2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
No. 208, December 2011
No. 207, November 2011
No. 206, October 2011
No. 205, September 2011
No. 204, August 2011
No. 203, July 2011
No. 202, June 2011
No. 201, May 2011
No. 200, April 2011
No. 199, March 2011
No. 198, February 2011
No. 197, January 2011
2010
No. 196, December 2010
No. 195, November 2010
No. 194, October 2010
No. 193, September 2010
No. 192, August 2010
No. 191, July 2010
No. 190, June 2010
No. 189, May 2010
No. 188, April 2010
No. 187, March 2010
No. 186, February 2010
No. 185, January 2010
2009
No. 184, December 2009
No. 183, November 2009
No. 182, October 2009
No. 181, September 2009
No. 180, August 2009
No. 179, July 2009
No. 178, June 2009
No. 177, May 2009
No. 176, April 2009
No. 175, March 2009
No. 174, February 2009
No. 173, January 2009
2008
No. 172, December 2008
No. 171, November 2008
No. 170, October 2008
No. 169, September 2008
No. 168, August 2008
No. 167, July 2008
No. 166, June 2008
No. 165, May 2008
No. 164, April 2008
No. 163, March 2008
No. 162, February 2008
No. 161, January 2008
2007
No. 160, December 2007
No. 159, November 2007
No. 158, October 2007
No. 157, September 2007
No. 156, August 2007
No. 155, July 2007
No. 154, June 2007
No. 153, May 2007
No. 152, April 2007
No. 151, March 2007
No. 150, February 2007
No. 149, January 2007
2006
No. 148, December 2006
No. 147, November 2006
No. 146, October 2006
No. 145, September 2006
No. 144, August 2006
No. 143, July 2006
No. 142, June 2006
No. 141, May 2006
No. 140, April 2006
No. 139, March 2006
No. 138, February 2006
No. 137, January 2006
2005
No. 136, December 2005
No. 135, November 2005
No. 134, October 2005
No. 133, September 2005
No. 132, August 2005
No. 131, July 2005
No. 130, June 2005
No. 129, May 2005
No. 128, April 2005
No. 127, March 2005
No. 126, February 2005
No. 125, January 2005
2004
No. 124, December 2004
No. 123, November 2004
No. 122, October 2004
No. 121, September 2004
No. 120, August 2004
No. 119, July 2004
No. 118, June 2004
No. 117, May 2004
No. 116, April 2004
No. 115, March 2004
No. 114, February 2004
No. 113, January 2004
2003
No. 112, December 2003
No. 111, November 2003
No. 110, October 2003
No. 109, September 2003
No. 108, August 2003
No. 107, July 2003
No. 106, June 2003
No. 105, May 2003
No. 104, April 2003
No. 103, March 2003
No. 102, February 2003
No. 101, January 2003
2002
No. 100, December 2002
No. 99, November 2002
No. 98, October 2002
No. 97, September 2002
No. 96, August 2002
No. 95, July 2002
No. 94, June 2002
No. 93, May 2002
No. 92, April 2002
No. 91, March 2002
No. 90, February 2002
No. 89, January 2002
2001
No. 88, December 2001
No. 87, November 2001
No. 86, October 2001
No. 85, September 2001
No. 84, August 2001
No. 83, July 2001
No. 82, June 2001
No. 81, May 2001
No. 80, April 2001
No. 79, March 2001
No. 78, February 2001
No. 77, January 2001
2000
No. 76, December 2000
No. 75, November 2000
No. 74, October 2000
No. 73, September 2000
No. 72, August 2000
No. 71, July 2000
No. 70, June 2000
No. 69, May 2000
No. 68, April 2000
No. 67, March 2000
No. 66, February 2000
No. 65, January 2000
1999
No. 64, December 1999
No. 63, November 1999
No. 62, October 1999
No. 61, September 1999
No. 60, August 1999
No. 59, July 1999
No. 58, June 1999
No. 57, May 1999
No. 56, April 1999
No. 55, March 1999
No. 54, February 1999
No. 53, January 1999
1998
No. 52, December 1998
No. 51, November 1998
No. 50, October 1998
No. 49, September 1998
No. 48, August 1998
No. 47, July 1998
No. 46, June 1998
No. 45, May 1998
No. 44, April 1998
No. 43, March 1998
No. 42, February 1998
No. 41, January 1998
1997
No. 40, December 1997
No. 39, November 1997
No. 38, October 1997
No. 37, September 1997
No. 36, August 1997
No. 35, July 1997
No. 34, June 1997
No. 33, May 1997
No. 32, April 1997
No. 31, March 1997
No. 30, February 1997
No. 29, January 1997
1996
No. 28, December 1996
No. 27, November 1996
No. 26, October 1996
No. 25, September 1996
No. 24, August 1996
No. 23, July 1996
No. 22, June 1996
No. 21, May 1996
No. 20, April 1996
No. 19, March 1996
No. 18, February 1996
No. 17, January 1996
1995
No. 16, December 1995
No. 15, November 1995
No. 14, October 1995
No. 13, September 1995
No. 12, August 1995
No. 11, July 1995
No. 10, June 1995
No. 09, May 1995
No. 08, April 1995
No. 07, March 1995
No. 06, February 1995
No. 05, January 1995
1994
More
|
| Vol. 30(1) , March 2023 |
|
|
| |
Performance implications of the interaction between the accountants’ participation in strategic decision-making and accounting capacity
(pages 67–81)
Bui Quang Hung & Tu Thanh Hoai & Tran Anh Hoa & Nguyen Phong Nguyen
Version of Record online: 02 Nov 2025 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-04-2022-0087
Abstract
Purpose
Based on the contingency theory and resource-based view, this study develops and tests a moderated mediation model explaining the performance implications of the interaction between the accountants’ participation in strategic decision-making (APAR) and accounting capacity (ACAP) in promoting the use of management accounting systems (MAS) toward enhancing firm performance.
Design/methodology/approach
Using partial least squares structural equation modeling, the authors tested the proposed model and its hypotheses with survey data from 340 large Vietnamese firms.
Findings
The results indicate that (1) MAS act as the full mediator in the positive relationship between APAR and firm performance, and (2) ACAP positively moderates the effect of APAR on the use of MAS.
Originality/value
This study bridges the gap between accounting and strategic management literature by elucidating the mechanism by which the involvement of accountants in strategic issues improves the use of MAS toward enhancing firm performance and increases the current understanding of ACAP as a boundary condition for this mechanism.
The impact of mixed syndication between government and private venture capital on investees in Estonia
(pages 49–66)
Tetsuya Kirihata
Version of Record online: 02 Nov 2025 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-01-2022-0003
Abstract
Purpose
The study compares the impacts of mixed syndication venture capital (VC) investment and private VC (PVC) investment on the transitional performance indicators of intangible assets, fixed assets, liabilities and number of employees in Estonia. It also examines the impact of mixed syndication on investees' sales and profit.
Design/methodology/approach
This study conducted panel data regression analyses based on the dataset consists of yearly data from 2006 to 2015 for more than 187,000 unlisted firms in Estonia.
Findings
Results showed that mixed syndication had a significant positive effect on the number of employees of investees but not on investees' sales and profit. PVC investment had a significant positive effect on investee sales but not on the transitional performance indicators of investees.
Originality/value
The study has two unique research contributions. First, it investigates the impact of syndicated investment on investees' transitional performance indicators in addition to performance indicators. Second, it focuses on Estonia, an emerging country that has somewhat achieved success in fostering information and communications technology startups and is one of the earliest emerging countries to implement a mixed syndication VC investment policy.
Performance comparison of state-owned enterprises versus private firms in selected emerging Asian countries
(pages 26-48)
Thai-Ha Le & Donghyun Park & Cynthia Castillejos-Petalcorin
Version of Record online: 02 Nov 2025 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-08-2021-0116
Abstract
Purpose
This policy paper compares the performance of state-owned enterprise (SOEs) versus private firms in selected emerging economies in Asia, focusing on a number of performance indicators. The indicators are internationally recognized quality innovation, product and/or service innovation, financing of operations, dealing with government regulations and labor performance. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has been no such comparative study for these indicators between SOEs and private firms and across countries. Most studies of SOEs have been national case studies. As such, they give us little knowledge of how a country compares with other countries at similar stages of economic development. A cross-country comparative analysis can help us identify broader trends and patterns.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors compare and discuss the performance of SOEs versus private firms in a number of emerging Asian countries, namely China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. To do so, the authors use data from the 2018 World Bank Enterprise Survey (which is the latest available) for the period 2012–2015. The authors focus on a number of key performance indicators, namely internationally recognized quality innovation, product and/or service innovation, financing of operations, dealing with government regulations and labor performance.
Findings
The comparative analysis uncovers some interesting differences between the two types of firms. For example, somewhat surprisingly, SOEs tend to innovate more than private firms. However, the single most significant pattern the authors find is that in middle-income Asia both types of firms face formidable challenges with respect to doing business – e.g. scarcity of relevant training programs for employees. Therefore, the priority of policymakers must be to improve the overall business environment for all firms, regardless of their ownership structure.
Research limitations/implications
The nature of this paper is a policy paper. This is because the data used in this study is survey data, conducted every four–five years (or more) for each country in the study and available for very few countries. As the data are not available for a continuous period of time, The authors could not conduct empirical research for this topic and thus made it a policy paper that presents a comparison across Asian countries as case studies.
Originality/value
The five selected Asian countries are interesting case studies for a comparative analysis since they are middle-income countries where SOEs play a significant role in the economy. Furthermore, state ownership is an important institutional dimension in emerging markets, and strong ties with the government can influence the performance of SOEs through various market and non-market channels. Despite the potential importance of the research theme, there is very little existing research on cross-country comparisons of the performance of SOEs vis-à-vis private firms. This could be explained by scarce data availability. With this in mind, the study attempts to shed some light on SOEs' performance and add to the rather limited literature.
Does corporate governance compliance condition information asymmetries? Moderating role of voluntary disclosures
(pages 02-25)
Samya Tahir & Sadaf Ehsan & Mohammad Kabir Hassan & Qamar Uz Zaman
Version of Record online: 11 Jun 2025 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-07-2021-0085
Abstract
Purpose
This study examines the moderating effects of low and high levels of voluntary disclosures (VDs) between corporate governance and information asymmetry (IA).
Design/methodology/approach
The study used PROCESS macro to construct bootstrap confidence intervals at the 95% level to estimate the model, and “simple slope analysis” to visualize the model.
Findings
The better corporate governance provides a monitoring mechanism that disseminates private information and reduces IA The effect of corporate governance on IA is contingent on the levels of VDs within a firm, and this relationship is strengthened when the level of VDs within a firm is high, and results remain consistent when levels of sub-indices are high. Additional analysis reveals that effective boards and audit committees reduce IA. Increased inside, an associated company, family and foreign ownership exacerbate IA, whereas institutional owners act as effective monitors to overcome informational disadvantages.
Practical implications
The findings provide implications for policymakers to promote corporate governance and more relevant reporting practices as effective mechanisms for protecting shareholders' rights and attenuating IA in capital markets.
Originality/value
The study is valuable to understand the strength of the relationship between corporate governance and information asymmetries based on the moderating role of different VD levels.
|
|