Search results

The purpose of this article is to determine the views of Professor David Audretsch.

The article takes the form of an interview.

Professor David Audretsch shares his thoughts and advice on an “entrepreneurial society” where there is a rethinking of fundamental economic and business ideas, where innovation and entrepreneurship emerge as the driving forces of competitiveness and growth, but institutions and public policies facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship play a key role.

The aricle provides valuable insights from one of the world's most frequently cited economists.

In this paper, the author of the Auditor's Dictionary: Terms, Concepts, Processes, and Regulations reflects on the challenges and implications of dictionary‐writing. The paper takes the form of a discursive literary review. Preparation of the Auditor's Dictionary offered insights into contentious aspects of lexicography, ranging from definitions of the term “dictionary” to the subjective nature of lexical selection. The Auditor's Dictionary also illuminated a number of characteristics of auditing, including the nature of auditing's intellectual foundations; its rather loose lexicon; its increasing self‐assertion as a field independent of accounting; and the discipline's social status and credibility. The traditional subsuming of the auditing lexicon within accounting dictionaries has reflected the historical origins of auditing within accounting, but it does not reflect the increasingly independent status of auditing as a standalone discipline. The Auditor's Dictionary may assist in reinforcing the conceptual peg on which the language of auditing rests. In addition, dictionaries often act as more than information providers – they frequently take on the role of cultural artefact or ideological instrument. The existence of a dictionary for a field of activity can be a signal of status and credibility, and the Auditor's Dictionary may have potential repercussions for the intellectual and professional status of auditing.

Reviews the success of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) in enhancing the professional status of both the discipline of internal auditing and the IIA itself. The IIA has established the paraphernalia of a formal professional framework but several factors appear to hold back the professional “project”, the most important of which is the absence of monopolistic control over the discipline. The IIA faces two options for the future. It may wish to proceed further along the path of creating a formal professional framework. Alternatively, the IIA in its current form may be ideally positioned for a new, post‐professional world for which traditional, antiquated professional institutions seem ill equipped.

Recent market volatility has provided a fundamental challenge to those arguing for the central role of intellectual capital as a source of organisation value. Using perceptual data relevant to the importance of intellectual capital as a source of enterprise value gathered in two studies conducted before and after the recent market ‘downturn’ respectively, this paper provides empirical evidence in support of the continuing and central importance of intellectual capital. The findings from these two studies also demonstrate consistency in the composition of the human, internal and external components of intellectual capital. The Irish software/telecom sector provides an ideal research frame work for any such investigation. In recent years Ireland has established itself as the largest software exporter in the world and this sector has been one of the primary engines of growth in an economy that has experienced real growth of over 40% in 6 years, a rate unparalleled in the developed world.

Intangible intellectual resources, arising from changes in the nature of economic forces, have now joined the more traditional tangible triad of land, labour and capital. One of the keys to commercial success, therefore, will be the capacity of a firm to identify, manage, foster and invest in these intellectual resources, and, in particular, in the people which underpin them. This article makes two contributions to the emerging literature on intellectual capital. First, based on empirical data, it offers some preliminary results of a study of the drivers and generators of intellectual capital. This enables the tentative identification of some key relationships and knowledge drivers within this sector and of the consequent challenges for disciplines such as accounting and management. Second, it posits a theoretical/methodological approach to intellectual capital based upon Habermas’ concept of communicative action.

Following Marx and Engels' identification of the “essential condition of capital”, the purpose of this paper is to begin an initial critical exploration of the essential condition of intellectual capital, particularly the ownership rights of labour.

Adopting a critically modernist stance on unitarist HR and OB discourse, and contextualised within a background on the stock option phenomenon and recent accounting regulation, the paper argues that the fundamental nature of the capital‐labour relation continues resiliently into the IC labour (intellectual capital‐labour) relation.

There is strong evidence that broad‐based employee stock options (ESOPs) have become institutionalised in certain firms and sectors – but the future of such schemes is very uncertain (post 2005 accounting regulation). Overly unitarist HR/OB arguments are challenged here with empirical evidence on capital's more latently strategic purposes such as conserving cash, reducing reported accounting expense in order to boost reported earnings, deferring taxes, and attracting, retaining and exploiting key elements of labour.

Research supports the positive benefits of broad‐based employee stock ownership schemes. Further research on the benefits of such schemes and the reasons why they are or are not implemented is now required.

From the perspective of labour, nothing appears to have really changed (yet) in terms of the essential condition of intellectual capital.

This paper explicitly raises the issue of the ownership rights of labour to intellectual capital.

The paper's purpose is to consider the challenges, a public sector organization faces combining both transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability (cf. Roberts, 2009).

The authors conducted a case study of StatePol, a police service in an Australian state.

The data analysis revealed three themes. First, prior to 2013, transparency forms of accountability dominated, emphasizing crime statistics with the effect of reinforcing internal partitions and inhibiting collective action. Second, post-2013, a greater emphasis was placed on “intelligent” accountability with conversations around process and collective accountability at the operational level. Crime statistics were used less for operational-level accountability and more for attention-directing. Third, changing the emphasis from transparency to its combined use with “intelligent” accountability required strong leadership, clearly communicated strategy and middle-level managers with appropriate skills.

The authors identify a number of important factors in combining transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability. The authors note the difficulties that fragmentation between forms of accountability and the somewhat amorphous nature of the accountability concept itself can cause. In doing so, the authors provide empirical evidence of the challenges changing from an emphasis on transparency, to combined use with an “intelligent” form of accountability.