Home-based family firms, spousal ownership and business exit: a transaction cost perspective
In this study, we compare family and non-family firms with respect to their exit due to financial reasons. We suggest that the principal dimensions of Transaction Cost Theory (TCT) (i.e., asset specificity, risk aversion, opportunism, and trust) may underlie governance decisions such as family vs. non-family firm and home-based spousal ownership in family firms which can consequently impact firm success/failure. Given the wide variations in the goals and internal structures of family firms, we specifically suggest that home-based family firms with spousal ownership will be less prone to exit than other firms. Indeed, the findings show that family firms are less likely to exit than non-family firms, and the interaction effects of spousal ownership and home-based business further reduce the exit probability of family firms. We conclude by discussing future research implications.
KeywordsFamily business Family firms Transaction cost theory Trust Governance Business exit
JEL classificationsM10 L20 L26
- Barnett, F., & Barnett, S. (1988). Working together: entrepreneurial couples. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.Google Scholar
- Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2018). Environmental jolts, family-centered non-economic goals and innovation: toward a framework of family firm resilience. In E. Memili & C. Dibrell (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Heterogeneity among Family Firms. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00081.x.
- Chinn, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 19(22), 3127–3131. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::AID-SIM784>3.0.CO;2-M.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. (2004). Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: a commentary on comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00050.x.Google Scholar
- De Massis, A., & Foss, N. J. (2018). Advancing family business research: the promise of microfoundations. Family Business Review, 31(4), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518803422.
- De Massis, A., Sharma, P., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2012). Family business studies: an annotated bibliography. Cheltenham Glos: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: implications for theory and empirical studies. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12102.Google Scholar
- Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation: life cycles of the family business. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106.Google Scholar
- Leamer, E.E. (1978). Specification searches: ad hoc inference with nonexperimental data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
- MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological methods, 7(1), 19–40Google Scholar
- Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 39–61.Google Scholar
- Marshack, K.J. (1994). Love and work: how co-entrepreneurial couples manage the boundaries and transitions in personal relationship and business partnership. Doctoral dissertation. Santa Barbara, CA: The Fielding Institute.Google Scholar
- Pearson, K. (1909). On a new method of determining correlation between a measured character a, and a character B, of which only the percentage of cases wherein B exceeds (or falls short of) a given intensity is recorded for each grade of a. Biometrika, 7, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/2345365.Google Scholar
- Sako, M. (1991). The role of trust in Japanese buyer–supplier relationships. Ricerche Economiche, 45, 449–474.Google Scholar
- Scott, R. W. (2002). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.Google Scholar
- Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2006). Habitual entrepreneurs experiencing failure: overconfidence and the motivation to try again. In Entrepreneurship: Frameworks And Empirical Investigations From Forthcoming Leaders Of European Research (pp. 9–28). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-7540(06)09002-7.
- Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. (2017). Family firm internationalization: heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias. Global Strategy Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1186.
- Ward, J. L., & Aronoff, C. E. (1991). Trust gives you the advantage. Nation’s Business, 7I9(8), 42–45.Google Scholar
- Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar