Active Controllers or Wealthy Rentiers?: Large Shareholders in Victorian Public Companies

This article addresses the issue of whether large shareholders in Victorian public companies were active in the control of companies or were simply wealthy rentiers. Using ownership records for 890 firm-years, we examine the control rights, socio-occupational background, and wealth of large shareholders. We find that many large shareholders had limited voting rights and neither they nor family members were directors. This implies that the majority of public companies in the second half of the nineteenth century cannot be characterized as family companies and that large shareholders are better viewed as wealthy gentlemen capitalists rather than entrepreneurs.

Avoiding Negligence and Profusion: The failure of the Joint-Stock form in the Anglo-Indian Tea Trade, 1840-1870

In the 19th century, firms operating in the Anglo-Indian tea trade were organised using a variety ownership forms including the partnership, joint-stock and a combination of the two known as the Managing agency. Faced with both an increasing need for fixed capital and high agency costs caused by the distance between owners and managers, the firms adapted and increasingly adopted the hybrid managing agency model to overcome these problems. Using new data from Calcutta and Bengal Commercial Registers and detailed case studies of the Assam Company and Gillanders, Arbuthnot and Co, this paper demonstrates that British entrepreneurs did not see the choice of ownership as a dichotomy or firm boundaries as fixed, but instead innovatively drew on the strengths of different forms of ownership to compete and grow successfully.

Open for Business: Universities, Entrepreneurial Academics and Open Innovation

The emergence of open innovation theory and practice, alongside the evolution to a quadruple helix system of innovation, has led to a need for universities to rethink their models of engagement with industry and wider society. One important element in this system is the entrepreneurial academics; however there is a lack of research considering the motivations of entrepreneurial academics, who differ from academic entrepreneurs, to engage in knowledge transfer in line with open innovation policy. This research offers practical insights on whether new models of engagement, increasingly offered by universities, really address the policy drivers for open innovation. Furthermore, this research explores whether these activities might motivate entrepreneurial academics to participate. Preliminary findings identify that many supposedly new collaboration activities do not really motivate entrepreneurial academics. This may have important implications on the ability of universities to become truly open and to encourage their academics to become engaged in collaboration and impact.