Abstract. We contribute to the institutions and entrepreneurship literature by examining the interactive influence of formal and informal institutions on new business creation, survival, and growth. Prior literature demonstrates how formal and informal institutions shape the level of entrepreneurship. This paper extends this to examine the cases when formal and informal institutions conflict with one another to cast an analytic eye on why countries differ in the type of entrepreneurial activity in terms of entry, survival, and growth. We argue that national and regional differences can be better explained by the interactive influence of formal and informal institutions. Moreover, we argue that informal institutions dominate formal institutions due to the former's characteristics of deep embeddedness and resistance to change over time. These ideas are presented and summarized into a typology of institutional effects on entrepreneurship activity depending on the combination of formal and informal institutions. The paper concludes with implications for future theory and research on the joint influence of different institutional effects and particularly on the intersection between institutions and entrepreneurship.

Purpose – Organizations worldwide are faced with the challenge of motivating and retaining employees. In addressing this challenge, organizations may use a variety of incentive pay practices to align employee behavior with organizational objectives. The purpose of this paper is to empirically identify the incentive pay practice configurations or bundles adopted by private sector firms across 14 different countries from several geographic regions. The patterns of incentive pay configuration adoption for each country are evaluated. Design/methodology/approach – Cluster analysis, ANOVA, and multilevel random-intercept logistic modeling are utilized on firms from the 2009 CRANET HRM survey. Findings – Phase I of this study empirically identifies four different configurations (contingent rewarder, incentive minimizer, incentive maximizer, and profit rewarder) derived from three incentive pay practices (individual bonus, team bonus, and profit sharing practices) that firms adopt. Phase II evaluates adoption rates by country and finds striking differences in incentive configurations that firms avoid or adopt. Some countries have clear adoption preferences (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Japan, and France). In other countries firms employ a variety of incentive bundles (e.g. USA, UK, and Germany) and seem to be less constrained by country-based institutional factors. Research limitations/implications – Incentive practices are typically studied independent of the configuration of practices that firms select. This research helps us understand the typical bundles in use. Practical implications – Organizations worldwide are faced with the need to motivate employees. This research maps the incentive bundles preferred in each of 14 countries. Social implications – Employees in different countries come to work with expectations about pay and these shape their perceptions of incentive fairness. Originality/value – Research on incentives has tended to focus independently on specific practices and ignore the reality that organizations generally select multiple practices. This research identifies the combinations of incentive practices generally used and does so with firms from 14 countries from various world regions. These results also offer a map of the incentive bundles preferred in each country.

The foundational international business (IB) scholarship grappled with whether multinational enterprises (MNEs) are largely efficiency‐enhancing or market‐power inducing institutions. Contemporary scholarship, however, often associates foreign direct investment (FDI) with efficiency‐enhancing properties and thus neglects the market‐power interpretation of the MNE. Such an imbalance is problematic given that the theoretical and empirical justifications behind the field's embrace of the efficiency interpretation are not fully evident. Instead, both efficiency and market‐power effects are seemingly present in cross‐border investment activity. Based on a comprehensive sample of up to 4,361 cross‐border investments materializing between 1986 and 2010, we present theoretically‐grounded hypotheses with regard to when market‐power effects will tend to dominate efficiency effects. We find that cross‐border investments undertaken by emerging‐market MNEs in both developed and emerging markets tend to involve substantial efficiency effects and minimal market‐power effects when compared with the cross‐border investments undertaken by developed‐country MNEs in both developed and emerging markets.

0This paper seeks to re-engage international management (IM) scholars in conducting research that aims to develop breakthrough knowledge for major advancement. 0 a "phenomenon-motivated, existing-theory informed, and interdisciplinary-based" investigative approach is proposed based on an analysis of the new theory development process with illustrations from the influential works of a select group of pioneering researchers in IM and related fields. 0 Five emerging IM phenomena resulting from recent changes in the global business environment are recommended for study using the proposed investigative approach to create new theories that have both scholarly and practical significance.

Research Summary We contend that contemporary scholarship must embrace the foundational approach in global business and strategy to consider the relevance of both efficiency and market‐power effects in factoring the implications of multinational activity. We empirically test the degree to which efficiency and market‐power effects manifest in a comprehensive sample of 4,370 cross‐border acquisitions materializing between 1986 and 2010. Specifically, we employ three different measurement approaches to distinguish efficiency enhancing from market‐power increasing cross‐border acquisitions. Empirical results indicate that efficiency enhancing transactions manifest in two‐thirds and market‐power increasing transactions manifest in one‐third of our sampled activities. Accordingly, our results affirm the literature's focus on efficiency effects, yet market‐power effects are sufficiently sizable to merit scholarly attention. Managerial Summary Contemporary wisdom generally considers multinational activities to be characterized by efficiency properties. While it is understood that market power may manifest in multinational activity, most observers implicitly assume that anti‐competitive effects are dominated by more‐healthy efficiency effects. Yet, the justification behind the prior that efficiency effects dominate market‐power effects is not evident, as multinational activities conceivably involve substantial market power. Accordingly, we test the received wisdom regarding the dominance of efficiency effects in an extensive sample of cross‐border investments. Our empirical results affirm prevailing assumptions as efficiency enhancing transactions constitute the majority of cross‐border investment activities. However, market‐power increasing transactions manifest as a sizable minority of cross‐border investments; thus, market‐power effects should not be neglected.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between CEO ownership, stock option compensation, and risk taking. The authors include important CEO power variables as moderators. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a longitudinal regression analysis. In addition, the paper includes interactional plots for further interpretation. Findings The results indicate that CEO ownership reduces risk taking, while there is a partial support that stock options increase risk taking. CEO tenure is a powerful moderator that decreases risk taking in both CEO ownership and CEO stock option scenarios. Board independence, counter to the hypothesis in this paper, may encourage risk taking. Research limitations/implications The findings in this paper provide support for the inclusion of CEO power variables in CEO compensation studies. However, the study examines large publicly traded companies; thus, all findings may not be applicable to small- and medium-sized companies. Originality/value Scholars have encouraged more complex CEO compensation models and the authors have examined both main effect and interaction models.

No abstract