Search results

To satisfy the demand of initial investor for above-average capital return and the expectation of entrepreneurial management to establish their own business, this paper aims to explore a dynamic equity allocation model in which the shareholding ratio of the technology-based entrepreneurial firm changes with its growth and profit. Based on the dynamic equity allocation model, the authors design a financing structure which not only ensures timely and adequately obtaining the fund but also avoids equity dilution and safeguards the integrity of equity.

The paper selects high-tech companies listed in China as the sample for empirical research to identify the role of stock incentive and uses model deduction to find the equitable quantized benchmark for entrepreneurial management equity allocation. The study uses capital exclusivity as an entry point to perform theoretical analysis and demonstrates how the equity allocation of a technology-based entrepreneurial firm changes dynamically as the presentation speed of entrepreneurial management’s human capital exclusivity accelerates. The paper then constructs a conceptual model to design the financing structure of the technology-based entrepreneurial firm.

The study finds that stock incentive upwardly regulates debt financing and downwardly regulates equity financing. Based on characteristics of technology-based entrepreneurial firms, the paper suggests that the immediate surplus capital increment can signify the increasing presentation speed of human capital exclusivity, and it is proposed as an equitable quantized benchmark for equity allocation to entrepreneurial management. Based on the dynamic equity allocation model, the paper designs an internal equity and external debt financing structure.

The conclusions enrich the theoretical foundation for entrepreneurial management to participate in residual claim and provide practical guidance for equity allocation and financing structure design in the context of mass entrepreneurship and innovation. The paper also sets up a conceptual framework for solving two major issues of the technology-based entrepreneurial firm: timely acquisition of external funding and lasting maintenance of entrepreneurial management stability.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The purpose of this second part of this special issue is to contribute to a better understanding of the nature of Soviet society. It is not possible to analyse such a society in all its complexities within the space of one study. There are, however, some economic relations which determine society's major features. We believe that commodity‐production relations in the Soviet Union are of this type.

Whenever capitalism in the West appears to be dragging with unresolved problems, then quite a few people, including professional economists, begin to think that perhaps socialism is a better alternative. Conversely, in the East even a larger number of people, including economists (who are not activists), seriously believe that in view of their shortages and meagre incomes capitalism would be a better alternative.

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

This article aims to discuss the effects of unpaid reproductive labour on labour productivity and production. We make use of a Marxist approach, recognising in its method and categories the necessary and adequate tools in order to disclose reality. Capitalism is regarded as patriarchal, and patriarchy as a set of social relations that dominate women and women’s labour-power for the benefit of men and capital. We argue that unpaid reproductive labour involves both class and gender struggles, which affect in a contradictory manner the capitalist accumulation process. Such assertion is reached by using an analytical instrument (based on linear algebra) developed in order to observe the impact that an insufficient fulfilment of the workers’ necessities has on labour productivity and production.

This paper is a response to the doctrine that capital is incompatible with public ownership. The fundamental characteristics of modern productivity determine the co-existence of the market economy and capital relations.

Socialism can neither bypass the market economy nor “go beyond capital”; capital appears in two historical forms, including the private capital and the public capital. Public capital is the inevitable outcome of the inherent contradictions of public ownership in a socialist market economy.

It represents an economic relationship that compels individual labourers to provide surplus labour for the society. The combination of the strong accumulation function of public capital and the improvement of people's welfare is the main cause of China's development miracle.

The innovation impetus of the public capital and its “immunity” to the capitalist crisis highlight the tremendous power of socialism with Chinese characteristics in breaking free of the shackles of capitalism and continuously developing productive forces. Public capital demonstrates and will continue to demonstrate the historical legitimacy of socialism.