IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wdi/papers/1999-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Objectivity, Proximity and Adaptability in Corporate Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Arnoud W.A. Boot
  • Jonathan R. Macey

Abstract

Countries appear to differ considerably in the basic orientations of their corporate governance structures. We postulate the trade-off between objectivity and proximity as fundamental to the corporate governance debate. We stress the value of objectivity that comes with distance (e.g. the market oriented U.S. system), and the value of better information that comes with proximity (e.g. the more intrusive Continental European model). Our key result is that the optimal distance between management and monitor (board or shareholders) has a bang-bang solution: either one should capitalize on the better information that comes with proximity or one should seek to benefit optimally from the objectivity that comes with distance. We argue that this result points at an important link between the optimal corporate governance arrangement and industry structure. In this context, we also discuss the ways in which investors have "contracted around" the flaws in their own corporate governance systems, pointing at the adaptability of different arrangements.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnoud W.A. Boot & Jonathan R. Macey, 1999. "Objectivity, Proximity and Adaptability in Corporate Governance," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 266, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:1999-266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39651/3/wp266.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roland Strausz, 1997. "Delegation of Monitoring in a Principal-Agent Relationship," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(3), pages 337-357.
    2. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 43-58, January.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1997. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 1-29, February.
    4. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    5. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    6. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    7. Zingales, Luigi, 1994. "The Value of the Voting Right: A Study of the Milan Stock Exchange Experience," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 125-148.
    8. Acemoglu, D., 1994. "Corporate Control and Balance of Powers," Working papers 94-22, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    9. repec:ner:ucllon:http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/17678/ is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    11. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "Power in a Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(2), pages 387-432.
    12. Bhide, Amar, 1993. "The hidden costs of stock market liquidity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 31-51, August.
    13. Maug, Ernst, 1997. "Boards of directors and capital structure: Alternative forms of corporate restructuring," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 113-139, April.
    14. Mike Burkart & Denis Gromb & Fausto Panunzi, 1997. "Large Shareholders, Monitoring, and the Value of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(3), pages 693-728.
    15. Holmstrom, Bengt & Tirole, Jean, 1993. "Market Liquidity and Performance Monitoring," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 678-709, August.
    16. Jacques Crémer, 1995. "Arm's Length Relationships," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 275-295.
    17. Colin Mayer, 1998. "Financial Systems and Corporate Governance: A Review of the International Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 154(1), pages 144-144, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Burkart, Mike & Panunzi, Fausto, 2006. "Agency conflicts, ownership concentration, and legal shareholder protection," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.
    2. L.A.A. Van den Berghe & Steven Carchon, 2003. "Agency Relations within the Family Business System: an exploratory approach," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 171-179, July.
    3. Dherment-Ferere, Isabelle & Köke, Jens & Renneboog, Luc, 2001. "Corporate monitoring by blockholders in Europe: empirical evidence of managerial disciplining in Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-24, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Alberto Zazzaro, 2001. "Specificità e modelli di governo delle banche: un' analisi degli assetti proprietari dei gruppi bancari italiani," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 54(216), pages 487-517.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arnoud W.A. Boot & Jonathan R. Macey, 1998. "Objectivity, Control and Adaptability in Corporate Governance," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-064/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Irena Grosfeld & Iraj Hashi, 2001. "The Evolution of Ownership Structure in Firms Privatized through Wholesale Schemes in the Czech Republic and Poland," CASE Network Reports 0049, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2016. "Oliver Hart and Bengt Holmström: Contract Theory," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2016-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Eduard Marinov, 2016. "The 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 97-149.
    5. Becker, Bo & Cronqvist, Henrik & Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger, 2011. "Estimating the Effects of Large Shareholders Using a Geographic Instrument," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 907-942, August.
    6. Attiya Y. Javid & Robina Iqbal, 2010. "Corporate Governance in Pakistan: Corporate Valuation, Ownership and Financing," PIDE-Working Papers 2010:57, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    7. Goergen, Marc & Manjon, Miguel C. & Renneboog, Luc, 2008. "Recent developments in German corporate governance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 175-193, September.
    8. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    9. Konijn, Sander J.J. & Kräussl, Roman & Lucas, Andre, 2011. "Blockholder dispersion and firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 1330-1339.
    10. Erik Lehmann & Jürgen Weigand, 2000. "Does the Governed Corporation Perform Better? Governance Structures and Corporate Performance in Germany," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 4(2), pages 157-195.
    11. Heinrich, Ralph P., 1999. "Complementarities in Corporate Governance - A Survey of the Literature with Special Emphasis on Japan," Kiel Working Papers 947, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Jean-Jacques Hamon, 2001. "La répartition des droits de vote, leur exercice et l’efficacité économique," Revue d'Économie Financière, Programme National Persée, vol. 63(3), pages 175-209.
    13. Khosa,Amrinder & Ahmed,Kamran & Henry,Darren, 2019. "Ownership Structure, Related Party Transactions, and Firm Valuation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108492195, October.
    14. Irena Grosfeld & Iraj Hashi, 2003. "Mass Privatisation, Corporate Governance and Endogenous Ownership Structure," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-596, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    15. Nicola Lacetera, 2000. "Corporate Governance and the Governance of Innovation: the Case of Pharmaceutical Industry," KITeS Working Papers 122, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Dec 2000.
    16. Wang, Kun Tracy & Shailer, Greg, 2017. "Family ownership and financial performance relations in emerging markets," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 82-98.
    17. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "The Governance of the New Enterprise," CRSP working papers 487, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
    18. Jeremy C. Stein, 2002. "Information Production and Capital Allocation: Decentralized versus Hierarchical Firms," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(5), pages 1891-1921, October.
    19. Bansal, Shashank & Thenmozhi, M., 2020. "Does Concentrated Founder Ownership Affect Related Party Transactions? Evidence from an Emerging Economy," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Burkart, Mike & Panunzi, Fausto, 2006. "Agency conflicts, ownership concentration, and legal shareholder protection," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corporate governance; comperitive systems; corporate finance; economic reform; convergence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • P5 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Comparative Economic Systems

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:1999-266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: WDI (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wdumius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.