The impact of education on growth or individual earnings has been vastly studied in economics. However, much remains to know about this association before the mid-20th century. In this article, I investigate the effect of primary schooling on the economic devel- opment of French municipalities during the 19th century and up to World War I. Before the Guizot Law of 1833, no national legislation on primary schooling existed in France. Therefore, I evaluate if the municipalities with higher educational achievements before this law grew more than their counterparts during the following years. To do so, I exploit first the fact that the Guizot Law forced municipalities over 500 inhabitants to open and fund a primary school for boys. I implement a regression discontinuity around this cut-off on municipalities with no primary school in 1833. Second, I instrument educational achieve- ment, namely enrolment rates and schooling years, by the proximity of municipalities to printing presses established before 1500. Each method returns a positive impact of edu- cation on development. Education quality also mattered in this perspective. A matching estimation on municipalities with a school in 1833 indicates a positive impact of better teaching conditions provided by public grants on the subsequent growth of municipalities. Primary schooling is therefore an important factor which favoured the development of French municipalities during the century of industrialisation and modernisation.
Trajan and the Antonini in Themistius' Political Discourses. Half a century ago already, in a substantial study that has remained a standard reference to this day, the well-known Byzantinist Gilbert Dagron took pains to examine the philosophical and ethical issues tackled, in the truest Hellenistic tradition, in the political discourses of Themistius (c. 317 – c. 388), court panegyrist and chief representative of the Second Sophistic – the good sovereign, the nature of royalty, the typology of legal acts, the intellectuals, the power and the freedom of speech, the religious tolerance, and so forth. At the same time, the French scholar, as well as the subsequent students of the works of the Constantinopolitan rhetorician, have noted the peculiar manner in which this "heretic" of late Hellenism (Lellia Cracco Ruggini) used and altered the import of the classical literary tradition, by taking the liberty to select, manipulate, reelaborate and even invent formulas, expressions or examples taken over, directly or via intermediaries, from classical sources. This fact can be grasped as well from the references to the Antonini emperors (or the Ulpia-Aelia dynasty), i.e. to Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius (there is no mention of Nerva and Commodus). Of all the historical figures, these are the most frequently referred to in his orations, next to Alexander of Macedon. Trajan's name was being mentioned consistently in the late antique literature and historiography whenever the Trajanian and Antonine origin of Theodosius, a defining element of Theodosian legitimizing propaganda, was to be asserted (implicating also the name of the celebrated general Lusius Quietus). This false (?) genealogy created by Themistius is of no consequence to our present study; much ink has already been spilled over this matter in modern historiography, even during the last decades. As for the rest, the name of the Antonini, as well as of other prominent figures of the Greco-Roman or Oriental history which he refers to are a little more than an enumeration of names extracted from a pile of names employed in the argument for the philosophical, ethical or political ideas debated in the orations. For Themistius, more significant than the political events or the military deeds, the administrative matters are a defining trait of character, a quality or a flaw of a historical figure, namely, of a Roman emperor, which, mentioned in the absence of evocative details, but changed semantically to match the political context, the audience, the topic, or the evolution of the argument, can become referential to the conduct of the holders of sovereign power to whom his orations were addressed to. There is talk of an equitable justice, guided by clemency, and of magnanimity towards one's enemies (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius), of philanthropy (on the grounds of the famous episode of the "miracle of rain", dated, however, under Antoninus Pius, rather than under Marcus Aurelius), and lastly, of the relationship between philosophy and power (according to Themistius, under the Antonini all the noble principles of political philosophy of the "illustrious Plato" and the "divine Aristotle", inherent to the collaboration between the political power and philosophy, were put in practice, as demonstrated by the collaboration between the "great Trajan" and Dio Chrysostom, between the two Antonini (Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Pius) and Epictetus, between Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius and Sextus and Rusticus). Rezumat: Traian şi Antoninii în discursurile politice ale lui Themistius. Încă acum jumătate de secol, într-un studiu amplu, rămas până astăzi de referință, cunoscutul bizantinolog Gilbert Dagron a analizat cu multă acribie problemele de natură filosofică și morală abordate, în cea mai autentică tradiție elenistică, în discursurile sale politice de către Themistius (cca. 317 – cca. 388), panegirist de Curte și reprezentant de frunte al celei de-a doua sofistici – bunul suveran, natura regalităţii, tipologia actelor de justiţie, intelectualii, puterea şi libertatea de expresie, toleranţa religioasă ş.a. Totodată, atât savantul francez, cât și exegeți ulteriori ai operei retorului constantinopolitan au atras atenția asupra manierei specifice în care acest "eretic" al elenismului târziu (Lellia Cracco Ruggini), a folosit şi semantizat într-o manieră proprie tradiţia literară clasică, luându-și libertatea de selecta, manipula, reelabora şi chiar a inventa formule, expresii sau exemple preluate din sursele antice direct sau prin intermediari. Acest fapt se desprinde şi din referinţele la împărații Antonini (dinastia Ulpia-Aelia), respectiv Traian, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius (nu sunt mențiuni despre Nerva și Commodus). Dintre personajele istorice, acestea sunt cele mai des menționate în orațiile sale, alături de Alexandru Macedon. De numele lui Traian se leagă o problemă care a făcut carieră în literatura și istoriografia antichității târzii, anume originea traianică și antonină a lui Theodosius, element fundamental al propagandei legitimiste teodosiene (acesteia îi este atașat și numele vestitului general Lusius Quietus). Această falsa (?) genealogie creată de Themistius nu ne interesează în comunicarea de față; despre ea s-a scris foarte mult în istoriografie, inclusiv în ultimele decenii. În rest, numele Antoninilor, ca și al altor personalități din istoria greco-romană sau orientală amintite de acesta, nu reprezintă altceva decât o enumerare de nume dintr-un cumul de nume subsumate argumentației ideilor filosofice, etice sau politice dezbătute în discursuri. Pentru Themistius, mai importante decât evenimentele politice, faptele militare, problemele administrative sunt un aspect al caracterului, o calitate sau un defect al unui personaj istoric, în speță, al unui împărat roman, care, adesea, amintite fără detalii semnificative, dar semantizate în funcţie de contextul politic, de public, de tematică, de evoluţia argumentaţiei, pot deveni referențiale pentru conduita deținătorilor puterii suverane cărora le erau adresate orațiile sale. Este vorba despre o justiție echitabilă, ghidată de clemență, și de bunăvoință față de inamici (Traian, Marcus Aurelius), filantropia (susținută pe baza cunoscutului episod al "miracolului ploii", datat, însă, sub domnia lui Antoninus Pius, nu a lui Marcus Aurelius), în fine, legătura dintre filosofie și putere (după Themistius, sub Antionini au fost puse în practică toate principiile nobile ale filosofiei politice a "ilustrului Platon" și a "divinului Aristotel" inerente colaborării dintre puterea politică și filosofie, cum demonstrează colaborarea dintre "marele Traian" și Dio Chrysostomos, dintre cei doi Antonini (Marcus Aurelius și Antoninus Pius) și Epictet, dintre Hadrian și Marcus Aurelius și Sextus și Rusticus. Cuvinte-cheie: Themistius, discursuri politice, Traian, dinastia Antoninilor, justiție echitabilă, mărinimie și filantropie imperială, "miracolul ploii", filozofie și politică.
This paper asks whether a gap in spouses' subjective happiness matters per se, i.e. whether it predicts divorce. We use three large panel surveys to explore this question. Controlling for the life satisfaction levels of spouses, we find that a larger happiness gap, even in the first year of marriage, increases the likelihood of a future separation. This association even holds for couples where both spouses are identified as being better off than in their outside option. We interpret this observation as reflecting a concern for relative utility. To the best of our knowledge, this effect has not been taken into account by any existing economic models of the household. The relationship between happiness gaps and divorce is consistent with the fact that couples who are unable to transfer utility are more at risk than others. It is also possible that assortative mating by happiness baseline level reduces the risk of separation. However, assortative mating cannot entirely explain the finding, as a widening of the happiness gap over time increases the risk of separation. We also uncover an asymmetry in the effect of happiness gaps: couples are more likely to break-up when the difference in life satisfaction is unfavorable to the woman. De facto, divorces appear to be initiated predominantly by women who are less happy than their husband. This asymmetry suggests that the effect of happiness gaps is grounded on motives of relative deprivation, rather than on a preference for equal happiness. The presence of this new argument in spouses' utility is likely to modify their optimal behavior, e.g. in terms of labor supply. It should also be taken into account for public policy measures concerning gender-based labor incentives. ; Cet article montre que plus la différence de bien-être subjectif entre conjoints est grande, plus leur risque de divorcer est élevé (en contrôlant pour le niveau de bien-être des conjoints). Même mesuré au cours de la première année de mariage, un écart de bien-être prédit un divorce ultérieur. Cette relation tient même pour les couples dont les deux membres sont identifiés comme étant plus heureux que dans une série de situations alternatives hors-mariage. Mise en évidence à l'aide de trois grandes enquêtes de panel, cette observation témoigne de l'importance des comparaisons de bien-être et de la notion d'utilité relative. Il est possible que la divergence de bien-être soit plus dangereuse lorsque les transferts d'utilité sont plus difficiles. Il est également possible que les mariages fondés sur un appariement sélectif soient plus stables. Mais cela n'explique pas entièrement notre découverte. En effet, une augmentation de l'écart de bien-être au cours du temps accroît également le risque de divorce. Enfin, l'effet mis en évidence est asymétrique: seuls les couples au sein desquels la femme est moins heureuse que l'homme sont menacés de dissolution. L'effet observé semble donc relever de comparaison de bien-être plutôt que d'une aversion pour l'inégalité (sans quoi les femmes plus heureuses divorceraient elles aussi). Cet argument n'a jamais été pris en compte dans les modèles économiques du mariage. Il est pourtant de nature à éclairer les choix individuels au sein de la famille et devrait être pris en considération par les mesures de politique publiques qui influencent les décisions individuelles, notamment d'offre de travail, susceptibles de faire diverger les niveaux d'utilité des conjoints.
This paper asks whether a gap in spouses' subjective happiness matters per se, i.e. whether it predicts divorce. We use three large panel surveys to explore this question. Controlling for the life satisfaction levels of spouses, we find that a larger happiness gap, even in the first year of marriage, increases the likelihood of a future separation. This association even holds for couples where both spouses are identified as being better off than in their outside option. We interpret this observation as reflecting a concern for relative utility. To the best of our knowledge, this effect has not been taken into account by any existing economic models of the household. The relationship between happiness gaps and divorce is consistent with the fact that couples who are unable to transfer utility are more at risk than others. It is also possible that assortative mating by happiness baseline level reduces the risk of separation. However, assortative mating cannot entirely explain the finding, as a widening of the happiness gap over time increases the risk of separation. We also uncover an asymmetry in the effect of happiness gaps: couples are more likely to break-up when the difference in life satisfaction is unfavorable to the woman. De facto, divorces appear to be initiated predominantly by women who are less happy than their husband. This asymmetry suggests that the effect of happiness gaps is grounded on motives of relative deprivation, rather than on a preference for equal happiness. The presence of this new argument in spouses' utility is likely to modify their optimal behavior, e.g. in terms of labor supply. It should also be taken into account for public policy measures concerning gender-based labor incentives. ; Cet article montre que plus la différence de bien-être subjectif entre conjoints est grande, plus leur risque de divorcer est élevé (en contrôlant pour le niveau de bien-être des conjoints). Même mesuré au cours de la première année de mariage, un écart de bien-être prédit un divorce ultérieur. Cette relation tient même pour les couples dont les deux membres sont identifiés comme étant plus heureux que dans une série de situations alternatives hors-mariage. Mise en évidence à l'aide de trois grandes enquêtes de panel, cette observation témoigne de l'importance des comparaisons de bien-être et de la notion d'utilité relative. Il est possible que la divergence de bien-être soit plus dangereuse lorsque les transferts d'utilité sont plus difficiles. Il est également possible que les mariages fondés sur un appariement sélectif soient plus stables. Mais cela n'explique pas entièrement notre découverte. En effet, une augmentation de l'écart de bien-être au cours du temps accroît également le risque de divorce. Enfin, l'effet mis en évidence est asymétrique: seuls les couples au sein desquels la femme est moins heureuse que l'homme sont menacés de dissolution. L'effet observé semble donc relever de comparaison de bien-être plutôt que d'une aversion pour l'inégalité (sans quoi les femmes plus heureuses divorceraient elles aussi). Cet argument n'a jamais été pris en compte dans les modèles économiques du mariage. Il est pourtant de nature à éclairer les choix individuels au sein de la famille et devrait être pris en considération par les mesures de politique publiques qui influencent les décisions individuelles, notamment d'offre de travail, susceptibles de faire diverger les niveaux d'utilité des conjoints.
This paper asks whether a gap in spouses' subjective happiness matters per se, i.e. whether it predicts divorce. We use three large panel surveys to explore this question. Controlling for the life satisfaction levels of spouses, we find that a larger happiness gap, even in the first year of marriage, increases the likelihood of a future separation. This association even holds for couples where both spouses are identified as being better off than in their outside option. We interpret this observation as reflecting a concern for relative utility. To the best of our knowledge, this effect has not been taken into account by any existing economic models of the household. The relationship between happiness gaps and divorce is consistent with the fact that couples who are unable to transfer utility are more at risk than others. It is also possible that assortative mating by happiness baseline level reduces the risk of separation. However, assortative mating cannot entirely explain the finding, as a widening of the happiness gap over time increases the risk of separation. We also uncover an asymmetry in the effect of happiness gaps: couples are more likely to break-up when the difference in life satisfaction is unfavorable to the woman. De facto, divorces appear to be initiated predominantly by women who are less happy than their husband. This asymmetry suggests that the effect of happiness gaps is grounded on motives of relative deprivation, rather than on a preference for equal happiness. The presence of this new argument in spouses' utility is likely to modify their optimal behavior, e.g. in terms of labor supply. It should also be taken into account for public policy measures concerning gender-based labor incentives. ; Cet article montre que plus la différence de bien-être subjectif entre conjoints est grande, plus leur risque de divorcer est élevé (en contrôlant pour le niveau de bien-être des conjoints). Même mesuré au cours de la première année de mariage, un écart de bien-être prédit un divorce ultérieur. Cette relation tient même pour les couples dont les deux membres sont identifiés comme étant plus heureux que dans une série de situations alternatives hors-mariage. Mise en évidence à l'aide de trois grandes enquêtes de panel, cette observation témoigne de l'importance des comparaisons de bien-être et de la notion d'utilité relative. Il est possible que la divergence de bien-être soit plus dangereuse lorsque les transferts d'utilité sont plus difficiles. Il est également possible que les mariages fondés sur un appariement sélectif soient plus stables. Mais cela n'explique pas entièrement notre découverte. En effet, une augmentation de l'écart de bien-être au cours du temps accroît également le risque de divorce. Enfin, l'effet mis en évidence est asymétrique: seuls les couples au sein desquels la femme est moins heureuse que l'homme sont menacés de dissolution. L'effet observé semble donc relever de comparaison de bien-être plutôt que d'une aversion pour l'inégalité (sans quoi les femmes plus heureuses divorceraient elles aussi). Cet argument n'a jamais été pris en compte dans les modèles économiques du mariage. Il est pourtant de nature à éclairer les choix individuels au sein de la famille et devrait être pris en considération par les mesures de politique publiques qui influencent les décisions individuelles, notamment d'offre de travail, susceptibles de faire diverger les niveaux d'utilité des conjoints.
This paper asks whether a gap in spouses' subjective happiness matters per se, i.e. whether it predicts divorce. We use three large panel surveys to explore this question. Controlling for the life satisfaction levels of spouses, we find that a larger happiness gap, even in the first year of marriage, increases the likelihood of a future separation. This association even holds for couples where both spouses are identified as being better off than in their outside option. We interpret this observation as reflecting a concern for relative utility. To the best of our knowledge, this effect has not been taken into account by any existing economic models of the household. The relationship between happiness gaps and divorce is consistent with the fact that couples who are unable to transfer utility are more at risk than others. It is also possible that assortative mating by happiness baseline level reduces the risk of separation. However, assortative mating cannot entirely explain the finding, as a widening of the happiness gap over time increases the risk of separation. We also uncover an asymmetry in the effect of happiness gaps: couples are more likely to break-up when the difference in life satisfaction is unfavorable to the woman. De facto, divorces appear to be initiated predominantly by women who are less happy than their husband. This asymmetry suggests that the effect of happiness gaps is grounded on motives of relative deprivation, rather than on a preference for equal happiness. The presence of this new argument in spouses' utility is likely to modify their optimal behavior, e.g. in terms of labor supply. It should also be taken into account for public policy measures concerning gender-based labor incentives. ; Cet article montre que plus la différence de bien-être subjectif entre conjoints est grande, plus leur risque de divorcer est élevé (en contrôlant pour le niveau de bien-être des conjoints). Même mesuré au cours de la première année de mariage, un écart de bien-être prédit un divorce ultérieur. Cette relation tient même pour les couples dont les deux membres sont identifiés comme étant plus heureux que dans une série de situations alternatives hors-mariage. Mise en évidence à l'aide de trois grandes enquêtes de panel, cette observation témoigne de l'importance des comparaisons de bien-être et de la notion d'utilité relative. Il est possible que la divergence de bien-être soit plus dangereuse lorsque les transferts d'utilité sont plus difficiles. Il est également possible que les mariages fondés sur un appariement sélectif soient plus stables. Mais cela n'explique pas entièrement notre découverte. En effet, une augmentation de l'écart de bien-être au cours du temps accroît également le risque de divorce. Enfin, l'effet mis en évidence est asymétrique: seuls les couples au sein desquels la femme est moins heureuse que l'homme sont menacés de dissolution. L'effet observé semble donc relever de comparaison de bien-être plutôt que d'une aversion pour l'inégalité (sans quoi les femmes plus heureuses divorceraient elles aussi). Cet argument n'a jamais été pris en compte dans les modèles économiques du mariage. Il est pourtant de nature à éclairer les choix individuels au sein de la famille et devrait être pris en considération par les mesures de politique publiques qui influencent les décisions individuelles, notamment d'offre de travail, susceptibles de faire diverger les niveaux d'utilité des conjoints.
This paper asks whether a gap in spouses' subjective happiness matters per se, i.e. whether it predicts divorce. We use three large panel surveys to explore this question. Controlling for the life satisfaction levels of spouses, we find that a larger happiness gap, even in the first year of marriage, increases the likelihood of a future separation. This association even holds for couples where both spouses are identified as being better off than in their outside option. We interpret this observation as reflecting a concern for relative utility. To the best of our knowledge, this effect has not been taken into account by any existing economic models of the household. The relationship between happiness gaps and divorce is consistent with the fact that couples who are unable to transfer utility are more at risk than others. It is also possible that assortative mating by happiness baseline level reduces the risk of separation. However, assortative mating cannot entirely explain the finding, as a widening of the happiness gap over time increases the risk of separation. We also uncover an asymmetry in the effect of happiness gaps: couples are more likely to break-up when the difference in life satisfaction is unfavorable to the woman. De facto, divorces appear to be initiated predominantly by women who are less happy than their husband. This asymmetry suggests that the effect of happiness gaps is grounded on motives of relative deprivation, rather than on a preference for equal happiness. The presence of this new argument in spouses' utility is likely to modify their optimal behavior, e.g. in terms of labor supply. It should also be taken into account for public policy measures concerning gender-based labor incentives. ; Cet article montre que plus la différence de bien-être subjectif entre conjoints est grande, plus leur risque de divorcer est élevé (en contrôlant pour le niveau de bien-être des conjoints). Même mesuré au cours de la première année de mariage, un écart de bien-être prédit un divorce ultérieur. Cette relation tient même pour les couples dont les deux membres sont identifiés comme étant plus heureux que dans une série de situations alternatives hors-mariage. Mise en évidence à l'aide de trois grandes enquêtes de panel, cette observation témoigne de l'importance des comparaisons de bien-être et de la notion d'utilité relative. Il est possible que la divergence de bien-être soit plus dangereuse lorsque les transferts d'utilité sont plus difficiles. Il est également possible que les mariages fondés sur un appariement sélectif soient plus stables. Mais cela n'explique pas entièrement notre découverte. En effet, une augmentation de l'écart de bien-être au cours du temps accroît également le risque de divorce. Enfin, l'effet mis en évidence est asymétrique: seuls les couples au sein desquels la femme est moins heureuse que l'homme sont menacés de dissolution. L'effet observé semble donc relever de comparaison de bien-être plutôt que d'une aversion pour l'inégalité (sans quoi les femmes plus heureuses divorceraient elles aussi). Cet argument n'a jamais été pris en compte dans les modèles économiques du mariage. Il est pourtant de nature à éclairer les choix individuels au sein de la famille et devrait être pris en considération par les mesures de politique publiques qui influencent les décisions individuelles, notamment d'offre de travail, susceptibles de faire diverger les niveaux d'utilité des conjoints.
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the European Journal of Family Business (EJFB), we are pleased to present this issue (volume 11, no.1) that has involved the participation of prominent authors who have made significant contributions to the growth and consolidation of the family business in the field of research and to EJFB over the years. The papers presented in this issue provide an ideal opportunity to present how the field has evolved in recent years, but also to reflect on contemporary challenges in the broad domain of family business.
When the journal was launched in 2011, family business research attracted widespread attention from a growing audience due to the relevance of the topic for scholars and practitioners. Family business practitioners (lawyers, accountants, business consultants, family office directors, family philanthropy managers, financial services advisors, management consultants, family therapists and psychologists among others) were key elements in the dawn of the family business (Sharma, Chrisman, & Gersick, 2012). Providing assistance to both family business operators and advisors in understanding family firms was indeed one of the many reasons for the creation of Family Business Review (Lansberg, Perrow, & Rogolsky, 1988) and later for the creation of the Journal of Family Business Strategy (Astrachan & Pieper, 2010).
The family firm field is fortunate that many of those who have brought this field forward have focused on ensuring that the field had a good theoretical foundation that facilitated research and allowed the field to progress (Vought, Baker, & Smith, 2008). But it is also true that following the strong tradition of theory-building and testing expected in high-quality business journals (Sharma et al., 2012) has led the practice orientation of the family firm field to change over time (Reay, Pearson, & Dyer, 2013, p.209). The field became mostly research-oriented, relying heavily on quantitative empirical research. We believe that these studies should be complemented by other research approaches that allow for capturing the specific complexity and dynamics unique to family firms (Nordqvist Hall & Melin, 2009). The literature shows diverse examples of how collaboration between professionals and researchers (e.g., Davis et al., 2013) is a successful way to promote more research (Reay et al., 2013, pp. 210).
In a business world that is increasingly cognisant of the critical role of evidence-based management, family firm practitioners need to be connected to research while having the potential to serve as a mechanism for transferring research knowledge to implementable practices (Reay et al., 2013). 'Practitioners can identify the actions and access sources. Researchers must search for the meaning of those actions, their interlinkages, and what the act represents to develop theoretical propositions' (Strike, 2012, pp. 168). Similarly, more practice-oriented research is also necessary to aid practitioners in advancing their knowledge of family firms from a research perspective. In summary, practitioners and researchers need to work together to enhance the research agenda by learning scientifically from practice and applying 'the theoretical and empirical research findings back to practice' (Strike, 2012, pp. 169). This is the gap that EJFB wants to fill in its new era. We consider this issue to be a good example of our vision of the journal.
Thus, for example, the paper by Ernesto Poza-Valle (2021) offers a review of the academic research and practitioner best practices literature highlighting how little we still know about the role that ownership control plays in the continuity of founder-controlled and family-controlled firms. Statutory ownership control, psychological ownership and family unity approaches are all considered in an exploration of a future ownership development perspective and approaches that controlling families can take to preserve ownership control.
In the same vein, based on the author's experience with entrepreneurs who built successful businesses, the paper of Miguel Angel Gallo (2021) identifies four elements that are critical to achieving transgenerational continuity in family firms: coexistence, unity, professionalism and prudence. The paper provides guidance to help both scholars and practitioners in the family business field pursue the continuity of the family firm over time.
Cristina Cruz, Rachida Justo and Jeanne Roch (2021) expand our knowledge of the intersection between the family and the firm. In particular, they develop a theoretical framework explaining why and how business-owning families engage in impact investing. For a business to be sustainable as a family firm across the years, it is necessary to look at the internal processes that occur within the firm itself and understand the relationship between the family and the business.
Where have we come from, where are we now? Gloria Aparicio, Txomin Iturralde, José Carlos Casillas and Encarnación Ramos-Hidalgo (2021) present a bibliometric analysis of family firm research, giving a holistic overview with a bibliometric evaluation of 3,368 articles published from 2010 to 2020 on family firms. The study provides a synthesis and organisation of existing knowledge on family firm research.
A practical perspective is presented in the paper of Paco Valera, Neus Feliu and Ivan Lansberg (2021). They use the metaphor of biological DNA to describe generic and specific family business cultures and suggest that Latin family businesses inherited four key cultural DNA building blocks—trust, loyalty, authority and justice—from historical Roman times. Like biological DNA, family businesses are forced to change in order to be fit for the future. They draw upon their firm's 30 years of work consulting with Latin family businesses and present a wide range of supporting cases and stories.
Juan Corona (2021) approaches the great issue that affects the vast majority of family firms, successful succession. Through his expertise, the author shares his thoughts about the importance of the successor's preparation, the role of family harmony and the necessity of developing a new generation of leaders.
The commentary of Gibb Dyer (2021) describes the trends in the field of family business over the past forty years in terms of theory and practice. Topics such as succession, consulting with family businesses, the effectiveness of family firms, the role of socio-emotional wealth in family firms, heterogeneity in family businesses and the impact of family capital on the business and the family are discussed.
The worldwide explosion of interest in family business research has created a knowledge vacuum requiring educators, scholars and practitioners to share their collective wisdom to further the field. Specifically, we would like to encourage family business practitioners to write about their experiences, partner with researchers and academics to systematically study advising and share their work through contributions to EJFB. This collaboration will allow the family business field to further understand the 'what' of the intricacies and dynamism of family business captured in descriptive works and explore the 'how, when and why' that arise when theory is developed to inform practice. So, long live family business research!
Editors in this Issue
Dr. M. Concepción López-Fernández, University of Cantabria
Dr. Amaia Maseda, University of the Basque Country
Only Vanderbilt University affiliated authors are listed on VUIR. For a full list of authors, access the version of record at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751331/ ; The annual deep brain stimulation (DBS) Think Tank aims to create an opportunity for a multidisciplinary discussion in the field of neuromodulation to examine developments, opportunities and challenges in the field. The proceedings of the Sixth Annual Think Tank recapitulate progress in applications of neurotechnology, neurophysiology, and emerging techniques for the treatment of a range of psychiatric and neurological conditions including Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, Tourette syndrome, epilepsy, cognitive disorders, and addiction. Each section of this overview provides insight about the understanding of neuromodulation for specific disease and discusses current challenges and future directions. This year's report addresses key issues in implementing advanced neurophysiological techniques, evolving use of novel modulation techniques to deliver DBS, ans improved neuroimaging techniques. The proceedings also offer insights into the new era of brain network neuromodulation and connectomic DBS to define and target dysfunctional brain networks. The proceedings also focused on innovations in applications and understanding of adaptive DBS (closed-loop systems), the use and applications of optogenetics in the field of neurostimulation and the need to develop databases for DBS indications. Finally, updates on neuroethical, legal, social, and policy issues relevant to DBS research are discussed. ; AR-Z serves as a consultant for the National Parkinson Foundation, and has received consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Wilson Therapeutics and has participated as a site PI and/or co-PI for several NIH, foundation, and industry sponsored trials over the years but has not received honoraria. JG work was supported in part by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement 720270: HBP SGA1; by federal funds UL1TR001409 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program (CTSA), a trademark of the Department of Health and Human Services, part of the Roadmap Initiative, "ReEngineering the Clinical Research Enterprise"; by funding from the AEHS Foundation, in conjunction with Project NeuroHOPE; and from the Austin and Ann O'Malley Visiting Chair in Bioethics of Loyola Marymount University. EB was supported by J. Doerr, the HHMI-Simons Faculty Scholars Program, the Open Philanthropy Project, Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0015/2016), US Army Research Laboratory and the US Army Research Office (W911NF1510548), US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (2014509), and NIH (2R01-DA029639 and 1R01-GM104948). VG work was primarily supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director's New Innovator grant DP2NS087949 and PECASE, National Institute on Aging grant R01AG047664, BRAIN grant U01NS090577, SPARC grant OT2OD023848-01, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Biological Technologies Office. Additional funding included the NSF NeuroNex Technology Hub grant 1707316 and funds from the Curci Foundation, the Beckman Institute, and the Rosen Center at Caltech. AG is supported by the NIH/NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Awards to the University of Florida UL1TR001427, KL2TR001429, and TL1TR001428. PS is a recipient of funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01 NS090913 and UH3 NS 100544) and from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). SS acknowledges support from the DARPA Restoring Active Memory (RAM) program (Co-operative Agreement N66001-14-2-4032) and NIH Grants MH104606 and 1S10OD018211-01. CM work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grants R01 MH106173 and R01 NS086100. CM is a paid consultant for Boston Scientific Neuromodulation and Kernel, as well as a shareholder in the following companies: Surgical Information Sciences, Autonomic Technologies, Cardionomic, Enspire DBS, and Neuros Medical. MF work was supported by the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS083741) and Dystonia Medical Research Foundation. HB-S work was supported by the NINDS Grant 5 R21 NS096398-02, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Robert and Ruth Halperin Foundation, the John A. Blume Foundation, the Helen M. Cahill Award for Research in Parkinson's Disease, and Medtronic, Inc., who provided the devices used in this study but no additional financial support. HM work was supported by the NIH Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative (UH3NS103550) and the Hope for Depression Research Foundation. NP reports support by grants UH3NS103549, R01NS097782, and U01NS098961 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). AHG work was supported by grants from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression Young Investigator Grant), the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, and the NIH Intramural Research Program. MC work was funded by a Whitehall Research grant (Grant ID#2017-12-54). GL-M work has been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R00HG008689. MR work has been supported by the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number UL1-TR-001857. P-FD acknowledges the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for their support of Neurotargetting LLC and their CranialSuite clinical software (R01-EB006136 and R01-NS095291). NH is a shareholder of Surgical Information Sciences, Inc. and holds a patent related to high-resolution brain image system (U.S. Patent 9600778). This study was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01-NS085188, P41 EB015894, and P30 NS076408) and the University of Minnesota Udall center (P50NS098573). JW acknowledges grant support by NIH 1K01ES025436. KB reports support from NIH NINDS NS092730. AK and HC work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant T90 DA032436, National Science Foundation grant EEC-1028725, the Department of Defense through the National Defense and Engineering Graduate Fellowship program, and a donation by Medtronic. RG work was supported by NIH grants (NS090913-01 and NS100544-02) and the UC President's Postdoctoral Fellowship. MO serves as a consultant for the National Parkinson Foundation, and has received research grants from NIH, NPF, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Parkinson Alliance, Smallwood Foundation, the BachmannStrauss Foundation, the Tourette Syndrome Association, and the UF Foundation. MO's DBS research is supported by grants R01 NR014852 and R01NS096008 from the National Institutes of Health. MO has previously received honoraria, but in the past > 60 months has received no support from industry. MO has received royalties for publications with Demos, Manson, Amazon, Smashwords, Books4Patients, and Cambridge (movement disorders books). MO is an associate editor for New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch Neurology. MO has participated in CME and educational activities on movement disorders (in the last 36 months) sponsored by PeerView, Prime, QuantiaMD, WebMD, Medicus, MedNet, Henry Stewart, and by Vanderbilt University. The institution and not MO receives grants from Medtronic, Abbvie, Allergan, and ANS/St. Jude, and the PI has no financial interest in these grants. MO has participated as a site PI and/or co-PI for several NIH, foundation, and industry sponsored trials over the years but has not received honoraria.
The transformations of the Chilean Welfare State, following the political-economic restructuration after the military dictatorship (1973-1990), have been the core of an intense debate. However, the transformations taking place since 1973 in the relationship between the State, the market, and civil society, regarding the access to rights, lie in a structure of unequal distribution of rights forged throughout the 20th century. This philosophy of the Welfare State and its relation to individuals is characterized by the classification of beneficiaries: the bearers of rights and the recipients of assistance. This system is organized based on the configuration of two mechanisms of access to social protection, with the direct participation of the market, and which is characterized by the privatized dimension of the solidarity conception, either through the family or through the philanthropy. The neo-liberalization process introduces three changes to this model: the liberalization of the social sectors, which improves the public-private collaboration system; the technocratic development of the decision-making process and the intervention process; and the change of targeting as a mechanism of social justice. Thus, the model of unequal distribution of rights, enhanced by the establishment of a residual state during the dictatorship and then by the sophistication of targeting policies during the democratic period, takes shape, particularly, in terms of the social management of childhood. The policies of health, education, and specialized protection, crystallize a model of continuity and neoliberal inflections. This is the reconfiguration of the Welfare State as a tension: the strong regulatory role that accompanies the liberalization of the social sectors is gradually anchored on a discourse of social rights that reflects the processes of democratization experienced by the country since 1990. The objective of this research is to reflect on the forms that the Welfare State adopts from the political-economic restructuration of the country and to trace these transformations in a socio-political and historical framework. In this way, this study seeks to analyze the reconfigurations of social and political process, from an empirical regard, discussing the studies of social policies towards the childhood. ; Las transformaciones del Estado social de Chile luego de la restructuración político-económica realizada por la dictadura militar (1973-1990), ha sido objeto de un intenso debate. Sin embargo, las transformaciones realizadas desde 1973 en la relación entre el Estado, el mercado y la sociedad civil respecto al acceso a los derechos, se sitúan en una estructura de distribución desigual de derechos, forjada a lo largo del siglo XX. Esta filosofía del Estado social y su relación con los individuos, se caracteriza por la clasificación de beneficiarios: de un lado los portadores de derechos y del otro, los receptores de asistencia. Este sistema se organiza a partir de la configuración de dos vías de acceso a la protección, en relación directa con la participación en el mercado, y se caracteriza por la dimensión privatizada de la concepción de la solidaridad, sea a través de la familia o de la filantropía. El proceso de neo-liberalización introducirá tres inflexiones a ese modelo: la liberalización de los sectores sociales, que perfeccionará el sistema de colaboración público-privada; la tecnocratización de la toma de decisiones y de la intervención; el cambio en la naturaleza de la focalización, en tanto mecanismo de justicia social. De esta manera, el modelo de distribución desigual de derechos, aumentado por la implementación del Estado residual en dictadura, y luego por la sofisticación de la focalización en democracia, toma forma especialmente en el plano de la gestión social de la infancia. Las políticas de salud, educación y protección especializada, reflejan tanto este modelo de continuidad como las inflexiones neoliberales. Se trata de una reconfiguración del Estado social bajo tensión: el rol fuertemente regulador que acompaña la liberalización de los sectores sociales, está anclado progresivamente en un discurso sobre los derechos sociales que hace eco de los procesos de democratización vividos por el país desde 1990. El objetivo de esta investigación es reflexionar sobre las formas que adopta el Estado social a partir de la restructuración político-económica del país, tanto como trazar esas transformaciones en un marco político-histórico. De esta manera, nos interesamos al análisis sobre las reconfiguraciones de lo social y lo político en el nuevo escenario, a partir del estudio de las políticas de infancia. ; Les transformations de l'État social au Chili, suite à la restructuration politico-économique consubstantielle à la dictature militaire (1973-1990), ont fait l'objet d'un intense débat. Cependant, les transformations survenues depuis 1973 dans la relation entre l'État, le marché et la société civile, concernant l'accès aux droits, sont à situer dans une structure de distribution inégale des droits qui s'est forgée tout au long du XXe siècle. Cette philosophie de l'État social, et son rapport aux individus, se caractérise par la classification des bénéficiaires : des porteurs de droits et des récepteurs de l'assistance. Ce système s'organise à partir de la configuration de deux voies d'accès à la protection, en relation directe avec la participation au marché et se caractérise par la dimension privatisée de la conception de la solidarité, soit à travers la famille soit à travers la philanthropie. Le processus de néo-libéralisation introduira trois inflexions dans ce modèle : la libéralisation des secteurs sociaux qui va perfectionner le système de collaboration public-privé ; la technocratisation de la prise de décisions et de l'intervention ; le changement de la nature du ciblage comme mécanisme de justice sociale. Ainsi, le modèle de distribution inégale des droits, majoré par la mise en place de l'État résiduel pendant la dictature puis par la sophistication des politiques de ciblage pendant la démocratie, va prendre forme, notamment sur le plan de la gestion sociale de l'enfance. Les politiques de la santé, de l'éducation et de la protection spécialisée reflètent ce modèle de continuité et les inflexions néolibérales. Il s'agit de la reconfiguration de l'État social sous tension : le rôle fort régulateur qui accompagne la libéralisation des secteurs sociaux est ancré progressivement dans un discours des droits sociaux qui fait écho aux processus de démocratisation vécus par le pays, à partir de 1990. L'objectif de cette recherche est de réfléchir sur les formes que l'État social adopte à partir de la restructuration politico-économique du pays ainsi que de retracer ces transformations dans un cadre sociopolitique et historique. De cette façon, nous nous consacrerons à l'analyse des reconfigurations du social et du politique dans la nouvelle donne, à partir de l'étude des politiques sociales menées envers l'enfance.
