Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T12:16:55.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative innovation blocs and antifragility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2020

Niklas Elert  and
Magnus Henrekson
Niklas Elert*
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Box 55665, SE-102 15, Stockholm, Sweden
Magnus Henrekson
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Box 55665, SE-102 15, Stockholm, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author. Email: niklas.elert@ifn.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present the theory of the collaborative innovation bloc (CIB), an evolving system of innovation within which activity takes place over time. We show how the application of the CIB perspective can help make institutional and evolutionary economics more concrete, relevant, and persuasive, especially regarding policy prescriptions. Such policy actions should strive to improve the antifragility of CIBs and the economic system as a whole, thus enabling individual CIBs and the broader economic system to thrive when faced with adversity. With this in mind, we develop heuristics to evaluate CIB antifragility before using Sweden's economic and institutional evolution since the 1970s as a backdrop for identifying a set of institutional areas where reform can be undertaken to move in this direction.

Keywords

Entrepreneurshipevolutionary economicsinnovationinstitutionsinstitutional economics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 537 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acs, Z. J. and Sanders, M. (2012), ‘Patents, Knowledge Spillovers, and Entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 39(4): 801–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., and Szerb, L. (2014), ‘National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement Issues and Policy Implications’, Research Policy, 43(3): 476–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agell, J., Englund, P., and Södersten, J. (1998), Incentives and Redistribution in the Welfare State: The Swedish Tax Reform, New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaimer, H. (1988), ‘Börsen och Företagens Nyemissioner’, in Hägg, I. (ed), Stockholms Fondbörs. Riskkapitalmarknad i omvandling, Stockholm: SNS Förlag, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. M. (2005), ‘The Danish Labor Market – From Excess to Shortage’, in Werding, M. (ed), Structural Unemployment in Western Europe: Reasons and Remedies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. M. (2008), ‘The Scandinavian Model – Prospects and Challenges’, International Tax and Public Finance, 15(1): 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, F., Jordahl, H., and Josephson, J. (2019), ‘Outsourcing Public Services: Contractibility, Cost, and Quality’, CESifo Economic Studies, 65(4): 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armour, J. and Cumming, D. (2006), ‘The Legislative Road to Silicon Valley’, Oxford Economic Papers, 58(4): 596–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartelsman, E., Scarpetta, S., and Schivardi, F. (2005), ‘Comparative Analysis of Firm Demographics and Survival: Evidence from Micro-Level Sources in OECD Countries’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3): 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, W. J. (1990), ‘Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive’, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): 893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, W. J. (2005), ‘Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs versus Corporate Incremental Improvements’, Innovation Policy and the Economy, 5: 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, W. J. (2010), The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beltagui, A., Rosli, A., and Candi, M. (2020), ‘Exaptation in a Digital Innovation Ecosystem: The Disruptive Impacts of 3D Printing’, Research Policy, 49(1): 103833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhidé, A. (2008), The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blečić, I. and Cecchini, A. (2017), ‘On the Antifragility of Cities and of their Buildings’, City, Territory and Architecture, 4(3): 1–11.Google Scholar
Blix, M. and Jordahl, H. (2020), Privatizing Welfare Services: Lessons from the Swedish Experiment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, N., Sadun, R., and Van Reenen, J. (2009), ‘Do Private Equity-Owned Firms have Better Management Practices?’, in Gurung, A. and Lerner, J. (eds.), The Globalization of Alternative Investments Working Papers Volume 2: The Global Economic Impact of Private Equity Report 2009, Geneva: World Economic Forum, pp. 25–43.Google Scholar
Boissoneault, L. (2015), ‘Mourning the Death of the American Railway’, JSTOR Daily, https://daily.jstor.org/mourning-the-american-railway/ (accessed September 2019).Google Scholar
Braunerhjelm, P. and Henrekson, M. (2016), ‘An Innovation Policy Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Industrial Dynamics and Growth’, in Audretsch, D. B. and Link, A. N. (eds.), Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredgaard, T. (2013), ‘Flexibility and Security in Employment Regulation: Learning from Denmark’, in Stone, K. V. W. and Arthurs, H. (eds.), Rethinking Workplace Regulation: Beyond the Standard Contract of Employment, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 213–233.Google Scholar
Brown, C., Haltiwanger, J., and Lane, J. (2008), Economic Turbulence: Is a Volatile Economy Good for America?, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bylund, P. L. (2019), ‘Where is the Austrian Theory of Collaborative Orders? Comment on Elert and Henrekson’, Review of Austrian Economics, 32(4): 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R. (2007), Specificity and the Macroeconomics of Restructuring, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiles, T. H., Meyer, A. D., and Hench, T. J. (2004), ‘Organizational Emergence: The Origin and Transformation of Branson, Missouri's Musical Theaters’, Organization Science, 15(5): 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, G. B. and Gothberg, B. C. (2001), ‘The Potential for High Technology for Establishing Tradeable Rights to Whales’, in Anderson, T. L. and Hill, P. J. (eds), The Technology of Property Rights, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, pp. 101–122.Google Scholar
Cilliers, P. (2000), ‘Rules and Complex Systems’, Emergence, 2(3): 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (2016), Rekrytering – när teknikutveckling och digitalisering förändrar jobben: Rekryteringsenkäten 2016, Stockholm: Svenskt Näringsliv.Google Scholar
Croce, A., Martí, J., and Murtinu, S. (2013), ‘The Impact of Venture Capital on the Productivity Growth of European Entrepreneurial Firms: “Screening” or “Value Added” Effect?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4): 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, S. (2012), Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Demir, R., Wennberg, K., and McKelvie, A. (2017), ‘The Strategic Management of High-Growth Firms: A Review and Theoretical Conceptualization’, Long Range Planning, 50(4): 431–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Mooij, R. A. and Devereux, M. P. (2016), Alternative Systems of Business Tax in Europe: An Applied Analysis of ACE and CBIT Reforms, Oxford: Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, J. and Wright, G. (2014), ‘Preparing for the Future: Development of an ‘Antifragile’ Methodology that Complements Scenario Planning by Omitting Causation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1): 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dopfer, K., Foster, J., and Potts, J. (2004), ‘Micro–Meso–Macro’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3): 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Rietz, G., Johansson, D., and Stenkula, M. (2015), ‘Swedish Capital Income Taxation (1862–2013)’, in Henrekson, M. and Stenkula, M. (eds.), Swedish Taxation: Developments Since 1862, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 123–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, R. N., Eesley, C. E. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017), ‘Failure is an Option: Institutional Change, Entrepreneurial Risk, and New Firm Growth’, Organization Science, 28(1): 93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elert, N. and Henrekson, M. (2017), ‘Status Quo Institutions and the Benefits of Institutional Deviations’, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 15(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Elert, N. and Henrekson, M. (2019a), ‘The Collaborative Innovation Bloc: A New Mission for Austrian Economics’, Review of Austrian Economics, 32(4): 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elert, N. and Henrekson, M. (2019b), ‘The Collaborative Innovation Bloc: A Reply to our Commentators’, Review of Austrian Economics, 32(4): 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elert, N., Andersson, F. W., and Wennberg, K. (2015), ‘The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in High School on Long-Term Entrepreneurial Performance’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 111(1): 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elert, N., Henrekson, M., and Sanders, M. (2019), The Entrepreneurial Society: A Reform Strategy for the European Union, International Studies in Entrepreneurship 43, Cham, CH: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasson, G. (2000), ‘Industrial Policy, Competence Blocs and the Role of Science in Economic Development’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1–2): 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, A. M. and Harper, D. A. (2013), ‘“Wresting Meaning from the Market”: A Reassessment of Ludwig Lachmann's Entrepreneur’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(3): 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erixon, L. (2011), ‘Development Blocks, Malinvestment and Structural Tensions – The Åkerman–Dahmén Theory of the Business Cycle’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1): 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, W. and White, M. J. (2003), ‘Personal Bankruptcy and the Level of Entrepreneurial Activity’, Journal of Law & Economics, 46(2): 543–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenn, G., Liang, N., and Prowse, S. (1995), The Economics of the Private Equity Market, Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Google Scholar
Företagarna (2017), Småföretagsbarometern, Stockholm: Företagarna.Google Scholar
Fortunato, M. W. P. (2017), ‘Advancing Educational Diversity: Antifragility, Standardization, Democracy, and a Multitude of Education Options’, Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J. (1997), ‘Austrian Insights and the Theory of the Firm', in Advances in Austrian Economics 4, Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp. 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., and McCaffrey, M. (2019), ‘The Entrepreneurship Scholar Plays with Blocs: Collaborative Innovation or Collaborative Judgment?’, Review of Austrian Economics, 32(4): 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilson, R. J. and Schizer, D. M. (2003), ‘Understanding Venture Capital Structure: A Tax Explanation for Convertible Preferred Stock’, Harvard Law Review, 116(3): 874–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gompers, P. A. and Lerner, J. (2001), The Money of Invention: How Venture Capital Creates New Wealth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Granstrand, O. and Alänge, S. (1995), ‘The Evolution of Corporate Entrepreneurship in Swedish Industry – Was Schumpeter Wrong?’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5(2): 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. E. and Woodward, S. E. (2010), ‘The Burden of the Nondiversifiable Risk of Entrepreneurship’, American Economic Review, 100(3): 1163–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, E. A. and Woessmann, L. (2015), The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harford, T. (2011), Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure, London: Little.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (2008), ‘Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurial Teams’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6): 613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1976), Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Volume II: The Mirage of Social Justice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henrekson, M. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship: A Weak Link in the Welfare State?’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3): 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrekson, M. and Jakobsson, U. (2001), ‘Where Schumpeter was Nearly Right – The Swedish Model and Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11(3): 331–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrekson, M. and Johansson, D. (2009), ‘Competencies and Institutions Fostering High-Growth Firms’, Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 5(1): 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrekson, M. and Sanandaji, T. (2018a), ‘Stock Option Taxation and Venture Capital Activity: A Cross-Country Study’, Venture Capital, 20(1): 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrekson, M. and Sanandaji, T. (2018b), ‘Stock Option Taxation: A Missing Piece in European Innovation Policy?’, Small Business Economics, 51(2): 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., and Gershenson, C. (2006), ‘Complexity and Philosophy’, in J. Bogg and R. Geyer (eds), Complexity, Science and Society, Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
Heyman, F., Norbäck, P. J., Persson, L., and Andersson, F. (2019), ‘Has the Swedish Business Sector Become More Entrepreneurial than the U.S. Business Sector?’, Research Policy, 48(7): 1809–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., and Tolbert, P. S. (2009), ‘From Pabst to Pepsi: The Deinstitutionalization of Social Practices and the Creation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4): 635–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. (2016), Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing our Children from Failed Educational Theories, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. and Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014), ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on the Future of Institutional and Evolutionary Economics’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(4): 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoetker, G. and Agarwal, R. (2007), ‘Death Hurts, but it isn't Fatal: The Postexit Diffusion of Knowledge Created by Innovative Companies’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 446–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmén, M. and Högfeldt, P. (2005), ‘A Law and Finance Analysis of Initial Public Offerings’, Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13(3): 324–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonung, L. (1994), ‘The Rise and Fall of Credit Controls: The Case of Sweden, 1939–89’, in Bordo, M. D. and Capie, F. (eds), Monetary Regimes in Transition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–370.Google Scholar
Jörnmark, J. (2013), Teknik slår politik, Riga: Tangent.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. (2016), Experimental Capitalism: The Nanoeconomics of American High-Tech Industries, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F. H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. (1956), Capital and Its Structure, London: G. Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
Landström, H. and Mason, C. (eds.) (2016), Handbook of Research on Business Angels, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, C., Szulkin, R., Tibajev, A., and Tåhlin, M. (2013), Vid arbetslivets gränser: Sysselsättning, matchning, barriärer 1974–2010, Stockholm: Parlamentariska socialförsäkringsutredningen.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. (2012), Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital have Failed-and What to do About It, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tåg, J. (2013), ‘Institutions and Venture Capital’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1): 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy-Carciente, S. (2019), International Property Rights Index 2019, Washington, DC: Property Rights Alliance.Google Scholar
Lichtman, M. (2016), ‘Antifragile Communications’, Virginia Tech, 12(1): 659–670.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E. (1995), ‘Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11(1): 205–226.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, A. (1997), ‘The Swedish Experiment’, Journal of Economic Literature, 35(3): 1273–1319.Google Scholar
Lindmark Frier, J. (2018), ‘Why is Sweden So Great at Breeding Unicorns?’ TechSavvy. https://techsavvy.media/in-the-north-everyone-lacks-behind-swedish-fintech/ (accessed December 2019).Google Scholar
Lucas, D. S. (2019), ‘The Political Economy of the Collaborative Innovation Bloc’, Review of Austrian Economics, 32(4): 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markey-Towler, B. (2018), ‘Antifragility, the Black Swan and Psychology’, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 15(2): 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, D. and Klamer, A. (1995), ‘One Quarter of GDP is Persuasion’, American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 85(2): 191–195.Google Scholar
McKelvey, B. (2004a), ‘Toward a 0th Law of Thermodynamics: Order Creation Complexity Dynamics from Physics and Biology to Bioeconomics’, Bioeconomics, 6(1): 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, B. (2004b), ‘Toward a Complexity Science of Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3): 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meidner, R. (1978), Employee Investment Funds. An Approach to Collective Capital Formation, London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ménard, C. (2014), ‘Embedding Organizational Arrangements: Towards a General Model’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(4): 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. (1998), Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naji, A., Ghodrat, M., Komaie-Moghaddam, H., and Podgornik, R. (2014), ‘Asymmetric Coulomb Fluids at Randomly Charged Dielectric Interfaces: Anti-Fragility, Overcharging and Charge Inversion’, Journal of Chemical Physics, 141(17): ): 174704CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, R. R. (2005), Technology, Institutions and Economic Growth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyström, K. (2009), ‘The Importance of Industry Structure in the Analysis of Regional Entry and Exit: The Case of Sweden’, Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, 9(2): 25–20.Google Scholar
OECD (2016), OECD Employment Outlook 2016, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (2019), OECD Data Portal. Paris: OECD. https://data.oecd.org/natincome/saving-rate.htm (accessed December 2019).Google Scholar
Olsson, K. (1995), ‘Big Business in Sweden: The Golden Age of the Great Swedish Shipyards, 1945–1974’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 43(3): 310–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010), ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems’, American Economic Review, 100(3): 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagano, U. (2011), ‘Interlocking Complementarities and Institutional Change’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(3): 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pech, R. J. and Oakley, K. E. (2005), ‘Hormesis: An Evolutionary “Predict and Prepare” Survival Mechanism’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8): 673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W., Yamakawa, Y., and Lee, S. (2009), ‘Bankruptcy Laws and Entrepreneur Friendliness’, Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 34(3): 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, A. W. and Tarko, V. (2019), ‘Governing the Banking System: An Assessment of Resilience Based on Elinor Ostrom's Design Principles’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(3): 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandström, C. (2014), Var Skapades Sveriges 100 Främsta Innovationer?, Stockholm: Reforminstitutet.Google Scholar
Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., and Karlson, N. (2019), Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy?, Stockholm: Ratio.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008), Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarpetta, S., Hemmings, P., Tressel, T., and Woo, J. (2002), ‘The Role of Policy and Institutions for Productivity and Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Micro and Industry Data’, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No 329, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934 [1911]), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1989 [1949]), ‘Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History’, in Clemence, R. V. (ed.), Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 253–271.Google Scholar
Stam, E. (2015), ‘Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique’, European Planning Studies, 23(9): 1759–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tåg, J. (2012), ‘The Real Effects of Private Equity Buyouts’, in Cumming, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Private Equity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271–299.Google Scholar
Taleb, N. N. (2012), Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., and de Jong, J. P. J. (2011), ‘The Age of the Consumer-Innovator’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1): 27–35.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. E. (2016), Politics as a Peculiar Business: Insights from a Theory of Entangled Political Economy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennberg, K., Lindberg, H., and Fergin, E. (2013), Rekrytering och Kompetensförsörjning i Snabbväxande Företag, Stockholm: Ratio.Google Scholar
Westerhuis, G. (2016), ‘Commercial Banking: The Changing Interaction Between Banks, Markets, Industry and State’, in Cassis, Y., Schenk, C., and Grossman, R. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Banking and Financial History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 110–132.Google Scholar
Woessmann, L. (2018), ‘Central Exit Exams Improve Student Outcomes’, IZA World of Labor, 419: 1–10.Google Scholar
World Bank (2009), Doing Business 2010: Reforming through Difficult Times, Washington DC: World Bank and Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
World Bank (2014), Sweden's Business Climate: A Microeconomic Assessment, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar