This article examines the role of ownership for the relationship between innovation and exports. Analyzing a large firm-level data set on Chinese manufacturing firms during 2000–2007, we find that state ownership has a positive moderating effect on the innovation–export relationship. We ascribe this effect to state-owned firms’ privileged access to complementary resources and networks that strengthen their ability to use innovation to generate exports. In contrast to many earlier studies, we also find that foreign ownership has a negative moderating effect. One likely reason is that indicators of local innovation do not reflect the flows of knowledge between foreign-owned firms and their parent companies. This finding highlights the fact that innovation and production may be geographically separated within multinational enterprises. A policy implication of the analysis is that public support to innovation is likely to have stronger effects on exports when it targets firms that carry out most of their activities in domestic market.

Access to credit may have a direct effect on achieving United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in ending poverty, improving health and education, and reducing inequality. In this paper, we systematically review the growing empirical evidence on whether individuals' demographic characteristics (such as gender and race) and socio-economic features (such as income and education) effect their ability in accessing credit. Our survey covers peer-reviewed articles providing empirical evidence, using quantitative and qualitative data, published between 2000 and 2020 (February). We find that having more education and/or being more financially literate increases households' and entrepreneurs' access to credit. Individuals with lower income and less wealth are less likely to obtain credit from the mainstream financial institutions. In emerging countries, women are more likely to be rejected and deprived from formal credit, and pay higher cost. Non-Whites, ethnic minorities, disabled people and immigrants are also more likely to be excluded from the formal credit markets. We find that abovementioned credit deprived segments of the society resort to fringe finance providers, such as pay-day lenders or pawnbrokers, with higher costs. These findings are remarkably similar across developed and developing countries. Finally, we provide direction for further research in achieving SDGs through financial inclusion and access to credit by highlighting various shortcomings of the existing literature and empirical evidence.

We examine the determinants of appointment of U.S. independent directors (USIDs), and their impact and effectiveness, on the boards of cross-listed foreign firms versus non-cross-listed firms. For non-cross-listed firms, significant determinants of USID presence include factors related to both advising and monitoring roles, whereas for cross-listed firms, appointment of USIDs are related to monitoring factors. We find that USIDs have a significantly positive impact on cross-listed firms’ value, especially for firms from countries that are culturally and institutionally different from U.S. and countries with weak investor protection. The positive value effect is strongest for firms in which USIDs serve on governance committees. We also find that cross-listed firms with UISDs are better at acquiring both domestic and cross-border targets and have higher CEO turnover sensitivity. For non-cross-listed firms, USIDs have negative or no impact on value.

This paper provides new evidence on whether family firms performed better during the global financial crisis (2008–2010). Using the dataset of the S&P 500 nonfinancial firms during the period 2006–2010, we find that family firms outperformed nonfamily firms during the crisis. Among family firms, the ones that contributed to the outperformance were those where the founder was still present. We also find that during the global financial crisis, founder firms invested significantly less and had better access to the credit market than nonfamily firms. Our analysis suggests that the superior performance of founder firms is largely caused by their having less incentive to overinvest in order to boost short-term earnings during the crisis. 

This article has two parts. The first part provides a brief literature review on existing theoretical and empirical research in the capital structure of family firms. It argues that there are several important aspects of being a closely held family firm that have opposing impacts on the optimal choice of debt leverage. One important feature is that families are typically nondiversified investors that not only have most of their wealth tied to the company but also often their human capital. Another salient feature is that families want to have control over their company. This control objective restricts the willingness to raise new capital outside the family and therefore often results in a stronger dependence on banks and various forms of debt instruments. The second part provides an empirical analysis of the leverage structure of family firms in Denmark. Using a unique data set the family can be tracked behind each of the 200,000 Danish firms and the firms categorized into family or nonfamily firms. Three definitions of family firms are used in the analysis: multiple family members owning the firm; a family owner is also CEO; and there has been at least one family succession in the firm.