Comments Welcome AGENCY PROBLEMS IN LARGE FAMILY BUSINESS GROUPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise at the University of Alberta Business School. Executive Summary Much discussion of corporate governance problems highlights managers ’ failure to act for shareholders in widely held firms. This discussion typically assumes that greater insider ownership leads to better corporate governance. This is because managers who own larger equity blocks in their firms are less likely to take actions that reduce the value of their shares. This logic, taken a step further, suggests that agency problems might be minimized in narrowly held firms, such as those controlled by families. This framework is certainly relevant in economies, such as the United States and United Kingdom, where most large firms are widely held. However, in other countries, most large firms are parts of family business groups. In a family business group, a family firm holds control blocks in several publicly traded firms, each of which holds control blocks in yet more publicly traded firms, and so on. We show that such structures give rise to their own set of agency problems. In widely
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.139 | 0.040 |
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".