Does Public Enforcement Work in Weak Investor Protection Countries? Evidence from China

B. Ke, Xiaojun Zhang
{"title":"Does Public Enforcement Work in Weak Investor Protection Countries? Evidence from China","authors":"B. Ke, Xiaojun Zhang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2606669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exploiting two Chinese corporate governance law enforcement campaigns in 2002 and 2007, we provide insight into how to make public enforcement work in weak institutional environments. Both campaigns aim to enforce the same mandatory Corporate Governance Code but differ in three important aspects. First, the 2007 campaign was more transparent with regard to the disclosure and correction of identified corporate governance noncompliance problems. Second, the 2007 campaign required the CSRC regional offices to be more involved in monitoring the implementation of the public enforcement campaign. Third, the 2007 campaign imposed more binding penalties for firms that fail to timely correct the identified governance noncompliance problems. Our analyses suggest that the 2002 campaign was not successful but the 2007 campaign was in improving publicly listed firms’ corporate governance and shareholder value. Our results suggest that public enforcement, if properly implemented, still matters in increasing shareholder value even in weak investor protection countries.","PeriodicalId":236490,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Markets Economics: Firm Behavior & Microeconomic Issues eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Markets Economics: Firm Behavior & Microeconomic Issues eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2606669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Exploiting two Chinese corporate governance law enforcement campaigns in 2002 and 2007, we provide insight into how to make public enforcement work in weak institutional environments. Both campaigns aim to enforce the same mandatory Corporate Governance Code but differ in three important aspects. First, the 2007 campaign was more transparent with regard to the disclosure and correction of identified corporate governance noncompliance problems. Second, the 2007 campaign required the CSRC regional offices to be more involved in monitoring the implementation of the public enforcement campaign. Third, the 2007 campaign imposed more binding penalties for firms that fail to timely correct the identified governance noncompliance problems. Our analyses suggest that the 2002 campaign was not successful but the 2007 campaign was in improving publicly listed firms’ corporate governance and shareholder value. Our results suggest that public enforcement, if properly implemented, still matters in increasing shareholder value even in weak investor protection countries.
公共执法在投资者保护薄弱的国家有效吗?来自中国的证据
以2002年和2007年的两次中国公司治理执法行动为例,我们深入了解了如何在薄弱的制度环境中进行公共执法。这两项运动的目的都是执行相同的强制性《企业管治守则》,但在三个重要方面有所不同。首先,2007年的行动在披露和纠正已发现的公司治理违规问题方面更加透明。其次,2007年的行动要求中国证监会地区办事处更多地参与监督公共执法行动的实施。第三,2007年的运动对未能及时纠正已确定的治理违规问题的公司施加了更具约束力的处罚。我们的分析表明,2002年的运动并不成功,而2007年的运动在改善上市公司的公司治理和股东价值方面取得了成功。我们的研究结果表明,即使在投资者保护薄弱的国家,如果实施得当,公共执法在增加股东价值方面仍然很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信