Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The determinants of corporate profitability in the Italian domestic appliances industry

  • Published:
Journal of Industrial and Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among the industries that characterize the Italian sectoral specialization, domestic appliances have had, since the 1950s, a prominent role. However, from the beginning of the 2000s, the Italian producers have experienced a contraction in the total output and severe losses in terms of export shares in the global market. Within the industry, some firms have been successful, positively contributing to the aggregate performance, while others have performed poorly and reduced the overall sectoral growth and competitiveness. By employing a sample of about 140 companies observed in the period 2007–2016 and using a dynamic panel approach, we inquire into the determinants of profitability in the domestic appliances industry in Italy. Competitiveness (in terms of both higher labor productivity and lower labor cost per employee) is a key determinant of profitability in this industry. Moreover, firm (absolute) size, the firm’s financial structure and the firm’s market share also play a role in explaining differences in profit rates across firms. Managers and policy makers should take the maturity of the domestic appliances industry into account in order to take proper decisions and design effective interventions, all aimed at sustaining the sectoral competitiveness in the global market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Comprehensive reviews of the main contributions to this topic from the industrial economics perspective can be found in Martin (2002, chapters 1, 2, 7) and Slade (2004). Rumelt et al. (1991, pp. 12–13) have provided a synthesis of the most relevant frameworks that inquire into the persistent differences in profits across firms, within the strategic management literature.

  2. By the way, in this perspective, efficiency (and profits) determines concentration and not the other way round.

  3. Lippman and Rumelt (1982) developed a model in which factor markets’ imperfections, due to uniqueness, ambiguity and the exclusive use of the inputs in the production process ensure persistent efficiency differences among firms within the same industry, which led to the observation of super-normal profit rates. Jovanovic (1982) formalized a model in which differences in profitability and size among firms within the same industry are the result of heterogeneity and uncertainty in the cost functions (efficiency).

  4. As Goddard et al. (2005), the authors find that profitability persistence is strong among European firms up to 2011. Moreover, while higher debt, lower liquidity and bigger size are all associated to lower profitability, higher investments and growth episodes are positively associated with it. Both Goddard et al. (2005) and Pattitoni et al. (2014) employ Bureau Van Dijk’s Amadeus dataset for conducting their analyses, thus furnishing a rather comprehensive picture over the determinants of European firms’ profitability over the 1990s and the 2000s.

  5. Candidates are sectoral shocks; employed technologies and R&D intensity; the specific institutional setting surrounding the industry (e.g., the existence of clusters of firms).

  6. At the same time, generalizations of our results to a broader context (for example, the entire manufacturing sector) should be made with caution.

  7. Capital/output ratios should not be too different across firms in narrowly defined industries (see Martin 2002, p. 137; Dosi 2007, pp. 167–168).

  8. Class C27.51 comprehends: manufacture of domestic electric appliances: refrigerators; freezers; dishwashers; washing and drying machines; vacuum cleaners; floor polishers; waste disposers; grinders, blenders, juice squeezers; tin openers; electric shavers, electric toothbrushes, and other electric personal care device; knife sharpeners; ventilating or recycling hoods; manufacture of domestic electrothermic appliances: electric water heaters; electric blankets; electric dryers, combs, brushes, curlers; electric smoothing irons; space heaters and household-type fans, portable; electric ovens; microwave ovens; cookers, hotplates; toasters; coffee or tea makers; fry pans, roasters, grills, hoods; electric heating resistors etc. Class C27.52 includes: non-electric space heaters, cooking ranges, grates, stoves, water heaters, cooking appliances, plate warmers.

  9. In the period 1950–1973, the annual GDP per capita growth rate was around 5.3% (see, Daveri and Jona-Lasinio 2005, p. 367; Toniolo 2013, p. 31; among others).

  10. Domestic appliances fall in the category of “experience goods” (Nelson 1970): indeed, consumers are able to assess their quality only after buying them. Brands are a way to convey such information to consumers, providing them not just with some information on the very last product introduced in the market, but with that regarding the whole stream of products in the history of the firm (Paba 1991, p. 28).

  11. Paba (1991, p. 24) shows that especially from the second half of the 1970s onwards, the role of M&A has been more important than internal growth to explain the process of concentration that took place within the industry.

  12. The name of the national association recently changed from “CECED Italia” to “APPLiA Italia” (June 2018).

  13. The geographical distribution of firms in Fig. 1 has been obtained by using the Stata package spmap written by Pisati (2004).

  14. According to the Italian Civil Code (art. 2424), the value of intangible fixed assets is a broad item. It gathers R&D and advertising costs; costs of patents and software; licenses and trademarks. It also includes a measure of corporate goodwill (recorded only when it is acquired through a business acquisition).

  15. The choice of employing a linear time trend instead of a more “flexible” set of year dummies is due to the interest in estimating (among other things) the relationship between the degree of market concentration, \( CR_{t}^{10} \) (which varies across years but not across firms) and firm profitability. However, in the dynamic panel model (see Sect. 5.3) we employ a vector of year dummies as a robustness check.

  16. The adjusted R2 of the model does not decrease when these three regressors are excluded from the empirical model. Moreover, these variables are not significant even when included alone (with a time trend and the vector of regional dummies) in the profitability regression. These results have not been reported to save space and are available from authors upon request.

  17. Regional dummies, \( \mu_{j} \), are perfectly collinear with the individual intercepts and, thus, not identifiable in the FE model.

  18. As shown by Roodman (2009a, p. 104), the FOD applied to the variable \( w_{it} \) is equal to \( w_{it}^{*} = c_{it} \left( {w_{it} - \frac{1}{{T_{it} }}\sum\nolimits_{s > t} {w_{is} } } \right) \), where the sum is taken over available future observations (whose number is equal to \( T_{it} ) \) and the scale factor \( c_{it} \) is \( \sqrt {T_{it} /T_{it} + 1} \).

  19. As explained by Roodman (2009a, p. 119), negative first-order serial correlation is expected in differences (\( \Delta u_{it} \) is related to \( \Delta u_{it - 1} \) via the \( u_{it - 1} \) term). Thus, it is relevant to check for second-order correlation in differences.

  20. The set of “GMM-style” instruments in the “orthogonal deviations” equation is made up of lags three and four of: πit, MKTSHit, ln(PRODUCTIVITYit), ln(LABCOSTEMPit), ln(SIZEit), ln(FINLEVit), GROWTHit; the time trend (t) is considered as exogenous and instruments itself. Dynamic panel models have been estimated by using the Stata package xtabond2 written by David Roodman.

  21. The necessary assumption under which the additional instruments that characterized the sys-GMM estimator are valid is a not trivial one, and Roodman (2009b, pp. 142–148) presents a thoughtful discussion about it.

  22. The set of “GMM-style” instruments in the “orthogonal deviations” is lag four of: πit, MKTSHit, ln(PRODUCTIVITYit), ln(LABCOSTEMPit), ln(SIZEit), ln(FINLEVit), GROWTHit; lagged differences of the same set of variables have been employed as instruments for the level equation. The time trend (t) and the regional dummies have been considered as exogenous and instrument themselves.

  23. The ECSEL Joint Undertaking for innovation in electronic components and systems is an example of public–private partnership promoted by the EU in the industry of semiconductors and microelectronics. See the web-page https://www.ecsel.eu/.

References

  • Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1011–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C. W. F., & Stopford, J. M. (1991). Globalization frustrated: The case of white goods. Strategic Management Journal, 12(7), 493–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J. (1951). Relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American manufacturing, 1936–1940. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(3), 293–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balloni, V. (1978). Origini, sviluppo e maturità dell’industria dell’elettrodomestico. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balloni, V., & Cucculelli, M. (2000). Note sui processi di apprendimento ed economie di scale nell’industria italiana dell’elettrodomestico. L’Industria, XXI(3), 519–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benito, A., & Gertjan, V. (2000). Stylised facts on UK corporate financial health, evidence from micro data. Bank of England Financial Stability Review, 1, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. N. (1995). The profit-structure relationship in banking—Test of market-power and efficient-structure hypotheses. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(2), 404–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1, 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottazzi, G., Dosi, G., Jacoby, N., Secchi, A., & Tamagni, F. (2010). Corporate performance and market selection: Some comparative evidence. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1953–1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottazzi, G., & Secchi, A. (2006). Explaining the distribution of firm growth rates. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brozen, Y. (1970). Bain’s concentration and rates of return revisited. Journal of Law and Economics, 14, 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugamelli, M., Cannari, L., Lotti, F., & Magri, S. (2012). Il gap innovativo del sistema produttivio italiano: Radici e possibili rimedi. Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers), No. 121, Bank of Italy.

  • Bugamelli, M., Lotti, F., Amici, M., Ciapanna, E., Colonna, F., D’Amuri, F., et al. (2018). Productivity growth in Italy: A tale of a slow-motion change. Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers), No. 422, Bank of Italy.

  • Bugamelli, M., Schivardi, F., & Zezza, R. (2010). The Euro and firm restructuring. In A. Alesina & F. Giavazzi (Eds.), Europe and the Euro (pp. 99–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Calligaris, S., Del Gatto, M., Hassan, F., Ottaviano, G. I. P., Schivardi, F. (2016). Italy’s productivity conondrum. A study on resource misallocation in Italy. European Economy Discussion Paper 030, European Commission, DG ECFIN.

  • CECED Italia (2012). Apparecchi domestici e professionali. Garantire il futuro in Italia. Osservatorio Strategico Confindustria-CECED Italia, Associazione nazionale produttori di apparecchi domestici e professionali.

  • CECED Italia (2015). L’industria italiana degli apparecchi domestici nel 2015. Associazione nazionale produttori di apparecchi domestici e professionali.

  • Cefis, E. (2003). Persistence in innovation and profitability. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 111(1), 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A. (2007). Testing the principle of the ‘growth of the fitter’: The relationship between profits and firm growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18, 370–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, A., & Grassano, N. (2016), Who’s doing who? Growth of sales, employment, assets, profits and R&D entangled in a curious five-way love triangle. JCR-IPTS Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation, No. 3/2016, Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre.

  • Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37(4), 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, N. R., & Preston, L. E. (1969). Price-cost margins and industry structure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 51, 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comanor, W. S., & Wilson, T. (1967). Advertising market structure and performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 49(4), 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daveri, F., & Jona-Lasinio, C. (2005). Italy’s decline: Getting the facts right. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Econonomia, 64(4), 365–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R. B., Martin, J., Parenti, M., & Toubal, F. (2018). Knocking on the tax haven’s door: Multinational firms and transfer pricing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(1), 120–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Benedictis, L. (2005). Three decades of Italian comparative advantages. The World Economy, 28(11), 1697–1709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Nardis, S. (2014). Efficienza e specializzazione. Bologna: Ufficio Studi - Nomisma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (1973). Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Maio, M. (2014). The Italian economy, the economic crisis and industrial policy. In A. Teixeira, E. Silva, & R. Mamede (Eds.), Structural change, competitiveness and industrial policy, Chapter 12. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (2007). Statistical regularities in the evolution of industries. A guide through some evidence and challenges for the theory. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Perspective on innovation, Chap. 5 (pp. 153–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eklund, J. E., & Lappi, E. (2018). Persistence of profits in the EU: How competitive are EU member countries? Empirica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-018-9399-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteve-Pérez, S., Pieri, F., & Rodriguez, D. (2018). Age and productivity as determinants of firm survival of the industry life cycle. Industry and Innovation, 25(2), 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Europe Economics (2015). The economic impact of the domestic appliances industry in Europe, April 2015, London.

  • European Commission (2014). Access to External Finance and Firms’ Growth. In Helping firms grow, Chap. 2, Commission Staff Working Document, 277. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

  • Eurostat (2015). Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (NACE, Rev. 2). Retrieved September 8, 2018, from RAMON—Reference and Management of Nomenclatures.

  • Faini, R., & Sapir, A. (2005). Un modello obsoleto? Crescita e specializzazione dell’economia italiana. In T. Boeri, R. Faini, A. Ichino, G. Pisauro, & C. Scarpa (Eds.), Oltre il Declino. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortis, M. (ed.) (2005). Le due sfide del made in Italy: Globalizzazione e innovazione. In Profili di analisi della Seconda Conferenza Nazionale sul Commercio con l’Estero. Bologna: Il Mulino.

  • Fortis, M. (2016). Production districts and their relevance in the Italian economy: A few analytical profiles. In M. Fortis (Ed.), The pillars of the Italian economy. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gattai, V., & Sali, G. (2016). FDI and heterogeneous performance of European enterprises. Economia e Politica Industriale – Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 43(1), 25–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). The persistence of profit: A European comparison. Economic Journal, 98(391), 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, J., Molyneux, P., & Wilson, O. S. (2004). The profitability of European banks: Cross-sectional and dynamic panel analysis. The Manchester School, 72(3), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, J., Tavakoli, M., & Wilson, O. S. (2005). Determinants of profitability in European manufacturing and services: Evidence from a dynamic panel model. Applied Financial Economics, 15, 1269–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, J., & Wilson, J. O. S. (1999). The persistence of profit: A new empirical interpretation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17, 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, H., Vernon, J., & DiMasi, J. A. (2002). Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmacoeconomics, 20(3), 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grazzi, M., Piccardo, C., & Vergari, C. (2017). Building a firm level dataset for the analysis of industrial dynamics and demography. Quaderni—Working Paper DSE N°2003, University of Bologna.

  • Grinyer, P. H., & McKiernan, P. (1991). The determinants of corporate profitability in the UK electrical engineering industry. British Journal of Management, 2, 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, F., & Ottaviano, G. I. P. (2013). Productivity in Italy: The great unlearning. VoxEU, 14 December 2013.

  • Hayakawa, K. (2009). First difference or forward orthogonal deviation—Which transformation should be used in dynamic panel data models? Economics Bulletin, 29(3), 2008–2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, H., & Laeven, L. (2008). International profit shifting within multinationals: A multi-country perspective. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1164–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 86, 562–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (2012). What’s the matter with Italy? The New York Times, 26 November 2012.

  • Lippman, S., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertainty imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 418–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucchese, M., Nascia, L., & Pianta, M. (2016). Industrial policy and technology in Italy. Economia e Politica Industriale – Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 43, 233–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. (2002). Advanced industrial economics. London: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. T. (1999). The determinants of firm profitability in Australian manufacturing. The Economic Record, 75(229), 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D. C. (1977). The persistence of profits above the norm. Economica, 44, 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. (1970). Information and the consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. J. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49, 1417–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, P. M., & Serrasqueiro, Z. (2015). Profitability determinants of Portuguese knowledge-intensive business services: Empirical evidence using panel data models. Applied Economics Letters, 22(1), 51–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Taxing wages—Italy. Paris: Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onida, F. (1998). L’industria italiana in un contesto aperto. L’Industria, XIX(2), 279–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paba, S. (1991). Brand reputation, efficiency and the concentration process: A case study. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 15(1), 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattitoni, P., Petracci, B., & Spisni, M. (2014). Determinants of profitability in the EU-15 area. Applied Financial Economics, 24(11), 763–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petev, Ivaylo D., Pistaferri, L., & Saporta-Eksten, I. (2011). An analysis of trends, perceptions, and distributional effects in consumption. In D. B. Grusky, Bruce Western, & C. Wimer (Eds.), The great recession (pp. 161–195). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieri, F. (2018). Vertical organization of production and firm growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli, D., Székely, I., & Varga, J. (2015). Italy’s productivity challenge. VoxEU, 22 December 2015.

  • Pisati, M. (2004). Simple thematic mapping. The Stata Journal, 4, 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation (pp. 79–91). Boston: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2009a). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2009b). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, P. H. (1973). The expansion of firms. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 936–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. (1991). Strategic management and economics. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarno, D. (2000). Profittabilità e crescita nelle imprese del Mezzogiorno. L’Industria, XXI(2), 237–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, S. K., & Boland, M. A. (2005). The persistence of profitability among firms in the food economy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(1), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, W. G. (1972). The elements of market structure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 54(1), 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sica, F. G. M. (2014). Il settore degli apparecchi domestici e professionali: Tra glorie passate e sfide future. Rivista di Politica Economica, no. I–III, pp. 36–94.

  • Slade, M. E. (2004). Competing models of firm profitability. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 11, 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syverson, C. (2010). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49, 326–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toniolo, G. (ed.) (2013). La crescita economica italiana, 1861–2011. In L’Italia e l’economia mondiale. Dall’Unità a oggi. Venice: Marsilio, pp. 5–51.

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windmejer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments by two reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief (Antonello Zanfei). Fabio Pieri acknowledges financial support from the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (FFABR 2017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Via Inama 5, 38122, Trento, Italy

    Fabio Pieri & Riccardo Verruso

Authors
  1. Fabio Pieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Verruso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Pieri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pieri, F., Verruso, R. The determinants of corporate profitability in the Italian domestic appliances industry. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 46, 83–115 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-018-0108-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-018-0108-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation