Search results

The Coase theorem is associated with Stigler because Stigler coined the term. The object of this paper is to show that Stigler’s Coase theorem is Stiglerian for deeper – namely, methodological – reasons. We argue that, convinced as he was by the importance of Coase’s message, Stigler also believed that this message – such as presented in “The Federal Communications Commission” (1959) or “The Problem of Social Cost” (1962) – was not scientific. Hence, he had to transform it into a theorem to give it a scientific dimension. This is what we try to show by presenting Stigler’s methodology and by confronting it to the methodology used in Coase’s articles.

This chapter argues that despite the proverbial claim that populism is ill-defined and has too broad a conceptual net, the literature on the subject tends to converge toward four core elements of populism that provides a conceptual and analytical unity. Furthermore, the conceptual core of populism explains why the concept has been able to encompass a wide range of populist manifestations without becoming an empty analytical shell. Also, the conceptual cores have helped provide the empirical basis that has given rise to a diverse and innovative literature that seeks to measure and compare cross-nationally populism.

Although QCA was originally developed specifically for small-N settings, recent studies have shown its potential for large-N organization studies. In this chapter, we provide guidance to prospective researchers with the goal of opening up QCA’s potential for widespread use in organization studies involving large-N settings, both as an alternative and as a complement to conventional regression analyses. We compare small-N and large-N QCA with respect to theoretical assumptions and objectives, processes and decisions involved in building the causal model, selecting the sample, as well as analyzing the data and interpreting the results. Finally, we discuss the prospects for large-N configurational analysis in organization studies and related fields going forward.

Praxeology is defined by Rothbard (1962, p. 64) as “The formal implication of the fact that men use means to attain various chosen ends.” While men use means to attain ends in areas other than economics (e.g., war, voting), the dismal science is the only deeply elaborated subdivision of praxeology. Rothbard (1962, p. 63) defines praxeological economics in contrast withpsychology [and]…the philosophy of ethics. Since all these [three] disciplines deal with the subjective decisions of individual human minds, many observers have believed that they are fundamentally identical. This is not the case at all. Psychology and ethics deal with the content of human ends; they ask, why does the man choose such and such ends, or what ends should man value? Praxeology and economics deal with any given ends and with the formal implications of the fact that men have ends and employ means to attain them.¹

This chapter presents a conceptual framework and methodological guide for researching the process of public management policy change in the Latin America region. It provides an explicit the methodological approach for case study research on this topic. The focus on the Latin America region is due to the sponsorship of the Inter-American Development Bank, which desired an explicit methodological guide for conducting research on public sector management reform. While the chapter is specifically geared to this purpose, it also exhibits a distinctive general approach to a large class of case study research designs. This class includes instrumental case study research about processes, incorporating variants that are rich in narrative, explicit in their explanatory framework, and comparative (Barzelay, 2002).

New industries are created from the pioneering activities of a few firms. These firms generally face great uncertainty and risk, but also stand to benefit from early mover advantages due to the preemption of resources. Based on an empirical analysis of a diverse set of consumer and industrial innovations introduced in the U.S. over the past 100 years, we find that entrants during the pre-firm take-off stage (termed Creators) have higher survival rates than later entrants that enter between the firm and sales take-off (termed Anticipators), and both of these entrant types have higher survival rates than firms that enter after the sales take-off (termed Followers). Notably, survival rates for Creators and Anticipators do not depend on entry time within the cohort group, i.e. what matters is whether an entrant enters before or after the take-off, not whether it entered first in its cohort. Our results indicate that there is no real option value in waiting when one considers survival as a performance measure, which bodes well for firms interested in creating new industries.