Sex/gender differences and autism: setting the scene for future research

Objective The relationship between sex/gender differences and autism has attracted a variety of research ranging from clinical, neurobiological to etiological, stimulated by the male bias in autism prevalence. Findings are complex and do not always relate to each other in a straightforward manner. Distinct but interlinked questions on the relationship between sex/gender differences and autism remain under addressed. To better understand the implications from existing research and to help design future studies, we propose a four-level conceptual framework to clarify the embedded themes. Method We searched PubMed for publications before September 2014 using search terms “‘sex OR gender OR females’ AND autism.” 1,906 citations were screened for relevance, along with publications identified via additional literature reviews, resulting in 329 reports that were reviewed. Results Level 1 “Nosological and diagnostic challenges” concerns the question “How should autism be defined and diagnosed in males and females?” Level 2 “Sex/gender-independent and sex/gender-dependent characteristics” addresses the question “What are the similarities and differences between males and females with autism?” Level 3 “General models of etiology: liability and threshold” asks the question “How is the liability for developing autism linked to sex/gender?” Level 4 “Specific etiological-developmental mechanisms” focuses on the question “What etiological-developmental mechanisms of autism are implicated by sex/gender and/or sexual/gender differentiation?” Conclusions Using this conceptual framework, findings can be more clearly summarized, and the implications of the links between findings from different levels can become clearer. Based on this four-level framework, we suggest future research directions, methodology, and specific topics in sex/gender differences and autism.

Asset recombination in international partnerships as a source of improved innovation capabilities in China

Purpose This paper examines how multinational enterprises (MNEs) and local partners, including suppliers, customers, and competitors in China, improve their innovation capabilities through collaboration. We analyse this collaboration as a three-way interaction between the ownership-specific (O) advantages or firm-specific assets (FSAs) of the MNE subsidiary, the FSAs of the local partner, and the location-specific assets of the host location. Design/methodology/approach Our propositions are examined through a survey of 320 firms, supplemented with 30 in-depth case studies, based in mainland China. Findings We find that the recombination of asset-type (Oa) FSAs and transaction-type (Ot) FSAs from both partners leads to new innovation-related ownership advantages, or ‘recombinant advantages’. Ot FSAs, in the form of access to local suppliers, customers or government networks are particularly important for reducing the liability of foreignness for MNEs. Originality/value The study reveals important patterns of reciprocal transfer, sharing, and integration for different asset categories (tacit, codified) and different forms of FSA and explicitly links these to different innovation performance outcomes. The paper reports on these findings, making an empirical contribution in an important context (China-based partnerships). We also contribute to conceptual developments, connecting various kinds of FSA, tacit and codifiable assets and ‘recombinant advantages’. Limited conceptual, methodological, and empirical contributions are made in linking asset integration with (measurable) innovation performance outcomes in international partnerships.

The determinants of online loan applications from small businesses

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine both the characteristics of the business customers and the types of venture which make use of online loan applications. Despite the growth in the use of technology in banking and the advent of online banking, little research has been conducted on the factors underlying online loan application behaviour amongst business banking customers. Design/methodology/approach – A multivariate analysis is conducted on a USA dataset to empirically test the hypotheses derived in this paper. The empirical evidence is drawn from the US Survey of Small Business Finances, which contains 3,561 sample ventures, representing 5.3 million small businesses in the USA. Findings – The paper finds that online loan behaviour is largely determined by the characteristics of the entrepreneur, rather than that of the venture. It is also found that factors that trust, evident in the length of the relationship between the applicants and their primary lender, is important. Moderating these effects is further evidence that suggests the number of lenders and distance between lenders and applicants has a marked effect on online loan behaviour. Originality/value – This paper identifies the factors determining small business online loan application behaviour. This is important because the nature of online loan behaviour is changing the existing relationships between banks and customers. Whilst online loan applications afford banks the opportunity to substantially reduce costs, the danger is that long term relationships with customers are harder to cement.

Contribution to collective harms and responsibility

In the present contribution, I discuss the claim, endorsed by a number of authors, that contributing to a collective harm is the ground for special responsibilities to the victims of that harm. Contributors should, between them, cover the costs of the harms they have inflicted, at least if those harms would otherwise be rights-violating. I raise some doubts about the generality of this principle before moving on to sketch a framework for thinking about liability for the costs of harms in general. This framework uses a contractualist framework to build an account of how to think about liability for costs on the basis of the presumably attractive thought that individual agents should have as much control over their liabilities as is compatible with others having like control. I then use that framework to suggest that liability on the basis of contribution should be restricted to cases in which the contributors could have avoided their contribution relatively costlessly, in which meeting the liability is not crippling for them, and in which such a liability would not have chilling effects, either on them or on third parties. This account of the grounds for contributory liability also has the advantage of avoiding a number of awkward questions about what counts as a contribution by shifting the issue away from often unanswerable questions about the precise causal genesis of some harm or other. Instead, control over conduct, which plausibly has some relation to the harm, becomes crucial. On the basis of this account, I then investigate whether a number of uses of the contributory principle are entirely appropriate. I argue that contributory liability is not appropriate for cases of collective harms committed by coordinated groups in the way that, for example, Iris Marion Young and Thomas Pogge have suggested and that further investigation of how members of such groups may be liable will be needed.