Noel Campbell, David T. Mitchell and Tammy M. Rogers
The purpose of this paper is to provide a robustness check of the relationship between entrepreneurial activity and economic freedom. As a deliberate “robustness check,” the…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a robustness check of the relationship between entrepreneurial activity and economic freedom. As a deliberate “robustness check,” the authors estimated various spatial measures of entrepreneurship found in the research literature, using the same estimator within a consistent model that included political institutions, proxied by the Economic Freedom of North America index. Like many exemplars in the literature, the authors’ focus was on the US states.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors estimated models of five different measures of entrepreneurial activity in a model based on Reynolds, Storey, and Westhead (1994).
Findings
The authors failed to replicate many of the results found in the literature. The various measures of entrepreneurship were related to different independent variables. Economic freedom was not a consistently significant predictor of entrepreneurial activity.
Research limitations/implications
The empirical work focuses on the US states, and may not be generalizable. By deliberate choice, the authors did not include many of the independent variables, data corrections, or estimation techniques found in the literature. The results imply the need for additional development in the theory that relates institutions to entrepreneurial activity.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no one else has “raced,” side‐by‐side, various entrepreneurship measures in a model that includes institutions.
Details
Keywords
Noel Campbell and David T. Mitchell
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate researchers’ interest by acquainting them with some aspects of the entrepreneurship literature they may not have known.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate researchers’ interest by acquainting them with some aspects of the entrepreneurship literature they may not have known.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper is a non‐meta‐analytic literature review of several literatures in entrepreneurship.
Findings
The entrepreneurship literature is vast and can be found in every discipline where humans and their behaviour are the object of analysis.
Research limitations/implications
Because the entrepreneurship literature is so large and widespread, the paper reviews only a small, deliberately chosen sample of the literature.
Originality/value
To the authors’ knowledge, no one has previously written a unified review of the market entrepreneurship, political entrepreneurship, and public choice.
Details
Keywords
A computerised wages system, which is claimed to be both simple and cheap, has been designed with the small firm in mind.
David S. Mitchell, Robert M. McLaughlin, William J. Breslin, Victoria T. Mazgalev and Scott I. Golden
To provide an overview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (the “CFTC” or “Commission”) recent amendments to CFTC Rule 1.31, which sets forth recordkeeping requirements…
Abstract
Purpose
To provide an overview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (the “CFTC” or “Commission”) recent amendments to CFTC Rule 1.31, which sets forth recordkeeping requirements for all records required to be kept pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and Commission regulations.
Design/methodology/approach
This article discusses the significant May 2017 amendments to CFTC Rule 1.31 and the practical impact of these amendments for entities subject to the rule’s requirements.
Findings
The CFTC’s recordkeeping amendments do not impose any new substantive recordkeeping requirements, but modernize and make technology neutral the form and manner in which regulatory records must be kept. By eliminating a number of prescriptive and outdated requirements, the amendments should provide greater flexibility to “records entities” to adopt new technologies in response to evolving technological developments.
Originality/value
Practical guidance from experienced commodities, futures and derivatives lawyers.
Details
Keywords
Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process that…
Abstract
Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process that centers and acts on the knowledge contained in and expressed by the lived experience of the disabled nonresearchers. This chapter situates narrative allyship across ability in the landscape of other participatory research practices, with a particular focus on oral history as a social justice praxis.
Approach: In order to explore the potential of this practice, the author outlines and reflects on both the methodology of her oral history graduate thesis work, a narrative project with self-advocates with Down syndrome, and includes and analyzes reflections about narrative allyship from a self-advocate with Down syndrome.
Findings: The author proposes three guiding principles for research as narrative allyship across ability, namely that such research further the interests of narrators as the narrators define them, optimize the autonomy of narrators, and tell stories with, instead of about, narrators.
Implications: This chapter suggests the promise of research praxis as a form of allyship: redressing inequality by addressing power, acknowledging expertise in subjugated knowledges, and connecting research practices to desires for social change or political outcomes. The author models methods by which others might include in their research narrative work across ability and demonstrates the particular value of knowledge produced when researchers attend to the lived expertise of those with disabilities. The practice of narrative allyship across ability has the potential to bring a wide range of experiences and modes of expression into the domains of research, history, policy, and culture that would otherwise exclude them.