5. REFERENCIAS

• AECA 2002. Factores determinantes de la eficiencia y rentabilidad de las Pyme en España. Madrid: AECA.
   Google Scholar
• Agrawal, A., y Knoebel, C. R. 1996. Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 31(3): 377–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alchian, A. A., y Woodward, S. 1988. The firm is dead: long live to the firm, A review of Oliver E. Williamson's the Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Journal of Economic Literature 26: 65–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Álvarez, R., y Crespi, G. 2003. Determinants of technical efficiency in small firms. Small Business Economics 20(3): 233–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, R.C., y Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance 58: 1.301–1.328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronoff, C. E., y Ward, J. L. 1995. Family-owned Businesses: a thing of the past or a model for the future. Family Business Review 8: 131–151.
   Google Scholar
• Astrachan, J. H., y Carey, M. 2003. Family businesses contribution to the US economy: a closer look. Family Business Review 16: 3.
   Google Scholar
• Ayal, K. 1997. Intergenerational succession in small family businesses: borrowing constraints and optimal timing of succession. Small Business Economics 9(4): 309–319.
   Google Scholar
• Banker, R. D.; Charnes, R. F., y Cooper, W. W. 1984. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science 30: 1.078–1.092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barney, J. B., y Hesterly, W. 1996. Organizational Economics: Understanding the Relationship between Organizations and Economic Analysis, en S. R. Clegg, Hardy, C. y Nord, W. R. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies. Londres: Sage: 114–147.
   Google Scholar
• Barringer, M. W. y Milkovich, G. T. 1998. A theoretical exploration of the adoption and design of flexible benefit plans: a case of human resource innovation. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 305–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basco rodriguo, J. T. 2006. La investigación en la empresa familiar: “Un debate sobre la existencia de un campo independiente”. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 12(1): 33–54.
   Google Scholar
• Beehr, T. A.; Drexler, J. A., y Faulkner, S. 1997. Working in small family businesses: Empirical comparisons to non family businesses. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(3): 297–313.
   Google Scholar
• Bopaiah, C. 1998. Availability of credit to family firms. Small Business Economics 11(1): 75–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botts, K. E. 2000. Family versus non family Small Businesses: An empirical study of strategic posture and performance. Tesis Doctoral, School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University.
   Google Scholar
• Brockett, P. L., y Golany, B. 1996. Using rank statistics for determining programmatic efficiency differences in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 42: 466–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockhaus, R. H. 1994. Entrepreneurship and family business research: comparisons, critique and lessons. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19: 25–38.
   Google Scholar
• Camison, C. 2001. La competitividad de la empresa familiar española: Una aproximación desde el enfoque de recursos. Actas del First Research Congress on Family Businesses. Valencia: 119–171.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, M., 2005. Corporate Governance y Competitive Advantage in Family-Controlled Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29: 3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes, A.; Cooper, W. W., y Rhodes, E. 1978. Measuring the inefficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daily, C, y Dolliger, M. J. 1991. Family firms are different. Review of Business 13: 3–5.
   Google Scholar
• Daily, C, y Dolliger, M. J. 1992. An empirical Examination of Ownership: causes and consequences. Family Business Review 5: 117–136.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P. S., y Harveston, P. D. 2001. The phenomenon of substantive conflict in the family firm: a cross generational study. Journal of Small Business Management 39, 1: 14–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De dreu, C. K. W., y Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donckels, R., y Fröhlich, E. 1991. Are family businesses really different?, European experiences from STRATOS. Family Business Review 7: 149–160.
   Google Scholar
• Dyer, W. G. JR., y Handler, W. 1994. Entrepreneurship and family business: exploring the connections. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19: 71–83.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency Theory: an Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review 14(1): 57–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emrouznejad, A.; Parker, B. R., y Tavares, G. 2008. Evaluation of Research in Efficiency and Productivity: a Survey and Analysis of the First 30 Years of Scholarly Literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42(3): 151–157.
   Google Scholar
• Fahquar, K. A. 1989. Employee responses to external executive succession: attributions and the emergence of Leadership. Tesis Doctoral, Boston University.
   Google Scholar
• Fama, E. 1980. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy 88(2): 288–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fama, E., y Jensen, M. 1983. Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law Economics 26: 301–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120: 253–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M. A., y Hamilton, R. T. 1994. Ownership and diversification: Agency Theory or Stewardship Theory. Journal of Management Studies 31(1): 69–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallo, M. A.; Tapies, J., y Cappuyns, K. 2000. Comparación entre Empresas Familiares y no Familiares: Lógicas Financieras y Preferencias Personales. Documento de Investigación 406, IESE.
   Google Scholar
• Galve, C., y Salas, V. 1993. Propiedad y resultados de la gran empresa española. Investigaciones económicas 17(2): 207–238.
   Google Scholar
• Galve, C., y Salas, V. 1995. Propiedad y eficiencia de la empresa: Teoría y evidencia empírica. Información Comercial Española 740: 119–129.
   Google Scholar
• Galve, C., y Salas, V. 2000. La Empresa Familiar en España. Madrid: Fundación BBVA.
   Google Scholar
• García-Borbolla, A.; Herrera madueño, J.; Larrán jorge, M.; Sánchez gardey, G., y Suárez llo-Rens, A. 2007. Análisis empírico de las diferencias de eficiencia entre las empresas familiares y las no familiares. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 13(1): 103–116.
   Google Scholar
• Gasson, R.; Crow, G.; Errington, A.; Hutson, J.; Marsden, T., y Winter, D. M. 1988. The farm as a family business: a review. Journal of Agricultural Economics 39: 1–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gattouffi, S.; Oral, M., y Reisman, A. 2004. Data Envelopment analysis literature: a bibliography update 1951-2001). Socio-Economic Planning Sciencies 38: 159–229.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez mejia, L.; Nuñez-Nickel, M., y Gutierrez, I. 2001. The Role of Family Ties in Agency Contracts. Academy of Management Journal 44(1): 81–97.
   Google Scholar
• Hamlyn, B. 1994. The Quest for Growth: A survey of UK Private Companies. Londres: Binder Hamlyn.
   Google Scholar
• Handler, W. C. 1989. Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses. Family Business Review 2: 257–276.
   Google Scholar
• Hay, D. A., y Morris, D. J. 1984. Unquoted Companies: Their contribution to the UK Economy. Londres: McMillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayward, S. 1992. The Perfomance of Family Firms: Londres: Stoy Hayward.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. C. y Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency cost and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. C. y Meckling, W. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economics Review 76(2): 323–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La porta, R.; Lopez DE Silanes, F.; Sheleifer, A., y Vishny, W. 1999. The Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 15: 222–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubatkin, M. H.; Schulze, W. S.; Ling, Y., y Dino, R. N. 2005. The Effects of Parental Altruism on the Governance of Family-managed Firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(3): 313–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matías pereda, J. 2000. Factores relevantes en la adopción de tecnologías de la información en las Pyme españolas. Economía Industrial 334(4): 45–53.
   Google Scholar
• Mccann iii, J. E.; León guerrero, A. Y., y Halley, J. D. 2001. Strategic goal and practice of innovate family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management 39(1): 50–60.
   Google Scholar
• Mcconaughy, D. L.; Matthews, C. H., y Fialko, A. S. 2001. Founding Family Controlled Firms: Performance, Risk & Value. Journal of Small Business Management 39(1): 31–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neubauer, F., y Lank, A. G. 1998. The family business. Its governance and sustainability. Londres: McMillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ray, S. C. 2004. Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory and Techniques for Economics and Operations Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reyes recio, L., y Sacristan navarro, M. 2003. Análisis de las diferencias de comportamiento de las empresas familiares cotizadas. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 12(2): 57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, P. D. 1995. Family firms in the Stara up process: preliminary explorations. Actas del Annual Meeting of the International Family Business Program Association, Nashville, Tennessee.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggiero, J. 2004. Performance evaluation in education: modelling educational production. En W. W. Cooper, L.M. Seiford y J. Zhu (eds.) Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 265–298.
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, W. S.; Lubatkin, M. H., y Dino, R. N. 2003 a. Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing 18(4): 473–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, W. S.; Lubatkin, M. H., y Dino, R. N. 2003b. Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal 46(2): 179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, W. S.; Lubatkin, M. H.; Dino, R. N., y Buchholtz, A. K. 2001. Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science 12(4): 99.
   Google Scholar
• Simar, L., y Wilson, P. W. 2000. A general methodology for bootstrapping in nonparametric frontier models. Journal of Applied Statistics 27: 779–802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simar, L., y Wilson, P. W. 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics 136: 31–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner, L. T. 1996. A Reexamination of Relationships between Ownership Structure, Firm Diversification and Tobin's Q. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 34(4): 39–48.
   Google Scholar
• Thomsen, S., y Pedersen, Y. 2000. Ownership Structure and Economic Performance in he Largest European Companies. Strategic Management Journal 21(6): 689–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilaseca, A. 2002. The shareholder role in the family business: Conflict of interests and objectives between nonemployed shareholders and top management team. Family Business Review 15(4): 299–321.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, J. L. 1988. The Special Role of Strategic Planning for Family Businesses. Family Business Review 1(2): 105–117.
   Google Scholar
• Westhead, P., y Cowling M. 1997. Performance contrasts between family and non-family unquoted companies in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviours & Research 3(1): 30–52.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. W. 1993. Detecting Influential Observations in Data Envelopment Analysis. The Journal of Productivity Analysis 6: 27–45.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. W. 1995. Detecting outliers in deterministic nonparametric frontier models with multiple outputs. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 11: 319–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. W. 2006. FEAR 1.1: Command Reference. Documento no publicado, Departamento de Economía de la Universidad de Clemson. Disponible en: http://www.clemson.edu/economics/faculty/wilson/Software/FEAR/FEAR-1.1/fear-1.1_command_ref.ps [consultado el 5 de febrero de 2011].
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. W. 2008. FEAR 1.0: A Software Package for Frontier Efficiency Analysis with R. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42: 247–254.
   Google Scholar
• Zelenyuk, V., y Zheka, V. 2006. Corporate governance and firm's efficiency: the case of a transitional country, Ukraine. Journal of Productivity Analysis 25: 143–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar