Search results

The purpose of this paper is to establish a historical context for the often maligned capital theory of Henry George within a North American frontier tradition that includes John Rae.

Modern discussions of rapid technological and institutional change provide a framework for detailed re‐examination of the capital theories of Rae and George, whose critics were largely constrained by a rigid neoclassical perspective.

Both Rae and George presented capital theories, defined as explanations of the supply of and demand for capital resulting in a determinate capital stock. Both writers stress elements that were not emphasized in neoclassical capital theory, most notably that the capital stock can increase rapidly under certain conditions; increases in knowledge, inventions, technical and technological changes, and scale are more important than mere accumulation of capital; high rates of return combined with rapid technical obsolescence and physical deterioration provide the opportunity for rapid changes in the form of the capital stock, and; the ephemeral nature, and hence potential mobility, of capital implies that security of property is essential for economic growth.

The focus on two writers leads to the question of how widespread their ideas were in nineteenth century North America.

The rapidly changing technology and institutions that Rae and George observed place their theories closer to some modern trends in the study of economic development than to the literature of neoclassical capital theory.

George's grasp of economic theory deserves greater respect than it has often received in the economics literature when his work is considered in its historical context.

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to analyse consequences of the consideration of ethical principles in the financial decisions process of banks. More specifically, we study how the consideration of shariah principles could affect the capital structure of Islamic banks (IBs).

Design/methodology/approach – First, we apply the classical concepts and theories of capital structure (trade-off theory, pecking order theory, agency theory) in the specific context of IBs. Then, through a literature review, we propose some expected determinants of the capital structure of IBs.

Findings – Our theoretical analysis reveals that the trade-off theory is more suitable for IBs. Moreover, in Islamic institutions, information asymmetry and agency conflicts should be less important than in their conventional counterparts. However, our analysis does not allow us to conclude on the optimal combination of equity and non-equity financing.

Research limitations – In this study, we have not constructed a new capital structure theory specific to IBs but we apply the classical concepts and theories (information asymmetry, agency theory, trade-off theory, pecking order theory) to the Islamic context.

Originality/value – The study contributes to both the capital structure and the Islamic finance literature. There are few studies comparing IBs to conventional banks’ capital structure. Our chapter is the first, to our knowledge, which propose to theoretically explain the observed difference between these two categories of banks.

The present study aims to identify the determinants of the capital structure of restaurants firms in Portugal, as well as to analyze the application of capital structure theories in those companies.

In order to reach the objectives, a sample of 400 companies belonging to the restaurant sector was used. The analysis was carried out between 2008 and 2017, and multiple linear regression, based on panel data, was applied.

The obtained results allowed to verify that the considered variables have different effects on the capital structure of the companies under study and that the restaurant sector partially applies the trade-off, pecking order and signaling theories.

The theory of human capital has arguably been the most influential theory impacting upon higher education policy (and educational policy in general) worldwide over the last half century or more. In more recent years it has been supplemented by social capital theory. This chapter reports on a systematic review of publications that have applied these theories in the context of higher education research, examining the origins and meanings of the theories, their application and practice, and the issues and critiques that have been raised. It concludes that while both theories have underlying faults, most notably perhaps in their treatment of human beings and their relationships as resources, they remain essential to higher education and higher education research in maintaining the interest of policy-makers and funders.

The paper published below was prepared by Taylor Ostrander for Frank Knight’s course, Economic Theory, Economics 301, during the Fall 1933 quarter.

“Economics is a Serious Subject.” Edwin Cannan.

This paper uses Leon Trotsky’s theory of Uneven and Combined Development (UCD) in order to transcend both globalising and methodologically nationalist theories of the global political economy. While uneven development theorists working in economic geography have demonstrated the logical corollary of capitalist development and the completion of the world market in the persistence of geographic unevenness, they fail to specify or problematise the role of states in this process. This leads to an ambiguity about why the states system has persisted under conditions of deep economic integration across states. State theorists, meanwhile, tend to exclude the world market and system of states as conditioning factors in state (trans)formation. For this reason, much state theory offers only a contingent account of the relationship between patterns of capital accumulation and states’ institutional forms. Geopolitical economy, with its focus on the competitive interrelations between states as constitutive of capitalist value relations, is well placed to transcend the pitfalls of these twin perspectives by closely engaging with the theory of UCD. UCD provides a nonreductionist means of integrating global processes of capital accumulation with their distinctive and peculiar national mediations. A research programme is developed to operationalise UCD for purposes of concrete research – something lacking from recent development in the field.

In the early 1930s, Nicholas Kaldor could be classified as an Austrian economist. The author reconstructs the intertwined paths of Kaldor and Friedrich A. Hayek to disequilibrium economics through the theoretical deficiencies exposed by the Austrian theory of capital and its consequences on equilibrium analysis.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The integration of capital theory into a business cycle theory by the Austrians and its shortcomings – e.g. criticized by Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal – called attention to the limitation of the theoretical apparatus of equilibrium analysis in dynamic contexts. This was a central element to Kaldor’s emancipation in 1934 and his subsequent conversion to John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In addition, it was pivotal to Hayek’s reformulation of equilibrium as a social coordination problem in “Economics and Knowledge” (1937). It also had implications for Kaldor’s mature developments, such as the construction of the post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, the Cambridge capital controversy, and his critique of neoclassical equilibrium economics.

The close encounter between Kaldor and Hayek in the early 1930s, the developments during that decade and its mature consequences are unexplored in the secondary literature. The author attempts to construct a coherent historical narrative that integrates many intertwined elements and personas (e.g. the reception of Knut Wicksell in the English-speaking world; Piero Sraffa’s critique of Hayek; Gunnar Myrdal’s critique of Wicksell, Hayek, and Keynes; the Hayek-Knight-Kaldor debate; the Kaldor-Hayek debate, etc.) that were not connected until now by previous commentators.

This paper focuses on Ṣukūk issuance determinants in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Given the dual characteristic of debt and equity of Ṣukūk as well as their unique benefits of social responsibility, the author questions whether the theories of capital structure, the trade-off and the pecking order are able to well explain the Ṣukūk issuance.

First, the author verifies these theories using capital structure determinants and regresses the Ṣukūk change on these determinants. Second, the author tests the trade-off theory with the target debt model and third, verifies the pecking order theory using the fund flow deficit model.

The empirical results show that capital structure determinants fail to explain both theories. The author confirms that the Ṣukūk change is significatively linked to the deviation from a Ṣukūk target. So, issuing firms balance the marginal costs of Ṣukūk and their benefits of religiosity and social responsibility toward a target debt. The author finds no evidence of the pecking order theory.

This study contributes to corporate finance theory and corporate social responsibility. It verifies if capital structure theories proved in conventional financing can well explain Islamic bonds issuance given their social responsibility benefits.

Managers and investors would pay attention to the social factors explaining Ṣukūk issuance in their finance and investment decisions. They would be enhanced to use this financing tool knowing its social unique benefits. This also should encourage governments to enhance this socially responsible financing. Rating agencies would be motivated to evaluate Ṣukūk and firms would improve the quality and relevance of disclosure to get the best rating.

The author highlights the social factors explaining Ṣukūk issuance and enhances corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The author extends the few literature testing capital structure theories for Islamic bonds and highlights the specific social responsible features of Ṣukūk that would bridge their issuance to capital structure theories. So the author enhances the concept of Islamic CSR. Tying capital structure theories to CSR would also help developing Islamic finance theory as a unique social responsible framework.