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.

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.

To realise the shared development of the digital economy, people need to transcend the capital logic and advocate the logic of cooperative development, i.e. “co-construction, benefit-sharing and co-governance”. This study aims to discuss the aforementioned statement.

Platform economy is a new economic form produced by the transformation of the social production patterns in the era of digital capitalism. In the neo-imperialist stage, a new stage of capitalist development, capital logic promotes the global expansion of the platform economy and influences its development process, organisational form, contradictions and dilemmas and internal transcendence. Having the spatiotemporal chain of capital circulation repaired, the globalisation of the platform economy is reshaping how the means of production are combined with labour, affecting the local changes in the general relations of production and “international relations of production”.

In the accumulation of digital capitalism, the social contradictions and fundamental contradictions in the capitalist world have been further intensified, making exploitation, income distribution gap, monopoly and other problems increasingly severe. The imbalance and inequality in the global development of the digital economy are increasingly prominent.

Regarding the global governance of the digital economy, China, as a major responsible country, will strive to encourage all countries to co-build a community with a shared future in cyberspace. In the new international development pattern of digital economy globalisation, China must take effective measures to actively safeguard its national security and development interests to meet specific challenges.

During the first decades of the 20th century, German Reformer Silvio Gesell (1862‐1930) championed with a certain success the reforming wave of the epoch by complementing ingenious solutions to some of the most important economic issues of his time with theoretical insights that were as radical as they were penetrating. The purpose of this paper is to offer an introduction to such intuitions, whose validity had been recognized even by a few distinguished academics of the 1930s, but which, owing to the extreme complications that eventually mired German intellectual production in its quasi‐entirety before WWII, failed to preserve the deserved consideration, however slight, they had earned when first formulated. A reappraisal of Gesell's contributions, considering the importance of his main themes, may be worthwhile, all the more so as these deal with questions unsolved to this day.

AS more countries become members of the EEC they discover many curtailments of their former freedom. Of these few seem quite so irksome as the curb on what are called ‘regional policies’ which are fostered in a spirit of national self‐interest by those who have not yet grasped the fact that they are now part of a far larger organization seeking a similar sense of unity and cohesion.

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.