This article explores the determinants of corruption in transition economies of the postSoviet Union, Central-Eastern Europe, and Western industrialized states. We look in-depth at the East-West gap in corruption, and why entrepreneurs and small business owners become engaged in corrupt deals. Part of the answers lie in the country-specific formal and informal institutional make-up. The likelihood of engaging in corruption is influenced by the lower efficiency of financial and legal institutions and the lack of their enforcements. Also, viewing illegal business activities as a widespread business practice provides the rationale for entrepreneurs to justify their own corrupt activities. Moreover, closed social networks with family, friends, and national bureaucrats reduce the opportunism of the contracting party of the corrupt deal, thus providing breeding grounds for corruption.

The real options approach has recently received growing attention in R&D and Technology Management research. Recent empirical findings by Ellis (1997) and Busby and Pitts (1997) also report growing attention and use in practical investment decisions. However, there is a certain concern about the applicability to a wide range of R&D related problems. The theoretical base behind options valuation is derived from the capital markets and thus assumes market conditions that are closer to the theoretical construct of`perfect competition' than most other settings. Even under these conditions, several assumptions made and difficulties left are subject to controversial discussions. Of course these problems even gain importance when the R&D environment with its discontinuities and lack of regulation or institutionalized trade is assumed. This paper describes some basic properties of the real options approach and sheds light on existing problems for the application in R&D project evaluation. On the other hand, roads to application of the method are shown using the Geske model of option evaluation. One main goal of the paper is to broaden and deepen the discussion on real option models in R&D and Technology Management, which has in some cases been limited to stressing the advantages of the method rather than reflecting on applicability and concrete way of application of the method.1. The real options approach ± new direction or dead end street?T he valuation of investments in R&D projects is a crucial topic in R&D management. High uncertainty and the enormous pressure to innovate in R&D intensive industries force the use of sophisticated instruments which help to evaluate chances and risks of R&D projects as well as to choose the`right' ones.From the financial perspective, scenario-and decision-tree-analyses are still the most frequently used methods for valuation of R&D projects. Both methods allow an assessment of risk in project evaluation by simplifying the complex problem of risky project returns.In recent years, however, the so called`Real Options' method has gained growing attention in both financial theory and innovation management. The approach of real options application in the field of R&D has often been very pragmatic. This has enabled several practical applications of the technique in consulting and business. However, it is evident, that the rich discussion on real options application that takes place in financial economics has not fully been transferred to R&D related problems. The potential benefits as well as the methodological problems in applying options pricing theory in R&D project evaluation need further consideration.In the following article: * a compact overview over the most important literature is given * the key assumptions and questions when applying the real options technique are described and * an example for an application of the Real Options method ± not based on the standard formula, but involving a slightly more sophisticated algorithm ± is presented.The article is trying to enrich the litera...

After the establishment of the Common Market in Europe, many companies from abroad opted for a single European headquarters and searched for European managers. That leads to the question whether one can really speak of a common European management style. The article at hand examines this issue. To do this, the legal framework and Corporate Governance background of individual European countries are assessed. Furthermore, cultural differences in Europe are considered. Referring to studies of cultural dimensions in European countries, the authors propose five different cultural areas in Europe. This leads to a concluding discussion of management styles in these regions.

No abstract

No abstract