Skip to main content

Abstract

Unfortunately, during the last thirty years, most research about Financial Stability, systemic risk and aspects of sustainable growth (economic, social, urban and environmental sustainability) has focused on the financial sector and macroeconomic issues (i.e. correlations, systemic risk, monetary policy, volatility, derivatives, etc.), and has neglected the real sector, microeconomics (industrial organization; and analysis and failure of companies, households and individual financial institutions; etc.), online social networks and psychology issues (human biases; group-decisions; organizational psychology; etc.).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Aoyama et al. (2011), Jakimowicz (2016), and Jovanovic and Schinckus (2017).

  2. 2.

    See Li and Chen (2012), and Saichev et al. (2010).

  3. 3.

    See Sornette (2003), Venkatasubramanian (2017), Kyrtsou and Sornette (2012), Mantegna and Stanley (2000), and Cairney and Geyer (2017).

  4. 4.

    See Bossaerts et al. (2018), Craig (2018), and Voit (2003).

  5. 5.

    See Goldstone et al. (2015), de Camprieu et al. (2007), Amankwah-Amoah et al. (2016), Shen et al. (2016), Spoor and Chu (2017), Pennings and Wansink (2004), and Bossaerts et al. (2018).

  6. 6.

    See Sjoberg (2001), Cohen (1998), Powell et al. (2016), Jensen and Terje Aven (2018), and Pidgeon (1998).

  7. 7.

    See Rundmo (1996), Brocal et al. (2017), Yang et al. (2018), Frazier and Tupper (2016), and Pasman (2015).

  8. 8.

    See Alghalith (2008), Tsay et al. (2018), Taksar (2001), Coloumb (2001), Ghiradato and Marinacci (2001), Kobberling and Wakker (2003), Milman (2002), and Quint and Wako (2004).

  9. 9.

    See Kitchovitch and Liò (2010), Ongkowijoyo and Doloi (2018), and Kok et al. (2016).

  10. 10.

    See Kok et al. (2016), Paulus and Kristoufek (2015), Perc et al. (2017), D’Orsogna and Perc (2015), and Voit (2003).

  11. 11.

    See Giannikis and Vrontos (2011), Brandtner (2018), Barroso et al. (2018), Lopera and Marchand (2018), Mama (2018), Nakagawa et al. (2012), and Mnasri et al. (2017).

  12. 12.

    See Shen et al. (2016), Spoor and Chu (2017), Nakagawa et al. (2012), Schnellenbach and Schubert (2015), and Shen et al. (2016).

  13. 13.

    See Karadam (2018), Balcilar et al. (2018), Fong et al. (2018), and Shi and Yan (2018).

  14. 14.

    See Ye et al. (2018), Giannikis and Vrontos (2011), Zhang et al. (2018).

  15. 15.

    See Jensen and Terje Aven (2018).

  16. 16.

    See Date and Gashi (2013), Gao et al. (2018), Frazier and Tupper (2016), and Wu et al. (2018).

  17. 17.

    See Alghalith (2008), Tsay et al. (2018), Sudhoter and Peleg (2004), Li (1997), Mahar and Wright (2009), Mendes and Themido (2004), and Xie et al. (2013).

  18. 18.

    See Lopera and Marchand (2018), Coloumb (2001), and Ghiradato and Marinacci (2001).

  19. 19.

    See Barroso et al. (2018), Zeng et al. (2017), and Nelson et al. (2017).

  20. 20.

    See “The Vast Majority Of All Futures Trading Is Now Automated”. By Brian Merchant. April 26, 2019. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/04/the-vast-majority-of-all-futures-trading-is-now-automated/.

    See “80% Of The Stock Market Is Now On Autopilot”. By Yun Li. June 29, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/28/80percent-of-the-stock-market-is-now-on-autopilot.html.

    See “Robots are killing off Wall Street’s traders”. By Laura French. October 29, 2014. https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/technology/robots-are-killing-off-wall-streets-traders.

    See “Cracking The Street’s New Math, Algorithmic trades are sweeping the stock market”. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm.

    See The Future of Algorithmic Trading. https://www.experfy.com/blog/the-future-of-algorithmic-trading.

    See The Growth And Future Of Algorithmic Trading. July 19, 2018. https://blog.quantinsti.com/growth-future-algorithmic-trading/.

    See “Algorithmic Trading A ‘Prerequisite’ For Surviving Tomorrow’s Markets—With Technology, Data Sciences And Automated Trading Beginning To Play A Big Role, This Skill Is Fast Becoming A Prerequisite”. By Nitesh Khandelwal. Updated at February 17, 2019. https://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/algorithmic-trading-a-prerequisite-for-surviving-tomorrow-s-markets-119021601197_1.html.

    See The Quickening Evolution Of Trading—In Charts: Automated Algorithms Are On The Rise, With High-Frequency Trading Volumes Picking Up. By Robin Wigglesworth, April 11, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/77827a4c-1dfc-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9.

    See “How Important is Algorithmic Trading in the Retail Market?: The Computerization of the Financial Markets Industry Began as Far Back as the Early 1970s and Program Trading Became Widely……”. https://financefeeds.com/important-algorithmic-trading-retail-market/.

    See “Agent-Human Interactions in the Continuous Double Auction”. IBM T.J.Watson Research Center, August 2001. http://spider.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~parsons/courses/840-spring-2005/notes/das.pdf.

    Gjerstad, S., & Dickhaut, J. (1998, January). Price Formation in Double Auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 22(1), 1–29. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825697905765.

    See Technical Committee Of The International Organization Of Securities Commissions (July 2011). “Regulatory Issues Raised by the Impact of Technological Changes on Market Integrity and Efficiency”. IOSCO Technical Committee. Retrieved July 12, 2011. http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD354.pdf.

    See Shen, J., & Yu, J. (2014). Styled Algorithmic Trading and the MV-MVP Style. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2507002.

    See Shen, J. (2017). Hybrid IS-VWAP Dynamic Algorithmic Trading via LQR. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2984297.

    See “How To Build Robust Algorithmic Trading Strategies”. AlgorithmicTrading.net. https://algorithmictrading.net/project/robust-algorithmic-trading-strategies/.

  21. 21.

    See Kaisla (2001), Gifford (1991), Ciepley (2013), Langlois (1995), Ghoshal et al. (1995), Menninger (1985), and Adler (1993).

  22. 22.

    See Buldyrev et al. (2016), Lee et al. (1998), Estola (2001), Kwasnicki (2001), and Yamasaki et al. (2006).

  23. 23.

    See Hölzl (2005), Thompson and Valentinov (2017), Teece (2015, 2016), Langlois and Robertson (2002 [1993]); Eliasson (1994), Auerswald (2008), and Ghoshal et al. (1995).

  24. 24.

    See Barr and Saraceno (2002), Samuel and Jacobsen (1997), Paredes-Frigolett et al. (2017), Mollona and Marcozzi (2008), Earnest and Wilkinson (2018), Davidson et al. (2016), Reijers et al. (2016), Metjahic (2018), and Wright (June 2017). See Varian, H. (2018, June). Artificial Intelligence, Economics, and Industrial Organization (Working Paper). See Glocer, T. (2017). Blockchain, Coase and the Theory of the Firm. http://www.tomglocer.com/2017/10/23/blockchain-coase-and-the-theory-of-the-firm/. See Liu, J. (2017, December 12). Blockchain, Decentralisation, and the ‘Theory of the Firm’. https://medium.com/the-pointy-end/blockchain-decentralisation-and-the-theory-of-the-firm-92649c62350d. See Allen, & Overy. (2016). Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. Available at http://www.allenovery.com/publications/en-gb/Pages/Decentralized-Autonomous-Organizations.aspx.

  25. 25.

    See Argyris (1987), Augier (2004, 2013), and Argote and Greve (2007).

  26. 26.

    See Fu et al. (2005), Riccaboni et al. (2008), Mondani et al. (2014), Song and Bae (2016), and Laitinen (2001).

  27. 27.

    See Tsay et al. (2018), and Alghalith (2008).

  28. 28.

    See Hsiao et al. (2010), Dominici (2017), Thompson and Valentinov (2017), Samuel and Jacobsen (1997), and Akgün et al. (2014).

  29. 29.

    See Anderson (1999), Argote and Greve (2007), Foss et al. (2006), Langlois (2007), and Brown and Eisenhardt (1997).

  30. 30.

    See Adler (1993), Aguiar-Díaz and Ruiz-Mallorquí (2015), Bhattacharjee and Han (2014), James (2003), Ghoshal et al. (1995), Muro (2008), O’Kelley (2012), Metjahic (2018), and Aghion and Holden (2011).

  31. 31.

    See Sutter (2009), Gong et al. (2009), Kelly (2010), Wang and Lin (2009), Xu and Chen (2008), Montoro-Sánchez et al. (2009), Nunez and Rafels (2008), Esteban and Sakovics (2008), and Llorca et al. (2004).

  32. 32.

    This article stated in part “… A landmark study involving one hundred (100) scientists from around the world has tried to replicate the findings of 270 (two hundred and seventy) recent findings from highly ranked psychology journals and by one measure, only 36% (thirty six percent) turned up the same results. That means that for over half the studies, when scientists used the same methodology, they could not come up with the same results … and earlier this year, a separate study found that the prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50% (fifty percent), ‘resulting in approximately US$28,000,000,000 (twenty-eight billion US dollars) per year spent on preclinical research that is not reproducible - in the United States alone’ …”.

  33. 33.

    See http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Behavioral_Operations. See http://www.ombehavior.com/. See http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Behavioral-Operations-Management-3704620?trk=my_groups-b-grp-v. See Hot topics in Operations Research—ResearchGate. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/post/Hot_topics_in_Operations_Research.

  34. 34.

    See Ballow et al. (Accenture) (2004) noted that “…Nearly sixty percent of the aggregate value of the US stock market is based on investor expectations of future growth. And because this future value tends to be concentrated in industries and companies that are built on intangible assets, it is critical to find better ways to recognize, report and manage these assets…”. See Hassett and Shapiro (2012) noted that “…The value of the intangible assets – which includes intellectual capital plus economic competencies – in the U.S. economy totals an estimated $14.5 trillion in 2011 … The ten industries whose intellectual capital represents at least 50 percent of their market value – the ten most intellectual-capital intensive industries -- are media; telecommunications services; automobiles and components; household and personal products; food, beverages and tobacco; commercial and professional services; software and services; healthcare equipment and services; pharmaceuticals, biotech and life sciences; and consumer services…”. See OCEAN TOMO 300® PATENT INDEX. Available at http://www.oceantomo.com/pdf/OceanTomo300_PatentIndex_Brochure_Web. (Noting that as of 2010, Intangible Assets accounted for about eighty percent of the stock market values of S&P 500 companies.)

  35. 35.

    See “The Next Billion-Dollar Startups—2017”. Forbes. September 26, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2017/09/26/the-next-billion-dollar-startups-2017/#784a36e04447. This list of startups (most of whom raised $10–150 million of capital in various startup phases) includes: BetterCloud; Blend; Brighthealth; Cohesity; Farmers Business Network; Flexport; Ginkgo Bioworks; Fundbox; Jive Communications; Interactions; LessaSleep; Livongo; Looker; Optoro; Orbital Insight; Outreach; PillPack; Plaid; Postmates; SeatGeek; Segment; ServiceTrain; Spire; Vlocity; and Zola. See “These Are the Most Valuable Start-Ups in the World”. The Telegraph (UK). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/picture-galleries/11904378/These-are-the-most-valuable-start-ups-in-the-world.html. See “The Fifteen Most Valuable Startups in the World”. Inc.com. October 2014. https://www.inc.com/oscar-raymundo/most-valuable-startups-in-the-world.html. See “These Are the Most Successful Startups in the World”. May 3, 2018. http://www.dailyinfographic.com/these-are-the-most-successful-startups-in-the-world. This article states in part “…There are currently 214 (two hundred and fourteen) “unicorns,” or privately-held startups worth more than $1 billion (one billion US dollars). While every company that qualifies as a unicorn is wildly successful, some are doing better than others. Tech giant Uber is at the top of the list, with a staggering net worth of $68 billion dollars. Most of the companies are tech-related, too. Healthcare and real estate both have unicorn companies, but it’s nowhere near the number of successful tech companies. Taking a look at the map, it’s clear that unicorns are spread disproportionately among countries. The United States and China, the world’s biggest economic superpowers, are home to the highest number of unicorns. In fact, the top ten most valuable startups all come from either the U.S. or China, and those ten are have forty percent of the total worth of all 214 unicorns combined…”.

  36. 36.

    The largest failed startup companies included: Pixelon (USA); Solyndra (USA); Jawbone (USA); Better Place (Isreal); Amp’d Mobile (USA); Terralliance (USA); Webvan Group (USA); Caspian Networks (USA); Kozmo.com (USA); KiOR (USA); Mode Media (USA); Aquion Energy (USA); Quirky (USA); Powa Technologies (England); eToys (USA); Quixey (USA); Drugstore.com (USA); Lilliputian Systems (USA); Beep (USA); Boo.com (USA); AllAdvantage.com (USA); Pay By Touch (USA); Rdio (USA); OnLive (USA); RealNames Corporation (USA); Coraid (USA); Savaje Technologies (USA); Pets.com (USA); Cereva Networks (USA); COPAN Systems; ChaCha; AOptix Technologies; Calxeda; Guvera (Australia); Next Step Living; Juicero; DeNovis, Inc.; Auctionata (Germany); Aereo (USA); Beyond The Rack (Canada); Sonitus Medical (USA); Canopy Financial (USA); Soapstone Networks (USA); Claria Corporation (USA); SunRocket (USA); 38 Studios (USA); Beenz.com (England); Veoh Networks (USA); Dealstruck (USA); Nirvanix (USA); Expand Networks (Isreal); Ecast (USA); Edgix (USA); LOYAL3 (USA); Move Networks (USA); Sprig (USA); DoubleTwist (USA); TerraLUX (USA); Sand 9 (USA); Akimbo (USA); Sequoia Communications (USA); govWorks (USA); Hello (USA); PepperTap (India); Karhoo (England); Flooz.com (USA); Pearl Automation (USA); Nanochip (USA); Joost (Netherlands); and Digg (USA). See “121 of the Biggest, Costliest Startup Failures of All Time”. November 10, 2017. https://www.cbinsights.com/research/biggest-startup-failures/. See Evans, S. (2002, October 18). Fifty Worst Internet Startup Fails of All Time. https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/10/the-50-worst-internet-startup-fails-of-all-time/.

  37. 37.

    See Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (Australia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_New_Zealand_Banking_Group); Australia and New Zealand Banking Group’s manipulation of the Australian benchmark interest rates (Australia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_New_Zealand_Banking_Group); BAE Systems’s bribery scandal (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems#Corruption_investigations); Bristol-Myers Squibb’s accounting scandal (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol-Myers_Squibb#Scandals_and_allegations); Brown and Williamson’s enhancement of the addictiveness of cigarettes (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol-Myers_Squibb#Scandals_and_allegations); Chevron-Texaco Lago Agrio oil field (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field); Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s illegal denial of insured persons’ claims (Australia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bank); Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s delivery of improper advice to customers during 2003–2012 (Australia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Bank_Of_Australia); Compass Group’s bribery of the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_Group#2005_United_Nations_misconduct_incident); Corrib’s gas controversy (Ireland; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrib_gas_controversy); Deutsche Bank’s Libor scandal (Germany; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal); Duke Energy (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Energy#Taxes); El Paso Corporation’s price fixing scandal (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso_Corp.#Price_fixing); Fannie Mae’s earning management and accounting controversy (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#Accounting_controversy); FlowTex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlowTex#Scandal); Global Crossing’s accounting fraud and other offenses (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Crossing); Guinness’s share-trading fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_share-trading_fraud); Hafskip’s collapse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafskip); Halliburton’s over-charging for government contracts (USA—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton); Harken Energy (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harken_Energy_Scandal); HealthSouth’s earnings management and accounting fraud (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HealthSouth); Homestore.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestore.com); Kerr-McGee (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Silkwood); Kinney National Company’s financial scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinney_National_Company); Lernout & Hauspie’s accounting fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernout_%26_Hauspie); Lockheed’s bribery scandal (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals); Livedoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livedoor); Marsh and Mclennan (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_%26_Mclennan); Merck’s medicaid fraud (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merck_%26_Co.#Medicaid_overbilling); Mirant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirant); Morrison-Knudsen (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison-Knudsen); Mutual-fund scandal (2003) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-fund_scandal_(2003)); Nestle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9); Nugan Hand Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nugan_Hand_Bank); Olympus’s accounting scandal (Japan; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Scandal); the Options backdating scandal of 2001–2008 which was perpetrated by many exchange-traded companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_backdating); Panama Papers scandal which involved the global leak of confidential documents pertaining to the bank accounts and company ownership by politicians and high-net-worth individuals from many countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers); Peregrine Systems’s accounting fraud (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_Systems); Phar-Mor’s fraud (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phar-Mor); Qwest Communications (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest_Communications); RadioShack (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadioShack); Reliant Energy (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Energy); Rite Aid’s accounting fraud (USA); Royal Dutch Shell’s over-statement of its oil reserves (Netherlands; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell); S-Chips Scandals (Singapore; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Chips_Scandals); Satyam Computers (India; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyam_Computers#Controversies); 7-Eleven Australia (Australia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven); Siemens’s bribery of the Greek government (Germany; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Greek_bribery_scandal); Société Générale’s derivatives trading scandal that caused multi-billion Euros losses (France; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale); Southwest Airlines’s non-compliance with safety regulations (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines); Tyco International’s executives’ theft (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyco_International); Union Carbide (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Carbide); ValuJet Airlines (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Airlines); Volkswagen’s non-compliance with emissions regulations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_violations); David Wittig’s looting scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wittig); and Xerox’s accounting fraud (USA; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox#Alleged_accounting_irregularities).

  38. 38.

    See “2017 Bankruptcies: The Biggest Names and Trends”. January 25, 2018. https://www.creditriskmonitor.com/blog/2017-bankruptcies-biggest-names-and-trends. See “Twenty-Two Largest Bankruptcies in World History”. February 3, 2010. http://www.instantshift.com/2010/02/03/22-largest-bankruptcies-in-world-history/. This list of largest corporate bankruptcies in descending order as of 2010 (and their headquarters, bankruptcy filing dates and total assets in US dollars) included the following companies: Lehman Brothers (USA; Bankruptcy Date—2008; Assets—$691 billion); Washington Mutual (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2008; Assets: $327.9 billion); Worldcom (USA; Bankruptcy Date: July 21, 2002; Assets: $103.9 billion); General Motors (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2009; Assets: $91 billion); CIT Group (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2009; Assets: $71 billion); Enron (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2001; Assets: $65.5 billion); Conseco (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2002; Assets; $61 billion); Chrysler LLC (USA; Bankruptcy Date: April 30, 2009; Assets: $39 billion); Thornburg Mortgage (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2009; Assets: $36.5 billion); Pacific Gas & Electric (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2001; Assets: $36.1 billion); Texaco (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 1987; Assets: $34.9 billion); Financial Corporation Of America (USA; Bankruptcy Date: September 9, 1988; Assets; $33.8 billion); Refco (USA; Bankruptcy Date: October 10, 2005; Assets: $33.3 billion); IndyMac Bancorp (USA; Bankruptcy Date: July 31, 2008; Assets: $32.7 billion); Global Crossing (USA; Bankruptcy Date: January 28, 2002; Assets: $30.1 billion); Bank Of New England Corp. (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 1991; Assets: $29.7 billion); General Growth Properties (USA; Bankruptcy Date: April 16, 2009; Assets: $29.5 billion); Lyondell Chemical Company (USA subsidiary of LyondellBasell Industries) (Netherlands; Bankruptcy Date: 2009; Assets: $29.3 billion); Calpine Corporation (USA; Bankruptcy Date: December 20, 2005; Assets: $27.2 billion); New Century Financial Corporation (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2007; Assets: $26.1 billion); UAL Corporation (USA; Bankruptcy Date: 2002; Assets: $25.1 billion); Delta Airlines (USA; Bankruptcy Date: September 2005; Assets: $21.8 billion). See “The Running List of 2018 Retail BankruptciesRetailers Filed for Bankruptcy at a Record Rate Last Year and That Trend Continues In 2018. Here’s a Look at Which Retailers Have Filed Plans to Restructure, Find a Buyer or Liquidate Through Chapter-11”. April 9, 2018. https://www.retaildive.com/news/the-running-list-of-2018-retail-bankruptcies/516864/. See “Here Are the Eighteen Biggest Bankruptcies of the ‘Retail Apocalypse’ of 2017”. December 20, 2017. Kate Taylor. http://www.pulse.ng/bi/strategy/strategy-here-are-the-18-biggest-bankruptcies-of-the-retail-apocalypse-of-2017-id7755124.html. See Dun, & Bradstreet (2017). Global Bankruptcy Report 2017. https://dnb.ru/media/entry/56/217433_Global_Bankruptcy_Report_2017_9-20-17.pdf. See “The Great Recession’s Twenty Five Biggest Bankruptcies”. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https%3A//www.forbes.com/pictures/eegi45llhh/the-great-recessions-25-biggest-bankruptcies-2/&refURL=https%3A//www.google.com.ng/&referrer=https%3A//www.google.com.ng/.

  39. 39.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals. The financially/operationally distressed or bankrupt companies include the following: Danatbank (Germany); Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Corp. (USA); Herstatt Bank (Germany); Carrian Group (Hong Kong, China); Texaco (USA); Qintex (Australia); Lincoln Savings and Loan Association (USA); Polly Peck (United Kingdom); Bank of Credit and Commerce International (United Kingdom); Nordbanken (Sweden); Barings Bank (United Kingdom); Bre-X (Canada); Livent (Canada); Long-Term Capital Management (USA); Equitable Life Assurance Society (United Kingdom); HIH Insurance (Australia); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (USA); One.Tel (Australia); WorldCom (USA); Enron (USA); Chiquita Brands Int. (USA); Kmart (USA); Adelphia Communications (USA); Arthur Andersen (USA); Parmalat (Italy); MG Rover Group (United Kingdom); Bayou Hedge Fund Group (USA); Refco (USA); Bear Stearns (USA); Northern Rock (United Kingdom); Lehman Brothers (USA); AIG (USA); Washington Mutual (USA); Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) (United Kingdom); ABN-Amro (Netherlands); Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (USA); Bankwest (Australia); Storm Financial (Australia); Nortel (Canada); Anglo Irish Bank (Ireland); Arcandor (Germany); Schlecker (Germany); Dynegy (USA); China Medical Technologies (CMED) (Australia); Banco Espírito Santo (BES) (Portugal); and Dick Smith (retailer) (Australia).

  40. 40.

    See DeLong, J. (2002). The Stock Options Controversy and the New Economy. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, USA. This article states in part “…As was recently noted, “Without institutions to bring together people with resources and people with ideas, new ventures can be launched only by the narrow circle of people who have both.” Options are just such an institution, and an important one, and the proposals to treat them as expenses would meddle destructively with a complex financial and entrepreneurial ecosystem…”.

  41. 41.

    See Ernst & Young (2010, July). IRS Concedes Stock Option Issue in Veritas Following Ninth Circuit’s Opinion in Xilinx. Available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ITA_26July2010/$FILE/ITA_IRS_concedes_stock_option.pdf. See Sullivan, & Cromwell. (2009, May 29). Court Addresses Employee Stock Option Expenses for Transfer Pricing PurposesNinth Circuit Overturns Tax Court and Holds That Expenses Attributable to Employee Stock Options Are “Costs” of Developing Intangibles for Transfer Pricing Purposes. Available at http://www.sullcrom.com/files/Publication/1123f4bf-af4b-4d0b-a948-2e0cbf147a73/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/83790441-f801-4766-bfcc-2eabc306273e/SC_Publication_Court_Addresses_Employee_Stock_Option_Expenses_for_Transfer_Pricing_Purposes.pdf. See Xilinx, Inc. vs. Commissioner; 2009 WL 1459501 (USA; 9th Circuit; 2009). See Sullivan & Cromwell (2010, March 24). Court Addresses (Again) Employee Stock Option Expenses for Transfer Pricing PurposesNinth Circuit Overturns Tax Court and Holds That Expenses Attributable to Employee Stock Options Are “Costs” of Developing Intangibles for Transfer Pricing PurposesNinth Circuit Reverses Itself and Holds That the Arm’s-Length Standard Controls in Determining if Employee Stock Option Expenses Must Be Shared Among Related Parties Under Pre-2003 US Transfer Pricing Rules. Available at http://www.sullcrom.com/files/Publication/68c25802-e2d4-483c-8662-102f0af7bdbf/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b88f2c64-3d86-44d5-998c-1484ea00283a/SC_Publication_Court_Addresses_Employee_Stock_Option_Expenses.pdf. See Xilinx, Inc. vs. Commissioner (2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5795 (March 22, 2010)). See O’Driscoll, D. (2005, November 1). Allocation of Employee Stock Options to Cost-Sharing Agreement. The Tax Adviser. See US Internal Revenues Service. (2008). Cost Sharing Stock Based Compensation (UIL 482.11-13). http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=180309,00.html.

  42. 42.

    See Dickerson, M. (2017). Student Loan and Mortgage Loan Debt: A Public Health Crisis? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mechele-dickerson/student-loans-and-mortgage-debt_b_5660727.html. Citing various surveys and studies such as http://www.gallup.com/poll/174317/student-debt-linked-worse-health-less-wealth.aspx?version=print; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/elizabeth-warren-student-loans_n_5272505.html; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849243; http://time.com/2854384/student-loan-debt-health/; http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000087; https://www.baycitizen.org/news/housing/study-finds-unhealthy-effects/; and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6217a1.htm?s_cid=mm6217a1.

  43. 43.

    See Whiteford, et al. (2015). The Global Burden of Mental, Neurological and Substance Use Disorders: An Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLoS One, 10(2), e0116820. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4320057/. See Murray, C., Vos, T., Lozano, R., et al. (2013). Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) for 291 Diseases and Injuries in 21 Regions, 1990–2010: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet, 380(9859), 2197–2223.

  44. 44.

    See Roubini, N. (2008, February 22). The Bust of the Private Equity and LBO Bubble…or the End of Schmalpha. Available at http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/2008/02/22/the-bust-of-the-private-equity-and-lbo-bubbleor-the-end-of-schmalpha/.

References

  • Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and Paradoxes of the Sharing Economy: An Organizing Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, B. (1993). Financial and Political Theories of American Corporate Bankruptcy. Stanford Law Review, 45(2), 311–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., & Holden, R. (2011). Incomplete Contracts and the Theory of the Firm: What Have We Learned over the Past 25 Years? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguiar-Díaz, I., & Ruiz-Mallorquí, M. (2015). Causes and Resolution of Bankruptcy: The Efficiency of the Law. The Spanish Review of Financial Economics, 13(2), 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Cascio, W., & Ramani, R. (2017). Science’s Reproducibility and Replicability Crisis: International Business Is Not Immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgün, A., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2014). Complex Adaptive Systems Theory and Firm Product Innovativeness. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alghalith, M. (2008). Recent Applications of Theory of the Firm Under Uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 443–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Musali, M. A. K., & Ismail, K. N. I. K. (2014). Intellectual Capital and Its Effect on Financial Performance of Banks: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amankwah-Amoah, J., Boso, N., & Antwi-Agyei, I. (2016). The Effects of Business Failure Experience on Successive Entrepreneurial Engagements: An Evolutionary Phase Model. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 648–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R., Fok, R., Springer, T., & Webb, J. (2002). Technical Efficiency and Economies of Scale: A Non-parametric Analysis of REIT Operating Efficiency. European Journal of Operations Research, 139, 598–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aoyama, H., Fujiwara, Y., et al. (2011). Econophysics and Companies. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Greve, H. (2007). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact. Organization Science, 18(3), 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1987). Bridging Economics and Psychology: The Case of the Economic Theory of the Firm. American Psychologist, 42(5), 456–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P. (2008). Entrepreneurship in the Theory of the Firm. Small Business Economics, 30(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augier, M. (2013). Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Hopes for the Past; Lessons from the Future. M@n@gement, 16(5), 636–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2016). 1500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcilar, M., Bonato, M., et al. (2018). Geopolitical Risks and Stock Market Dynamics of the BRICS. Economic Systems, 42(2), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballow, J., Thomas R., & Roos G. (Accenture). (2004). Future Value: The $7 Trillion Challenge. Available at http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/manage.pdf.

  • Banks, G., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. (2015). Publication Bias: Understand the Myths Concerning Threats to the Advancement of Science. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), More Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends (pp. 36–64). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, G., O’Boyle Jr., E., Pollack, J., et al. (2016, in press). Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management: A Guest Commentary. Journal of Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, J., & Saraceno, F. (2002). A Computational Theory of the Firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(3), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barroso, J., Silva, J., et al. (2018). Identifying Systemic Risk Drivers in Financial Networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 503, 650–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BEC Crew. (2015, August 28). Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments and 64% Failed. http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-tried-to-replicate-100-psychology-experiments-and-64-failed.

  • Bell, T., Landsman, W., Miller, B., & Yeh, S. (2002). The Valuation Implications of Employee Stock Option Accounting for Profitable Computer Software Firms. The Accoutning Review, 77(4), 971–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, G., Scharoun-Lee, M., & Tucker-Seeley, R. (2009). Will the Public’s Health Fall Victim to the Home Foreclosure Epidemic? PLoS Medicine, 6(6): e1000087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjee, A., & Han, J. (2014). Financial Distress of Chinese Firms: Microeconomic, Macroeconomic and Institutional Influences. China Economic Review, 30, 244–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddy, C. (2011). The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 255–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddy, C. R. (2006). The Dark Side of Management Decisions: Organisational Psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(9/10), 1461–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon, J. (2015, August 28). Many Psychology Papers Fail Replication Test. Science, 349(6251), 910–911. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/910.full.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S., & Cummins, J. G. (2000). The Stock Market and Investment in the New Economy: Some Tangible Facts and Intangible Fictions. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%202000/2000a_bpea_bond.PDF.

  • Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. (2016, in press). HARKing’s Threat to Organizational Research: Evidence from Primary and Meta-analytic Sources. Personnel Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossaerts, P., Suzuki, S., & O’Doherty, J. (2018, in press). Perception of Intentionality in Investor Attitudes Towards Financial Risks. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandtner, M. (2018). Expected Shortfall, Spectral Risk Measures, and the Aggravating Effect of Background Risk, Or: Risk Vulnerability and the Problem of Sub-additivity. Journal of Banking & Finance, 89, 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocal, F., Sebastián, M., & González, C. (2017). Theoretical Framework for the New and Emerging Occupational Risk Modeling and Its Monitoring Through Technology Lifecycle of Industrial Processes. Safety Science, 99(B), 178–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brounen, D., & Eichholtz, P. (2005). Corporate Real Estate Ownership Implications: International Performance Evidence. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, 30, 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruneau, C., de Bandt, O., & El Amri, W. (2012). Macroeconomic Fluctuations and Corporate Financial Fragility. Journal of Financial Stability, 8(4), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buldyrev, S., Salinger, M., & Stanley, E. (2016). A Statistical Physics Implementation of Coase’s Theory of the Firm. Research in Economics, 70(4), 536–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., & Geyer, R. (2017). A Critical Discussion of Complexity Theory: How Does ‘Complexity Thinking’ Improve Our Understanding of Politics and Policymaking? Complexity, Governance and Networks, 3(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañibano, L., Covarsí, M. G. A., & Sánchez, M. P. (1999). The Value Relevance and Managerial Implications of Intangibles: A Literature Review. In Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: Experiences, Issues and Prospects. Amsterdam: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J., Du, F., & Ding, S. (2013). Global Sensitivity Analysis for Dynamic Systems with Stochastic Input Processes. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 118, 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, P., & Parsons, S. (2014). Modeling Agent’s Preferences Based on Prospect Theory. Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling: Papers from the AAAI-14 Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, A., & Li, P. (2015). Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say ‘Usually Not’. Finance and Economics Discussion Series, 2015(83), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheong, S., Gerlach, R., et al. (2009). Equity and Fixed Income Markets as Drivers of Securitized Real Estate. Review of Financial Economics, 18(2), 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciepley, D. A. (2013). Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. (1998). Public Perception Versus Results of Scientific Risk Analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 59(1), 101–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2016). Reproducibility of Experiments: Experiments’ Regress, Statistical Uncertainty Principle, and the Replication Imperative. Chapter-4 in Atmanspacher & Maasen 2016b: 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118865064.ch4.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coloumb, J. (2001). Absorbing Games with a Signalling Structure. Mathematics of Operations Research, 26(2), 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colucci, M., Montaguti, E., & Lago, U. (2008). Managing Brand Extension Via Licensing: An Investigation into the High-End Fashion Industry. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(2), 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correia, L., Reis, L., & Cascalho, J., eds. (2014). Progress in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotti, C., & Simon, D. (2018). The Impact of Stock Market Fluctuations on the Mental and Physical Well-Being of Children. Economic Inquiry, 56(2), 1007–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottie, C., Dunn, R., & Tefft, N. (2015). The Dow Is Killing Me: Risky Health Behaviors and the Stock Market. Health Economics, 24(7), 803–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, C. (2018, in press). Risk Management in a Policy Environment: The Particular Challenges Associated With Extreme Risks. Futures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cristea, I., & Ioannidis, J. (2018). P-Values in Display Items Are Ubiquitous and Almost Invariably Significant: A Survey of Top Science Journals. PLoS One, 13(5), e0197440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, C., Dell’Ariccia, G., Igan, D., & Rabanal, P. (2013). How to Deal with Real Estate Booms: Lessons from Country Experiences. Journal of Financial Stability, 9(3), 251–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damodaran, A. (2009, September). Valuing Companies with Intangible Assets (Working Paper) New York City, USA: NYU Stern School of Business. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/papers/intangibles.pdf.

  • Damodaran, A., Kose, J., & Liu, C. (1997). The Determinants of Organizational form Changes: Evidence and Implications from Real Estate. Journal of Financial Economics, 45(2), 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Date, P., & Gashi, B. (2013). Risk-Sensitive Control for a Class of Nonlinear Systems with Multiplicative Noise. Systems & Control Letters, 62(10), 988–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, S., DeFilippi, P., & Potts, J. (2016). Blockchain and the Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Camprieu, R., Desbiens, J., & Feixue, Y. (2007). ‘Cultural’ Differences in Project Risk Perception: An Empirical Comparison of China and Canada. International Journal of Project Management, 25(7), 683–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechenaux, E., Thursby, M., & Thursby, J. (2009). Shirking, Sharing Risk and Shelving: The Role of University License Contracts. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(1), 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delis, M., & Mylonidis, N. (2015). Trust, Happiness, and Households’ Financial Decisions. Journal of Financial Stability, 20, 82–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLong, J. (2002). The Stock Options Controversy and the New Economy. Washington DC, USA: Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominici, G. (2017). Governing Business Systems: Theories and Challenges for Systems Thinking in Practice. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 34, 310–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domshlak, C., Hullermeier, E., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2011). Preferences in AI: An overview. Artificial Intelligence, 17(7–8), 1037–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Orsogna, M., & Perc, M. (2015). Statistical Physics of Crime: A Review. Physics of Life Reviews, 12, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond, C. (2009). Replicability Is Not Reproducibility: Nor Is it Good Science. In Proceedings of the Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning Workshop at the 26th ICML, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duca, J., Muellbauer, J., & Mur, A. (2010). Housing Markets and the Financial Crisis of 2007–2009: Lessons for the Future. Journal of Financial Stability, 6(4), 187–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earnest, D., & Wilkinson, I. (2018). An Agent Based Model of the Evolution of Supplier Networks. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 24(1), 112–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, G. (1994). The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of Economic Growth. In Chapter in L. Magnusson (Ed.), Evolutionary and Neo-Schumpeterian Approaches to Economics (Volume 36 of the Series Recent Economic Thought (pp. 173–201)). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst & Young. (2010, July). IRS Concedes Stock Option Issue in Veritas Following Ninth Circuit’s Opinion in Xilinx. Available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ITA_26July2010/$FILE/ITA_IRS_concedes_stock_option.pdf.

  • Esteban, J., & Sakovics, J. (2008). A Theory of Agreements in the Shadow of Conflict: The Genesis of Bargaining Power. Theory and Decision, 65(3), 227–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estola, M. (2001). A Dynamic Theory of a Firm: An Application of Economic Forces. Advances in Complex Systems, 4(1), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feest, U. (2016). The Experimenters’ Regress Reconsidered: Replication, Tacit Knowledge, and the Dynamics of Knowledge Generation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 58, 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, T., Li, K., & Fu, J. (2018). Accounting for Sovereign Tail Risk in Emerging Economies: The Role of Global and Domestic Risk Factors. Emerging Markets Review, 34, 98–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, K., Foss, N., & Klein, P. (2006). Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization. Organization Studies, 28(12), 1893–1912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, M. L., & Tupper, C. (2016). Supervisor Prosocial Motivation, Employee Thriving, and Helping Behavior: A Trickle-Down Model of Psychological Safety. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 561–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, D., et al. (2005). The Growth of Business Firms: Theoretical Framework and Empirical Evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(52), 18801–18806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, S., Dong, H., et al. (2018, in press). Error-Driven Nonlinear Feedback-Based Fuzzy Adaptive Output Dynamic Surface Control for Nonlinear Systems with Partially Constrained Tracking Errors. Journal of the Franklin Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Cabrejo, O., & Valocchi, A. (2014). Global Sensitivity Analysis for Multivariate Output Using Polynomial Chaos Expansion. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 126, 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gete, P., & Juan-Pedro Gómez, J. (2015). Compensation Contracts and Fire Sales. Journal of Financial Stability, 18, 154–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiradato, P., & Marinacci, M. (2001). Risk Ambiguity and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs. Mathematics of Operations Research, 26(4), 864–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., Moran, P., & Almeida-Costa, L. (1995). The Essence of the Mega-corporation: Shared Context, Not Structural Hierarchy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151, 748–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannikis, D., & Vrontos, I. (2011). A Bayesian Approach to Detecting Nonlinear Risk Exposures in Hedge Fund Strategies. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(6), 1399–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, A. (1991). A Constitutional Interpretation of the Firm. Public Choice, 68(1–3), 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R., de Leeuw, J., & Landy, D. (2015). Fitting Perception in and to Cognition. Cognition, 135, 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, M., Baron, J., & Kunreuther, H. (2009). Group Cooperation Under Uncertainty. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 39(3), 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goswami, G., Tan, S., & Waisman, M. (2014). Understanding the Cross-Section of the U.S. Housing Bubble: The Roles of Lending, Transaction Costs, and Rent Growth. Journal of Financial Stability, 15, 76–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, A. (2013). The Crisis. Brookings Papers in Economic Activity, 2010, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grishina, N., Lucas, C., & Date, P. (2017). Prospect Theory—Based Portfolio Optimization: An Empirical Study and Analysis Using Intelligent Algorithms. Quantitative Finance, 17(3), 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guojonsdottir, G., Kristjansson, M., & Olafsson, O. (2011). Immediate Surge in Female Visits to the Cardiac Emergency Department Following the Economic Collapse in Iceland: An Observational Study. Emergency Medicine Journal, 29(9), 694–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, J. (2003). Increasing Returns-to-Scale of Intangibles. In J. R. M. Hand & B. Lev (Eds.), Intangible Assets: Values, Measures and Risks. Oxford: Oxford Management Readers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassett, K., & Shapiro, R. (2012). What Ideas Are Worth: The Value of Intellectual Capital And Intangible Assets in the American Economy. http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Value_of_Intellectual_Capital_in_American_Economy.pdf.

  • Henderson, J., Leleux, B., & White, I. (2006). Service-for-Equity Arrangements: Untangling Motives and Conflicts. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 886–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölzl, W. (2005). The Evolutionary Theory of the Firm. Routines, Complexity and Change. Working Papers Series “Growth and Employment in Europe: Sustainability and Competitiveness”, 46. Inst. für Volkswirtschaftstheorie und -politik, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosek, W. (1975). Macroeconomic Theory. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C., Chang, P., & Ho, S. (2010). Applying Evolutionary Perspective to Analyse the TFT-LCD Industry Development in Taiwan. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 28(3), 283–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., & Mester, L. (2011, July). Who Said Large Banks Don’t Experience Scale Economies? Evidence from a Risk-Return-Driven Cost Function (Working Paper 11–27). Philadelphia, USA: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, C. (2008). Intangible Capital and the “Market to Book Value” Puzzle. https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/workingpapers/E-0029-08-WP.pdf. The Conference Board—Economics Program Working Paper Series. Available at http://raw.rutgers.edu/docs/intangibles/Papers/Intangible%20Capital%20and%20the%20Market%20to%20Book%20ValuePuzzle.pdf.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • István, B. (2016). Empirical Research and Practice-Oriented Physics for the Humanities and Sciences. Comparative Literature & Culture, 18(2), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakimowicz, A. (2016). Econophysics as a New School of Economic Thought: Twenty Years of Research. Acta Physica Polonica, 129(5), 897–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H. (2003). Employment Contracts, US Common Law and the Theory of the Firm. International Journal of the Economics of the Firm, 10(1), 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A., & Terje Aven, T. (2018). A New Definition of Complexity in a Risk Analysis Setting. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 171, 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, V. (2013). Revised Standards for Statistical Evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 19313–19317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, F., & Schinckus, C. (2017). Econophysics and Financial Economics: An Emerging Dialogue. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joia, L. A. (2000). Measuring Intangible Corporate Assets: Linking Business Strategy with Intellectual Capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaisla, J. (2001). Extending the Constitutional Theory of the Firm by Introducing Conventions (Working Paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karadam, D. (2018). An Investigation of Nonlinear Effects of Debt on Growth. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 18, Article e00097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katyou, A. (2013). The Link Between HR Practices, Psychological Contract Fulfilment, and Organisational Performance in Greece: An Economic Crisis Perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 6(2), 568–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kekik, Y., Hachicha, W., & Boujelbene, Y. (2014). Agent-Based Modeling and Investors’ Behavior Explanation of Asset Price Dynamics on Artificial Financial Markets. Procedia Economics & Finance, 13, 30–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (2010). The Effects of Incentives on Information Exchange and Decision Quality in Groups. Behavioral Research In Accounting, 22(1), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchovitch, S., & Liò, P. (2010). Risk Perception and Disease Spread on Social Networks. Procedia Computer Science, 1(1), 2345–2354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobberling, V., & Wakker, P. (2003). Preference Foundations for Non-Expected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique. Mathematics of Operations Research, 28(3), 395–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, V., Lim, M., & Chan, C. (2016). Crowd Behavior Analysis: A Review Where Physics Meets Biology. Neurocomputing, 177, 342–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konakli, K., & Sudret, B. (2016). Global Sensitivity Analysis Using Low-Rank Tensor Approximations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 156, 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, M., Stauder, A., et al. (2008). Work Stress and Mental Health in a Changing Society. European Journal of Public Health, 18(3), 238–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korniotis, V., & Kumar, A. (1993). Do Behavioral Biases Adversely Affect The Economy? Review of Financial Studies, 24(5), 1513–1559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiger, J., & Higgins, D. (2002). Housing and Health: Time Again for Public Health Action. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 758–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuang, Y. (2008). Performance-Vested Stock Options and Earnings Management. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35(9–10), 1049–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucherenko, S., Delpuech, B., et al. (2015). Application of the Control Variate Technique to Estimation of Total Sensitivity Indices. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 134, 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuttner, K., & Shim, I. (2016, in press). Can Non-interest Rate Policies Stabilize Housing Markets? Evidence from a Panel of Fifty-Seven Economies. Journal of Financial Stability, 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwasnicki, W. (2001). Firm Decision Making Processes in an Evolutionary Model of Industrial Dynamics. Advances In Complex Systems, 4(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyrtsou, C., & Sornette, D., eds. (2012). New Facets of Economic Complexity in Modern Financial Markets. European Journal of Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitinen, E. (2001). Management Accounting Change in Small Technology Companies: Towards a Mathematical Model of the Technology Firm. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 507–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, R. (2007). The Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm and the Theory of the Entrepreneurial Firm. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 1107–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, R., & Robertson, R. (2002 [1993]). Business Organization as a Coordination Problem: Toward a Dynamic Theory of the Boundaries of the Firm. Business and Economic History, 22(1), 31–41. Reprinted in Langlois, R., Yu, T., & Robertson, P., eds., Alternative Theories of the Firm. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002, Volume III.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, R. (1995). Do Firms Plan? Constitutional Political Economy, 6, 247–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, R. (2006). Competition Through Institutional Form: The Case of Cluster Tool Standards. In S. Greenstein & V. Stango (Eds.), Standards and Public Policy (pp. 60–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, D. S. (2002). An Examination of Agency Costs: The Case of REITs. PHD Thesis, Department Of Urban & Regional Science; Texas A&M University, Texas, USA. Available at http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969/127/etd-07082002-153205-1.pdf?sequence=1.

  • Lee, Y., et al. (1998). Universal Features in the Growth Dynamics of Complex Organizations. Physics Review Letters, 80(15), 3275–3278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, P. (1998). The Firm, Money and Economic Calculation: Considering the Institutional Nexus of Market Production. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57(4), 499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D., Springer, T., & Anderson, R. (2003). The Cost Efficiency of Real Estate Investment Trusts: An Analysis with a Bayesian Stochastic Frontier Model. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 26(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lhaopadchan, S. (2010). Fair Value Accounting and Intangible Assets: Goodwill Impairment and Managerial Choice. Journal of Financial Regulation & Compliance, 18(2), 120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, G., & Rabitz, H. (2017). Relationship Between Sensitivity Indices Defined by Variance- and Covariance-Based Methods. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 167, 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, S. (1997). Transaction-Efficiency Analysis of Franchising Arrangements Through Change Cross-Constrained Game Theory. Computers & Operations Research, 24(10), 919–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., & Chen, S. (2012). Complexity and Non-Linearities in Financial Markets: Perspective from Econophysics. International Review of Financial Analysis, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Chen, C., & Liu, T. (2014). Do Stock Prices Drive People Crazy? Health Policy and Planning, 30(2), 206–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., Zhang, Y., et al. (2013). Large Daily Stock Variation Is Associated With Cardiovascular Mortality in Two Cities of Guangdong, China. PloS One, 8(7), e68417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S., Wang, C., Liu, T., & Chen, C. (2015). Stroke: A Hidden Danger of Margin Trading in Stock Markets. Journal of Urban Health, 92(5), 995–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, D., Naranjo, A., & Ryngert, M. (2010). Real Estate Ownership, Leasing Intensity, and Value: Do Stock Returns Reflect a Firm’s Real Estate Holdings? The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 44, 184–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liow, K., & Nappi-Choulet, I. (2008). A Combined Perspective of Corporate Real Estate. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liow, K. H. (1995). Property in Corporate Financial Statements: The U.K. Evidence. Journal of Property Research, 12, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. (2015, November). How Does the Stock Market Affect Investor Sentiment?—Evidence from Anti-depressant Usage. Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2691824 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2691824.

  • Llorca, N., Sánchez-Soriano, J., Tijs, S., & Timmer, J. (2004). The Core and Related Solution Concepts for Infinite Assignment Games. TOP, 12(2), 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loken, E., & Gelman, A. (2017). Measurement Error and the Replication Crisis. Science, 355(6325), 584–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopera, M., & Marchand, S. (2018). Peer Effects and Risk-Taking Among Entrepreneurs: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 150, 182–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. (2010). Opportunism, Hold-Up and the (Contractual) Theory of the Firm. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 166(3), 479–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W., Chen, H., Jiang, L., et al. (2011). Stock Volatility as a Risk Factor for Coronary Heart Disease Death. European Heart Journal, 32(8), 1006–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macho-Stadler, I., & Pérez-Castrillo, D. (2010). Incentives in University Technology Transfers. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(4), 362–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahar, S., & Wright, D. (2009). The Value of Postponing Online Fulfillment Decisions in Multi-channel Retail/e-Tail Organizations. Computers & Operations Research, 36, 3061–3072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mama, H. (2018). Innovative Efficiency and Stock Returns: Should We Care About Nonlinearity? Finance Research Letters, 24, 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantegna, R., & Stanley, E. (2000). An Introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mara, T., & Tarantola, S. (2012). Variance-Based Sensitivity Indices for Models with Dependent Inputs. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 107, 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín, M., & Saracho, A. (2010). Royalty Licensing. Economics Letters, 107(2), 284–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marwala, T. (2013). Economic Modeling Using Artificial Intelligence Methods. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masicampo, E. J., & Lalande, D. R. (2012). A Peculiar Prevalence of p Values Just Below. 05. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology and Aging, 65, 2271–2279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShane, B., Gal, D., et al. (2018). Abandon Statistical Significance. arXiv.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes, A., & Themido, I. H. (2004). Multi-outlet Retail Site Location Assessment. International Transactions in Operations Research, 11, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menninger, D. (1985). Political Science and the Corporation. PS, 18(2), 206–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metjahic, L. (2018). Deconstructing the Dao: The Need for Legal Recognition and the Application of Securities Laws to Decentralized Organizations. Cardozo Law Review, 39, 1533–1550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milman, E. (2002). The Semi-Algebraic Theory of Stochastic Games. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27(2), 401–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minhat, M., & Mazni Abdullah, M. (2016). Bankers’ Stock Options, Risk-Taking and the Financial Crisis. Journal of Financial Stability, 22, 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnasri, M., Dionne, G., & Gueyie, J. (2017). The Use of Nonlinear Hedging Strategies by US Oil Producers: Motivations and Implications. Energy Economics, 63, 348–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollona, E., & Marcozzi, A. (2008). FirmNet: The Scope of Firms and the Allocation of Task in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 15(2), 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moloughney, B. (2004). Housing and Population Health: The State of Current Research Knowledge. Prepared for the Canadian Population Health Initiative, part of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HousingPopHealth_e.pdf.

  • Mondani, H., Holme, P., & Liljeros, F. (2014). Fat-Tailed Fluctuations in the Size of Organizations: The Role of Social Influence. PLoS One, 9(7), e100527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoro-Sánchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, A., & Romero-Martínez, A. (2009). The Decision to Use Alliances as Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Role of Resources and Skills. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(5), 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, A. (2010). Licensing a New Product: Fee vs. Royalty Licensing with Unionized Labor Market. Labour Economics, 17(4), 735–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muro, S. (2008). Bankruptcy Control and the Theory of the Firm. In Latin American and Caribbean Law and Economics Association (ALACDE) Annual Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadendla, S., Brahma, S., & Varshney, P. (2016, October). Towards the Design of Prospect-Theory Based Human Decision Rules for Hypothesis Testing. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01085.

  • Nakagawa, R., Oiwa, H., & Takeda, F. (2012). The Economic Impact of Herd Behavior in the Japanese Loan Market. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 20(4), 600–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, L. (1999, July/August). Intangibles: What Put the New in the New Economy? Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, L. (2010). Intangible Assets and National Income Accounting. Review of Income and Wealth, 56(1), S135–S155. Also available at http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2008/wp08-23.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandi, A., et al. (2012). Economic Conditions and Suicide Rates in New York City. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(6), 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K., Umarov, S., & Kon, M. (2017). On the Average Uncertainty for Systems with Nonlinear Coupling. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 468, 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettleton, S. (1998). Losing Homes Through Mortgage Possession: A ‘New’ Public Health Issue. Critical Public Health, 8(1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niamir, L., Filatova, T., et al. (2018). Transition to Low-Carbon Economy: Assessing Cumulative Impacts of Individual Behavioral Changes. Energy Policy, 118, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nofsinger, J. (2012). Household Behavior and Boom/Bust Cycles. Journal of Financial Stability, 8(3), 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunez, M., & Rafels, C. (2008). A Cooperative Bargaining Approach to the Assignment Market. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2005). Corporate Governance, Credit Risk and Legal Reasoning: The Case of Encompass Services, Inc. International Journal of Law & Management, 47(1/2), 2–43. Reprinted in ICFAI Journal Of Financial Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2006). A Further Critique of Cumulative Prospect Theory and Related Approaches. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 179, 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2007). Some Game Theory and Financial Contracting Issues in Large Corporate Transactions. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 186(2), 1018–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2008a). Some Corporate Governance Problems Pertaining to REITs—Part One. Journal of International Banking Law & Regulation, 23(2), 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2008b). Some Corporate Governance Problems Pertaining to REITs—Part Two. Journal of International Banking Law & Regulation, 23(3), 142–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2008c). Prospective Home-Buyers’ Propensity-to-Buy in the Housing Industry. Chaos & Complexity Letters, 3(2), 169–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2008d). On the Choice Between Renting and Buying in the US Housing Industry. Chaos & Complexity Letters, 3(2), 191–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2009). On the Choice Between A Strategic Alliance and an M&A Transaction. International Journal of Mathematics, Game Theory & Algebra, 17(5/6), 269–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2012). Risk in the Global Real Estate Markets. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2013). Decision-Making, Sub-Additive Recursive “Matching” Noise and Biases in Risk-Weighted Index Calculation Methods in In-Complete Markets with Partially Observable Multi-Attribute Preferences. Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms & Applications, 05, 1350020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2015a). Goodwill/Intangibles Rules and Earnings Management. European Journal of Law Reform, 17(1), 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2015b). Real Options, Enforcement of and Goodwill/Intangibles Rules and Associated Behavioral Issues. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 18(3), 330–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2016). Indices, Index Funds and ETFs: Exploring HCI, Nonlinear Risk and Homomorphisms (book manuscript; forthcoming 2018). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwogugu, M. (2019). Indices, Index Funds and ETFs: Exploring HCI, Nonlinear Risk and Homomorphisms. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nys, E., Tarazi, A., & Trinugroho, I. (2015). Political Connections, Bank Deposits, and Formal Deposit Insurance. Journal of Financial Stability, 19, 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mule, E. (2016, in press). The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize into Beautiful Articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Kelley, C., (2012). Coase, Knight, and the Nexus-of-Contracts Theory of the Firm: A Reflection on Reification, Reality, and the Corporation as Entrepreneur Surrogate. Seattle University Law Review, 35(4), 1247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongkowijoyo, C., & Doloi, H. (2018). Understanding of Impact and Propagation of Risk Based on Social Network Analysis. Procedia Engineering, 212, 1123–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015, August 28). Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Science, 349(6251), 943–945. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full.pdf.

  • O’Sullivan, K. (2009). Strategic Intellectual Capital Management in Multinational Organizations: Sustainability and Successful Implications. Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palar, P., Zuhal, L., et al. (2018). Global Sensitivity Analysis via Multi-fidelity Polynomial Chaos Expansion. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 170, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paredes-Frigolett, H., Nachar-Calderón, P., & Marcuello, C. (2017). Modeling the Governance of Cooperative Firms. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 23(1), 122–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasman, H. (2015). Chapter 12: Risk, Risk Perception, Risk Communication, Risk Acceptance: Risk Governance. In Risk Analysis and Control for Industrial Processes—Gas, Oil and Chemicals (pp. 431–454).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, M., & Kristoufek, L. (2015). Worldwide Clustering of the Corruption Perception. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 428, 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, E., Yan, A., & Yan, M. (2016). Accounting Accruals, Heterogeneous Investor Beliefs, and Stock Returns. Journal of Financial Stability, 24, 88–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings, J., & Wansink, B. (2004). Channel Contract Behavior: The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Channel Members’ Market Structures. The Journal of Business, 77(4), 697–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perc, M., Jordan, J., et al. (2017). Statistical Physics of Human Cooperation. Physics Reports, 687, 1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. (1998). Risk Assessment, Risk Values and the Social Science Programme: Why We Do Need Risk Perception Research. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 59(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J., Mustafee, N., et al. (2016). System-Focused Risk Identification and Assessment for Disaster Preparedness: Dynamic Threat Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 254(2), 550–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quint, T., & Wako, J. (2004). On House-Swapping, The Strict Core, Segmentation and Linear Programming. Mathematics of Operations Research, 29(4), 861–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, A., & Taylor, K. (2015). Who Cares About Stock Market Booms and Busts? Evidence from Data on Mental Health. Oxford Economic Papers, 67(3), 826–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raviv, A., & Sisli-Ciamarra, E. (2013). Executive Compensation, Risk Taking and the State of the Economy. Journal of Financial Stability, 9(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, W., O’Brolchain, F., & Haynes, P. (2016). Governance in Blockchain Technologies and Social Contract Theories. Ledger, 1(1), 134–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Replicability Research Group. (2015). Replicability vs. Reproducibility. Tel Aviv University, Department of Statistics and Operations Research. http://www.replicability.tau.ac.il/index.php/replicability-in-science/replicability-vs-reproducibility.html.

  • Riccaboni, M., et al. (2008). The Size Variance Relationship of Business Firm Growth Rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(50), 19595–19600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, S., Billinger, S., et al. (2012). Market Economies and Pro-social Behavior: Experimental Evidence from Central Asia. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(1), 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo, T. (1996). Associations Between Risk Perception and Safety. Safety Science, 24(3), 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saichev, A., Malevergne, Y., & Sornette, D. (2010). Theory of Zipf’s Law and Beyond. Series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 632, XII, 171, 44. illus., Softcover – ISBN: 978-3-642-02945-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinas, G. (2009). The International Brand Valuation Manual (1st ed.). Hoboken, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, Y., & Jacobsen, C. (1997). A System Dynamics Model of Planned Organizational Change. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 3(3), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnellenbach, J., & Schubert, C. (2015). Behavioral Political Economy: A Survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 40B, 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, D. (2005). Fee Versus Royalty Reconsidered. Games and Economic Behavior, 53(1), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shefrin, H. (2009). Ending the Management Illussion: Preventing Another Financial Crisis. Ivey Business Journal, 73, 1–7. http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/innovation/ending-the-management-illusion-preventing-another-financial-crisis#.VDMq4_ldVOE.

  • Shen, J., Dumont, J., & Deng, X. (2016). Employees’ Perceptions of Green HRM and Non-Green Employee Work Outcomes: The Social Identity and Stakeholder Perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 594–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, X., & Yan, Z. (2018). Urbanization and Risk Preference in China: A Decomposition of Self-Selection and Assimilation Effects. China Economic Review, 49, 210–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmans, G., Sirmans, C., & Turnbull, R. (1999). Prices, Incentives and Choice of Management Form. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 29(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, L. (2001). Political Decisions and Public Risk Perception. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 72(2), 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Wall, L. (2010). Debt, Hedging and Human Capital. Journal of Financial Stability, 6(2), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, I., & Bae, J. (2016). Politics, Strong Institution and Competitive Advantage: An Examination of Organizational Aspiration for Competition. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 22(4), 412–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y., Yao, H. et al. (2017). Risky Multicriteria Group Decision Making Based on Cloud Prospect Theory and Regret Feedback. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. Article ID 9646303. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9646303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sornette, D. (2003). Why Stock Markets Crash? Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoor, J., & Chu, M. (2017). The Role of Social Identity and Communities of Practice in Mergers and Acquisitions. Group & Organization Management, 43(4), 623–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2018, December 3). Reproducibility of Scientific Results. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reproducibility/.

  • Sterling, T. (1959). Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—Or Vice Versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stracca, L. (2014). Financial Imbalances and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from the EU. Journal of Financial Stability, 11, 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudhoter, P., & Peleg, B. (2004). A Note on an Axiomatization of the Core of Market Games. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27(3), 441–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudret, B., & Mai, C. (2015). Computing Derivative-Based Global Sensitivity Measures Using Polynomial Chaos Expansions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 134, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J., & Fang, Y. (2015). Executives’ Professional Ties Along the Supply Chain: The Impact on Partnership Sustainability and Firm Risk. Journal of Financial Stability, 20, 144–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, M. (2009). Individual Behavior and Group Membership: Comment. American Economic Review, 99(5), 2247–2257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Świątkowski, W., & Dompnier, B. (2017). Replicability Crisis in Social Psychology: Looking at the Past to Find New Pathways for the Future. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taksar, M. (2001). Optimal Risk and Dividend Distribution Control Models for an Insurance Company. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 51, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N., & Martin, G. (2012). How to Prevent Other Financial Crises. SAIS Review, XXXII(1). http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/sais.pdf.

  • Teece, D. (2015). Intangible Assets and a Theory of Heterogeneous Firms. In A. Bounfour & T. Miyagawa (Eds.), Intangibles, Market Failure and Innovation Performance (pp. 217–239). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Management in Large Organizations: Toward a Theory of the (Entrepreneurial) Firm. European Economic Review, 86, 202–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S., & Valentinov, V. (2017). The Neglect of Society in the Theory of the Firm: A Systems-Theory Perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(4), 1061–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tissot, J., & Prieur, C. (2012). Bias Correction for the Estimation of Sensitivity Indices Based on Random Balance Designs. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 107, 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsay, A., Gray, J., Noh, I. & Mahoney, J. (2018). A Review of Production and Operations Management Research on Outsourcing in Supply Chains: Implications for the Theory of the Firm. Production & Operations Management, 27(7), 1177–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuzel, S. (2010). Corporate Real Estate Holdings and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns. Review of Financial Studies, 23(6), 2268–2302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatasubramanian, V. (2017). How Much Inequality is Fair? Mathematical Principles of a Moral, Optimal, and Stable Capitalist Society. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voit, J. (2003). From Brownian Motion to Operational Risk: Statistical Physics and Financial Markets. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 321(1–2), 286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P., Lu, Z., et al. (2013). The Derivative Based Variance Sensitivity Analysis for the Distribution Parameters and Its Computation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 119, 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Lin, Y. (2009). Using a Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approach to Select Merged Strategies for Commercial Banks. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(6), 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserstein, R., & Lazar, N. (2016). The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U., & Schubert, C. (2008). Constitutional Interests in the Face of Innovations: How Much Do We Need to Know About Risk Preferences? Constitutional Political Economy, 19, 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N., & Wong, J. (2001). The Investment Opportunity Set and Acquired Goodwill. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(1), 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C. (June 2017). Proof-of-Work As It Relates to the Theory of the Firm. Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2993312 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2993312.

  • Wu, P., Liu, S., & Zhai, R. (2018). Nonlinear Impacts of Operating Risk and Demand Management Policy on Banks’ Performance: The Role of Leading Indicator. Economic Analysis & Policy, 59, 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, A. (2005). Accounting Recognition of Intangible Assets: Theory and Evidence on Economic Determinants. The Accounting Review, 80(3), 967–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, S., Lu, Z., & Wang, P. (2018). Multivariate Global Sensitivity Analysis for Dynamic Models Based on Wavelet Analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 170, 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, W., Zhao, Y., Jiang, Z., & Chow, P. (2013). Optimizing Product Service System by Franchise Fee Contracts Under Information Asymmetry. Annals of Operations Research, 240(2), 709–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, G., & Chen, J. (2008). Group Decision-Making Procedure Based on Incomplete Reciprocal Relations. Soft Computing—A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications, 12(6), 515–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamasaki, N., et al. (2006). Preferential Attachment and Growth Dynamics in Complex Systems. Physics Review-E, 74(035103R), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X., Haugen, S., & Paltrinieri, N. (2018). Clarifying the Concept of Operational Risk Assessment in the Oil and Gas Industry. Safety Science, 108, 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, X., Xue, R., et al. (2018). Optimization in Curbing Risk Contagion Among Financial institutes. Automatica, 94, 214–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun, Y., Lu, Z., & Jiang, X. (2018, in press). An Efficient Method for Moment-Independent Global Sensitivity Analysis by Dimensional Reduction Technique and Principle of Maximum Entropy. Reliability Engineering & System Safety.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, A., Shen, Z., & Zhou, J. (2017). The Science of Science: From the Perspective of Complex Systems. Physics Reports, 714–715, 1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Wang, P., et al. (2018). Twitter’s Daily Happiness Sentiment and International Stock Returns: Evidence from Linear and Nonlinear Causality Tests. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 18, 50–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 1.2 List of the top-100 most successful startups in the world

Appendix 2

Table 1.3 List of the worst startup failures in the world—2017/2018

Appendix 3: The Most Significant and/or Largest Economic/Financial Crises in the World During the Last Few Centuries

  1. 1.

    The crash of the Tulip Mania Bubble in the Netherlands in 1637 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania).

  2. 2.

    The crashes of the South Sea Bubble (Great Britain) and the Mississippi Bubble (France) in 1720 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Bubble; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Bubble).

  3. 3.

    The Financial Crisis of 1763 which started in Amsterdam and extended to Germany and Scandinavia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_banking_crisis_of_1763).

  4. 4.

    The financial Crisis of 1772 (in London and Amsterdam): twenty important banks in London became bankrupt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_1772).

  5. 5.

    France’s financial and Debt Crisis of 1783–1788: France had incurred large debts for its involvement in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) and the American Revolution (1775–1783).

  6. 6.

    The bank run of 1792 in the US: which was caused by the expansion of credit by the newly formed Bank of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1792).

  7. 7.

    The crises and mass hysteria of 1796–1797 in Britain and the US: caused by land speculation bubble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1796%E2%80%931797).

  8. 8.

    South Sea Bubble (1720) in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Bubble); and Mississippi Company (1720) (France) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company).

  9. 9.

    The Great East Indian Bengal Bubble Crash of 1769 in India—the crash was caused by rapid over-valuation of East India Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Bubble_of_1769).

  10. 10.

    The economic crises and mass hysteria of 1785 in the United States.

  11. 11.

    The economic crises and mass hysteria of 1792 in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1792).

  12. 12.

    The crises and mass hysteria of 1796–1797 in Britain and United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1796%E2%80%931797).

  13. 13.

    The bankruptcy of the Danish government in 1813 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_state_bankruptcy_of_1813).

  14. 14.

    The Financial Crisis of 1818 in England which also affected the US—which reduced bank lending.

  15. 15.

    The economic recession and mass hysteria of 1819 in the USA—marked by bank failures and the USA’s first boom-to-bust economic cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819).

  16. 16.

    The economic recession and mass hysteria of 1825 in Britain—wherein many British banks failed and Bank of England nearly failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1825).

  17. 17.

    The economic recession and mass hysteria of 1837 in the USA—marked by bank failures and a subsequent 5-year depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837).

  18. 18.

    Crises and mass hysteria of 1847 in Britain—marked by collapse of British financial markets and the end of the 1840s railroad boom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1847; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad). Also see Bank Charter Act of 1844 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Charter_Act_1844).

  19. 19.

    The economic recession of 1857 in the USA—marked by bank failures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857).

  20. 20.

    The Overend Gurney crisis (international financial crises but primarily British)—defined by the failure of Overend, Gurney & Company in London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1866; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overend_Gurney_crisis).

  21. 21.

    The Gold Panic of 1869 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)).

  22. 22.

    The USA economic recession and mass hysteria of 1873—defined by bank failures and the five year “Long Depression” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression).

  23. 23.

    The crises and mass hysteria of 1884 in the USA—affected New York banks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884).

  24. 24.

    The Baring Crisis of 1890—defined by the near-failure of a major London bank and the South American financial crises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1890).

  25. 25.

    The economic recession and mass hysteria of 1893 in the USA—defined by failures of railroad overbuilding and bank failures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893).

  26. 26.

    The Australian banking crisis of 1893 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_banking_crisis_of_1893).

  27. 27.

    The 1896 acute economic depression in the United States—caused by lower silver reserves and perceptions of its effects on the gold standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1896; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard).

  28. 28.

    The post-Napoleonic depression (post-1815) in England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Napoleonic_depression).

  29. 29.

    The economic recession and mass hysteria of 1819 in the USA—marked by bank failures and the US’s first boom-to-bust economic cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819).

  30. 30.

    The Great Depression of the British Agriculture industry during 1873–1896 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_of_British_Agriculture).

  31. 31.

    The Long Depression of 1873–1896 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression).

  32. 32.

    The Australian banking crisis of 1893 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_banking_crisis_of_1893).

  33. 33.

    US economic recession and mass hysteria of 1907—marked by bank failures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907).

  34. 34.

    The economic recession and mass hysteria of 1901 in the US—which started a tussle for the financial control of the Northern Pacific Railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1901).

  35. 35.

    The crises and mass hysteria of 1910–1911 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1910%E2%80%931911).

  36. 36.

    The Shanghai rubber stock market crisis of 1910 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_rubber_stock_market_crisis).

  37. 37.

    The US economic recession, depression and mass hysteria of 1920–1921 after the end of World War One (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321).

  38. 38.

    The Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Great Depression of 1929–1939 in the US—which was the worst depression of modern history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).

  39. 39.

    The 1973 global oil crisis and the 1973 OPEC oil price shock—oil prices increased which caused the 1973–1974 stock market crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931974_stock_market_crash).

  40. 40.

    The 1970s global energy crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis).

  41. 41.

    The 1979 global energy crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis).

  42. 42.

    The secondary banking crisis of 1973–1975 in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_banking_crisis_of_1973%E2%80%931975).

  43. 43.

    The Latin American debt crisis of late-1970s and early-1980s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_debt_crisis).

  44. 44.

    The early 1980s economic recession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession).

  45. 45.

    The Chilean crisis of 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_1982).

  46. 46.

    The bank stock crisis of 1983 in Isreal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_stock_crisis_(Israel_1983)).

  47. 47.

    The Nigerian recession and structural adjustments programs of 1983–1986.

  48. 48.

    The Japanese asset price bubble of 1986–1992—which collapsed in 1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble).

  49. 49.

    The stock market crash of 1987 in the USA (Black Monday)—one of the most significant declines of stock markets in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)).

  50. 50.

    The US savings and loan (S&L) crisis of 1986–1995—marked by the failures of 1043 out of the approximately then-existing 3234 S&L banks during 1986–1995 in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis).

  51. 51.

    The African sovereign debt crisis of 1980–1989.

  52. 52.

    The 1991 economic crisis in India.

  53. 53.

    The Scandinavian banking crisis of the early 1990s: Swedish and finnish banking crises of 1990s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_banking_crisis_of_1990s).

  54. 54.

    The early-1990s global economic recession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession).

  55. 55.

    The speculative attacks on currencies in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism during 1992–1993 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism).

  56. 56.

    The Latin American debt crises of the 1990s.

  57. 57.

    The 1994–1995 economic and financial crisis in Mexico—marked by speculative attacks on the Mexican Peso and defaults of Mexican debt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_economic_crisis_in_Mexico).

  58. 58.

    The economic crisis of 1991 in India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_India_economic_crisis).

  59. 59.

    The 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis—marked by currency devaluations and banking crises in Asian countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_financial_crisis).

  60. 60.

    The 1998 financial crisis in Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis).

  61. 61.

    The 1998–1999 financial crisis in Ecuador (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998-99_Ecuador_financial_crisis).

  62. 62.

    The Thailand financial crisis of 1997.

  63. 63.

    The economic crisis of 1999–2002 in Argentina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999%E2%80%932002)).

  64. 64.

    The Samba Effect of 1999 in Brazil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_effect).

  65. 65.

    The Turkish economic crisis of 2000–2001 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Turkish_economic_crisis).

  66. 66.

    The early 2000s global recession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession).

  67. 67.

    The crash of the technology/internet stock bubble in the US in 2000—speculation about stock prices of internet companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble).

  68. 68.

    The Uruguay banking crisis of 2002 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Uruguay_banking_crisis).

  69. 69.

    The Venezuelan general strike of 2002–2003 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_general_strike_of_2002%E2%80%9303).

  70. 70.

    The Global Financial Crisis and economic crises of 2007–2012—which was caused in part by the subprime mortgage crises of 2006–2008 in the USA. In many countries, government interventions (e.g. government bail-outs/bail-ins; new financial regulations; quantitative easing; etc.) didn’t spur economic growth or lending volumes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis).

  71. 71.

    The late-2000s global economic recession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession).

  72. 72.

    The worldwide energy crisis and oil price bubble of 2003–2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis).

  73. 73.

    The Thailand financial crisis of 2008.

  74. 74.

    The wordwide oil price bubble of 2013–2015.

  75. 75.

    The Subprime mortgage crisis of 2006–2010 in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis).

  76. 76.

    The United States housing bubble and United States housing market correction of 2003–2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_market_correction).

  77. 77.

    The Automotive industry crisis and government bailouts of 2008–2010 in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%932010).

  78. 78.

    The Icelandic financial crisis of 2008–2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932012_Icelandic_financial_crisis).

  79. 79.

    The 2008 financial crisis in Indonesia.

  80. 80.

    The Irish banking crisis of 2008–2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_Irish_banking_crisis).

  81. 81.

    The Russian financial crisis of 2008–2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%932009).

  82. 82.

    The Latvian financial crisis of 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Latvian_financial_crisis).

  83. 83.

    The Venezuelan banking crisis of 2009–2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_banking_crisis_of_2009%E2%80%9310).

  84. 84.

    The Venezuelan economic recession and financial crises of 2013–present (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Bolivarian_Venezuela; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012-2017_Venezuela_crisis&action=edit&redlink=1).

  85. 85.

    The Spanish financial crisis and sovereign debt crisis of 2008–present (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-16_Spanish_financial_crisis).

  86. 86.

    The Mexican financial crisis of 2008.

  87. 87.

    The mass hysteria and financial crisis of 2008–2009 in South Korea.

  88. 88.

    The f mass hysteria and inancial crisis of 2008 in China.

  89. 89.

    The Nigerian banking crises and economic crises of 2007–2012—marked by high bank NPL-rates, bank failures and excessive loan interest rates.

  90. 90.

    The European sovereign debt crisis of 2010–2018 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_European_sovereign_debt_crisis).

  91. 91.

    The Russian financial crisis of 2014–2015—the rubble crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Russian_financial_crisis).

  92. 92.

    The economic crisis of 2014–2017 in Argentina—marked by mass protests, economic recession and sovereign debt default.

  93. 93.

    The Nigerian currency/financial/economic crises of 2014–2018—marked by the crash of the stock market in 2014–2015, 150% + currency devaluation and economic recession.

  94. 94.

    Crashes of the Chinese stock markets during 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chinese_stock_market_crash).

  95. 95.

    The crashes of global commodity prices during 2015–2017.

  96. 96.

    The Greek government-debt crisis of 2009–present (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_government-debt_crisis).

  97. 97.

    The Portuguese financial crisis of 2010–2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010-14_Portuguese_financial_crisis).

  98. 98.

    The Ukrainian crisis of 2013–2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_crisis).

  99. 99.

    The Ukrainian/Crimea war and economic crises of 2016–2018.

  100. 100.

    The Brazilian economic crisis and mass hysteria of 2014–2017—which was marked by popular mass protests, the jailing of two former Brazilian Presidents and radical changes in government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014-2017_Brazilian_economic_crisis).

  101. 101.

    The 2013 financial crisis in Indonesia.

  102. 102.

    The crashes of worldwide commodity prices during 2015–2017.

  103. 103.

    The Malaysian financial crisis, mass hysteria and 1MDB scandal of 2014–2018 which resulted in the re-election of a former President and the jailing of another former President of Malaysia.

  104. 104.

    The worldwide cryptocurrency mania, bubble and frauds of 2015–present.

  105. 105.

    The worldwide “Sharing Economy” mania, stock-bubble and frauds of 2014–present.

  106. 106.

    The USA housing bubble of 2016–present.

  107. 107.

    The United Nations, US and EU economic sanctions that were imposed on Russia, North Korea and Iran during 2010–2018.

  108. 108.

    The US-China trade disputes of 2018–present.

  109. 109.

    The economic crisis and debt crisis of 2017–2018 in India (excessive debt owed by companies which affected the growth of the Indian economy).

  110. 110.

    The economic, financial (peso) and political crisis and mass hysteria (of 2014–present) in Argentina

  111. 111.

    The 2014–2017 mass hysteria, political crisis and economic crisis in Brazil which resulted in the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff and in widespread protests about political system and the Brazilian economy.

  112. 112.

    The EU economic sanctions that were imposed on Belarus from 2016–2019.

  113. 113.

    The debt crisis (excessive debt especially in the private sector) of 2017–2018 in China.

  114. 114.

    The EU economic sanctions that were imposed on Egypt during 2015–2019.

  115. 115.

    The EU economic sanctions that were imposed on Democratic Republic of Congo during 2015–2018.

  116. 116.

    The s mass hysteria, socioeconomic and political crisis of 2012–present in Venezuela.

  117. 117.

    The mass hysteria and 2015–2018 economic recession and financial crisis in Japan.

  118. 118.

    The EU and US economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq during 2009–2011.

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nwogugu, M.I.C. (2019). Introduction. In: Complex Systems, Multi-Sided Incentives and Risk Perception in Companies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-44704-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-44704-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-44703-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44704-3

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics