The theory of small business finance predicts that ethnic minority‐owned businesses are more likely to be credit constrained in the start‐up process than are native‐owned…
The theory of small business finance predicts that ethnic minority‐owned businesses are more likely to be credit constrained in the start‐up process than are native‐owned businesses. In Germany, empirical evidence for this issue is scarce because of missing data. This paper aims to address these issues.
The paper reviews previous studies and uses data from a survey of ethnic and native entrepreneurs in Germany that include detailed information about start‐up financing. The hypotheses were tested for differences in financial constraints using univariate analyses and apply multivariate regression models to identify the causes of credit constraints in start‐up financing.
The data provide evidence that entrepreneurs with an immigration background (“ethnic entrepreneurs”), defined as German residents who hold foreign citizenship or who were born outside Germany, are significantly more likely to be denied credit or to be awarded smaller loans than requested than are native entrepreneurs. However, the underlying reasons for this effect may be differences in risk factors and financial relationships, rather than ethnicity.
The dataset consists of 234 observations. The results refer to the sample and might not be representative of ethnic minority start‐ups in general.
Apart from the risk factors observed in the study, communication problems and lack of information about possible sources of external financing may be relevant. Better communications between financial institutions and ethnic minority businesses may help to reduce the financing gap vis‐à‐vis native entrepreneurs.
This is the first examination of the financial constraints of ethnic entrepreneurship in Germany using univariate and multivariate analyses. Previous evidence has been limited to observations about possible discrimination against ethnic minorities and has not tested the significance of observed differences in access to credit.
THE interval between the Library Association Conference and the printing of THE LIBRARY WORLD is too brief for more than a series of impressions of it. Comment is probably preferable in our pages to mere record. The Association is publishing in the next few weeks all the papers that were read and, as we hope, the substance at least of the unwritten contributions. In this second particular reports in recent years have been lacking. A report that merely states that “Mr. Smith seconded the vote of thanks” is so much waste of paper and interests no one but Mr. Smith. If Mr. Smith, however, said anything we should know what it was he said. What we may say is that the Conference was worthy of the centenary we were celebrating. The attendance, over two thousand, was the largest on record, and there has not been so large a gathering of overseas librarians and educationists since the jubilee meeting of the Library Association at Edinburgh in 1927. So much was this so that the meeting took upon it a certain international aspect, as at least one of the non‐librarian speakers told its members, adding that it was apparently a library league of nations of the friendliest character. It followed that an unusual, but quite agreeable, part of each general session was devoted to speeches of congratulation and good‐will from the foreign delegates. All, with the possible exception of the United States, dwelt upon the debt of their countries in library matters to the English Public Libraries Acts and their consequences. Even Dr. Evans, in a very pleasant speech, showed that he had reached some tentative conclusions about English librarianship.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the utilization of the social network, Facebook, as an instrument of stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting in American charitable…
The purpose of this paper is to explore the utilization of the social network, Facebook, as an instrument of stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting in American charitable foundations, specifically non-profit organizations that are dedicated to philanthropy.
The research motivation involves whether online interaction through Facebook could represent a channel of dialogic accounting that engages organizational stakeholders. This paper aims to understand if this dialogue is geared to generate a consensus necessary to deliberate over decisions that are shared between all stakeholders, or if a divergent and agonistic perspective, which highlights struggles and differences between actors, prevails. The present study employs a form of content analysis that takes into account the Facebook pages of the 100 largest American philanthropic foundations.
The primary goal of the analysis is to examine the discrepancies in terms of how (and how much) large organizations are using Facebook. The study wants to provide more details on which kind of information large organizations are willing to disclose and collect on Facebook, and to evaluate the level and type of interaction between foundations and users.
Further research could build on the present study by providing in-depth case studies and extending the analysis to other social media and other types of organizations.
Social media represent a powerful mechanism to engage stakeholders in a polylogic conversation. However, the scholarly literature confirms that further studies are necessary to understand how companies and organization can exploit this potential.