Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30593)
- Part of Periodical (11500)
- Book (8245)
- Doctoral Thesis (5636)
- Part of a Book (3883)
- Working Paper (3372)
- Review (2922)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2306)
- Preprint (1844)
- Report (1560)
Language
- German (42360)
- English (28445)
- French (1060)
- Portuguese (840)
- Spanish (309)
- Croatian (302)
- Multiple languages (255)
- Italian (197)
- mis (174)
- Turkish (168)
Has Fulltext
- yes (74434) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (1076)
- Literatur (860)
- taxonomy (742)
- Deutschland (551)
- Rezension (511)
- new species (440)
- Rezeption (350)
- Frankfurt <Main> / Universität (341)
- Übersetzung (315)
- Geschichte (299)
Institute
- Medizin (7413)
- Präsidium (5099)
- Physik (4153)
- Extern (2738)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2648)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2364)
- Biowissenschaften (2137)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1961)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1608)
- Informatik (1577)
Understanding the shift from micro to macro-prudential thinking: a discursive network analysis
(2016)
While some economists argued for macro-prudential regulation pre-crisis, the macro-prudential approach and its emphasis on endogenously created systemic risk have only gained prominence post-crisis. Employing discourse and network analysis on samples of the most cited scholarly works on banking regulation as well as on systemic risk (60 sources each) from 1985 to 2014, we analyze the shift from micro to macro-prudential thinking in the shift to the post crisis period. Our analysis demonstrates that the predominance of formalism, particularly, partial equilibrium analysis along with the exclusion of historical and practitioners’ styles of reasoning from banking regulatory studies impeded economists from engaging seriously with the endogenous sources of systemic risk prior to the crisis. Post-crisis, these topics became important in this discourse, but the epistemological failures of banking regulatory studies pre-crisis were not sufficiently recognized. Recent attempts to conceptualize and price systemic risk as a negative externality point to the persistence of formalism and equilibrium thinking, with its attending dangers of incremental innovation due to epistemological barriers constrains theoretical progress, by excluding observed phenomena, which cannot yet be accommodated in mathematical models.
We argue two alternative routes that lead entrepreneurial start-ups to acquisition outcomes instead of liquidation. On one hand, acquisitions can come about through the control route with external financers such as venture capitalists (VCs). VCs take control through their board seats along with other contractual rights that can bring about changes in a start-up necessary to successfully attract a strategic acquirer. Consistent with this view, we show that VCs often replace the founding entrepreneur as CEO long before an acquisition exit. On the other hand, acquisitions can come about through advice and support provided to the start-up, such as that provided by an incubator or technology park. Based on a sample of 251 Crunchbase companies in the U.S. over the years 2007 to 2014, we present evidence that is strongly consistent with these propositions. Further, we show that the data indicate a tension between VC-backing of start-ups resident in technology parks insofar as such start-ups are slower to become, and less likely to be, acquired.