CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND ‘PRINCIPAL-PRINCIPAL’ CONFLICTS
Abstract
Most of the analyses for corporate governance have a company with dispersed ownership as a research object. The relevant to this type of a company classical conflict ‘principal-agent’ is decide by traditional mechanisms of the corporate governance and mainly by internal mechanisms.
A significant number of companies from developing countries have concentrated ownership. Their typical conflicts are between the controlling shareholder and minority shareholders (principal-principal), which are reduced by external and internal mechanisms.
For the countries of East Europe, incl. Bulgaria, the adaptation of the market principles is related to entering of foreign capitals and change of the shareholder structure. A necessity of researches for corporate governance of companies with concentrated ownership arises. The traditional issue for the corporate governance about protection of rights of minority shareholders has a new dimension – decreasing for the deviation between right of ownership and right of control.References
2. Arthurs, J., Hoskisson, R., Busenitz, L., and Johnson, R., 2008. Managerial Agents Watching Other Agents: Multiple Agency Conflicts Regarding Underpricing in IPO Firms. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), pp. 277-294.
3. Attar, A., Campioni, E., Piaser, G., and Rajan, U., 2010. On multiple-principal multiple-agent models of moral hazard. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(1), pp. 376-380.
4. Carmichael, J., and Kaufmann, D., 2001. Public Sector Governance and the Finance Sector. World Bank/International Monetary Fund/Federal Reserve Board conference on: Policy Challenges for the Financial Sector in the Context of Globalization, Washington DC, June 2001.
5. Davis, G., and Useem, M., 2002. Top management, company directors, and corporate control. In: A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, R. Whittington (eds.). Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: Sage, pp. 232-258.
6. Dharwadkar, R., George, G. and Brandes, P., 2000. Privatization in Emerging Economies: An Agency Theory Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), pp. 650-69.
7. Dyck, A. and Zingales, L., 2004. Private benefits of control: An international comparison. Journal of Finance, 59(2), pp. 537-600.
8. Fama, E. and Jensen, M., 1983. Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), pp. 301-325.
9. Gedajlovic, E. and Shapiro, D., 1998. Management and Ownership Effects: Evidence from Five Countries. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp. 533-553.
10. Guthrie, D., Xiao, Z. and Wang, J., 2007. Aligning the Interests of Multiple Principals: Ownership Concentration and Profitability in China’s Publicly-Traded Firms. Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Stern Working Paper, EC-07-32.
11. Hart, O. and Moore, J., 1995. Debt and Seniority: An Analysis of the Role of Hard Claims in Constraining Management. American Economic Review, 85, pp. 567-585.
12. Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Johnson, R. and Grossman, W., 2002. Conflicting Voices: The Effects of Institutional Ownership Heterogeneity and Internal Governance on Corporate Innovation Strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), pp. 697-716.
13. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R., 1997. Legal determinants of external Finance. Journal of Finance, 52, pp. 1131-1150.
14. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R., 1998. Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106, pp. 1113-1155.
15. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R., 2002. Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation. Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, 57(3), pp. 1147-1170.
16. Lin, C. and Chuang, C., 2011. Principal-Principal Conflicts and IPO Pricing in an Emerging Economy. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(6), pp. 585–600.
17. Lubatkin, M., Lane, P., Collin, S. and Very, P., 2005. An embeddedness framing of governance and opportunism: towards a cross-nationally accommodating theory of agency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 1-16.
18. Peng, M., Sun, S., Pinkham, B. and Chen, H., 2009. The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), pp. 63-81.
19. Peng, M. and Jiang, Y., 2010. Institutions behind Family Ownership and Control in Large Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), pp. 253-273.
20. Peng, M. and Sauerwald, S., 2013. Corporate governance and principal-principal conflicts. The Oxford handbook of corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 658-672.
21. Suhomlinova, O., 2006. Toward a model of organizational co-evolution in transition economies. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), pp. 1537-1558.
22. Walsh, J. and Seward, J., 1990. On the Efficiency of Internal and External Corporate Control Mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), pp. 421-458.
23. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. and Peng, M., 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42, pp. 1-33.
24. Young, M., Peng, M., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. and Jiang, Y., 2008. Corporate Governance in Emerging Economies: A Review of the Principal-Principal Perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), pp. 196-220.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
By submitting a paper for publishing the authors hereby comply with the following provisions: 1. The authors retain the copyrights and only give the journal the right for first publication while licensing the work under Creative Commons Attribution License, which grants permissions to others to share the contribution citing this journal as first publication of the text. 2. The authors may enter separate, additional contractual relations for non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work in this journal (e.g. to upload it in an institutional depository, or to be published in a book), given that they cite the first publication in this journal. 3. The authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish their works online (e.g. to upload it in an institutional depository, personal websites, social networks, etc.) before, during, and after the submission of the paper here, because this may lead to productive exchange, as well as earlier and larger referencing of the published works (see The Effect of Open Access).
