Tag: family business

Dreaming of Entrepreneurship or Requiem for a Dream – What Kind of Future Do Parents Envision for Their Children in Belarus?

Posted on November 4, 2024 | Policy Brief

A person performing high-altitude cleaning on a roller coaster structure, symbolizing bravery and entrepreneurship spirit in Belarus, with future generations and children in mind.

Even under current conditions in Belarus, society remains focused on freedom and fostering entrepreneurship. The perception of business as a means of minimizing interaction with the state still exists. This policy brief discusses parents’ perceptions of entrepreneurship as a possible area of self-realization for their children in Belarus, to analyze the role of the family in the formation and reproduction of entrepreneurial capital for future generations. The policy brief is based on a representative survey of individuals aged 18 to 64 who reside in Belarus, conducted from June to August 2024. The findings suggest Belarusian parents are largely positive toward entrepreneurship as a future avenue for their children, despite the continuing deterioration of conditions for the business sector.

The perception of private business and entrepreneurship in Belarus has undergone significant transformation over the course of the country’s modern history. Emerging from the Soviet era, which was distinctly anti-entrepreneurial, both the business sector and the Belarusian society have evolved. In a context where mass privatization did not take place, society – initially skeptical of entrepreneurs, often viewing them as dishonest “speculators” – gradually came to recognize that entrepreneurs are generally hardworking individuals who not only generate income for themselves but also create opportunities for others.

Despite the Belarusian authorities’ conservative and often restrictive approach toward business and entrepreneurship, pro-entrepreneurial values have taken root in Belarusian society. This has contributed to the development of a relatively dynamic and productive private sector, increasingly seen as a desirable environment for employment and growth. From 2012 through 2020, the share of the private sector in employment increased by 7.7 percentage points, in export sales of goods and services by 23.9, and in GDP by 14.6 percentage points, respectively (Daneyko et al., 2020).

Over time, businesses in Belarus have thrived, largely due to entrepreneurial skills, investment in human capital, and adaptability to external conditions, rather than reliance on state support or natural resources.

These dynamics further accelerated when Belarusian authorities realized that relying on and investing in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) was not generating the desired economic growth and employment, and a gradual liberalization of business conditions was introduced (Daneyko et al., 2020). This liberalization allowed the government to delay urgent structural reforms needed in the SOE sector, focusing instead on reducing excess employment, which was absorbed by the growing private sector (Chubrik, 2021; BEROC, 2023).

However, following the 2020 presidential elections and subsequent mass protests, the contribution of the private sector to the economy began to be downplayed in official rhetoric. Entrepreneurs were increasingly portrayed as dishonest individuals, profiting from unjustified price increases and lacking loyalty to the state. In response, the government intensified control over entrepreneurial activities, adopting several significant legislative changes aimed at regulating prices and individual entrepreneurs’ activities.

Moreover, the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Belarus in recent years have made the overall business environment more opaque and challenging. These conditions have enhanced the risk of legal violations during business operations, which in turn increases the personal risks for business owners and managers, potentially threatening their personal freedom.

In this hostile environment, families have become the decisive factor influencing one’s decisions about creating businesses and providing emotional, financial, and instrumental support.

Family as a Driver of Entrepreneurial Careers

There is significant evidence that family upbringing plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurial qualities and skills in children, which in turn positively influences their interest in starting their own businesses (Chauhan et al., 2024; Osorio et al., 2017). Parents’ knowledge, accumulated experience, and willingness to provide emotional and practical support further encourage entrepreneurial aspirations in children. A family’s support in developing relevant values and qualities also reflects how attractive entrepreneurship is in the eyes of parents.

Families also serve as role models, transmitting best practices and influencing children’s educational and career choices (Edelman et al., 2016). This support can help young people overcome common barriers to entry into entrepreneurship, such as lack of experience, resources, or social capital, increasing the prospect of starting their own.

The role of family support is particularly important in environments with insufficient structural or financial backing for entrepreneurship, as is the case in Belarus (Maleki et al., 2023; Guerrero & Marozau, 2023). In such contexts, the family’s role in fostering entrepreneurial ambition becomes a key factor in enabling the next generation of entrepreneurs to succeed.

Attitudes Towards Entrepreneurs

The perception of business in Belarus is reflected in the general attitude toward entrepreneurs and their role in the economy and society. Parents are the main influencers and role models shaping children’s entrepreneurial attitudes like risk-taking, problem-solving, and independence (Georgescu & Herman, 2020).

In a recent survey of 2,000 Belarusian respondents aged 18 to 64, including 826 parents of children under 18, participants were asked to select the statement that best describes their attitude towards Belarusian entrepreneurs. The findings suggest that individuals with children under 18 tend to have a more positive view of business and are more likely to choose favorable statements about entrepreneurs (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Attitudes towards entrepreneurs

Graph showing attitudes towards Belarusian entrepreneurs by age and parental status, highlighting views on entrepreneurship.

Source: Calculations based on survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “Which statement best describes your attitude towards Belarusian entrepreneurs?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the corresponding group.

Almost half of the respondents who have children under 18 (49.9 percent) describe their attitude towards entrepreneurs as the most positive option choice as they “earn their living through honest labor, generate employment opportunities, and stimulate economic development”. This share is significantly higher than among respondents without children (37.8 percent). A very positive attitude toward Belarusian entrepreneurship is also characteristic of young cohorts of respondents aged 18–24 (47.7 percent) and 25–34 (49.5 percent). This resonates well with the distribution found in a previous study by the IPM Research Center and BEROC (2019) and indicates that recent changes in the official rhetoric and entrepreneurship-related legislation have not yet damaged the public image of Belarusian entrepreneurs and businessmen.

Preferred Careers for Children

In the survey, Belarusian parents were asked to select areas of employment (choosing no more than three options) in which they would like to see their sons and daughters. The vast majority (69.2 percent) chose the option “to run their own business, to be entrepreneurs/freelancers” as the desired future for their children. Among other popular areas of activity were entrepreneurships’ antipoles; work within law enforcement agencies (22.9 percent) and civil service (16.1 percent). Interestingly, the choice of a future related to entrepreneurship for a child does not significantly differ by the child’s gender (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Preferred careers for children, by gender

Source: Calculations based on survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “What would you like your child to do in the future?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the corresponding group.As one might expect, parents-entrepreneurs more often associate their children’s future with entrepreneurship (80.9 percent) compared to non-entrepreneurial respondents (65.7 percent) (see Figure 3). Similarly, female entrepreneur respondents more often than others prefer their daughters to engage in business in the future (80.9 percent). This level of approval of an entrepreneurial future for daughters may be related to an understanding of the self-realization opportunities that business provides for women, compared to other employment options. Working “for themselves” allows women to avoid barriers and limitations encountered when working for an employer and it may also be associated with schedule flexibility and an ability to improve work-life balance.

Figure 3. Preferred careers for children, by parents’ occupational background

Survey results showing Belarusian parents' preferences for their children's future careers, highlighting entrepreneurship.

Source: Calculations based on survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “What would you like your child to do in the future?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the corresponding group.

Attitudes Towards Entrepreneurship

The attitude towards entrepreneurship was captured by asking parents to choose what they would tell their children if they expressed the intention to become entrepreneurs. Based on interviews and a pilot survey, multiple statements that carried positive, neutral, and negative connotations were presented in the questionnaire (see Figure 4).

Parents interested in their children becoming entrepreneurs in the future tend to foster a positive view of entrepreneurship through encouraging messages about business. From the results, parents tell their children that business is “dream, wealth, and freedom”, with more than half of the respondents who wish for their children to have an “entrepreneurial destiny” choosing this triad to convey that business is a positive path.

Among those who do not see their children in entrepreneurship, these categories also dominate in justifying the attractiveness of business. However, those parents are more cautious and tend to warn their children about the associated risks of uncertainty and instability.

Figure 4. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship

Survey results on entrepreneurship in Belarus: perspectives of parents on their children's future in business.

Source: Calculations based on the survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “Which statements best describe what you would tell a child if he/she expressed a willingness to become an entrepreneur?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the respective group. Respondents were asked to select all applicable response options.

Overall, the selection of positive associations by most parents indicates a high level of support for children’s interest in entrepreneurship within families. By choosing the triad “dream, wealth and freedom”, parents emphasize priorities related to the formation of free individuals and see potential in their children for engaging in business in the future, despite the existence of, and appeal from, other career choices. Employment (regardless of ownership structure) is much less frequently considered as an appealing prospect for children’s future. The likely rationale is the dependent position of employees within the current sociopolitical context, which partially undermines the benefits of private-sector employment. Therefore, many respondents may perceive employment as “captivity” – in contrast to the freedom associated with entrepreneurship. Thus, the current generation of parents largely want their children to have minimal interactions with the state.

Conclusions

Despite the current challenging conditions for business in Belarus, many parents still see entrepreneurship as a pathway to independence and freedom for their children. The role of the family in nurturing entrepreneurial potential should not be underestimated in this context. The fact that many parents see entrepreneurship as a means of self-realization for their children indicates a sustained positive perception of business within the population, despite the recent years negative portrayal of entrepreneurs in official media outlets.

For many, business is associated with the positive triad of “dream, wealth, and freedom”. This is particularly true for the current generation of parents, whose worldviews were shaped during the relatively open periods of the late 1990s and early 2000s. For them, entrepreneurship represents a means for their children to achieve personal freedom and self-realization without having to leave the country.

However, there is a notable contrast between these aspirations and the reality of doing business in Belarus today – a divergence that could prove pivotal for the future of private business in the country. Entrepreneurship in Belarus has the potential to either become a chance for future generations to help develop the nation (“dreaming of entrepreneurship”) or, if suppressed further, a missed opportunity (“requiem for a dream”).

There is no guarantee that future generations of Belarusians will share the same positive attitude toward entrepreneurship and pro-democratic values as their parents, if they lack real opportunities to start and run businesses or public success stories. The “fork” in the future of entrepreneurship in Belarus has another critical dimension: if parents no longer see opportunities for self-realization within the country, they may consider leaving it. Following the 2020 political crisis, Belarus has seen significant emigration driven by the risks of domestic criminal prosecution and the search for safety abroad.

The main implications for the decision-makers concerned with a future stable, predictable and democratic Belarus, could thus be the following:

  1. Supporting entrepreneurship as a driver of democratic values: In a non-democratic environment, entrepreneurs are known to act as carriers and multipliers of pro-democratic values such as freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination. (Audretsch & Moog, 2022; Marozau, 2023). The (still) positive attitudes to entrepreneurship, intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial values, and overall survival of the Belarusian private should be perceived, and treated, as a foundation for counteracting (some of the) ongoing negative institutional developments.
  2. Transmitting pro-entrepreneurial values to future generations: With the same idea in mind, it is important to support families transmitting pro-entrepreneurial values to future generations by complementing their efforts through, e.g., education. This can be realized by offering additional training programs for children and adolescents, such as financial literacy schools, business clubs, and leadership schools.
  3. Advancing the role of female entrepreneurship: The increasing participation of women in entrepreneurship presents an opportunity to transfer values, particularly to daughters, and thereby preserving entrepreneurial capital and overcoming gender inequality issues in Belarus.

Acknowledgment

The study underlying this policy brief was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). BEROC acknowledges support by Pyxera Global whose financial and technical assistance for INNOVATE is part of a USAID-funded activity to support the innovative-based economy and private sector growth in Belarus.

The contents of this brief are the sole responsibility of BEROC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Succession Dynamics in Latvian Family Firms

Posted on June 10, 2024 | Policy Brief

A view of Riga's House of the Blackheads at sunset, illustrating succession dynamics in historic landmarks

This policy brief examines the emergence, succession, and performance of first-generation family firms in Latvia, highlighting the unique challenges and achievements of these businesses since the early 1990s. Following Latvia’s independence, many family firms were established, providing a natural setting to study succession issues. Key findings reveal that initially, nearly half of these firms did not have a majority stake held by the founding family, but within the first few years after founding, families accumulated majority ownership. It typically took seven years for family ownership to exceed 75 percent. However, 23 years later, only 16 percent of the sample firms have second-generation shareholders. Notably, around 80 percent of these firms remain majority-owned and managed by their founders. Furthermore, family firms outperform non-family firms by 3.1 percent in return on assets (ROA). The findings underscore the need for policies that support effective succession planning, incentivize family-owned business sustainability, and provide targeted training for future generations to maintain the robust economic contributions of these firms.

Introduction

Family firms, where key decisions are controlled by individuals linked by blood or marriage, are the predominant organizational form worldwide. These firms face critical challenges, (e.g. leadership transition, generational differences, emotional ties to the business, and estate planning tax considerations) particularly during ownership succession, which is the transition from the first to the second generation of family members. This issue is especially relevant in Eastern European countries like Latvia, where the shift from a planned to a market economy in the 1990s created the first generation of family firms now approaching generational change.

Understanding how family firms manage this transition is crucial for policymakers, business leaders, and researchers. This policy brief highlights the key findings of a study (Pajuste and  Berzins (2024) on Latvian family firms, focusing on ownership succession patterns, the involvement of the next generation, and the impact on firm performance.

Succession Patterns and Ownership Evolution

In Latvia, many family firms began with founders holding minority stakes, reflecting financial constraints and economic uncertainties. Over time, families gradually increased their ownership stakes, demonstrating resilience and strategic planning. On average, it took seven years for family ownership to exceed 75 percent. This gradual ownership increase helped families navigate the challenges of economic transitions and limited access to external capital. The study also reveals that 23 years after being founded, only 16 percent of the sample firms have second-generation family members as shareholders.

Involvement of the Second Generation

The emergence of the second generation in family firm ownership is a pivotal phase. Succession planning and the transmission of familial values, knowledge, and entrepreneurial ethos are crucial during this period. By 2022, only 14 percent of the sample family firms had significant second-generation involvement (defined as the second generation holding a majority of the family shares and having a board seat).

More specifically, in a sample of 266 family firms, 20 percent had involved the second generation in ownership by 2022, with significant involvement in 71 percent of these cases. At the same time, 80 percent of the firms were still majority-owned and managed by the founders. This slow involvement of the second generation highlights the challenges of succession planning and the need for a strategic approach – both from a company and a legal perspective – to ensure a smooth transition from the first to second generation.

Importantly, despite this slow transition, family firms tend to perform better than non-family firms, with a 3.1 percent higher return on assets (ROA). However, within family firms, the involvement of the second generation does not significantly impact firm performance.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The findings of this study have several important implications for policymakers, business leaders, and researchers.

Support for Succession Planning

There is a need for policies and programs that support succession planning in family firms. This includes providing resources and guidance for families to develop succession plans, ensuring the continuity of family businesses. Ensuring some form of succession, whether within the family or through external parties, is crucial to prevent these firms from closing. Facilitating succession and supporting the survival of these firms would not only protect jobs, but also have a positive economic effect as family firms outperform their non-family counterparts.

Financial Support and Access to Capital

Another way to enable smoother transition and growth for family firms is to improve their access to capital to help them overcome financial constraints. Financial institutions and government programs should focus on providing tailored financial products for family businesses. By doing so, they not only support the longevity of these businesses but also help in maintaining employment levels and preventing the economic fallout from family firm closures.

Education and Training

Educational programs and training for the next generation of family business leaders are essential. These programs should focus on leadership, management, and the unique challenges of family businesses, preparing the next generation for successful transitions.

Awareness and Best Practices

Raising awareness about the importance of succession planning and sharing best practices can help family firms navigate generational transitions more effectively.

Research and Data Collection

Continued research and data collection on family firms and their succession patterns are crucial. This helps in understanding the challenges and opportunities faced by family businesses, informing policies and practices that support their continuation and success.

Conclusion

Latvian family firms, like their counterparts worldwide, face significant challenges during ownership succession. This study highlights the gradual and strategic increase in family ownership stakes, the slow emergence of the second generation in ownership, and the need for comprehensive succession planning. Policymakers, business leaders, and researchers must work together to support family firms in navigating these transitions, ensuring their continued contribution to the economy.

Effective succession planning is crucial for sustaining family businesses across generations, preserving their legacy, and promoting economic growth. By addressing the unique challenges faced by family firms, we can create a supportive environment that fosters the longevity and success of these vital enterprises.

Acknowledgment

This brief is based on an academic article Family Firm Succession: First-generation transitions in Latvia co-authored with Janis Berzins and forthcoming in Finance Research Letters. We acknowledge financial support from the EEA research grant Global2micro (S-BMT-21-8, LT08-2LMT-K-01-073).

References

To read more policy briefs published by the BICEPS Institute, visit the Institute’s page on the FREE Network’s website.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Ownership Structure, Acquisitions and Managerial Incentives

Posted on March 18, 2019 | Policy Brief

20190318 Ownership Structure, Acquisitions and Managerial Incentives Image 01

Both the theoretical and empirical literature assume that takeovers are less likely to occur when firms have large concentrated shareholders, e.g. family firms. Hence the disciplinary role of takeovers becomes irrelevant in incentivizing the management. We argue that this conjecture is false. Using a contracting model, we show that the existence of takeovers can work in favour of firms with controlling shareholders, amplifying the disciplinary effects relative to firms with dispersed shareholders. We further show how takeover threats interact with alternative governance structures, specifically, with monitoring and performance pay. While carrots (performance pay) and sticks (takeover threat) play substitute roles in incentive provision, the internal monitoring available to large shareholders is a substitute mechanism irrespective of the disciplinary effect of the market for corporate control.

Introduction

The nature of optimal corporate ownership has been a longstanding question in corporate governance literature.  While large controlling shareholders can address managerial agency problems by monitoring management and alleviating the free-riding problem in takeovers (see e.g., Grossman and Hart, 1980; Demsetz and Lehn, 1985 and Burkart, Gromb and Panunzi, 1997), they may also expropriate other  stakeholders by influencing management or deterring efficient takeovers to maintain their private control benefits (Stulz,1988). Empirical evidence about the effect of controlling shareholders, for example a founding family, on firm performance is also inconclusive (see Bertrand and Schoar (2006) who review the empirical studies on family ownership).

Amid the ongoing debate, we provide a new perspective on the role of controlling shareholders in the market disciplinary mechanism, and how it interacts with the firm’s potential synergy characteristics and internal governance mechanisms. While the use of performance pay and internal monitoring are easily justified by the extant literature, the disciplinary effects of the market for corporate control are less obvious. In many countries, there are debates about the social cost of concentrated ownership structures, and some regulators (e.g., the European Commission) have been advocating in favour of breaking up concentrated ownership structures to facilitate the market for corporate control and its managerial disciplinary function.

In contrast to this standard view, our analysis shows that the managerial disciplinary mechanism of synergistic takeover can be strengthened by the presence of controlling shareholders.  Furthermore, while the control premium required by controlling shareholders reduces the incidence of synergistic takeovers, the internal monitoring performed by these shareholders can complement the market disciplinary mechanism in high synergy potential firms.  Overall, it is ambiguous whether dismantling a concentrated ownership structure would increase firm value and, in particular, in firms which provide high synergy potential to acquirers.

Our analysis suggests that more sophisticated policies for the market for corporate control may improve the social welfare more effectively.

Controlling Ownership and Managerial Agency Problem

The managerial agency problem is relevant even when considering takeovers of family firms. Founders hold 15% of the CEO positions, 30% are held by descendants while the absolute majority of approximately 55% are held by professional managers (Villalonga and Amit, 2006). Bidders that operate in the same industry, for example, will be able to observe the state of demand to assess the synergistic improvements. In contrast, family owners are likely to be less actively involved in firm operations, and less informed about the industry/market situation, which suggests their lack of operational expertise vis-a-vis managers.

In the presence of potential conflicts of interest between the management and shareholders, the market for corporate control serves a disciplining role. Then why does the private benefit of controlling shareholders, which increases the takeover premium, strengthen this market disciplinary mechanism?

We argue that, notwithstanding their negative effect on the incidence of synergistic takeovers, the controlling shareholders can strengthen the managerial disciplinary effect of a takeover in firms that offer acquirers large business synergies.

To answer the question intuitively, suppose that the manager has no anti-takeover defense. In this case, the manager can secure herself from takeover threats only by increasing the market value of the firm, and, therefore, the takeover threat can discipline the manager. In firms which offer high synergy potential to the acquirers, however, the manager may find it too costly to increase the market value enough to deter a synergistic takeover. The control premium required by controlling shareholders can complement the market disciplinary mechanism in this circumstance, and, specifically, reduce the profitability of synergistic takeovers and make the acquirers’ bidding choice more sensitive to current market value. That is, it allows the managers of firms that offer high business synergies to reduce the takeover threat significantly by increasing the market value.

Technically, our model shows that the necessary and sufficient condition for the complementarity of ownership concentration and the market disciplinary mechanism is the log-convexity of the distribution function of potential business synergy. The market value increase from truthfully reporting the favorable state may, in itself, not significantly deter the takeover attempts for these firms since acquirers still find the business synergy more than offsets a high stock price. The control premium required by controlling shareholders makes truthful managerial reporting (and the corresponding market value enhancement) more effective in reducing the likelihood of a takeover. Specifically, the control premium increases the manager’s opportunity cost of misreporting and, in turn, it reduces the information rent that shareholders forgo to the manager.

Interaction with Other Governance Mechanisms

The analysis also provides implications for the relationship between ownership structure and other governance mechanisms, such as managerial compensation and the monitoring function of controlling shareholders.

Given that the managerial agency problem cannot be fully eliminated by the takeover threat and managerial compensation, the monitoring function of controlling shareholders can complement the other two governance mechanisms in our setting.

We show that the disciplinary effect of synergistic takeovers reduces the information rent paid to the manager and, thus, it diminishes managerial incentive pay. This implies that managerial pay-performance sensitivity is negatively associated with ownership concentration in firms which offer high business synergies. Furthermore, our analysis also shows that, in high synergy potential firms in which controlling shareholders strengthen the market disciplinary mechanism, monitoring function of controlling shareholders can complement the market disciplinary mechanism, and, thus, ownership concentration increases the operating efficiency relative to firms with dispersed ownership.

Conclusion

Contrary to the common prior, the disciplinary effect of synergistic takeovers can be stronger in high synergy potential firms with controlling shareholders due to improvements in incentives for managerial self-selection. Specifically, the control premium encourages the manager to deter the takeover threat by increasing the current value of the firm. In this case, managerial entrenchment is consistent with improvements in shareholder value.

The disciplinary effect acts as a complement to the internal monitoring efforts of controlling shareholders in reducing the amount of incentive pay required to induce managerial truthfulness. In contrast, the control premium in firms with few synergies isolates the manager from the takeover threat, making incentive provision reliant on internal monitoring.

However, the disciplining effect of synergistic takeovers is not without its costs, making the overall value implications ambiguous. Incentive provision requires that shareholders accept relatively low bidding prices, by allowing takeovers with negative synergies. Furthermore, tailoring correct incentive pay requires a relatively high distortion to effort levels in times of economic downturns. While controlling ownership is able to mitigate these concerns, the existence of a control premium also reduces the incidence of socially desirable synergistic improvements in firm value.

Overall, policy makers should take care when considering implementation of constraints on the controlling states in order to facilitate the market for corporate control.

References

  • Anderson, Ronald C., and David M. Reeb, 2003. “Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500”, The Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1327.
  • Bertrand, Marianne, and Antoinette Schoar, 2006. “The role of family in family firms”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 73-96.
  • Burkart, Mike, Denis Gromb, and Fausto Panunzi, 1997. “Large shareholders, monitoring and the value of the firm”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,112, 693.
  • Demsetz, Harold, and Kenneth Lehn, 1985. “The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences”, Journal of Political Economy, 93, 1155-1177.
  • Grossman, Sanford J., and Oliver D. Hart, 1980. “Takeover bids, the free-rider problem, and the theory of the corporation”, The Bell Journal of Economics,11, 42-64.
  • Villalonga, Belen, and Raphael Amit, 2006. “How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 80, 385-417.
  • Stulz, Renee, 1988. “Managerial control of voting rights: Financing policies and the market for corporate control”, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 25-54.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.