An analysis of corporate performance and governance in India: Study of some selected industries
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.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 7, S. J. S. Sansanwal Marg, New Delhi - 110016|
Web page: http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1995.
"A Survey of Corporate Governance,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1741, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 301-25, June.
- Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1989.
"Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 842-52, September.
- Randall Morck & Andrel Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1988. "Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 52, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Randall Morck & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1988. "Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control," NBER Working Papers 2532, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.