IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/deptwp/2013-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transparency, Empowerment, Disempowerment and Trust in an Investment Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Kiridaran Kanagaretnam
  • Stuart Mestelman
  • S. M. Khalid Nainar
  • Mohamed Shehata

Abstract

In a laboratory-controlled environment we provide experimental evidence on the effects of transparency (complete over incomplete information) and empowerment on trust (investment by a principal) and trustworthiness (reciprocal behavior of an agent). We implement a simple two-person investment game. We find that when principals are empowered by being able to punish agents who may not act in a way the principal believes is in the principal’s best interest, trust and investment increases over that which is realized in the absence of empowerment regardless of the degree of transparency. In transparent environments the effect of empowerment is about the same regardless of whether empowerment is introduced or removed. However, in opaque environments, the loss of empowerment has a substantially greater negative effect on trust than the positive effect associated with the introduction of empowerment. While this environment is substantially abstracted from the naturally occurring environment, these results suggest that practical public policies designed to increase transparency in financial transactions are likely to have positive effects on investment. Furthermore, public policies designed to empower principals, such as the Say-on-Pay practices, are likely to increase investment while the limitation of the empowerment of principals with respect to their agents (consistent with deregulation) will have a much more dramatic negative impact on trust (and ultimately, investment).

Suggested Citation

  • Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Stuart Mestelman & S. M. Khalid Nainar & Mohamed Shehata, 2013. "Transparency, Empowerment, Disempowerment and Trust in an Investment Environment," Department of Economics Working Papers 2013-09, McMaster University, revised Oct 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:mcm:deptwp:2013-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/rsrch/papers/archive/2013-09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "Assigning Intentions when Actions Are Unobservable: The Impact of Trembling in the Trust Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 307-314, October.
    2. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Khalid Nainar, S.M. & Shehata, Mohamed, 2012. "The impact of empowering investors on trust and trustworthiness," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 566-577.
    3. Giorgio Coricelli & Luis González Morales & Amelie Mahlstedt, 2006. "The Investment Game With Asymmetric Information," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 13-30, February.
    4. Denis, Diane K., 2012. "Mandatory clawback provisions, information disclosure, and the regulation of securities markets," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 197-200.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erlane K. Ghani & Nur Azrin Mat Tarmezi, 2016. "The Effect of Corporate Disclosure Guide on Information Disclosure among Malaysian Public Listed Companies," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(9), pages 362-376, September.
    2. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, S.M. Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2014. "Transparency and empowerment in an investment environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 2030-2038.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Stuart Mestelman & S. M. Khalid Nainar & Mohamed Shehata, 2012. "Trust and Reciprocity, Empowerment and Transparency," Department of Economics Working Papers 2012-12, McMaster University.
    2. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, S.M. Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2010. "Trust and reciprocity with transparency and repeated interactions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 241-247, March.
    3. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, S.M. Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2014. "Transparency and empowerment in an investment environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 2030-2038.
    4. Ilona Babenko & Benjamin Bennett & John M Bizjak & Jeffrey L Coles & Jason J Sandvik, 2023. "Clawback Provisions and Firm Risk," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 191-239.
    5. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    6. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    7. Friehe, Tim & Utikal, Verena, 2018. "Intentions under cover – Hiding intentions is considered unfair," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 11-21.
    8. Cha, Yunshil & Gill, Susan & Wong-On-Wing, Bernard, 2023. "Clawback policy enforcement: To disclose or not to disclose," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. Di Bartolomeo Giovanni & Papa Stefano, 2012. "The triadic design to identify trust and reciprocity: Extensions and robustness," wp.comunite 0096, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    10. Bonein, Aurélie & Serra, Daniel, 2009. "Gender pairing bias in trustworthiness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-789, October.
    11. Garret Ridinger, 2021. "Intentions versus Outcomes: Cooperation and Fairness in a Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma with Nature," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-30, July.
    12. Luccasen, R. Andrew & Thomas, M. Kathleen, 2014. "Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 232-235.
    13. Dina El Mahdy, 2020. "The unintended consequences of voluntary adoption of clawback provisions on managerial ability," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3493-3526, December.
    14. Mburu, Henry Kimani & Tang, Alex P., 2018. "The adoption of voluntary clawback provisions and the broader commitment hypothesis," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 60-69.
    15. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.
    16. Matthew Chao, 2018. "Intentions-Based Reciprocity to Monetary and Non-Monetary Gifts," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, September.
    17. Michèle Belot & Marcel Fafchamps, 2018. "Are People Equally Other‐Regarding When Selecting a Match Versus Choosing an Allocation?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(4), pages 1088-1108, April.
    18. Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Intention-based reciprocity and signaling of intentions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 132-144.
    19. Patrick Velte, 2020. "Determinants and consequences of clawback provisions in management compensation contracts: a structured literature review on empirical evidence," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1417-1450, November.
    20. Sokolovskyi, Dmytro & Sokolovska, Olena, 2013. "The problem of arising the Pareto inefficient norm in relations “investor – government” type," MPRA Paper 44745, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Investment; Empowerment; Disempowerment; Veto; Trust; Reciprocity; Say-on-Pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D3 - Microeconomics - - Distribution
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:mcm:deptwp:2013-09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demcmca.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.