Search

Purpose: The authors present a study of the short-term impact of the Russian–Ukrainian war on global equity returns. The study aims to show that the conflict was priced into markets and whether the intensity of the impact depends on economic factors, such as dependence on gas, or/and political factors, such as belonging to the former Soviet power circle. Design/methodology/approach: Using the event study and a sample of 77 capital markets, accounting for over 99% of global capitalisation, the authors apply a system of seemingly unrelated regressions to the daily returns of the indices, isolating the short-term effect on the markets and finally apply cross-sectional methods to help determine the size and variability of the impact. Findings: The authors show that the impact is concentrated around day zero but is relevant in the days before and after. In addition, the authors show that being in the Soviet orbit and NATO simultaneously, as well as having high gas consumption and importing gas from Russia were key factors for investors. Originality/value: This study is the first to try to discern whether the impact on stock markets caused by the war in Ukraine is due to purely economic factors, especially energy, or whether there is also a geopolitical component. Specifically, whether the countries closest to Russia are being more threatened by the fact that they are closer to Russia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This study aims to examine the economic factors that determine innovation pattern in centralized and decentralized economies and organizations. Design/methodology/approach – Empirical evidence on innovation in the centralized economy of the Soviet Union is reviewed. Existing theoretical literature in this area relies on the incentives of decision-makers in centralized organizations and on the concept of soft budget constraint in centralized command economies and hard budget constraint in market economies. This study advocates applying the hierarchy/polyarchy model of innovation screening to explain the pattern of innovation in centralized economic systems. Findings – Screening and development of innovation projects can be organized in a centralized or decentralized fashion. The differences in innovation between centralized and decentralized economic systems may be explained by elements of the principal-agent theory, the soft budget constraint model, and the theory of decision-making in hierarchies and polyarchies. Empirical evidence shows a sharp slowdown in both innovation and economic growth in the Soviet economy following the economic decision-making reform of 1965. The theoretical explanation most consistent with this evidence is the hierarchy decision-making model. Originality/value – Comparisons of innovation in centralized and decentralized economies traditionally relied on decision-makers' incentives and the concept of soft budget constraint. Upon analysis of empirical evidence from the centralized Soviet economy, this study advocates explaining innovation patterns based on decision-making theory of hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This paper aims to evaluate critically the validity of rival theorisations of the hidden economy that variously read this sphere as a leftover from a previous era, a by-product of a new emergent form of capitalism, a complement to formal employment or an alternative to the formal economy. Until now, the common tendency among economic theorists has been to either universally privilege one theorisation over others, or to represent each theory as valid in different places. Design/methodology/approach – To evaluate their validity to the city of Moscow, a survey is reported involving 313 face-to-face interviews with inhabitants conducted during 2005/2006. Findings – The finding is that, although each theory is a valid representation of particular types of hidden work in Moscow, no one theory fully captures the diverse nature of the hidden economy in this city, and that only by combining all of them can a finer-grained understanding of the multifarious character of the hidden economy in this city be achieved. How these theories can be synthesised in order to develop this fuller and more nuanced understanding of the hidden economy is then outlined. Research limitations/implications – This study reveals that all these theories are needed to more fully understand the hidden economy of Moscow. Whether this is similarly the case elsewhere now needs to be investigated. Practical implications – The recognition of multifarious types of hidden work, each with different economic implications, reveals that different policy approaches are perhaps required towards various forms of hidden work. Originality/value – The paper re-theorises the hidden economy as a sphere composed of heterogeneous types of work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]