Search

How corporate governance mechanisms function in transition economies is a key topic for corporate governance researchers and policy makers. We propose that alternative governance mechanisms are in place to mitigate corporate fraudulent behaviors in the fluid state of transition economies where the establishment and enforcement of corporate governance legislation are presently insufficient. Drawing on the twin set of institutional logics—the institutional embeddedness logic and the institutional substitution logic—we posit that three salient types of prevailing alternative governance mechanisms (relational, administrative, and foreign governance) play important roles in transition economies because they are complementary to the institutional conditions at the time of the transition process. Conducting a bivariate probit analysis of a matched sample of corporate financial fraud cases in China, we find that strategic alliances, business group affiliation, nontradable state shares, local government ownership, use of foreign auditors, and foreign listing can deter corporate financial fraud, while foreign listing is also effective in detecting fraud. We also find that the deterrence effects of strategic alliances and business group affiliation become weaker as law development improves, while foreign listing and legal governance are completely substitutive. Our study provides a contextualized view of corporate governance that connects its effectiveness with institutionalization and the institutional state of a country. Our study also enriches our understanding of some unfamiliar forms of governance mechanisms that are in place and complementary to a country's institutional conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Summary: It is well known in corporate governance scholarship that independent directors differ in the vigilance with which they monitor corporate insiders. This difference depends largely on whether independent directors are concerned more with their public reputation or with their prospects in the director labor market. The explanation for this difference depends on an assumption of information asymmetry, however. In the present study, we relax the assumption of information asymmetry to examine how boardroom transparency affects directors' monitoring behavior. Using a randomized experimental study of actual independent directors, we find that boardroom transparency amplifies the effect of directors' inclinations toward either active or passive monitoring, with directors inclined toward vigilant monitoring becoming even more vigilant, and directors inclined toward passive monitoring becoming even more passive. Managerial Summary: In most advanced economies, the board's internal decision processes are either undisclosed or disclosed only to a very limited extent. It remains unknown, then, whether directors would behave differently if their behaviors were made public. We find that when their actions are disclosed to the public, directors concerned with their public reputations become more vigilant, whereas those concerned with their prospects for additional board seats become more passive in monitoring corporate insiders. Whereas regulatory bodies and corporate governance watchdogs have recently advocated for greater disclosure of the boardroom decision‐making process, our study suggests that such mandatory disclosure requirements can exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the problem of passive director monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]