Search

This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussions on authoritarian populism and the media, from the lens of the political economy of ownership. In contrast to studies that consider the link between media and authoritarian populism by focusing on the discursive structures of populist communication, this study analyses changes in the structure of news media ownership in four European countries that have been subject to authoritarian populism. By employing social network analysis, a methodology rarely used in media ownership research, we reveal how news media ownership concentration as well as changes in ownership structures have provided favorable conditions for the rise and endurance of authoritarian populism. Our study covers ownership developments during the period 2000 to 2020, in Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Turkey where authoritarian populist tendencies have been evident, albeit to varying degrees. Conclusions are drawn to illustrate how authoritarian populist actors in the sample countries not only capitalize on prevailing news media ownership structures, but also proactively intervene in ownership relations in order to increase influence over the diffusion of information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Management & Organization Review is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, we contribute to the literature on institutional determinants of IPO valuation. We introduce the concept of 'legal signalling', which focuses on the perception of the quality of law and thus complements the existing institutional approaches to IPO valuation which consider the quality of the positive law ('standard view') and firm‐level corporate governance practices ('firm signalling view'). Our approach explicitly models the difference between the effect of the positive law and the effect of the perception of law on IPO value. Based on a worldwide longitudinal dataset of IPO performance across a large number of countries, we find strong support for the claim that the perception of the quality of law is more important than its actual quality to explain post‐IPO firm value. This effect holds regardless of whether the law's quality is correctly perceived or misperceived. Overall, our findings underscore the need for a more sophisticated theorization of the ways in which law affects entrepreneurial finance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between interlocking directorates and corporate finance patterns is a widely-researched aspect of the literature on national financial systems. This literature often considers the United Kingdom to be analogous to the United States, without directly investigating the nature and impact of finance–industry relationships. Based on a hand-collected data set covering eight benchmark years between 1950 and 2010, the authors start filling this gap by combining historical narratives, social network analysis, and regression analysis. They investigate whether finance–industry relations affect corporate borrowing patterns differently across time periods. The authors find that network-embedding had an impact on corporate borrowing from the 1950s to 1970s, but not thereafter. They also find that network structure and its function do not always evolve in parallel, highlighting limitations of purely structural approaches to understanding the link between corporate networks and firm behaviour and the importance of the historical idiosyncrasies of each country case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In introducing this special section of New Political Economy, this paper explores the key themes that emerge from the three papers included in this special section presents a new generation of CC research in EMs which seeks to reconcile classical institutionalist approaches to capitalist variety with more recent attempts to shift back from supply-side to macroeconomic demand side factors, as well as brining the role of the state back in. This opening article summarises the key contributions we see emerging from this new generation of research and argues that it holds important lessons not just for the study of EMs but also advanced economies. We identify several important research questions for further research; but we also suggest that even the new approach that this new generation of CC research takes may not be enough to address the most pressing issue facing capitalist economies, namely the degradation of our natural environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "return of the state" as an economic actor has left scholars at a lack of theoretical tools to capture the characteristics of state-dominated business systems. This is reflected in the fact that any type of state intervention in the economy is too easily qualified as a sign of "authoritarian capitalism," which has led scholars to lump together countries as diverse as China, Singapore, and Norway under that heading. Rather than considering any type of state intervention in the economy as authoritarian, we propose a more sophisticated conceptualization, which distinguishes two boundaries between the public and the private domains and conceives of the "return of the state" as the erosion of one or both of them. This conceptualization allows us to clearly distinguish a shift from an ideal-typical market-based "regulatory capitalism" to "state capitalism" or "authoritarian capitalism," respectively. We use interview data with business leaders in an extreme case of the return of the state to identify the nature of the mechanisms by which an authoritarian government erodes these private-public divides. We argue that a focus on these constitutive mechanisms of the erosion of private-public divides allows us to define "authoritarian capitalism" in a way that makes it a useful tool to understand contexts beyond the Chinese case in which it first emerged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This 'state of the art' essay provides a comprehensive discussion of the Law and Finance School (LFS) literature. We show that the first two decades of the LFS have focused on empirically investigating the question 'does law matter?' Yet, despite the centrality of law to the LFS, it is based on an incoherent theory of law, which leads to shortcomings in the conceptualization and empirical testing of its hypotheses. We also observe that, rather than addressing this deficiency, the LFS has moved its focus to the contentious concept of 'legal origin'. We argue that the LFS needs to take law more seriously by returning to its initial focus on the substance of legal rules and by addressing the theoretical question ' how does law matter?' We propose venues for future research to develop a solid theoretical framework that would put the empirical investigation of law's impact on economic outcomes on a more solid footing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]