Corporate Governance

As some queries about corporate governance were there ever since 1932 – the period of Berle and Means, the expression of the concept of Corporate Governance was not found in English vocabulary until 25 years ago. However, in the previous two decades, matters relating to corporate governance have gained importance in academic literature as well as in public policy deliberations. Corporate governance came to be acknowledged as being synonymous with takeovers, financial restructuring, and activities of institutional investor’s during this part of the era. Corporate Governance is now at a turning point. Several budding and up-coming economies that are on the path of development have identified by now that excellent corporate governance is vital for sustainable economic development. Furthermore, a lot are on the lookout for a novel or appropriate standard for making it relevant for their particular internal situation. (Berle and Means, 1932)

The last ten years has seen increased attention from external functionaries like governments, overseas investors, and multilateral development organizations like the Asian Development Bank (ADB) – regarding matters of higher responsibility, clarity, and revelation in corporate governance structures. Together with suitable management inducements to guarantee the restraint necessary for obedience, an evenhanded corporate governance structure can facilitate doling out the riches to a wide section of the public. Although excellence in corporate governance is important, it is imperative to appreciate that it encompasses the restructuring of public governance. Just an amalgamated endeavor shall guarantee a reasonable bestowal towards progress. Understandably, it is improbable to set up and maintain an isle of excellent functional corporate governance among a world of impoverished or immature public governance

Discussion:

Looking at corporate governance, the origin of any scrutiny is the development of massive organizations and emergence of the divorce of ownership and control since the end part of nineteen century. Since then, in nations like the United States and United Kingdom, the fund necessity of huge organizations implies that personal or businesses owned by family have progressively been taken over by a much bigger set of shareholders. At the same time the magnitude and intricacy of supervising such organizations has necessitated the surfacing of a group of professional managers separate from the provider of funds. It has been suggested in the past that these two classes might vary (Berle and Means, 1932). Of late, the study of the association among these classes has been advanced through the agency theory.

Looking at owners as principals and managers as their agents, insight has concentrated on the tribulations that the principals possess in making sure that their agents work in the proper way. This writing has found out certain problems in governance. The first one touches on the cost of scrutinizing managerial behavior. The problem of monitoring is being faced as there are a large number of shareholders to exert control on the huge corporation (Hart, 1995). Checking the routine functions provides modest inducement to any single stockholder since scrutinizing benefits community as a whole and any benefits shall be divided among other shareholders. Hence, a strong inducement exists for shareholders to ride piggy-back on the hard work done by others. This problem is aggravated due to unbalanced information receipt, as managers have greater reach to more appropriate information than the owners and can maneuver information suited to them.

The second problem infers from the first and is about setting aside suitable incentives to keep the behavior of agent with that of the principal. Since managers don’t have reach to residual earnings, their incentives are obtained from other sources. Usually it is contemplated that managers in their pursuit of gratifying their promotional interest and satisfying the goal of augmenting their income attempt to enhance the size of the organization-linking managerial pay with that of the size of the company. Therefore chances subsist that managerial policy may render the organization of taking it ahead of its best possible size and into operations that tends to decease profitability or else deviate from shareholder’s benefit. Consequently in terms of the modern economic theory, difficulties abound as to how shareholders are in command of their agents who are managers and the manner in which they look for placing their individual interests. Concurrently, modern social theory indicates that there are also difficulties as to the situation that other stake holders stand to loose their financial incentives if the interests of the principals and agents are united. (Jensen, and Meckling, 1976) fundamental inference of agency theory implies that the importance of an organization cannot be increased to the maximum as managers have circumspections that permit them to impound usefulness to themselves. In a perfect scenario, managers would come to an agreement which defines their span of action under every circumstances and the manner in which the income will be distributed. The quandary lies in the fact that majority of the prospective happenings are very difficult to express and anticipate and consequently it is technically impractical to finish the agreement beforehand. The outcome of this happens in managers attaining the prerogative to formulate conclusion that are undefined or unexpected in the agreement in which debt or equity money is given. (Shleifer, and Vishny, 1997)

From this emerges the ‘principal problem’ and ‘agency problem’. Question arises about the competence of public organizations to gather money capably with deficient agreement with their managers. In Anglo society the ‘agency problem’ is specifically severe with discrete ownership in which organizations do not possess a decision-making panel or what Monk defines as a ‘relationship investor. In situations where all shareholders possess small stake to produce varied rights, it is irrational for any individual stakeholder to devote time and money to oversee management since this will entail absolute convenience for other investors.

On any occasion meager shareholders may not possess the authority and persuasion to gather information that could expose management irregularities. In several Anglo nations, there might be limit provided by law for shareholders to get united forming a voting mass to control management unless they give a general proposal to all shareholders. The manner in which American mangers have prejudiced law making to shield them from shareholder interferences has been portrayed by Monks who was the Assistant Secretary of Labor during the reign of Reagan. (Monks, 1995)

The procedure by which corporations become receptive to the shareholders privileges and needs is Corporate Governance, being propounded by Demb & Neubauer. Monks & Minow states that ‘the correlation among the different persons taking part in shaping the course and achievement of corporations. Ticker indicate that corporate governance appeals to the matters concerning board of directors, as the dealings with the apex management, and interactions with the owners and others involved in the matters of the company, together with analysts, debt financiers, creditors, corporate regulators and auditors’. While explaining Stakeholder Theory, Clarkson puts forth: The organization is a structure of stake holders functioning inside the bigger system of the multitude which gives the required legal and business infrastructure for the functioning of the organization. (Hart, 1995)

The objective of the organization is wealth and value generation for its shareholders by transforming their share into commodities and services. Blair also upholds this viewpoint and offers: the objective of the management and directors ought to be maximizing the formation of the total wealth of the organization. The means of attaining this would be to augment the opinion of the people and render incentive akin to ownership to the members of the organization who gives or organizes vital or specific inputs-human resources specific to the firm and support the benefit of these vital shareholders with the well-being of external inactive shareholders.

In accordance with this viewpoint by Blair to render ‘expression’ and ownership-like enticements’ to shareholders who are vital, Porter suggested to American policy framers that they ought to support long-term ownership of the employee and support representation in the board by important consumers, suppliers, financial advisers, employees and representatives of the population. This apart, Porter also suggested that corporations ‘look out long-term owners and render them a direct say in ruling’ and to appoint important owners, suppliers, employees customers and representatives from the community to the board of directors. (Ben-Ner, and Jones, 1995)

The entire suggestions would assist in forming the type of business associations, trade associated networks and strategic alliances which Holingsworth and Lindberg recommended had not grown as much in the U.S. As in continental Europe and Japan. To put forth differently, Porter is of the view that competitiveness can be enhanced by employing all four organizational methods for managing transactions instead of only markets and that of hierarchy. This sustains the necessity to enhance the hypothesis of the organization as proposed by Turnbull. Nevertheless, the suggestions of Porter to set up various shareholder constituencies select representatives to a unitary panel would not be productive.

According to Williamson Enrolling members to the board must be limited to participation at the informational level only. This type of participation at the information level is done in Japan through a Keiretsu Council and in continental Europe, by works council and supervisory boards’. These bodies render the structure for setting-up ‘stakeholder council’ as stated by Guthrie & Turnbull and Turnbull. Hill & Jones have made on the effort of Jensen & Meckling to identify the inherent as well as the overt contractual associations in an organization to build up ‘Stakeholder-Agency Theory’. The interdependence among an organization and its strategic shareholders is identified by the American Law Institute that states: The present corporation by its character makes interdependences with various groups with whom the corporation possess a legal apprehension like employee, suppliers, customers, and the associations of the communities within which the corporation functions.’ (Cadbury, 1998)

Shareholder opinion as well as ownership as proposed by Porter and Blair can be offered by’re-inventing’ the notion of an organization as suggested by Turnbull. The suggestion is based on tax enticements rendering increased short-term benefits to investors in return for them to slowly surrender their interests in property to strategic shareholders. Command of the corporation is similarly divided between investors and stakeholders by way of forming several boards to dispel discord of interest and as such agency cost in the method akin to that found in continental Europe and Mondrag n in particular. The market in U.S. controlling corporate activities, evident in takeovers, gives a dominant instrument for understanding the dynamics of corporate governance. (Cadbury, 1998)

Corporate invaders can help shareholders in spotting substandard management feats and in exchanging current managers with more proficient ones. As these processes can safeguard the shareholders, public or other stakeholders will not be shielded as much. However, several U.S. managers learnt a lesson that helping themselves with huge salaries without rendering a corresponding contribution will eventually end up in losing their positions. This danger is not found in the UK, mainly due to the existence of huge, influential institutional investors repress takeover activities. As regards legal proceedings, the capability of shareholders to examine and file a suit against a company and in the process to operate as corporate ‘policeman’ is rather less in the UK. Of course, it is understood since long that recourses open to shareholders is far less than adequate if the directors of the Company commits any embezzlements.

The scrutinizing activities of the boards have been probed by various scholarly studies. For instance, the relationship among the corporate accomplishments and external directorships is looked into by Kaplan and Reishus in 1990. Brickley, Bryd and Hickman Cotter, Shivadasani, and Zenner observe the activities of the directors in takeover control of organizations. Vafeas has made an exciting study on the rate of recurrences of board meetings and performance of corporations. Findings go on record to say that the rate of recurrence of board meeting is related to corporate governance and ownership features in a way, which is in conformity with agency theory. (Denis, and Sarin, 1999)

The meeting is inversely related to value of the organization: boards meet more often during turbulent times. Apart from this it reveals that operating efficiency of corporations in the example betters subsequent years of irregular board activity. Of late, Denis and Sarin studied the ownership structure and board formation using a time-series analysis over a span of 10 years from 1983-1992. The findings point that organizations feel having major alterations in ownership and board structure. These alterations are linked with each other: modifications in ownership and board structure are powerfully correlated to top executive turnover, earlier price of its stock and business control intimidation.

The correlation among the money market and social policy might be directly or indirectly related. For example, when capital markets cause an upset, it might directly impact alterations in social actions as lay-offs of employees or curtailment in exterior activities. Presently, we are apprehensive with the scantily visible but more persistent, indirect consequence of financial markets. An example is given by the cost of capital. In cases when the cost financing capital is seemingly high, this might persuade managers to produce goods that need comparatively unrefined or established technologies and might dampen process and product improvement. This will lead to insinuation for the makeup and abilities of the personnel and for expenses in rearing (Keep and Mayhew, 1998).

A comparable fundamental correlation may be advocated in connection to ownership and corporate governance. Over again, the possession may be direct. In case of firms managed by owners, owner’s belief’s and values are liable to bear direct control on the blueprint of work-place relations. (viz. The choice for a specific compensation system). In general the power ownership on social strategy shall once more be increasingly not direct. Hence, when owners are mainly worried about the proceeds from the enterprise, demands from the owner may compel managers to redeem or pull out from markets that are loss making or unhopeful. Yet again such exigencies will impinge on the volume and composition of the staff.

According to the stewardship model, ‘managers are fine protectors of the enterprise and work industriously to reach increased standards of corporate benefits and investors returns’ (Donaldson & Davis 1994). Lex Donaldson as well as Davis are teachers in business schools. Their discussion favors the venture of business academies and their students in the progress of management acumen and knowledge. It too supports the societal and professional regard of being a manager. Donaldson & Davis states that Managers mainly gets motivated by accomplishments and accountability necessities and taking into account the requirements of managers for accountable and auto-directed assignment, enterprises might function healthier if managers are liberated from subordination to non-executive director subjugated boards. (Donaldson, and Davis 1994)

As per Donaldson and Davis, ‘majority of the researchers in boards possess their past faith- the conception that sovereign boards are superior’ and ‘as such finally generate the anticipated results.’ Dominant and authoritative sources are present suggesting the necessity for independent directors such as the Council of Institutional Investors in the U.S., Cadbury (1992) in the UK, Australian Institutional investor’s current professional directors, and every one willing to be non-executive directors. Still, agreeing to the stewardship hypothesis is those who give their own funds and other assets to charitable organizations to be a Director. While examining the benefits given to stakeholders by way of setting up division of powers, Persson, Roland & Tabellini did keep terms in their equations to take into account the well being contributed by the regulators. (Scharfstein, 1988)

While interpreting the stewardship theory, Hawley & Williams affirm that the rational expansion is either to a board dominated by executives or non-presence of any board. Donaldson and Davis state that the non-executive board of directors, by its inherent nature is an unproductive control mechanism’ and show proof to subscribe the viewpoint that ‘the entire raison d’ tre to have a board becomes doubtful. Brewer stated that ‘Among Canada’s eminent business leaders proposed that the Boards of Directors ought to be done away with and in its place a formal committee of advisors be kept’. This opinion emerged from the entrepreneur in question being litigated as a director of an insurance company for more than a billion dollars from dealings undertaken by management. (Scharfstein, 1988)

Boards could be obsolete when leading and vibrant shareholders, particularly while the main shareholder is a family or government. Anybody could wonder that some boards are formed from cultural pattern; blind beliefs in their effectiveness or to render government or family companies appear ‘more business like’. Nevertheless, findings by Pfeffer has displayed that the importance of external directors is not so much how it controls managers but rather the manner in which they control components of the organization. He established that increasingly regulated industries were found to have more outsiders on the board to restore confidence among regulators, bankers and other people having interest in the organization. Tricker puts forth: Strengthening company law id the necessity that directors display a trustful obligation towards the shareholders of the company’. (Simon, 1993)

Inbuilt within the idea of directors possessing a trustful responsibility leads to the point that they can be relied upon operating as stewards on the wealth of the organization. Hence in Anglo law the duties of the director stand upon the stewardship theory. This responsibility is greater than that of an agent since the person should act in a manner similar to that of a principal instead of a representative. Several writers, and particularly the supporters of the stewardship and agency theory find each theory disagree with each other. Donaldson & Davis put forth the likelihood that certain insufficiency exists in the procedures of the various studies they show that give support for both hypothesis. Some possibilities stem from the fact that the studies did not differentiate the firms impinge on being in a protected industry found out by Pfeffer or having a controlling shareholder acting as a supervisory board or ‘relationship investor’. Being a controlling supervisory investor is prevalent in Anglo cultures and it’s the law instead of exception in other cultures. (Donaldson, and Davis 1994)

Ghosal & Moran puts forth the possibility of the conjecture of opportunism upon which agency theory rests, ‘can be a self-fulfilling prediction wherein opportunistic behavior will enhance along with the sanctions and inducements forced upon to curb it, so as to producing the necessity for more forceful and sanctions and incentives in greater detail’. Similarly, stewardship theory can also be a self-satisfying. This would seem to be the condition in organizations around Mondrag n having no independent directors. Every board member is either executive or stakeholders. Nevertheless, every organization and every group of companies in the Mondrag n system is overseen by three or more boards/councils or control points that initiate a sharing of authority with checks and balances. The tendency of people to appear as stewards or self-seeking agents might be dependent on the institutional perspective. In this scheme of things, then the two hypotheses can be suitable as specified by the practical proof. (Brickly; Coles, and Terry, 1994)

Stewardship theory, akin to agency theory will then be visualized as an element of political and further models of corporate administration. Psychological examination upholds both the hypothesis. Professor of Psychology, Waring indicates that ‘dissimilarity among people are vital and essential’; the necessity for capital and consent, etc. is ‘found out and restricted by the need of sustaining the individual in a condition of dynamic stability’; individual position themselves in an interactive cybernetic association to his/her society and surroundings, and is altered as an outcome of certain interaction’ and people are ‘at times aggressive and at times collaborative: generally both’. The tendency of people to function as altruistic stewards might be culturally uncertain. The ‘company man’ in Japan accords more importance to his employer than his family. The deliberate resignation of executives is rampant while an organization is embarrassed and examples of suicide come to notice. (Byrd and Hickman, 1992)

In market driven economies, directors are influenced by external forces to perform in the greatest interest of their companies. The need of effective competition for existence is possibly the most evident one. But there are others. One vital force is the share market. Investor’s apprehension of a company’s current and future can be influenced by Stock analysts and journalists. When a company is unable to generate money as expected, they shall sell the stock and its share price will come down. Long spells of substandard financial performance renders it increasingly expensive to raise debt or equity funds that can be critical if a company is loss making or highly in debt. Subdued performance even gives pressure on directors and senior managers in turning around the company. Of late, the outside Directors (i.e. directors not employed by the company) of American companies have been increasingly made more answerable by investors regarding the performance of their companies especially in companies passing through financial difficulties. (Byrd and Hickman, 1992)

Responding to external demands, the Directors have turned more active in corporate decision making mainly in altering senior management. Institutional Investors like pension funds, might hold huge quantum of shares and thus wield substantial influence on directors. Shareholders can exert pressure on corporate directors on grounds of ethical or particular management matters. Shareholders might file suits forcing Directors to act or table resolutions to the board of directors. In the West, securities laws force directors to table resolutions sponsored by shareholder to be voted by every owners on all types of issues. Investors in American displayed activism in filing resolutions which prevents companies to stop doing business in South Africa during Apartheid, stop using animals for drug and cosmetic testing, or to stall unjust financial setups. Furthermore, society and culture apart from capital markets and investors play a significant part in the manner in which the directors of a business entity act.

Due to differences in societal and cultural aspects spread over nations, director might come across varied expectations regarding their activities and performance. As for instance, in the United States, most of the directors feel that their main task is maximizing shareholders wealth. However in Germany and Japan majority of the Directors perceive their function as conflict resolving among stakeholders-shareholders, employees, suppliers and the society in general. While American companies generally have one board comprising both of outside director who are also managers, most German enterprises contains two boards: one comprising of managers and the other has employee representatives, major suppliers and external directors, who are mostly from the company’s bank. Individual traits and corporate culture too plays a significant role while structuring a given board. (Vafeas, 1999)

In certain boards the Chief Executive of a company who is usually is a Director dominates the organization. Others are rather forceful in looking after company management. But generally, though company director endorse key corporate strategies, not routine decisions that are generally decided by the management. Although, the corporation as a legal unit is present since more than a century, but getting experienced board members is rather difficult. During, annual shareholders meeting all over United States, Western Europe and Japan, certain stockholders blame director of self-dealing, committing fraud, ineptitude and taking exorbitant fees. At times these charges are true. (Lewellen; Loderer; and Rosenfeld, 1985)

Several scholarly studies indicate that managers possess massive prudence about organizations’ pronouncement and might not behave in the optimum well-being of the owners. What are the reasons external investors provide the capital to managers? The response to this question comes within the purview of corporate governance. There are several methods of checks to guarantee that the investors for example legal safeguard, ownership composition, the use of strategic advantage and takeovers. It is usual that financing from external sources has legal safeguard. When managers infringe the contract, then the stakeholders or creditors have the prerogative to evince justice from the courts. The primary legal right of the shareholders is voting rights and election of boards. Just like shareholders, creditors too possess legal safeguards. Among them are the rights to acquire the collateral security, the right to sell off the assets, the right to restructuring, and at times throw out the managers. (McConnell and Muscarella, 1986)

But, these legal safeguards might not be helpful in certain conditions; hence other arrangements have to be made for guarantying good administration. It might be useful to oversee the manager’s inducements being big enough. The concentration of ownership can evade the free rider hitch. Many revelations support that big shareholders render an active part in corporate governance. For instance, in Germany, Franks and Mayer discover that large shareholders are related to increased turnover of directors. (Franks and Mayer, 1994) Gorton and Schmid place on record that block holdings by bank betters companies performance. (Gorton and Schmid, 1996) In Japan, Kaplan and Minton reveal that companies with large shareholders will be in all likelihood to replace managers due to substandard performance than organizations not having such personnel. (Kaplan and Minton, 1994)

In U.S., Morck, Shleifer, and Vishny came out that non-linear relationships exists (inverted “U”) among ownership and companies performance, as calculated by their Tobin’s Q. The creditors can exert certain control on the organization’s decisions. (Morck, Randall, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny, 1988) Jensen indicates that employing leverage cuts down the agency cost of free cash flow by restricting the cash flow existing for spending at the prudence of managers. With the use of debt, managers attach their commitment to give out future cash flows. Stulz and Harris and Raviv testify the correlation among leverage and voting right control of managers. They are of the opinion that management could change the portion of votes it controls by means of capital structure (leverage) alterations.

Once more characteristic of the political model of corporate governance is Joseph Grundfest’s ‘Subordination of American Capital’. He starts by examining that “America doesn’t appear to believe in its capitalists” and shows as proof the huge maze of rules and regulations which lower investor’s benefit to other constituencies, most significantly corporate management. Grundfest continues to indicate: Governments therefore possess an inducement to produce, intensify or improve problems of agency to aid political endeavors. Therefore, from a politician’s perception, agency problem are not an external outcome of otherwise proficient specialism. Rather they are internal variables within a multifaceted political and economic structure — “variables which can be influenced for attaining political and economic goals — “besides there is no previous explanation to come to the conclusion that maintaining balance in this structure lessens the monetary costs imposed by agency problems. (Grundfest, 1990)

In this scenario, owners confront increased problems than just adjusting corporate governance structures to decrease the cost of expecting from their agents what they are supposed to perform. They are confronted with a state of affairs wherein ‘agency costs’ are more visualized as entitlements for assigning than limiting costs.” Besides, “in the process of rendering it more costly for the principals to supervise agents, governments can award worthy benefits to privileged constituencies by not imposing taxes and not providing subsidies and non-engaging in frequent and exhaustive and rigid interference. The political mould of corporate governance puts rigorous limitations on rudimentary economic analysis of the problem of governance and identifies the achievement-governance concern directly in a wider political perspective. Political do not always infer a government’s role, sheer non-market. Grundfest in his finale states: corporate agency problems cannot be solved in an economically coherent way, or that the methods of corporate governance shall in days ahead, lead to more economic effectiveness. (Grundfest, 1993)

Excellent corporate governance could better a company’s valuation and also improve its bottom line. It has been debated that corporate governance shields investors against risk, and that difficulties have been experienced trouble in real correlations between governance and performance of companies. Till the previous year, most of the studies aiming to record relationships between corporate governance and company performance have generated unconvincing outcomes. Linkages among corporate governance and performance were done, in two studies namely ‘Corporate Governance and Equity’ and ‘Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices’. (Comment, 2000)

Gompers gives three theories to clarify the relationship among good governance and a company’s operating performance and finally share performance: namely restrictive governance arrangements make increased agency costs that are underrated by investors, restrictive governance arrangements did not result in increased agency costs but on the contrary were executed by managers who predicted bad performance for their organizations; and restrictive governance provisions doesn’t result in increased agency costs, but their occurrence is related with added features that resulted in unusual proceeds in the study period during the 1990s. Following extensive scrutiny and appraisal, Gompers summarized that due to restrictive governance requirements only, together with contribution to enhanced agency costs that caused the bad performance of dictatorial firms. (Comment, 2000)

For example, Gompers examined that anti-takeover laws of the state can result to a fall in corporate effectiveness and leverage enhancement. The findings also state that in companies less vulnerable to hostile takeovers, managers sometimes become established firmly and might take on unproductive projects to derive personal profits. This situation brings about an enhancement in capital expenses and imprudent corporate takeovers causing negative returns on capital invested. Summarizing, Gompers adds that in democratic entities, managers are increasingly obliged to the shareholders and nor not protected from the outcomes of their decisions. (Comment, 2000)

Conclusion:

Corporate governance has been successful in drawing a fair amount of public interest due to its obvious significance in the financial health of corporations and societal aspects. The significance of corporate governance being that of guaranteeing organizations function in the interests of their owners-has been identified in market driven economies. In respect of economies are on the path of alterations the predicament takes an additional importance, since shortage of native corporate culture and set of rules, imprecise legal enactments and restricted enforcement facilities, refer to the setting up of arrangements for enforcing corporate behavior as among the chief concern areas.

The want of effectual controls on managerial behavior can fairly well augment exterior and interior troubles that are supposed to be alleviated through privatization. Thus the rights to their property of the new owners should go along with institutional arrangements that guarantee their lucidity, protection and transferability. Since corporate wrongdoings and embezzlements have come to be known widely, a voice for greater efficient corporate governance has been demanded worldwide. Government regulations, formed by the Basel Committee on banking supervision, having insinuation for Europe and Asia-Pacific area, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 passed by the U.S. Congress, are likely to be more, and by now certain finance executives are examining the cost-benefit of conforming to it.

Bibliography

Berle, A; G. Means (1932) “The modern corporation and private property” Macmillan, NewYork. pp.54-58

Hart, O. (1995). “Firms, contracts and financial structure” Clarendon Press, Oxford. pp.32-36

Jensen, M and Meckling, W. (1976). “Theory of the firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure” Journal of Financial Economics, Volume. 3.pp. 305-360

Shleifer, Andrei; Vishny, Robert W. (1997) “A Survey of Corporate Governance,” Journal of Finance Volume. 52. pp. 737-83.

Monks; Minow, Nell (1995) “Corporate Governance” Basil Blackwell. Massachusetts.

Hart, O. (1995). “Corporate Governance: Some Theory and Implications” Economic Journal, Volume. 105. May. pp. 678-689.

Ben-Ner, A; Jones, D. (1995). “Employee Participation, Ownership and Productivity: A Theoretical Analysis.” Industrial Relations Vol.34 (October) pp. 532-553.

Cadbury, A. (1998) “The Future for Governance: The Rules of the Game” Journal of General Management, Volume. 24, autumn 98, pp. 1-14.

Denis, David J; Atulya Sarin. (1999) “Ownership and Board Structures In Publicly Traded Corporations” Journal of Financial Economic Volume. 52. pp. 187-223.

Keep, E; Mayhew, K. (1998). “Was Ratner Right? Product Market and Competitive Strategies and their Links with Skill and Knowledge” Employment Policy Economic Report, Volume. 12, No. 3, pp.4-9

Scharfstein, D. (1988) “The Disciplinary Role of Takeovers” Review of Economic Studies, Volume.55, pp.85-99.

Cadbury Report (1992). “Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance” London, Gee Publishing House. pp.6-10

Donaldson, Lex; Davis, James H. (1994) “Board and Company Performance — Research Challenges the Conventional Wisdom,” Corporate Governance, Volume. 2, July, pp.45-48

Simon, Walter. (1993) “Crisis Prevention: How to Gear Up Your Board,” Harvard Business Review, February, 1993.pp. 151-154

Brickly, J; Coles, J; Terry, R. (1994) “Outside Directors and the Adoption of Poison Pills” Journal of Financial Economics Volume.34. pp. 371-390.

Byrd, J; Hickman, A. (1992) “Do Outside Directors Monitor Manager? Evidence from tender offer bids,” Journal of Financial Economics Volume. 32. pp.195-221.

Grundfest, Joseph A. (1990) “Subordination of American capital,” Journal of Financial Economics Volume. 27. Pp. 64-69

Grundfest, Joseph A. (1993) “Just Vote No: A minimalist strategy for dealing with barbarians inside the gates,” Stanford Law Review, Volume. 45, Aprilpp.75-84

Gorton, Gary; Frank Schmid, (1996) “Universal Banking and the Performance of German Firms” Working Paper 5453, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, pp.12-16

Franks, Julian; Colin Mayer, (1994) “The Ownership and Control of German Corporations” London Business School, pp.23-25

Morck, Randall; Shleifer, Andrei; Vishny, Robert (1988) “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An empirical Analysis” Journal of Financial Economics Volume.20. pp. 293-315.

Kaplan, Steven; Minton, Bernadette. (1994) “Appointments of Outsiders to Japanese boards: Determinants and Implications for Manager” Journal of Financial Economic Volume. 36. pp. 225-257.

Vafeas, Nikos, (1999) “Board Meeting Frequency and Firm Performance” Journal of Financial Economics Volume.53. pp.113-142.

McConnell, John J; Muscarella, Chris J. (1986) “Corporate Capital Expenditure Decisions and the Market Value of the Firm” Journal of Financial Economic Volume.14. pp.399-422.

Lewellen, Wilbur, Loderer, Claudio. Rosenfeld, Ahron. (1985) “Merger Decisions and Executive Stock Ownership in Acquiring Firms” Journal of Accounting & Economics Volume. 7. pp. 209-231.

Cotter, J; Shivadasani, A; and Zenner, M. (1997) “Do Independent Directors Enhance Target Shareholder Wealth During Tender Offers?” Journal of Financial Economics Volume. 43. pp.195-218.

Comment. (2000) Emerging 21st century Risks emphasize need for good corporate governance, Corporate Governance, March, pp. 6-8.