Asia Pacific Journal of Management

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 965–986 | Cite as

Corporate governance and national institutions: A review and emerging research agenda

  • Igor FilatotchevEmail author
  • Gregory Jackson
  • Chizu Nakajima


We present a critique of corporate governance research grounded in agency theory and propose that cross-national comparison of corporate governance should consider how the nature and extent of agency relationships differ across different institutional contexts. Building on prior governance studies grounded in sociology and organizational theory we argue that performance outcomes of boards of directors, ownership concentration, and executive incentives may differ depending on the legal system and institutional characteristics in a specific country. Institutions may also affect the extent of complimentarity/substitution among different firm-level governance practices producing patterned variations in firm-level governance mechanisms. Our discussion suggests that researchers need to develop more holistic, institutionally embedded governance framework to analyze organizational outcomes of various governance practices.


Corporate governance Agency Institutions 


  1. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazura, A. 2004. Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger?. Organization Studies, 25: 415–443.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., Filatotchev, I., Gospel, H., & Jackson, G. 2008. An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies and complementarities. Organization Science, 19: 475–492.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28: 447–465.Google Scholar
  4. Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. 2010. Comparative and international corporate governance. Academy of Management Annals, 4: 485–556.Google Scholar
  5. Allcock, D., & Filatotchev, I. 2010. Executive incentive schemes in initial public offerings: The effects of multiple agency conflicts and corporate governance. Journal of Management, 36(3): 663–686.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. 2004. Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 209–237.Google Scholar
  7. Aoki, M. 2001. Toward a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Aoki, M., & Jackson, G. 2008. Understanding an emergent diversity of corporate governance and organizational architecture: An essentiality-based analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17: 1–27.Google Scholar
  9. Aoki, M., Jackson, G., & Miyajima, H. 2007. Corporate governance in Japan: Institutional change and organizational diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Armour, J., Deakin, S., Sarkar, P., Siems, M., & Singh, A. 2009. Shareholder protection and stock market development: An empirical test of the legal origins hypothesis. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6: 343–380.Google Scholar
  11. Bachmann, R. 2001. Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization Studies, 22: 337–365.Google Scholar
  12. Baums, T. 1993. Corporate governance in Germany: System and recent developments. In M. Isaksson & R. Skog (Eds.). Aspects of corporate governance: 31–54. Stockholm: Juristförlaget.Google Scholar
  13. Bebchuk, L., & Fried, J. 2004. Pay without performance: The unfulfilled promise of executive compensation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bhagat, R. S., McDevitt, A. S., & McDevitt, I. 2010. On improving the robustness of Asian management theories: Theoretical anchors in the era of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2): 179–192.Google Scholar
  15. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10: 3–28.Google Scholar
  16. Bruce, A., Buck, T., & Main, B. G. M. 2005. Top executive remuneration: A view from Europe. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1493–1506.Google Scholar
  17. Bruton, G., Ahlstrom, D., & Wan, J. 2003. Turnaround in East Asian firms: Evidence from ethnic overseas Chinese communities. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 519–540.Google Scholar
  18. Buck, T., Liu, X., & Skovoroda, R. 2008. Top executive pay and firm performance in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Buck, T., & Sharhrim, A. 2005. The translation of corporate governance changes across national cultures: The case of Germany. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 61–69.Google Scholar
  20. Carney, M., & Gedajlovic, E. 2002. The coupling of ownership and control and the allocation of financial resources: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 123–146.Google Scholar
  21. Chen, V. Z., Li, J., & Shapiro, D. M. 2011. Are OECD-prescribed ‘good corporate governance practices’ really good in an emerging economy?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 115–138.Google Scholar
  22. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. 2000. The separation of ownership and control in East Asian Corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58: 81–112.Google Scholar
  23. Coffee, J. C. 2001. The rise of dispersed ownership: The role of law and the state in the separation of ownership and control. Yale Law Journal, 111: 1–82.Google Scholar
  24. Conyon, M. J., & Murphy, K. J. 2000. The prince and the pauper? CEO pay in the US and the UK. Economic Journal, 110: 640–671.Google Scholar
  25. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Certo, S. Y., & Roengpitya, R. 2003. Meta-analysis of financial performance and equity: Fusion or confusion?. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 13–26.Google Scholar
  26. Davies, P. L. 2008. Gower and Davies’ principles of modern company law. London: Thomson Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, G. F., & Kim, E. H. 2007. Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds. Journal of Financial Economics, 85: 552–70.Google Scholar
  28. Deakin, S., & Singh, A. 2008. The stock market, the market for corporate control and the theory of the firm: Legal and economic perspectives and implications for public policy. Working paper no. 365, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  29. Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. 1985. The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93: 1155–1177.Google Scholar
  30. Denis, D. J., Hanouna, P., & Sarin, A. 2006. Is there a dark side to incentive compensation?. Journal of Finance, 12: 467–488.Google Scholar
  31. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.Google Scholar
  32. DiPrete, T. A., Eirich, G. M., & Pittinsky, M. 2010. Compensation benchmarking, leapfrogs, and the surge in executive pay. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6): 1671–1712.Google Scholar
  33. Dobbin, F. 1994. Forging industrial policy. The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Donnelly, S., Gamble, A., Jackson, G., & Parkinson, J. 2001. The public interest and the company in Britain and Germany. London: Anglo-German Society for the Study of Industrial Society.Google Scholar
  35. Efendi, J., Srivastava, A., & Swanson, E. P. 2007. Why do corporate managers misstate financial statements: The role of option compensation, corporate governance and other factors. Journal of Financial Economics, 85: 667–708.Google Scholar
  36. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57–74.Google Scholar
  37. Estrin, S., & Prevezer, M. 2011. The role of informal institutions in corporate governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 41–67.Google Scholar
  38. Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88: 288–307.Google Scholar
  39. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–26.Google Scholar
  40. Fernandes, N. G., Ferreira, M. A., Matros, P. P., & Murphy, K. J. 2010. The pay divide: (Why) are US top executives paid more?. AFA 2011 Denver Meetings Paper, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  41. Filatotchev, I., Lien, Y., & Piesse, J. 2005. Corporate governance and performance in publicly listed, family-controlled firms: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(3): 257–283.Google Scholar
  42. Filatotchev, I., Strange, R., Piesse, J., & Lien, Y. 2007. FDI by firms from newly industrialized economies in emerging markets: Corporate governance, entry mode and location strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 556–572.Google Scholar
  43. Filatotchev, I., Toms, S., & Wright, M. 2006. The firm’s strategic dynamics and corporate governance life-cycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2: 256–279.Google Scholar
  44. Filatotchev, I., Zhang, X., & Piesse, J. 2011. Multiple agency perspective, family control and private information risk in emerging markets. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 69–93.Google Scholar
  45. Firth, M., Fung, P., & Rui, O. 2006. Corporate performance and CEO compensation in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(4): 693–714.Google Scholar
  46. Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1180–1198.Google Scholar
  47. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2004. The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 501–534.Google Scholar
  48. Fligstein, N. 2001. The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Globerman, S., Peng, M. W., & Shapiro, D. 2011. Corporate governance and Asian companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  50. Gomez-Mejia, L., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. 2003. The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 226–237.Google Scholar
  51. Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. 1988. One share-one vote and the market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 175–202.Google Scholar
  52. Gullén, M. F. 2004. Corporate governance and globalization: Is there convergence across countries?. In T. Clarke (Ed.). Theories of corporate governance: 223–242. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Haley, J. O. 1978. The myth of the reluctant litigant. Journal of Japanese Studies, 4: 359–90.Google Scholar
  54. Hall, B. 2003. Six challenges in designing equity based pay. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 15: 21–33.Google Scholar
  55. Hall, P., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Hansmann, H. 1996. The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Harris, M., & Raviv, A. 1988. Corporate governance. Voting rights and majority rules. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 203–235.Google Scholar
  58. Hart, O. 1983. The market mechanism as an incentive system. Bell Journal of Economics, 14: 42–64.Google Scholar
  59. Hertig, G. 2004. Convergence of substantive law and convergence of enforcement: A comparison. In J. N. Gordon & M. J. Roe (Eds.). Convergence and persistence in corporate governance: 328–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2009. Meta-analyzing ownership concentration and firm performance in Asia: Towards a more fine-grained understanding. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3): 481–512.Google Scholar
  61. Holderness, C. G., & Sheehan, D. P. 1988. The role of majority shareholders in publicly held corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 317–346.Google Scholar
  62. Jackson, G. 2010. Understanding corporate governance in the United States: An historical and theoretical reassessment. Working paper no. 223, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, Germany.Google Scholar
  63. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 540–561.Google Scholar
  64. Jackson, G., & Miyajima, H. 2008. A comparison of mergers and acquisitions in Japan, Europe, and the United States. In R. Strange & G. Jackson (Eds.). Corporate governance and international business: Strategy, performance and institutional change. Academy of International Business Series, 15: 186–207. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. Jensen, M. C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48: 831–880.Google Scholar
  66. Jensen, M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12: 235–256.Google Scholar
  67. Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. 1990. Performance pay and top management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98: 225–264.Google Scholar
  68. Jiang, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2011. Are family ownership and control in large firms good, bad, or irrelevant?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 15–39.Google Scholar
  69. Kaplan, S. N. 2008. Are US CEOs overpaid?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22: 5–20.Google Scholar
  70. Kato, T., & Long, C. 2006. Executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in China: Evidence from firms listed in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(4): 945–983.Google Scholar
  71. Kato, T., Kim, W., & Lee, J. H. 2005. Executive compensation, firm performance, and chaebols in Korea. IZA discussion paper no. 1783, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  72. Kawashima, T. 1963. Dispute resolution in contemporary Japan. In A. T. von Mehren (Ed.). Law in Japan: The legal order in a changing society: 43–48. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Kawashima, T. 1979. Japanese way of legal thinking. International Journal of Law Libraries, 7: 127–31.Google Scholar
  74. Keay, A. R. 2011. Moving towards stakeholderism? Constituency statutes, enlightened shareholder value and all that: Much ado about little?. European Business Law Review, 22: 1–49.Google Scholar
  75. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75: 3–10.Google Scholar
  76. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 268–285.Google Scholar
  77. Kubo, K. 2005. Executive compensation policy and company performance in Japan. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13: 429–436.Google Scholar
  78. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106: 1113–1155.Google Scholar
  79. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 2000. Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58: 3–27.Google Scholar
  80. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1988. Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 293–316.Google Scholar
  81. Murphy, K. J. 1985. Corporate performance and managerial remuneration: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7: 11–42.Google Scholar
  82. Murphy, K. J. 1997. Executive compensation and the modern industrial revolution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15: 413–532.Google Scholar
  83. Nakajima, C. 1996. The experience of Japan in adoption and adaptation. In J. J. Norton & M. Andenas (Eds.). Emerging markets and the role of international financial organizations: 393–427. London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  84. Nakajima, C. 1999. Conflicts of interest and duty: A comparative analysis in Anglo-Japanese law. London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  85. Nakajima, C. 2007. Issues in fighting financial crime. Journal of the Institute of Economic Affairs, March: 2–6.Google Scholar
  86. Palmiter, A. R. 2006. Corporations: Examples & explanations. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
  87. Parkinson, J. 1993. Corporate power and responsibility. Issues in the theory of company law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Peng, M. W., & Zhou, J. Q. 2005. How network strategies and institutional transitions evolve in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(3): 321–336.Google Scholar
  89. Ramseyer, J. M., & Nakazato, M. 1999. Japanese law: An economic approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  90. Rediker, K., & Seth, A. 1995. Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 85–99.Google Scholar
  91. Roy, W. G. 1997. Socializing capital. The rise of the large industrial corporation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Sanders, W. G., & Boivie, S. 2004. Sorting things out: Valuation of new firms in uncertain markets. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 167–186.Google Scholar
  93. Sanders, W. G., & Tuschke, A. C. 2006. The adoption of institutionally contested organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 33–56.Google Scholar
  94. Schmidt, R. H., & Spindler, G. 2004. Path dependence and complementarity in corporate governance. In J. N. Gordon & M. J. Roe (Eds.). Convergence and persistence in corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Schneper, W. D., & Guillen, M. F. 2004. Stakeholder rights and corporate governance: A cross-national study of hostile takeovers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 263–295.Google Scholar
  96. Scott, W. R. 2003. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  97. Shishido, Z. 2007. The turnaround of 1997: Changes in Japanese corporate law and governance. In M. Aoki, G. Jackson & H. Miyajima (Eds.). Corporate governance in Japan: Institutional change and organizational diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52: 737–783.Google Scholar
  99. Smith, B., & Amoako-Adu, B. 1999. Management succession and financial performance of family controlled firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 5: 341–368.Google Scholar
  100. Solomon, L. D., & Palmiter, A. R. 1994. Corporations: Examples and explanations, 2nd ed. Boston: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  101. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. 2009. Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 689–709.Google Scholar
  102. Thomas, R. S. 2009. International executive pay: Current practices and future trends. Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research paper no. 08–26. (Available at SSRN:
  103. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  104. Vissa, B., Greve, H. R., & Chen, W.-P. 2010. Business group affiliation and firm search in India: Responsiveness and focus of attention. Organization Science, 21: 696–712.Google Scholar
  105. West, M. D. 2001. The puzzling divergence of corporate law: Evidence and explanations from Japan and the United States. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150: 527–601.Google Scholar
  106. Whittaker, H., & Deakin, S. (Eds.). 2009. Corporate governance and managerial reform in Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 269–296.Google Scholar
  108. Wong, A., & Tjosvold, D. 2010. Guanxi and conflict management for effective partnering with competitors in China. British Journal of Management, 21: 772–788.Google Scholar
  109. Wyld, D. C., & Maurin, R. 2008 Bigger CEO pay packages: Does market value matter more than ability?. Academy of Management Perspectives, November: 82–83.Google Scholar
  110. Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. H. 2001. Alternative corporate governance systems in Japanese firms: Implications for a shift to stockholder centered corporate governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management Studies, 18(2): 183–205.Google Scholar
  111. Young, M., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G., & Jiang, Y. 2008. Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 196–220.Google Scholar
  112. Zhou, J. Q., & Peng, M. W. 2010. Relational exchanges versus arm’s-length transactions during institutional transitions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 355–370.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Filatotchev
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gregory Jackson
    • 3
  • Chizu Nakajima
    • 1
  1. 1.Sir John Cass Business School, City University LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Global Business and TradeVienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria
  3. 3.Freie Universität Berlin, School of Business and EconomicsBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations