<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> This paper deals with the economic effect of cross-border mergers and acquisitions on GDP per capita in European transition countries for the 2000- 2014 period. Our analysis shows that cross-border mergers and acquisitions have a negative effect on GDP per capita in the current period, whereas their lagged level positively impacts output performance. We found that transition countries characterized by a higher quality of institutional setting have achieved a positive impact on GDP per capita.</abstract>

Centre for Economic Research, Institute of Social Sciences,

University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business,

Growth Effects of Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions in European Transition Countries

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> On 5 October 2015, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) led by the U.S. was signed. Already, 12 countries1 have joined the agreement, but China has not. Thus, lots of research has focused on the negative effect of the TPP on China’s foreign trade. On the other hand, China is moving forward in its own efforts to establish bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) and free trade zones. In June 2015, China-South Korea and China-Australia signed bilateral FTAs which went into effect in December 2015. Several questions were raised: Since South Korea and Australia are the major trade partners in the Pacific area and the bilateral FTAs will be effective before the TPP, will these FTAs’ positive effects on China’s foreign trade offset some of the negative effects of the TPP? If China and the U.S. adopted a competitive trade policy, which countries would benefit? If China and the U.S. adopted a cooperative trade policy, how would the trade value and economic welfare change? This paper simulates and analyses the mutual effects of China-South Korea and China-Australia FTAs and the enlarging TPP using the computable general equilibrium model. The major conclusions drawn suggest that China-South Korea and China-Australia FTAs will significantly offset the TPP’s negative effect on China’s foreign trade. If China is not included, the U.S. economic benefit from the TPP will be limited. The economic welfare for a country like Australia, which joined both the bilateral FTA and the TPP, will be increased the most. In the long run, China joining the TPP would be the most beneficial decision for its national interest. However, if the TPP cannot be approved by the US congress, the U.S.’s economic indicators and export would be decreasing sharply. China’s economy and export will benefit from FTAs.</abstract>

Dongbei University of Finance & Economics, College of International Economics & Trade,

University of International Business and Economics,

An Analysis of Interaction Effects of China–South Korea and China– Australia FTAs and the Expanding TPP

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Following Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis and Ando and Modigliani’s lifecycle hypothesis, this paper empirically studies the role of house prices and income in determining the dynamic behaviour of consumption in selected European post-transition economies using the panel vector autoregression (PVAR) approach and quarterly data covering the period from the first quarter of 2002 until the second quarter of 2012. With the shocks being recognized using the customary recursive identification scheme, we found that the response of personal consumption to the housing wealth shock is initially positive, but short lived.</abstract>

Faculty of Economics and Business, Zagreb, Croatia, Trg J. F. Kennedya 6, 10000 Zagreb,

University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business,

The Panel VAR Approach to Modelling the Housing Wealth Effect: Evidence from selected European post-transition economies

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> This article refers to the challenge of demographic changes gaining attention in many developed countries. The European Union recognized the need to activate older knowledge workers, who are underrepresented and pushed out of the labour market or are inadequately motivated to continue their employment for various reasons, despite their accumulated knowledge and experiences. EU member states respond differently to their ageing, with more or less successful national policies. This article is based on research of the labour market development for older knowledge workers in Slovenia compared to the Finnish age management policy at the end of the 1990s that successfully increased Finnish older knowledge workers’ employment through focused and holistic measures. Slovenia stagnated in the same period due to a lack of holistic solutions-a situation that continues today. The results and deficiencies of past bad and good practices in these two compared EU member states might offer some further reflections on possible steps to follow or avoid regarding active ageing solutions in the EU.</abstract>

Older Knowledge Workers as the Labour Market Potential (Slovenia versus Finland)

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Modern companies’ business environments have become increasingly complex, dynamic, and uncertain as a consequence of globalization and the rapid development of information communications technology. Companies are urged to increase their flexibility in order to keep their competitiveness in the global market. The affirmation of intrapreneurship becomes one of the basic ways for achieving higher adaptability and competitiveness of large companies in the modern business environment. In this context, the choice of an organizational solution that improves the development of entrepreneurial orientation and increases employee entrepreneurship and innovativeness becomes an important task for large companies. Research studies and business practices have indicated that various types of modern organizational forms enable the development of intrapreneurship. Therefore, the main aim of this paper is to identify dominant characteristics of organizational solutions and analyse their influence on the development of intrapreneurship in large companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The research results indicate that current organizational characteristics are not favourable for the development of intrapreneurship in large BiH companies and that improvement is necessary in order to create an enabling environment for intrapreneurship and innovativeness. Based on these findings, recommendations for appropriate organizational changes are presented that might result in a more intensive development of intrapreneurship in large BiH companies.</abstract>

University of Tuzla, Faculty of Economics,

The Role of the Process Organizational Structure in the Development of Intrapreneurship in Large Companies

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Empirical evidence from the academic literature on capital market effects of financial information placement (i.e., recognition on the face of the primary financial statements versus disclosure in the notes to the financial statements) is not straightforward. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the recognition versus required disclosure debate in a standard-setting context by exploring possible reasons for perceived differences between recognized and disclosed amounts. These differences, in our view, arise due to demonstrated auditors’ greater tolerance for misstatement in disclosed amounts, allowed noncompliance with disclosure requirements even in strong enforcement regimes, lesser care that preparers of financial statements devote to disclosures relative to recognized items as well as behavioural factors and differential processing costs related to the users of financial information. We believe that these arguments strengthen the case for the general preference for the recognition of financial information in the standard-setting context. The original scientific contribution of this paper is to systematically identify the reasons for the differences between recognized and disclosed amounts in financial statements. As such, this paper may provide a suitable basis for the justification of certain conceptual changes in the field of international accounting standards that are currently underway.</abstract>

Issues in the Recognition versus Disclosure of Financial Information Debate

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 70 (2024): Issue 1 (March 2024)

Volume 69 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 69 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)

Volume 69 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

Volume 69 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 68 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)

Volume 68 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

Volume 68 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 68 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)

Volume 67 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 67 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)

Volume 67 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)

Volume 67 (2021): Issue 1 (March 2021)

Volume 66 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

Volume 66 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

Volume 66 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Volume 66 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 65 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 65 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 65 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 65 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

Volume 64 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 64 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 64 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 64 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 63 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 63 (2017): Issue 3 (September 2017)

Volume 63 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 63 (2017): Issue 1 (March 2017)

Volume 62 (2016): Issue 4 (December 2016)

Volume 62 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 62 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 62 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 6 (December 2015)

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 5 (October 2015)

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 4 (August 2015)

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 3 (June 2015)

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 2 (April 2015)

Volume 61 (2015): Issue 1 (February 2015)

Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy

 Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy – Journal of Contemporary Issues in Economics and Business (NGOE) is a quarterly, double-blind peer reviewed international scientific journal, focusing on economics and business sciences. Scientific articles and review papers provide new insights into the research topics of both disciplines. The journal aims to provide a venue for high quality theoretical and empirical articles that significantly contribute to the disciplines of economic and business sciences.   NGOE promotes particularly the publication of articles that address issues in the following areas of economics and business sciences: Business Economics, Economic Growth and Development, Economic Policy, Economic Theory, Econometrics and Statistics, Financial Economics, History of Economic Thought, International Economics, Labour Economics, Political Economy, Public Finance, Social Policy, Social Economics, Sustainable Economics, Accounting, Auditing, Banking and Finance, Change Management, Corporate Law, Corporate Social Responsibility, Crisis Management, Decision Making, Education Management, Entrepreneurship, Ethics in Business, Health Management, Human Resource Management, Information Management, Innovation Management, International Business, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Marketing, Operations Management, Organizational Behaviour, Organizational Development, Portfolio Management, Product Development Management, Production Management, Project Management, Public Administration, Risk Management, Services Management, Strategic Management, Systems Theory, Taxation, Tourism Management, Sustainable Business.   Why Subscribe and Read   The articles published in NGOE aim to synthesise and integrate the advanced knowledge of economics and business research, to promote the enrichment and integration of ideas among the areas of economics and business sciences.   Why Submit   Published continuously since 1955, NGOE is moving towards higher publication standards and we have taken important steps towards reaching global readership. We maintain a rapid review and publication process. The double-blind peer review process takes between five and seven weeks on average.   Publication Charges   There is no article processing charges (APC) nor article submission charges.   Peer review process   The aim of the peer review process is to ensure that high-quality and original research is published. All articles published in the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Economics and Business Naše gospodarstvo/Our Economy (NGOE) are peer-reviewed and all papers submitted follow the procedure outlined below.   Initial paper evaluation   All papers submitted for publication consideration in NGOE are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief. Papers which fall outside the aims and scope of the journal or fail to meet the requirements of a scientific research will either be rejected at this initial point or returned to the author for revision. Papers are never accepted by the Editor-in-Chief without the reports of two reviewers, at least.   Plagiarism checking   Papers that pass the initial evaluation stage are subject to a similarity/plagiarism scanning by using a plagiarism screening program. Any paper with a similarity percentage (excluding references) greater than 25 % will be rejected. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation stage and have a similarity rate below 25 % proceed to the referee process. All submitted papers are subject to anti-plagiarism control in the iThenticate system.   Peer review   NGOE employs double-anonymous reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.   Instructions for reviewers   The primary objective of the reviewer's evaluation is to provide sufficient and unambiguous answers to the following questions and also recommendations for possible changes and improvements to the paper:    does the title match the subject of the paper and does the subject of the paper correspond with the area of interest of the journal (according to "Aims and Scope"),   is the Abstract correct, i.e. short but presenting the main results of the researches and conclusions based on these results,   does the Introduction present the subject and the objective of the researches correctly,   are the implemented methods used properly and is the research material sufficient,   are the results described, analyzed, commented on and presented correctly, without repetitions of data in tables and diagrams,   is the discussion presented correctly, based on actual knowledge and with the use of properly chosen scientific literature (as recent as possible),   do the conclusions generalize the obtained results and provide recommendations, which are appropriately prepared on the basis of results and are not merely the repetition of those results,   does the paper introduce new and interesting information and does it have sufficient impact and add to the knowledge base.    The formal evaluation of the paper should include answers to the following questions:    whether the layout and contents of tables and graphs is readable and convenient for recipients   is the information in tables not repeated in graphs and vice versa,   are there no reservations about the length of the paper, its linguistic correctness, the method of citation of the literature and usage of units, etc.?    Reviewers' evaluation   Papers are sent to at least two reviewers assigned by the Editor-in-Chief or Co-editor. The reviewers are chosen according to their expertise. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Reviewers may either recommend accepting the manuscript, rejecting the manuscript or may require a revision for content and/or technical issues. When making a final recommendation, the reviewers should clearly state whether the paper is suitable for publication in journal. In the case of a positive answer, the reviewers indicate whether:    it might be accepted without changes,   it might be accepted after minor changes, suggested by the reviewer in the manuscript or in his/her opinion,   it might be accepted after major changes (please indicate them).    The detailed evaluation criteria are outlined in the Paper Review Form.If the reviews are positive they are sent for the reviews to the corresponding author. For a paper to be accepted for publication, two positive reviews are required. In case one reviewer's report is negative while the other is positive, the paper is forwarded to a third reviewer for additional evaluation. When a revision is required by the reviewer, the author(s) are to consider the critical observations and suggestions offered by the referees, and a revised paper should be submitted within a set deadline, otherwise it will be assumed to have been withdrawn. Reviewers may request more than one revision of a paper.   Final evaluation   Based on the corrected versions of the paper and the answers to the reviews the Editors take the final decision as to whether to publish the paper or not.Proofs are sent to the corresponding author and should be returned within the set deadline.Every year a list of Reviewers collaborating with the Editors of the NGOE is shown on the Journal's website when all four issues of the journal have been sent to print.   The data on society or institution responsible for the journal and the country where it is based:   University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Slovenia     Publication Frequency   NGOE is published quarterly.   Plagiarism Prevention Policy   Original unpublished scientific papers which have not been submitted for publication elsewhere can be submitted to NGOE. The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process.   Archiving   Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections. 