Suchergebnisse

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This article returns to the issue of how ownership matters. It does so by developing a critique of the 'advantage-value-return' framework of assumptions about value creation from the product market, which are recurrent in resource based strategy and many other discourses that highlight what managers can do and the variable governance of management by owners. It then uses a case analysis of private equity and presents empirics which show how the financier general partners capture value so that general partners are enriched regardless of the performance of their investment funds. While private equity publicly claims to represent ownership with control for strategic decision making and operating efficiency, the undisclosed generic business model is the control of ownership through constructing a hierarchy of ownership claims for debt and equity suppliers in the capital market. Before or after the financial crisis that began in 2007, what matters is the position of the general partner as first among owners, not the motives, identity and actions of managers or the different suppliers of debt and equity.

This article suggests how state enterprises can be incorporated into the theoretical and empirical growth literature. Specifically, it shows that if state enterprises are less efficient than private firms, invest less, employ less skilled labor, and are less eager to adopt new technology, then a large state enterprise sector tends to be associated with slow economic growth, all else remaining the same. The empirical evidence for 1978-92 indicates that, through a mixture of these channels, an increase in the share of state enterprises in employment by one standard deviation could reduce per capita growth by one to two percentage points a year from one country to another.

Der Verfasser sieht die militärische Auseinandersetzung mit Armenien, das Flüchtlingsproblem, die verbreitete Korruption und die Konzentration der Entwicklungspolitik der Regierung auf den Ölsektor als die wesentlichen Gründe dafür an, dass der Lebensstandard in Aserbaidschan weiterhin niedrig ist und die Entwicklung des Landes stagniert. Als wirtschaftspolitische Perspektive für Aserbaidschan empfiehlt er eine Lösung, die die Bildung eines Entwicklungsfonds nach dem Vorbild Alaskas, die Überführung der staatlichen Unternehmen in Publikumsgesellschaften und die Einrichtung einer aserbaidschanischen Entwicklungsbank vorsieht. Insgesamt schwebt dem Verfasser das Konzept einer Art "Volkskapitalismus" vor. (BIOst-Wpt)