Search results

AbstractThis study investigates how leadership by married couples affects the firm value of family businesses in the institutional context of the Chinese capital market. Marital leadership is found to significantly decrease firm value compared with other family firms, which is supported by a battery of estimation strategies. Aggravating the principal–principal problem, tunnelling behaviour and financial fraud are confirmed as potential economic mechanisms. Moreover, monitoring from the internal corporate governance and external institution environment helps marital leadership focus on shareholder wealth beyond family interest. Our findings indicate that marital leadership implies more of a collusion effect than a collaboration effect in China.

Abstract
Classrooms are high-risk indoor environments, so analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in classrooms is important for determining optimal interventions. Due to the absence of human behavior data, it is challenging to accurately determine virus exposure in classrooms. A wearable device for close contact behavior detection was developed, and we recorded >250,000 data points of close contact behaviors of students from grades 1 to 12. Combined with a survey on students' behaviors, we analyzed virus transmission in classrooms. Close contact rates for students were 37 ± 11% during classes and 48 ± 13% during breaks. Students in lower grades had higher close contact rates and virus transmission potential. The long-range airborne transmission route is dominant, accounting for 90 ± 3.6% and 75 ± 7.7% with and without mask wearing, respectively. During breaks, the short-range airborne route became more important, contributing 48 ± 3.1% in grades 1 to 9 (without wearing masks). Ventilation alone cannot always meet the demands of COVID-19 control; 30 m3/h/person is suggested as the threshold outdoor air ventilation rate in a classroom. This study provides scientific support for COVID-19 prevention and control in classrooms, and our proposed human behavior detection and analysis methods offer a powerful tool to understand virus transmission characteristics and can be employed in various indoor environments.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

International audience ; Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also todelay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.