Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 229–237 | Cite as

The irrelevance of organisational boundaries of owner-managed firms

  • Gregory E. P. Shailer
Article

Abstract

Empirical researchers and analysts of small or owner-managed businesses generally behave as if the selected organisational form and the consequent legal and accounting boundaries of owner-managed firms are meaningful. This paper discusses selected aspects of this notion, and provides some empirical evidence concerning loan securities, and treatments of debts and assets, which justify rejecting the relevance of the organisational types and implied boundaries in many contexts relating to owner-managed firms. These include analyses employing traditional accounting disclosures and studies that view the firm as defined by some formal organisational structure. Emphasis is on the treatment and effects of private debts and assets.

Keywords

Empirical Evidence Organisational Structure Organisational Form Industrial Organization Organisational Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchian, A. A. and H. Demsetz, 1972, ‘Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organisation’,American Economic Review LXII(5), 777–795.Google Scholar
  2. Cragg, P. B. and M. King, 1988, ‘Organisational Characteristics and Small Firm's Performance Revisited’,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 13(2), 49–64.Google Scholar
  3. Coase, R. H., 1937, ‘The Nature of the Firm’,Economica, New Series IV, 386–405.Google Scholar
  4. Cooley, P. L. and C. E. Edwards, 1983, ‘Financial Objectives of Small Firms’,American Journal of Small Business VIII(1), 27–31.Google Scholar
  5. DeThomas, A. R., 1985, ‘Valuing the Ownership Interest in the Privately-Held Small Firm’,American Journal of Small Business IX(3), 50–9.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, F. M. and J. J. McGowan, 1983, ‘On the Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return to Infer Monoploy Profits’,The American Economic Review 73(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
  7. Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling, 1976, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’,Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.Google Scholar
  8. Kay, J. A. and C. P. Mayer, 1986, ‘On the Application of Accounting Rates of Return’,The Economic Journal 96, 199–207.Google Scholar
  9. McIntyre, E. V. and J. D. Icerman, 1985, ‘The Accounting Rate of Return — Appropriate for Small Business?’,American Journal of Small Business IX (3), 41–9.Google Scholar
  10. Penrose, E. D., 1959,The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory E. P. Shailer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommerceThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations