Corporate Governance: An International Review
Опубликовано на портале: 22-03-2007Mehmet Ugur, Melsa Ararat Corporate Governance: An International Review. 2006. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 325–348.
Recent work on corporate governance has highlighted the effects of corporate governance quality on macroeconomic crises, especially in the context of South-East Asian economies. However, the possibility of reverse causation from macroeconomic performance to corporate governance has been overlooked. This paper aims to address this issue by examining the relationship between macroeconomic stabilisation and corporate governance reforms in Turkey since the 1999 and 2001 crises. We demonstrate that the prospect of macroeconomic stability has led to extensive corporate governance reforms for two reasons. First, recent return to macroeconomic stability has been underpinned by public governance reforms, which spilled over to the area of corporate governance. We call this the statutory reform effect. Second, macroeconomic stability tended to have a positive effect on firms' investment in corporate governance quality. We call this the voluntary reform effect. To substantiate these findings, we examine the post-1999 developments in the following areas: (i) the effectiveness of regulatory authorities; (ii) disclosure and transparency rules; and (iii) the quality of the enforcement regime.
Опубликовано на портале: 18-04-2007Michael Useem, Andy Zelleke Corporate Governance: An International Review. 2006. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 2-12.
American boards of directors increasingly treat their delegation of authority to management as a careful and self-conscious decision. Numerically dominated by non-executives, boards recognize that they cannot run the company, and many are now seeking to provide stronger oversight of the company without crossing the line into management. Based on interviews with informants at 31 major companies, we find that annual calendars and written protocols are often used to allocate decision rights between the board and management. Written protocols vary widely, ranging from detailed and comprehensive to skeletal and limited in scope. While useful, such calendars and protocols do not negate the need for executives to make frequent judgement calls on what issues should go to the board and what should remain within management. Executives still set much of the board’s decision-making agenda, and despite increasingly asserting their sovereignty in recent years, directors remain substantially dependent upon the executives’ judgement on what should come to the board. At the same time, a norm is emerging among directors and executives that the latter must be mindful of what directors want to hear and believe they should decide.