IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An analysis of corporate performance and governance in India: Study of some selected industries


  • Diganta Mukherjee

    () (Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata)

  • Tejamoy Ghose

    (Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata)


Corporate governance mechanisms have been an important issue of enquiry for the researchers in financial economics. Both theoretical models and empirical analysis have been developed in this area to expalin the occurrence of different contractual mechanisms and thier efficacy in terms of improving managerial performance. A related issue in this literature is the independence and competence of the Board of Directors. The Indian corporate scenario was more or less stagnant till the early 90s but, after the liberalisation of the 90s, the position and goals of the Indian corporate sector changed a lot. This paper, using only balance sheet inforamtion from 4 selected sectors of the Indian industry, analyses the efficacy of corporate governance. Our findings, by and large, paint a diappointing picture. Overall, the conclusion seems to be that corporate governance is still in a very nascent stage in the Indian industry. The decision and policy making is still taken mostly as a routine matte. Among the institutional investors also, it seems that the FIIs are the most consistent in stock picking whereas the performances of the domestic institutional investors are sporadic and volatile at best. This is also serious shortcoming on the part of the capital market, not being able to enforce better governance on the part of the directors or performance on the part of the managers.

Suggested Citation

  • Diganta Mukherjee & Tejamoy Ghose, 2004. "An analysis of corporate performance and governance in India: Study of some selected industries," Indian Statistical Institute, Planning Unit, New Delhi Discussion Papers 04-19, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India.
  • Handle: RePEc:ind:isipdp:04-19

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. repec:hrv:faseco:30728046 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1989. "Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 842-852, September.
    3. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    4. Jayati Sarkar & Subrata Sarkar, 2000. "Large Shareholder Activism in Corporate Governance in Developing Countries: Evidence from India," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 161-194.
    5. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. " A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    6. Conyon, Martin J. & Sadler, Graham V., 2001. "CEO compensation, option incentives, and information disclosure," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 251-277.
    7. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    8. Murphy, Kevin J., 1999. "Executive compensation," Handbook of Labor Economics,in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 38, pages 2485-2563 Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Corporate governance; Agency problem; R&D; Import; Borrowing; Equity; Utilization of capital; Regression model; Correlation coefficient;

    JEL classification:

    • G31 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ind:isipdp:04-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamprasad M. Pujar). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.