheres by estimating the impact of complementarities in labour relations and corporate governance on growth rates. To assess the durability of varieties of capitalism, they report on the extent of institutional change in the 1980s and 1990s. Powerful interaction effects across institutions in the subspheres of the political economy must be considered if assessments of the economic impact of institutional reform in any one sphere are to be accurate.

Die Öffnung des deutschen Bilanzrechts bewirkt eine zunehmende Anwendungsbreite von internationalen Rechnunungslegungsnormen (wie insbesondere der US-GAAP und der IAS) für deutsche Rechtsanwender;1 die heterogenen Normtypen und die – damit einhergehend – unterschiedlichen ökonomischen Eigenschaften dieser Normen erfordern für einen sinnvollen Rechnungslegungsvergleich eine komparative Rechnungslegungstheorie. Eine Besinnung auf die ökonomische Theorie ist – auch ausgelöst durch die Internationalisierung der Rechnungslegung – hier grundsätzlich festzustellen,2 wie auch das moderne deutsche Bilanzrecht seine heutige Prägung durch die ökonomische Theorie – und nicht vornehmlich durch die Anwender – erhielt.3 Es ist das Ziel des Aufsatzes, einen Beitrag zu einer institutionenökonomischen Theorie der Rechnungslegung zum Zweck der Bestimmung von Informationsinhalten und Gewinnansprüchen sowie zur vergleichenden Rechnungslegungstheorie zu leisten. In einem ersten Hauptteil (2) wird im folgenden – auf dem institutionenökonomischen Forschungsprogramm aufbauend – skizziert, welche Bedeutung Institutionen im Rahmen des Nutzenkalküls von Entscheidern zuzumessen ist; danach werden die einzelnen für eine vergleichende Rechnungslegung relevanten Institutionsarten typisiert (in formale und informelle Regeln) sowie deren Attribute im individuellen Zielstromkalkül eingeführt (nämlich Prädikate der Manipulationsfreiheit und Prädikate der Entscheidungsverbundenheit). Das Verhältnis der Institutionen zueinander wird im folgenden Abschnitt (3) anhand eines rechtlich geprägten und eines ökonomischen Systemverständnisses entwickelt. Es wird gezeigt, daß beide Systembegriffe auf einer Nichtadditivität der sie konstituierenden Institutionen gründen, die den qualitativen Vergleich unterschiedlicher Systeme erschweren; man überschätzt hingegen die Unterschiede zwischen juristischem und ökonomischem Systemverständnis: beide sind funktionsähnlich. Im letzten Hauptteil (4) werden schließlich vor dem Hintergrund einer gestaltenden Theorie die hierfür relevanten Teilbereiche (Sub-Systeme) der Rechnungslegungsordnung vorgestellt sowie einzelne Publizitätsnormen funktional ausgelegt. Der Beitrag schließt mit zusammenfassenden Thesen (5). ; This paper presents some consequences of economic theory for the regulation of corporate accounting and disclosure under Geman accounting legislation (de lege lata) and in an international context. The following implications are discussed: (i) It is argued that the economic income conception provides means for a better understanding of the informational needs of accounting data-users and can serve as a guidance for the interpretation of legal rules concerning disclosure. (ii) From a Law and Economics-perspective the article develops a concept to comparing the economic content of different legal regimes in an international accounting environment. (iii) It is shown that – in the "new paradigm" of complementarities (Milgrom/Roberts) – regulation of disclosure standards can also be seen as a function of the institutional setting, e.g. of the (national) structure of corporate governance and the (national) financial system. (iv) The principle of full disclosure can be interpreted as a complementary element of the overall disclosure system in a country. Especially the fine tuning of the application of the principle of full disclosure in a national context depends on whether it figures as part of an insider control-system or an outsider control-system. (v) Finally, it is argued that the interpretation of extraordinary items in German accounting law, for the time being, does not satisfy the informational needs of market participants.

AbstractResearch Question/IssueDo institutions reinforce each other when it comes to shaping the economic and organizational environment? We investigate national institutional complementarities by examining how different types of institutions jointly influence the occurrence of hostile takeover attempts, a practice in corporate governance whose frequency differs across countries. We distinguish among regulative, normative, and cultural‐cognitive institutions and examine how they interact to influence the occurrence of hostile takeover attempts worldwide.Research Findings/InsightsUsing panel data on hostile takeover activity of 45 countries between 1988 and 2016, we find evidence supporting the impact of institutions individually and of institutional complementarities.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study shows that important corporate governance practices such as hostile takeover attempts are indeed influenced by different aspects of institutional environment. It thus helps us better understand the effectiveness of corporate governance practice across different countries.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThis study sheds new light on policies facilitating certain corporate governance practice such as hostile takeovers. It also provides managers with a tool to analyze the prevalence of hostile takeovers in a country.

"Since the early 1990s, Europe's economies have been facing several new challenges: the single market programme, the collapse of the Berlin wall and eastward enlargement, and monetary unification. Building on the influential Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) perspective, first elaborated in detail in the book Varieties of Capitalism (OUP, 2001), this book critically analyzes these developments in the European political economy and their effects on the continental European economies. Leading political economists from Europe and the US debate how VoC can help understand the political-economic challenges that Europe is facing today and how understanding these new challenges can in turn enrich and enhance the VoC perspective. Thematically, the contributions to this volume are organised in four sections: a) how the macro-economics of EMU have influenced different European models of capitalism; b) how the Single Market programme was received in the different institutional regimes in European capitalism; c) how welfare and labour market reforms are debated and implemented,; and d) how European capitalism travelled east after 1989. Preceding this is a spirited defence of the VoC approach by Peter Hall, and an introduction from the volume editors, considering the approach, and proposing extensions and amendments. This book demonstrates that the VoC approach remains, as the editors put it in their introduction, a rich seam to mine, capable of accommodating new developments, and theoretically flexible enough to produce new and innovative hypotheses and arguments." -- Book cover