Suchergebnisse

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueFamily control in family firms can extend beyond the direct involvement of family members, but identifying these mechanisms is difficult in most markets. We utilize unique disclosures made by Taiwanese firms to examine the role played by family representatives in listed family firms. Family representatives are non‐family members that represent the controlling family's indirect shareholdings in the firm. We examine whether family representatives are used in the same manner as family members and whether they provide net benefits or costs to shareholders.Research Findings/InsightsIn our sample of listed family firms, we find that omitting family representatives understates the influence of controlling families by 46 percent. We show that family representatives are associated with net costs to shareholders, but to a lesser extent than family members. We also find that controlling families use family members and family representatives differently. Family members are more involved in older family firms and in firms founded by the family. Family representatives are more involved in acquired and second generation family firms and in larger firms with more fixed assets.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsWe apply agency theory to the use of family representatives and show that family representatives are being used by controlling families to extend their influence within their firms, increasing agency costs to minority shareholders.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsFor policymakers, our analysis shows that disclosure of family member and representative relationships within firms is important and value‐relevant to investors. Furthermore, our results suggest that firm performance could be improved by limiting the involvement of family members and family representatives in family firms.

"Family policy gained considerable relevance which is reflected by the current public attention to family issues. In regard to many recommendations of the KVI in 2001 improvements can be reported which family research profited from in a considerable way. However, pertaining to quality and content progress in data provision since the beginning of the 21st century was limited. Particularly, the availability of longitudinal data to study social and family related processes on different levels and regarding different dimensions of family development has to be
extended. Data are needed not only to describe family change in an adequate way but also to model the structural and non-structural determinants and 'outcomes' of couples' and family dynamics or family relationships over time – both retrospectively and prospectively. Therefore, additionally to an improved family related report system provided by the official statistics prospective panel studies collecting longitudinal (socio-)structural and non-structural information on the dynamics of individuals' living arrangements over time are urgently needed." [author's abstract]

Families preserve and rewrite history in ways that pass on to the next generation a sense of family history based on what is known and what cannot be told. In this paper, we analyze New Zealand European adolescents' stories about their parents' childhood, exploring how these young people tell and do not tell family stories shrouded in secrecy. We identify three major ways in which families express secrets across the generations—through collusion, through confusion, and through whole-family secrets—and discuss the implications of each of these family practices for the preservation of family history.

A task. The author of the article set himself the task of answering the question - what is meant by obligations for material security in family relations. Model. To solve this problem, it is necessary to investigate the issues of legal regulation of material content obligations under the family legislation of the Russian Federation and alimony relations, identify the features of legal regulation of material content relations, propose a model for building material content relations between their various participants and understand the relationship between material content obligations and alimentation obligations. Conclusion. A distinction should be made between material support in the family and alimony. They treat each other as general and private. According to the author, there is a contradiction between the rule established by law that certain categories of persons are liable for material maintenance and the assumption of execution under duress of the same obligation, which must be fulfilled voluntarily. Practical significance. The author of the article believes that the conclusions formulated in the submitted article will be useful for a theoretical understanding of legal relations of alimony, an understanding of the relationship between obligations for material maintenance under family law of the Russian Federation and alimony. Social consequences. the theoretical model proposed by the author of the study as the basis for the possible legislative consolidation and subsequent practice of applying material content, including alimentation, between participants in family relations in conjunction with other measures taken in this direction [6] will allow over time to solve the systemic problem of alimony payments. Originality, value. A correct legal understanding of the legal situation, which causes practical difficulties, will strengthen the rule of law and encourage necessary legislative changes to ensure the most effective regulation of family and alimony relations.

This conceptual article seeks to address the heterogeneity of family firms in terms of their innovativeness by investigating business family communication dynamics. We use the established family communication constructs of conversation and conformity orientations to develop a typology of family firms in terms of innovativeness. We provide empirically testable propositions and present possible operationalizations for future research. In particular, we argue that supportive business families (i.e., families characterized by high conversation orientation and moderate conformity orientation) are associated with the highest levels of innovativeness in the family‐controlled firm. Through this article we hope to deepen our understanding of the relationship between family and firm levels of analysis, to develop a stronger bond between communication and innovative behavior, and to identify family‐related antecedents of heterogeneity in family firm innovativeness.