Skip to main content

Abstract

Uniformity in modes of governance of the firm is now widely debated. So far, the predominant thesis was that there should be a superior model promoting optimality by disclosure of information and transparency. But today this thesis is greatly contested, since the adoption of a unique and universal set of rules and arrangements neglects the diversity and heterogeneity of firms, industries, as well as institutional contexts (Becht et al., 2005). Moreover, evidence shows that this unique model of governance tends to generate major failures and turbulence, especially in innovative industries (Fransman, 2002; Lazonick and O’Sullivan, 2002; Krafft and Ravix, 2005). What emerges as a result is that different types of rules and norms should govern differently entrepreneurial as well as public firms, depending on the industry in which they operate and the stage of development of this industry.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aghion, P. and P. Bolton, ‘An Incomplete Contracts Approach to Financial Contracting’, Review of Economic Studies, 59(3) (1992), 473–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, C., The Economics of Innovation, New Technology and Structural Change London: (Routledge, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., ‘Innovation, Growth and Survival’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4) (1995), 441–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. and E. Lehmann, ‘Entrepreneurial Access and Absorption of Knowledge Spillovers: Strategic Board and Managerial Composition for Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2) (2006), 155–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becht, M., T. Jenkinson and C. Mayer, ‘Corporate Governance: an Assessment’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21(2) (2005), 155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S. and B. Wernerfelt, ‘The Link between Resources and Type of Diversification: Theory and Evidence’, Strategic Management Journal, 12(1) (1991), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation: the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, L. and F. Malerba (eds), ‘Special Issue: Interpreting Industrial Dynamics 20 Years after Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4) (2002), 3–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N., ‘Theories of the Firm: Competence and Strategy Perspectives’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 3(2) (1993), 127–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss N., ‘Cooperation is Competition: George Richardson on Coordination and Interfirm Relations’, British Review of Economic Issues, 16(40) (1994), 25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. and J. Christensen, ‘A Market Process Approach to Corporate Coherence’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 22(4-5) (2001), 213–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransman, M., Telecoms in the Internet Age: From Boom to Bust to... (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D., ‘Equilibrium in Evolutionary Games: Some Experimental Results’, Economic Journal, 106(434) (1996), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P., ‘What do we Know about Entry?’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4) (1995), 421–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., ‘Optimal Investment, Monitoring, and the Staging of Venture Capital’, Journal of Finance, 50(5) (1995), 1461–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. ‘Grandstanding in the Venture Capital Industry’, Journal of Financial Economics, 42(1) (1996), 133–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. and J. Lerner, ‘The Venture Capital Revolution’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2) (2001), 145–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gort, M. and S. Klepper, ‘Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations’, Economic Journal, 92(367) (1982), 630–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, S. and O. Hart, ‘The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: a Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration’, Journal of Political Economy, 94(4) (1986), 691–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O., Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995a).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O., ‘Corporate Governance: Some Theory and Implications’, Economic Journal, 105(430) (1995b), 678–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O. and J. Moore, ‘Incomplete Contracts and Renegotiation’, Econometrica, 56(4) (1988), 755–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. and W. Meckling, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4) (1976), 305–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandori, M., G.J. Mailath and R. Rob, ‘Learning, Mutation and Long-Run Equilibria in Games’, Econometrica, 61(1) (1993), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. and P. Stroemberg, ‘Financial Contracting Theory Meets the Real World: an Empirical Analysis of Venture Capital Contracts’, Review of Economic Studies, 70(243) (2003), 281–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. and P. Stroemberg, ‘Characteristics, Contracts, and Actions: Evidence from Venture Capitalist Analyses’, Journal of Finance, 59(5) (2004), 2177–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. and S. Klein, ‘Do Entrepreneurs Make Predictable Mistakes? Evidence from Corporate Divestitures’, in N.J. Foss and P.G. Klein (eds), Entrepreneur-ship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., ‘Industry Life Cycles’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1) (1997), 119–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krafft, J., ‘What do We Know about Industrial Dynamics? Introduction to the Special Issue’, Revue de VOFCE, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafft, J. and J.L. Ravix, ‘The Governance of Innovative Firms: an Evolutionary Perspective’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(3) (2005), 125–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krafft, J. and J.L. Ravix, ‘Corporate Governance and the Governance of Knowledge: Rethinking the Relationship in Terms of Corporate Coherence’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(1), (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W. and M. O’Sullivan (eds), Corporate Governance and Sustainable Prosperity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo, ‘The Dynamics of Evolution of Industry’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(1), 51–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (London: Basil Blackwell, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Piscitello, L., ‘Corporate Diversification, Coherence and Economic Performance’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5) (2004), 757–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, L., Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection (Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saviotti, P.P., Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleifer, A. and R. Vishny, ‘A Survey on Corporate Governance’, Journal of Finance, 52(2) (1997), 737–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. ‘Profiting from Innovation’, Research Policy, 15(6) (1986), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. and G. Pisano, ‘The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3) (1994), 537–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen, 1997, ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7) (1997), 509–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull, J., Evolutionary Game Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (New York: Free Press, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O., ‘The Institutions of Governance’, American Economic Review, 88(2) (1998), 75–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O., ‘The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead’, Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3) (2000), 595–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2008 Jackie Krafft and Jacques-Laurent Ravix

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krafft, J., Ravix, JL. (2008). The Firm and its Governance over the Industry Life Cycle. In: Laperche, B., Uzunidis, D. (eds) Powerful Finance and Innovation Trends in a High-Risk Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584099_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics