Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The literature shows that good corporate governance generally pays—for firms, for mar-kets, and for countries. It is associated with a lower cost of capital, higher returns on equity, greater efficiency, and more favorable treatment of all stakeholders, although the direction of causality is not always clear. The law and finance literature has documented the important role of institutions aimed at contractual and legal enforcement, including corpo-rate governance, across countries. Using firm-level data, researchers have documented rela-tionships between countries ’ corporate governance frameworks on the one hand and performance, valuation, the cost of capital, and access to external financing on the other. Given the benefits of good corporate governance, firms and countries should voluntarily reform more. Resistance by entrenched owners and managers at the firm level and political economy factors at the level of markets and countries partly explain why they do not. Corporate governance, a phrase that not long ago meant little to all but a handful of scholars and shareholders, has now become a mainstream concern—a staple of discussion in corporate boardrooms, academic meetings, and policy circles around the globe. Two events are responsible for the heightened interest in corporate gover-
Stijn Claessens (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: