Suchergebnisse

"As in many countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Sweden), concentrated ownership is a ubiquitous feature of the Indian private sector over the past seven decades. Yet, unlike in most countries, the identity of the primary families responsible for the concentrated ownership changes dramatically over time, perhaps even more than it does in the U.S. during the same time period. It does not appear that concentrated ownership in India is entirely associated with the ills that the literature has recently ascribed to concentrated ownership in emerging markets. If the concentrated owners are not exclusively, or even primarily, engaged in rent-seeking and entry-deterring behavior, concentrated ownership may not be inimical to competition. Indeed, as a response to competition, we argue that at least some Indian families the concentrated owners in question have consistently tried to use their business group structures to launch new ventures. In the process they have either failed hence the turnover in identity or reinvented themselves. Thus concentrated ownership is a result, rather than a cause, of inefficiencies in capital markets. Even in the low capital-intensity, relatively unregulated setting of the Indian software industry, we find that concentrated ownership persists in a privately successful and socially useful way. Since this setting is the least hospitable to the existence of concentrated ownership, we interpret our findings as a lower bound on the persistence of concentrated ownership in the economy at large"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

Abstract
Several recent encouraging experiments in Indian higher education suggest a plausible aspirational path toward a more salubrious future than that suggested by an otherwise struggling system. Four case studies of privately conceived and funded universities each exhibit a novel model of collective philanthropy. Typically, each case features multiple entrepreneurs with self-created "new" wealth, often with exposure to Western liberal arts educations, sharing in the university's governance. The university is not hostage to the vagaries of a single family's preferences. Encouragingly, each experiment here has built on its predecessors, and an entrepreneurial ecosystem has emerged that has privileged pedagogical excellence. However, formal research still lags. It remains to be seen whether the latter lacunae can be remedied without concerted public funding that is the norm in Western educational landscapes.

We develop the notion that the choice of alliance scope materially affects the character of benefits that alliance participants receive, and thereby affects a range of issues having to do with the initiation, evolution, and termination of the alliance. Indeed, while under-emphasized by academics, determining alliance scope ranks among the most important tasks undertaken by practitioners of alliances. Restricting ourselves to alliances where mutual learning is the primary raison d'être, we first define private benefits as those that accrue to subsets of participants in an alliance, and common benefits as those that accrue collectively to all participants. We demonstrate how the choice of alliance scope affects the mix of private and common benefits, and draw on earlier work to show how this, in turn, affects alliance partners' incentives to invest in learning. As illustrations of the utility of the framework of private and common benefits, we consider two applications. A simple model illustrates the relationship between the choice of alliance scope, the realization of private and common benefits, and the stability, or lack thereof, of the alliance. A second application sheds light on alliance evolution. It examines factors affecting both (a) how a particular alliance evolves, and (b) how firms manage sequences of alliances. Two broader theoretical points also emerge from this discussion of alliance scope. First, we argue that an analytical focus solely on the individual alliance may be inappropriate for studying a wide range of issues. Of the multiple sources of benefits that accrue to alliance participants, there are some whose realization depends on activities in which the firm is engaged, but that may have little to do with the alliance in question. Second, in contrast to much of the literature on alliances, our analysis is based upon the primitives of benefit streams, rather than on transaction cost reasoning. This complementary perspective is better suited to the task of highlighting how activities not governed by an alliance might nonetheless affect multiple aspects of the alliance.

Meritocracy refers to any social system in which the allocation of opportunities and rewards is determined by merit. This volume draws together contributions that explore efforts to implement meritocracy in the political and educational realm in China and India, both historically and in the present. Contributors explore the philosophical underpinnings of meritocracy in the two societies, historical efforts to implement meritocracy according to culturally specific definitions of merit, contemporary debates about how to overcome obstacles to meritocracy such as the power of inherited privilege, and prognoses for the future. Our overall message is that debates over meritocracy are not novel aspects of modern industrial society but an unconscious echo chamber of questions that have been explored in other societies and at other times. Contemporary debates about meritocracy and affirmative action in the United States are far from historically unique. The entrenchment of privilege-instrumentally and cognitively-and affirmative action to attempt to remedy this can be found much more broadly. The chapters open up ways of thinking about meritocracy for non-elites as well as urge us to think through issues related to the measurement of merit and the uses and abuses of technology to alleviate some of the flaws of past attempts to instill greater meritocracy. Meritocracy appears to always be a work in progress. Its proponents must content themselves with "making" meritocracy rather than seeing it fully "made."

Internationalizing firms often find developing host-country resources challenging as they simultaneously attempt to replicate the resources that worked well in the home country and adapt them to fit the context of the host country. On the basis of a longitudinal study of the expansion of India-domiciled Narayana Health (NH), a tertiary healthcare provider, to the contextually distinct Cayman Islands, we propose a recombination-based internationalization model that allows us to offer a new conception of this replication–adaptation tradeoff. Recombination entails creating anew in the host country by drawing from, adapting, and integrating diverse resources developed earlier in heterogeneous settings in the home country. We theoretically explore the mechanisms underlying such recombination processes in organizational settings.