International Developments in Executive Compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
xecutive compensation is a popular topic in both the popular press and the scholarly literature.During each proxy season, a recurring debate occurs regarding whether top executives are over-paid or under-paid, as well as the best approaches to align the interests of top executives with those of the firm, stake-, and shareholders.Such debate has fuelled greater oversight of compensation on a global basis.In the US, for example, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients must follow strict guidelines regarding the design of compensation packages.Additionally, the US has seen growing diffusion of clawback provisions, which are mechanisms to retroactively reduce the compensation of key executives.The Chinese government has recently placed restrictions on bonus pay for banking executives; and countries such as the UK, Australia, and India have seen calls for curbs on pay to top managers.Comparable examples may be found in a number of other countries.Academic research on executive compensation mirrors the prominence of this topic within the business community.For example, a search using the term "executive compensation" using ABI Inform yields 24,000 scholarly articles -over 4,000 of these in the last three years alone.Compensation articles are published in a range of disciplines and specialties, including accounting, economics, finance, and management.However, one critique of compensation work to date has been the relative inattention to international aspects of executive compensation (Gomez-Mejia & Wiseman, 1997).The goal of this special issue is to advance knowledge regarding the design and implementation of effective executive compensation packages, including the relevance of different approaches across national and cultural contexts.Additionally, we hope to encourage new research in this area.We begin our introduction by providing a brief review of internationally themed executive compensation studies to date.We identified seven prominent outlets for publishing compensation studies, and then conducted a content analy-sis of all empirical papers in these journals, which had an international focus.This review covered the period 1991-2011.1 We briefly summarize norms and trends for international executive compensation studies over the last two decades.Next, this special issue presents both conceptual and empirical studies that address international aspects of executive pay.We provide brief descriptions of each of the articles included in this issue.Finally, we offer some general suggestions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".