2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Austrian Economics and Property Rights: An examination of Locus of Control and demographic
factors for expatriate entrepreneurs from the Middle East.
Josh McCarthy, Indiana Wesleyan University, (317) 796-2390
Hannah Steinberg, University of Georgia
Shawn M. Carraher, Indiana Wesleyan University
Jacob Millage, Indiana Wesleyan University, (317) 605-8373
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
1
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: AN EXAMINATION OF LOCUS OF
CONTROL AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS FOR EXPATRIATE ENTREPRENEURS
FROM THE MIDDLE EAST
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the data we found from interviewing 456 expatriate entrepreneurs
from the Middle East. Our primary focus in this research is to determine the level of importance
that these entrepreneurs place on having clearly defined individual property rights. The lens
through which the authors see this subject of property rights is colored by the Austrian school of
thought. Austrian Economics strongly supports individual property rights, along with a strong
rule of law to enforce them. In turn, this endorsement of individual property rights is thought to
positively influence entrepreneurs, who are more willing to risk their resources in such a context.
To better understand our data we ran a multiple regression, using Rotter’s Locus of
Control scale (internal and external locus of control), time as an expatriate, age, sex, and
educational level on the importance of Property Rights. We are able to explain 26.7 % of the
variance in Property Rights with these variables.Education level proved to be the most powerful
independent variable, suggesting that, the more years of postgraduate education, the more an
expatriate entrepreneur will value property rights. Curiously, age is negatively related to property
rights, meaning that younger entrepreneurs value property rights more than their older
counterparts. Entrepreneurs with a strong sense of internal or external locus of control tended to
favor property rights.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
2
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
INTRODUCTION
Regardless of one’s profession or social class, it is understood thateconomics affects
everyone. Scarcity is a reality of the world we live in. For aneconomy to prosper and reach its
full potential, limited resources must be handled in the most efficient and productive way
possible.
There are several prominent schools of thought that debate how a country should go
aboutmaking this happen. Whether it be a Neoclassical or a Keynesian approach, or a more
steady and consistent Monetarist method, world leaders invariably want to implement the
strategy that will cause their nation’s economy to flourish, thereby creating wealth.
This paper examines the Austrian school of thought to economics. Three Austrians - Carl
Menger, Friedrich von Wieser, and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk -founded Austrian economics in
the 19th Century. Being overshadowed by other philosophies after the death of its founders,
Austrian economics is again rising in prominence.
There are several distinct aspects of Austrian economics that separate them from other
schools of thought.Austrians see economics as a subjective discipline, because value is
subjective and ever changing. As Carl Menger wrote, “The value of goods arises from their
relationship to our needs, and is not inherent in the goods themselves.” Those that view
economics as an objective and exact science tend to accumulate large masses of large data sets,
all trying to somehow determine “general equilibrium.” In contrast, Austrians prefer to
emphasize human decisions and preferences, examining the resulting actions and the incentives
that encourage them. If others are engrossed in the forecast of aggregates for the “macro”
economy, Austrian economists are equally absorbed in their study of the individual, knowing
that it is many individuals working together that form the whole, or “macro,” economy.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
3
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
In his 1981 article Understanding“Austrian” Economics, Henry Hazlitt observed that
Austrian economists rarely speak of market equilibrium, but [rather] about the market processes.
Regardless of the school of thought that economists come from, most view this “market process”
as a beautiful and fantastic phenomenon. Indeed, the market process causes the many thousands
of individuals and entrepreneurs in a given economy to work in relative harmony with one
another, all through the pricing signals and incentives provided in a freely functioning economy.
It is Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” alive and well, with millions of individuals responding to the
market and acting in their own self-interest, all the while advancing society and improving the
general well-being of others.
Austrian economists believe that the level at which the market process is able to function
naturally and unconstrained is directly related to an economy’s ability to function at its greatest
potential. This market process provides incentives to market participants, instructing them how
to use their scarce resources in the most valuable manner possible. How can the resources of an
economy be delegated to the place where they are most valuable and advance the
macroeconomy? By individuals responding to incentives provided by a vibrant and dynamic
market process.
For Austrians, economics do not so much hinge on governmental data crunching as much
as they do on determining the universal realities concerning how to create and/or preserve
healthy incentives to the individuals participating in an economy. Because of their high regard
for the market process and confidence in its ability to adequately direct economies, Austrians
economists generally discourage public sector attempts to improve market process. Historically,
they are reliably laissez-faire in their politics.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
4
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
The implications of Austrian economics on public policy are that public policy should be
minimized as much as possible. Governmental intervention in the market process (such as
though transfer payments, increased taxes, price controls, etc.) result in distorted incentives in
the marketplace, discouraging the individuals in an economy from using their resources in the
most efficient and productive way.
Despite the growing Austrian sentiments in much of the academic world, the United
States currently employs public policy (as well as monetary policy) that does not logically follow
from the Austrian school of thought. Political incentives, as well as opposing economic
ideologies, have largely kept the Austrian way in the academic community alone. While the full
consequences of current policy remain to be seen, the evidence suggests the results on the
economy have not been positive. It appears that change is needed. Perhaps this is an opportunity
for the Austrian renaissance to make its way to the governmental level?
Locus of control refers to the perceived control over the events of one’s life. People with
an internal locus of control believe that they are able to control what happens in their lives. On
the other hand, people with an external locus of control tend to believe that most of the events in
their lives result from being lucky, being in the right place at the right time, and the behaviours
of powerful individuals. People’s beliefs in personal control over their lives influence their
perception of important events, their attitude towards life, and their work behaviours (Rotter,
1966).
Moreover, internal locus of control has been one of the most studied psychological traits
in entrepreneurship research. An association between entrepreneurial behaviour and an internal
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
5
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
locus of control orientation has strong face validity. Entrepreneurs by most definitions are
initiators, taking responsibility for their own welfare and not dependent on others (McClelland
1961). Furthermore, if one does not believe that the outcome of a business venture will be
influenced by personal effort, then that individual is unlikely to risk exposure to the high
penalties of failure. Since perception of both risk and ability to affect outcomes are crucial to the
new venture formation decision, it follows that potential entrepreneurs are more likely to have an
internal locus of control origination than an external one (Brockhaus & Horowitz, 1986).
METHOD
Sample
We used a sample of 456 expatriate entrepreneurs from the Middle East (168 females and
288 males). Their average age was 35 and they had spent on average a total of 13 years as an
expatriate and had an average of 4.35 years of higher education beyond high school.
Results
In Table 1 are shown the results of a multiple regression of Rotter’s Locus of Control
scale (internal and external locus of control), time as an expatriate, age, sex, and educational
level on the importance of Property Rights. We are able to explain 26.7% of the variance in
Property Rights with these variables.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
6
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Table 1
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Std. Error of
Model R
R Square Square
the Estimate
1
.267
.37970
.517a
.257
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Internal Locus of
Control, Edu.lev, Age, External Locus of Control,
TimeExpat
ANOVAb
Sum of
Model
1
Squares
df
Mean Square F
Sig.
Regression 23.569
6
3.928
.000a
Residual
64.733
449
.144
Total
88.302
455
27.247
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Internal Locus of Control, Edu.lev, Age,
External Locus of Control, TimeExpat
b. Dependent Variable: PropertyRights
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
7
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.732
.215
External Locus of
-.057
.020
-.058
TimeExpat
Beta
t
Sig.
22.023
.000
-.130
-2.822
.005
.018
-.132
-3.154
.002
.006
.004
.120
1.538
.125
Edu.lev
.087
.011
.337
8.091
.000
Age
-.018
.004
-.311
-4.055
.000
Gender
-.271
.043
-.297
-6.361
.000
Control
Internal Locus of
Control
a. Dependent Variable: PropertyRights
Property rights are defined as the authority to determine the allocation of one’s assets
(Segal, Ilya and Whinston, Michael D., 2010). Property rights ensure the property owner control
over his own resources, including his home, land, and business. When an entrepreneur starts a
business, he essentially owns the rights to the business, controlling investments and everyday
operations and reaping any ensuing revenue. The right to govern and manage his business is an
entrepreneur’s incentive. Property rights are important to economics because they allow people
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
8
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
to maximize their utility and take stock in their environment. They entail complete ownership of
a resource; any attempt from the government in prohibiting the use or sale of the resource is
degrading the property rights of the individual.
The Soviet Union was an extreme example of a socialist nation devoid of property rights.
The resources of the country were commonly owned; however, the national government had
complete control over the economy, assigning government officials delegation over its assets.
Without the institution of property rights, business managers had no stock or investment in their
companies, and therefore, no incentive. Before the collapse of the Union, many businesses failed
and resources were overexploited. This process is called the tragedy of the commons: the
overexploitation of resources due to individuals consulting their self interest and overlooking
long term consequences (Hardin, G., 1968). Johnson, McMillan, and Woodruff (2002) found in
their paper on property rights and finance that today, “reinvestment rates are lowest in Russia
and Ukraine, where bribes for government services and licenses are common, firms make
payments for protection, and the courts are least effective.”
The financial state of a nation creates a subsequent effect on entrepreneurs and their
willingness to invest. According to Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer (1995), Paolo Mauro
(1995), Jakob Svensson (1998), and Daron Acemoglu (2001), “country-level studies consistently
show that less secure property rights are correlated with lower aggregate investment and slower
economic growth” (as cited in Johnson, McMillan, & Woodruff, 2002, p. 1335). Entrepreneurs
will only invest if they feel secure in their venture and will reap the benefits, thus, the correlation
between property rights and finance.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
9
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Regression Analysis
We tested our data at the .05 level. The coefficient of determination reveals that we can
explain 26.7% (.267) of the variance in property rights from these variables. That is, 26.7% of
the variance observed in our dependent variable, property rights, is explained by our independent
variables.
Our understanding of property rights, our dependent variable, needs to be further
explained. We are attempting to measure the perception of property rights displayed by
expatriates from the Middle East. Specifically, we want to determine what importance they place
on having clearly defined property rights. Necessarily, for a country to establish a system that
allows personal property rights, that country must endorse a strong rule of law that defends the
integrity of these property rights. The Austrian school of thought would support a system that has
a strong rule of law and defends property rights.
The ANOVA table displays an F value of 27.247, at the .000000001 significance. For all
practical purposes, these numbers mean that there is about a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of us
coming across this data by chance. What does this mean? This means that these results are
definitively not skewed by an abnormal sample. In contrast, these numbers tell us that there is
something significant taking place with this data. Thus, we have reason to believe the correlation
we find in the data is meaningful and accurate.
While our preference would have been to be able to explain more than 26.7% of the
variance in property rights, we are encouraged by the fact that our data is clearly statistically
significant. Our independent variables do carry some influence in determining the dependent
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
10
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
variable. With this being the case, the question now becomes, what does the correlation within
this data mean?
Let us turn our attention to the figure that provides information about our independent
variables. Looking down the significance column on the far right (entitled “Sig.”), we see that all
variables except for TimeExpat are statistically significant. For this reason, we will not use this
TimeExpat in our analysis. Nevertheless, the other values are quite useful, with the significance
level being .005 or lower in every variable.
We are left with five statistically significant variables: external and internal locus of
control, education level (Edu.lev), age, and gender. The “t” column is a prominent statistic in this
table. We see that education level represents the strongest correlation, with a“t” of 8.091. This
high number means that we can definitively reason that education level plays a significant role in
determining the level of importance that Middle East expatriates place on property rights. In this
case, the more years of post high school education, the greater the importance the entrepreneurs
tended to placed on property rights.
The second largest “t” value is gender, with a negative correlation, -6.361. Rather than
explaining how we coded this data, I will simply inform you that this figure strongly suggests
that males place a greater importance on property rights than females. That is, males placed a
greater importance on being able to have clearly defined and enforced property rights.
The next strongest “t” value is age, another negative correlation, at -4.055. We found age
to be significantly significant, with the younger expatriates viewing property rights as more
important.
The fact that younger entrepreneurs place greater emphasis on property rights is a curious
finding. Actually, considering the education level variable, we would have expected the exact
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
11
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
opposite correlation. We would have expected older people to value property rights more than
younger. This follows, because, the more years of education, the greater the importance placed
on property rights. Younger people tend to have less years of education under their belt, making
these results quite puzzling.
What are the reasons for this? Why the seeming contradiction in the data? Unfortunately,
from this study, we are not able to fully understand why the younger entrepreneurs valued
property rights more than their elder counterparts. One coauthor perceptively theorizes that this
finding could be due to the fact that the younger entrepreneurs have been (presumably) removed
from their native context for less time than the older expatriates. Perhaps, the longer these
entrepreneurs live in a place that staunchly enforces personal property rights – such as the United
States – the less they are reminded of the significance of this type of rule of law. The importance
of property rights is no longer “fresh” in their minds. Meanwhile, the importance of property
rights is prominent in the minds of (young) expatriates, who have recently removed themselves
from a Middle Eastern context that did not protect property rights as strictly. This is an
interesting theory that deserves to be examined in greater detail. Such an undertaking is beyond
the scope of this data and paper, but we are hopeful that someone will take the time to review
this theory in greater detail.
One final observation concerning the independent variable “age.” One may object that
age should not be scrutinized so heavily, because its unstandardized coefficient “B” is only .018. The reason is its “t” value was high is largely because of a minimal level of standard error
(.004). The authors agree that age only shows slight negative correlation to the dependent
variable, property rights. Nevertheless, we believe that this finding is worth researching further
for two primary reasons. First, a negative correlation in age is the complete opposite result that
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
12
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
was expected, particularly keeping the education level variable in mind. Second, both of these
variables - age and education level - are statistically significant.
Now to our final independent variables: internal and external locus of control. To review,
internal locus of control involves having a sense of control over one’s own life. A person with a
strong internal locus of control believes that they have the ability to determine their future.
Entrepreneurs tend to have a strong internal locus of control, which contributes to their
willingness to put time and resources into a business. They expect that their effort will produce
fruitful results.
External locus of control is just the opposite. Someone with a strong external locus of
control believes that it is outside forces that primarily determine their future. They have limited
(or no) control over their lives, but rather are acted upon by the forces that be. Often these forces
comprise of some conception of a God, or the government. Individuals with an external locus of
control largely believe in fate. We would expect individuals with this belief system to tend to be
less entrepreneurial, believing that their business efforts have little or no impact on their future.
For these two variables, the lower the “t” value, the higher the importance the
entrepreneurs placed on property rights. In this case, we see that the “t” value for both locus of
control variables are inversely related to property rights at a moderate level. This means that our
expatriate entrepreneurs placed importance on property rights, regardless of which type (internal
of external) of locus of control they scored high in.
The finding that both variables show a similar correlation to property rights is puzzling.
For reasons described earlier, it is expected that individuals with an internal locus of control
would highly value property rights. Our data further confirms this theory. However, we would
have expected that individuals with a strong external locus of control would have not placed
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
13
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
great value on property rights, as they presumably perceive that they have little control over the
trajectory of their lives. Instead, our data shows that these individuals do place importance on
property rights, just as those with an internal locus of control do.
What are possible explanations for why those with an external locus of control also
showed nearly the same valuation of property rights? One theory is that religious preferences, a
variable for which our data does not account, played a role in influencing this outcome. This
theory is particularly helpful in explaining why someone with an external locus of control would
highly value property rights. We would expect an entrepreneur to believe strongly in personal
property rights if they believe that 1) there is a deity that is active in the world and 2) that the
deity is favorably disposed toward them. In this instance, that entrepreneur has an external locus
of control because they believe that a deity is controlling their life. In turn, because they believe
that the deity is actively influencing outcomes in their favor, they would value personal property
rights. Note: This theory is crude and undeveloped. This subject could easily be examined in
more detail and be the item of research for multiple papers. In our case, we are merely asserting
this theory as one possible explanation for the reason our empirical data links external locus of
control with strong property rights.
In any case, our data suggests that when one has a strong proclivitytoward either external
or internal locus of control, then that expatriate entrepreneur likely favors property rights.
CONCLUSION
Our sample included 456 expatriate entrepreneurs from the Middle East. The multivariate
regression explains 26.7% of the variance in Property Rights with these variables. Education
level proved to be the most powerfulindependent variable, suggesting that, the more years of
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
14
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
postgraduate education, the more an expatriate entrepreneur will value property rights.
Curiously, age is negatively related to property rights, meaning that younger entrepreneurs value
property rights more than their older counterparts. Entrepreneurs with a strong sense of internal
or external locus of control tended to favor property rights.
Related Research
Unfortunately, due to the specific topic of this paper, there is little related research that
directly relate to it. General consensus concerning expatriates says that they are successful
individuals who have positive effects to the country that they reside in. Expatriates usually
highly value education and most all expatriates have had some type of education. Evidence also
suggests that society seems to accept male expatriates over women.
Below are some possible areas of further research, along with a brief description of each
topic.
How external locus of control relates to religious views?
External locus of control refers to individuals who believe an outside force controls and
determines experiences in their life, which they have no control over. Now this outside force can
be anything, but from the data we received, it would be interesting to study how religion is
incorporated with external locus of control. Many individuals could have a positive outlook with
life experiences while having an external locus of control that is incorporated with their own
religion. Researching the most productive expatriates by determining their locus of control and
how religion affects their perception of work would be another topic to look into.
What type of economics do Middle Eastern people believe in?
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
15
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
What type of economics Middle Eastern people believe in would be another research
idea. Would they prefer a free economic ideology such as Austrian economics? Or would these
individuals want a Keynesian, Neoclassical, or Monetarist approach to the economy? From
looking at the culture and beliefs in the Middle East, one may be able to determine what type of
economy a person from the Middle East would prefer.
Is education desirable in every culture and area of the world?
The data from the article shows that education was the most important factor to
individuals having a positive perception of property rights. It would be interesting to research
how education is perceived through different individuals from around the world. Do some
countries take education to an extreme? What countries do not believe that education is a top
priority in society? Researching how desirable education is to countries around the world could
show people what countries lack and benefit from proper education.
Is the longer a person lives the less likely they believe in the importance of property right?
From looking at the articles data, younger individuals seemed to perceive property rights
as more important the older individuals. Does the longer a person live the less likely they will
believe in the importance of property rights? It would be interesting to research how time
correlates to the importance of property rights. Since older people have seen and experienced
more than younger individuals, they may perceive property rights with little importance because
property rights never helped them out. Older people may not believe property rights are
important because they have seen more negative affects of property rights then younger
individuals.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
16
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Do all expatriates have a positive correlation with property rights?
From the research that we have found, the expatriates believed that property rights were
important, but some viewed property rights in a negative manner. Future research could figure
out if most expatriates believed property rights to be of importance. If not, then what drives these
individuals to believe that property rights are of no importance.
Why do both internal and external individuals have a negative correlation with property right?
From the results of the data both internal and external individuals had a negative
correlation with property rights. Is this because internal individuals place importance on
themselves? Do external individuals place importance on external factors? It is interesting to see
that both internal and external people had a negative correlation. Future research could show
why both types of people had such a negative correlation.
Implications on Public Policy
What are the implications of this research on public policy? It very much depends on if
the government in question would like to encourage or discourage private property rights. From
the perspective of Austrian economics, a central role of the government is to enforce and defend
personal property rights. We support this position, believing that property rights and a strong rule
of law encourage entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth.
What actions can a government take that will encourage entrepreneurship? The authors of
this research suggest that an Austrian approach will be helpful. A strong rule of law and clearly
defined property rights are essential. Past these two vital responsibilities, a government should
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
17
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
largely defer to individual entrepreneurs, allowing the free market to run its natural course. We
believe that this would encourage entrepreneurship and be in the best interest of the overall well
being of the country in question. Economic growth will by maximized and the economic pie will
grow, to the benefit of the citizens of the country. Reducing unnecessary red tape can drastically
ease the entry of new firms. Ease of entry should encourage entrepreneurs and particularly
benefit new businesses. Finally, another governmental action could be to reduce barriers to the
buying and selling of personal property, most significantly, in the housing market. Indeed,
tapping into this critical source of capital is key to an economy, and could particularly benefit
two-thirds world countries that have a noteworthy amount of this capital in a unregulated or
“black market” state (De Soto, 2000).
References
Ajaev, V., Klentzman, J., Sodtke, C., & Stephen, P. Mathematical modeling of moving contact
lines in heat transfer applications. Microgravity – Science and Technology, 19 (3/4), 2326.
Buckley, M.R., Carraher, S.M., Carraher, S.C., Ferris, G.R., & Carraher, C.E. (2008). Human
resource issues in global entrepreneurial high technology firms: Do they differ? Journal
of Applied Management & Entrepreneurship, 13 (1), 4-14.
Buckley, M., Carraher, S.M., & Cote, J. (1992). Measurement issues concerning the use of
inventories of job satisfaction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 (3), 529542.
Buckley, M.R., Carraher, S.M., Ferris, G., & Carraher, C. (2001). Human resource concerns in
entrepreneurial multinational high technology firms. Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, 6 (1), 97-104.
Buckley, M., Fedor, D., Veres, J., Wiese, D., & Carraher, S.M. (1998). Investigating newcomer
expectations and job-related outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 452-461.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
18
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Buckley, M., Mobbs, T., Mendoza, J., Novicevic, M., Carraher, S.M., & Beu, D. (2002).
Implementing realistic job previews and expectation lowering procedures: A field
experiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61 (2), 263-278.
Carland, J. & Carland, J. (1997). A model of potential entrepreneurship: Profiles and
educational implications. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 8 (1), 1-13.
Carland, J.A.C., & Carland, J.W. (1991). An empirical investigation into the distinctions
between male and female entrepreneurs managers. International Small Business Journal.
Carland, J.A., Carland, J.W., & Stewart, W.H. (1996). Seeing what’s not there: The enigma of
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy 7 (1), 1-20.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A.C., & Abhy, C.D. (1989). An assessment of the psychological
determinants of planning in small businesses. International Small Business Journal.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A., & Hoy, F. (1992). An entrepreneurship index: An empirical
validation. Babson Entrepreneurship Conference, Fontainebleau, France.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A., Hoy, F., & Boulton, W.R. (1988). Distinctions between
entrepreneurial and small business ventures. International Journal of Management, 5 (1),
98-103.
Carland, J.W. III, Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A., Pearce, J.W. (1995). Risk taking propensity
among entrepreneurs, small business owners and managers. Journal of Business and
Entrepreneurship, 7 (1), 12-23.
Carland, J., Carland, J., & Carland, J. (1995). Self-actualization: The zenith of
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 30-39.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R., & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs
from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9
(2), 354-359.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., & Carland, J.A.C. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong
question. American Journal of Small Business 12 (4), 33-39.
Carraher, S.M. (2005). An Examination of entrepreneurial orientation: A validation study in 68
countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America. International Journal of Family
Business, 2 (1), 95-100.
Carraher, S.M. & Buckley, M. R. (1996). Cognitive complexity and the perceived
dimensionality of pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 102-109.
Carraher, S.M., Buckley, M.R., & Carraher, C. (2002). Cognitive complexity with employees
from entrepreneurial financial information service organizations and educational
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
19
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
institutions: An extension & replication looking at pay, benefits, and leadership.
Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 1, 43-56.
Carraher, S.M., Buckley, M., Scott., C., Parnell, J., & Carraher, C. (2002). Customer service
selection in a global entrepreneurial information services organization. Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7 (2), 45-55.
Carraher, S.M. & Carraher, S.C. (2006). Human resource issues among SME’s in Eastern
Europe: A 30 month study in Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship. 10, 97-108.
Carraher, S.M., Carraher, S.C., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2005). Customer service management in
Western and Central Europe: A concurrent validation strategy in entrepreneurial
financial information services organizations. Journal of Business Strategies, 22 (1), 4154.
Carraher, S.M., Carraher, S.C., & Whitely, W. (2003). Global entrepreneurship, income, and
work norms: A seven country study. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 9 (1), 3142.
Carraher, S.M., Franklin, G., Parnell, J., & Sullivan, S. (2006). Entrepreneurial service
performance and technology management: A study of China and Japan. Journal of
Technology Management in China, 1 (1), 107-117.
Carraher, S.M., Gibson, J. W., & Buckley, M.R. (2006). Compensation satisfaction in the
Baltics and the USA. Baltic Journal of Management, 1 (1), 7-23.
Carraher, S.M., Mendoza, J., Buckley, M., Schoenfeldt, L., & Carraher, C. (1998). Validation
of an instrument to measure service orientation. Journal of Quality Management, 3, 211224.
Carraher, S.M., Mulvey, P., Scarpello, V., & Ash, R. (2004). Pay satisfaction, cognitive
complexity, and global solutions: Is a single structure appropriate for everyone? Journal
of Applied Management & Entrepreneurship, 9 (2), 18-33.
Carraher, S.M. & Parnell, J. (2008). Customer service during peak (in season) and non-peak
(off season) times: A multi-country (Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United
States) examination of entrepreneurial tourist focused core personnel. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship, 12, 39-56.
Carraher, S.M., Parnell, J., Carraher, S.C., Carraher, C., & Sullivan, S. (2006). Customer
service, entrepreneurial orientation, and performance:
A study in health care
organizations in Hong Kong, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the USA.
Journal of Applied Management & Entrepreneurship, 11 (4), 33-48.
Carraher, S.M., Scott, C., & Carraher, S.C. (2004). A comparison of polychronicity levels
among small business owners and non business owners in the U.S., China, Ukraine,
Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Mexico. International Journal of Family Business, 1 (1),
97-101.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Carraher, S.M. & Sullivan, S. (2003). Employees’ contributions to quality: An examination of
the Service Orientation Index within entrepreneurial organizations. Global Business &
Finance Review, 8 (1) 103-110.
Carraher, S.M., Sullivan, S. & Carraher, S.C. (2005). An examination of the stress experience
by entrepreneurial expatriate health care professionals working in Benin, Bolivia,
Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, South Africa, and Zambia.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 9 , 45-66.
Carraher, S.M., Sullivan, S.E., & Crocitto, M. (2008). Mentoring across global boundaries: An
empirical examination of home- and host-country mentors on expatriate career outcomes.
Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (8), 1310-1326.
Carraher, S.M. & Welsh, D.H.B. (2009). Global Entrepreneurship. Dubuque, IA: Kendall
Hunt Publishing.
Carraher, S.M. & Whitely, W.T. (1998). Motivations for work and their influence on pay across
six countries. Global Business and Finance Review, 3, 49-56.
Chait, H., Carraher, S.M., & Buckley, M. (2000). Measuring service orientation with biodata.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 12, 109-120.
Crocitto, M., Sullivan, S.E. & Carraher, S.M. (2005). Global mentoring as a means of career
development and knowledge creation: A learning based framework and agenda for future
research. Career Development International, 10 (6/7), 522-535.
Hardin, G., "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science, 162(1968):1243-1248.
Hart, D.E. & Carraher, S.M. (1995). The development of an instrument to measure attitudes
towards benefits. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55 (3), 498-502.
Johnson, Simon, McMillan, John & Woodruff, Christoher (2002). Property Rights and Finance.
American Economic Review, v92, 1335-1356.
Klentzman, J., Ajaev, V., & Willis, D. (2008). Laser-induced liquid flow and phase change
phenomena in thin metal films. Paper presented at the American Physics Society meeting
McBride, A., Mendoza, J., & Carraher, S.M. (1997). Development of a biodata index to
measure service-orientation. Psychological Reports, 81 (3 Pt 2), 1395-1407.
Segal, Ilya, & Whinston, Michael D. (2010). Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper
No. 394. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577382 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1577382
Scarpello, V. & Carraher, S. M. (2008). Are pay satisfaction and pay fairness the same
construct? A cross country examination among the self-employed in Latvia, Germany,
the U.K., and the U.S.A. Baltic Journal of Management, 3 (1), 23-39.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
21
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Soto, H. D. (2000). The Mystery of Capital. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group.
Sturman, M.C. & Carraher, S.M. (2007). Using a Random-effects model to test differing
conceptualizations of multidimensional constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 10
(1), 108-135.
Williams, M.L., Brower, H.H., Ford, L.R., Williams, L.J., & Carraher, S.M. (2008). A
comprehensive model and measure of compensation satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81 (4), 639-668.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
22