Events

In recent years, scholars have grown increasingly interested in the promise of using historical sources and reasoning in entrepreneurship research. History, it has been argued, can be valuable in addressing a number of limitations in traditional approaches to studying entrepreneurship, including in providing multi-level perspectives on the entrepreneurial process, in accounting for contexts and institutions, in understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic change, and in situating entrepreneurial behavior and cognition within the flow of time. Historical methods, in this regard, point the direction to both valuable sources and data for addressing such questions and to a body of historical theory from which to conceptualize context, time, and change analytically. Indeed, it is for many of these same reasons that Schumpeter called for theorists and historians to collaborate in the study of entrepreneurship.

HD byder dig velkommen til Åbent Hus på CBS!

By Tang Jun

Abstract: How did the 1931 financial crisis propagate internationally? This paper compares the effect of the Central European panic of the summer 1931 on the US and British banking systems. I rely on new archival data and document a key difference between the United States and Britain in how Central European credits were distributed across banks. In Britain, most of the lending to Central Europe was done by small banks with high levels of exposure relative to their capital. In the United States, most of the lending to Central Europe was done by big banks with low levels of exposure relative to their capital. The freeze of Central European assets therefore left many more British banks insolvent than US banks. The structure of informational asymmetries within the banking system accounts for the distribution of German credits in both countries. This explains why the Central European crisis propagated to London and not New York in the summer of 1931.