Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Design and Statistical Method

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance

  • 1015 Accesses

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to present the research design and statistical approach applied in this work. We explain the research philosophy used and justify the research approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aaboen, L., Lindelof, P., von Koch, C., & Lofsten, H. (2006). Corporate Governance and Performance of Small High-Tech Firms in Sweden. Technovation, 26, 955–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdallah, W., Goergen, M., & O’Sullivan, N. (2015). Endogeneity: How Failure to Correct for It Can Cause Wrong Inferences and Some Remedies. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 791–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdullah, S. N. (2006). Board Structure and Ownership in Malaysia: The Case of Distressed Listed Companies. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(5), 582–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A Theory of Friendly Boards. The Journal of Finance, 62(1), 217–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R. B., Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2010). The Role of Boards of Directors in Corporate Governance: A Conceptual Framework and Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(1), 58–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed Effects Regression Models: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Matari, E., Al-Swidi, A., & Fadzil, F. (2014). The Effect of Board of Directors Characteristics, Audit Committee. Asian Social Science, 10(11), 149–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Matari, Y. A., Al-Swidi, A. K., Fadzil, F. H. B., & Al-Matari, E. M. (2012). Board of Directors, Audit Committee Characteristics and Performance of Saudi Arabia Listed Companies. International Review of Management and Marketing, 2(4), 241–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amran, N. A., Yusof, M., Ishak, R., & Aripin, N. (2014). Do Characteristics of CEO and Chairman Influence Government-Linked Companies Performance? Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 799–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Board Characteristics, Accounting Report Integrity, and the Cost of Debt. Journal of Accounting & Finance, 37(3), 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arosa, B., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2010). Outsiders on the Board of Directors and Firm Performance: Evidence from Spanish Non-listed Family Firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(4), 236–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arosa, B., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2013). The Board Structure and Firm Performance in SMEs: Evidence from Spain. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección Y Economía de La Empresa, 19, 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, M., & Barrowclough, D. (2009). Running Regressions: A Practical Guide to Quantitative Research in Economics, Finance and Development Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. H., Song, S. H., Jung, B. C., & Koh, W. (2007). Testing for Serial Correlation, Spatial Autocorrelation and Random Effects Using Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, 140(1), 5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Butler, H. (1985). Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Performance Effects of Change in Board Composition. Journal of Law, 1, 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, A., Weber, J., & Yu, J. J. (2008). Conservatism and Debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(2–3), 154–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, S., Drobetz, W., Schmid, M. M., & Zimmermann, H. (2006). An Integrated Framework of Corporate Governance and Firm Valuation. European Financial Management, 12(2), 249–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, B. W., & Davidson, W. N., III. (2009). Reexamining the Managerial Ownership Effect on Firm Value. Journal of Corporate Finance, 15, 573–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14, 257–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff, W., Cremers, H., & Fieger, W. (1991). Normal Distribution Assumption and Least Squares Estimation Function in the Model of Polynomial Regression. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 36(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, B. S., Love, I., & Rachinsky, A. (2006). Corporate Governance Indices and Firms’ Market Values: Time Series Evidence from Russia. Emerging Market Review, 7, 361–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N., Keow, W. C. C., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual Capital and Business Performance in Malaysian Industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, A. L., Field, L. C., Karpoff, J. M., & Raheja, C. G. (2007). The Determinants of Corporate Board Size and Composition: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 66–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botosan, C. A. (1997). Disclosure Level and the Cost of Equity Capital. The Accounting Review, 72(3), 323–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botosan, C. A., & Plumlee, M. A. (2002). A Re-examination of Disclosure Level and the Expected Cost of Equity Capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouaziz, Z., & Triki, M. (2012). The Impact of the Presence of Audit Committees on the Financial Performance of Tunisian Companies. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 2(4), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brick, I. E., & Chidambaran, N. (2010). Board Meetings, Committee Structure, and Firm Value. Journal of Corporate Finance, 16, 533–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C. (2003). Introductory Econometrics for Finance (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, L., Li, W., & Zhang, L. (2015). Audit Mode Change, Corporate Governance and Audit Effort. China Journal of Accounting Research, 8(4), 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value. The Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., & Li, J. (2008). Audit Committee and Firm Value: Evidence on Outside Top Executives as Expert-Independent Directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(1), 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M.-C., & Tzend, Z.-C. (2011). How Does Ownership Structure Effect Capital Structure and Firms Performance? Evidence from Taiwan. Global Review of Accounting and Finance, 2(2), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S., Evans, J. H., III, & Nagarajan, N. J. (2008). Board Size and Firm Performance: The Moderating Effects of the Market for Corporate Control. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 31(2), 121–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y.-L., Connelly, T., Limpaphayom, P., & Zhou, L. (2007). Do Investors Really Value Corporate Governance? Evidence from the Hong Kong Market. Journal of International Financial Management Accounting, 18(2), 86–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coles, J. L., Daniel, N. D., & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does One Size Fit All? Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 329–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J., Finegold, D., & Lawler, E., III. (1998). Appraising Boardroom Performance. Harvard Business Review, 76, 136–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombes, P., & Wong, S. C. (2004). Chairman and CEO: One Job or Two? The McKinsey Quarterly: A New Era in Governance, 2(1), 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1992). The Relationship Between Governance Structure and Corporate Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 375–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, L. J. (1998). Meta Analytic Review of Board Composition, Leadership Structure and Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFond, M. L., & Jiambalvo, J. (1994). Debt Covenant Violation and Manipulation of Accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17(1–2), 145–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985). The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desender, K. A. (2009). The Relationship Between the Ownership Structure and the Role of the Board. Working Paper. V.K. Zimmerman Center for International Education and Research in Accounting, University of Illinois, Champaig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieleman, J. L., & Templin, T. (2014). Random-Effects, Fixed-Effects and the Within-Between Specification for Clustered Data in Observational Health Studies: A Simulation Study. PLoS ONE, 9(10), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for Serial Correlation in Linear Panel-Data Models. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 168–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisdorfer, A., Giaccotto, C., & White, R. (2013). Capital Structure, Executive Compensation, and Investment Efficiency. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 549–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkinawy, S., & Stater, M. (2011). Gender Differences in Executive Compensation: Variation with Board Gender Composition and Time. Journal of Economics and Business, 63, 23–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsayed, K. (2007). Does CEO Duality Really Affect Corporate Performance? Corporate Governance an International Review, 15(6), 1203–1214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, J., Park, Y. W., Reising, J., & Shin, H.-H. (2005). Board Composition and Firm Value Under Concentrated Ownership: The Canadian Evidence. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13(4), 387–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. (1999). Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Board of Directors as Strategic Decision: Making Groups. Academy of Management Review, 3, 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosberg, R. H., & Nelson, M. R. (1999). Leadership Structure and Firm Performance. International Review of Financial Analysis, 8(1), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (1994). Data Augmentation and Dynamic Linear Models. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 15(2), 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J., Huse, M., & Minichilli, A. (2007). Understanding the Leadership Role of the Board Chairperson Through a Team Production Approach. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallego, I., Garcia, I. M., & Rodriguez, L. (2009). The Influence of Gender Diversity on Corporate Performance. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 13(1), 53–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garay, U., & Gonzalez, M. (2008). Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Case of Venezuela. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 194–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghabayen, M. A. (2012). Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Case of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 2(2), 168–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, S. (2006). Do Board Characteristics Affect Corporate Performance? Firm-Level Evidence for India. Applied Economics Letters, 13(7), 435–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, R. D., Hedeker, D., & DuToit, S. (2010). Advances in Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 79–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, S. L. (2006). Recent Developments in Corporate Governance: A Overview. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 381–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate Governance and Equity Prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. R., Li, S., & Qiu, J. (2008). Corporate Misreporting and Bank Loan Contracting$. Journal of Financial Economics, 89, 44–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric Analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, B. T., Rutherford, M. W., Oswald, S., & Gardiner, L. (2005). An Empirical Investigation of the Growth Cycle Theory of Small Firm Financing. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 382–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, P. M. (2009). The Impact of Board Size on Firm Performance: Evidence from the UK. The European Journal of Finance, 15(4), 385–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic Econometrics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekara, F. I., Richardson, K., Carter, K., & Blakely, T. (2014). Fixed Effects Analysis of Repeated Measures Data. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(1), 264–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Z., & Kga, U. K. (2012). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance of Listed Firms in Sri Lanka. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 664–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdan, M. A., Sarea, M. A., & Reyad, M. R. S. (2013). The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on the Performance: Evidence from Jordan. International Management Review, 9(1), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamerle, A., & Ronning, G. (1995). Panel Analysis for Qualitative Variables. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of Statistical Modeling for the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 399–452). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, Corporate Governance and Disclosure in Malaysian Corporations. ABACUS: A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, 38(3), 317–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R., & Hudaib, M. (2006). Corporate Governance Structure and Performance of Malaysian Listed Companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7–8), 1034–1062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashim, A. H., & Devi, S. (2009). Board Characteristics, Ownership Structure and Earnings Quality: Malaysian Evidence. Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8, 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, O. A., & Marston, C. (2010). Disclosure Measurement in the Empirical Accounting Literature—A Review Article [Online]. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1640598. Accessed 14 Sept 2015.

  • Henry, D. (2008). Corporate Governance Structure and the Valuation of Australian Firms: Is There Value in Ticking the Boxes? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35(7–8), 912–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1991). The Effects of Board Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance. Financial Management, 20, 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1998). Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO. The American Economic Review, 88(1), 96–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2003). Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., Essen, M. v., & (Hans) van Oosterhou, J. (2009). Meta-Analyzing Ownership Concentration and Firm Performance in Asia: Towards a More Fine-Grained Understanding. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3), 481–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Board of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependency Perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelberg, C. P., Hubbard, R. G., & Palia, D. (1999). Understanding the Determinants of Managerial Ownership and the Links Between Ownership and Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53, 353–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust Standard Errors for Panel Regressions with Cross-Sectional Dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovey, M., Li, L., & Naughton, T. (2003). The Relationship Between Valuation and Ownership of Listed Firms in China. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 112–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel Data Analysis—Advantages and Challenges. TEST, 16(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., Nielsen, S. T., & Hagen, I. M. (2009). Women and Employee-Elected Board Members, and Their Contributions to Board Control Tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 581–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from India’s Top Companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(2), 492–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jager, P. d. (2008). Panel Data Techniques and Accounting Research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 16(2), 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamshidy, M., et al. (2014). Mediating Role of Board of Directors’ Functions Between Intellectual Capital Components and Overall Firm Performance in Iranian High IC Firms. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14, 2750–2766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, B.-B., Laurenceson, J., & Tang, K. K. (2008). Share Reform and the Performance of China’s Listed Companies. China Economic Review, 19(3), 489–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalsie, A., & Shrivastav, S. M. (2016). Analysis of Board Size and Firm Performance: Evidence from NSE Companies Using Panel Data Approach. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 9(2), 148–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A., & Awan, S. H. (2012). Effect of Board Composition on Firm’s Performance: A Case of Pakistani Listed Companies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(10), 853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Is Group Affiliation Profitable in Emerging Markets. Journal of Finance, 55, 867–891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatab, H., et al. (2011). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: A Case Study of Karachi Stock Market. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(1), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Board Composition and Corporate Performance: How the Australian Experience Informs Contrasting Theories of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. J., Sohn, P., & Seo, J.-Y. (2015). The Capital Structure Adjustment Through Debt Financing Based on Various Macroeconomic Conditions in Korean Market. Investigación Económica, 74(294), 155–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapper, L. F., & Love, I. (2004). Corporate Governance, Investor Protection and Performance in Emerging Markets. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(5), 703–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. (1998, April). Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure. The Journal of Law & Economics, 41(1), 275–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. (2002). Audit Committee, Board of Directors Characteristics, and Earnings Management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 375–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P., Shapiro, D., & Young, J. (2005). Corporate Governance, Family Ownership and Firm Value: The Canadian Evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(6), 769–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafft, J., Qu, Y., Quatraro, F., & Ravix, J.-L. (2014). Corporate Governance, Value and Performance of Firms: New Empirical Results on Convergence from a Large International Database. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 361–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, G. V., & Visvanathan, G. (2008). Does the SOX Definition of an Accounting Expert Matter? The Association Between Audit Committee Directors’ Accounting Expertise and Accounting Conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(3), 827–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyereboah-Coleman, A. (2007). Corporate Governance and Shareholder Value Maximization: An African Perspective. African Development Review, 19(2), 350–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laing, D., & Weir, C. M. (1999). Governance Structures, Size and Corporate Performance in UK Firms. Management Decision, 37(5), 457–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, T. Y., & Lee, S. K. (2008). CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Evidence from Hong Kong. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8(3), 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, T.-Y., & Lee, S.-K. (2012). Family Ownership, Board Committees and Firm Performance: Evidence from Hong Kong. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 12(3), 353–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lan, X.-C., & Zhang, T.-N. (2013). An Empirical Study on the Endogeneity of Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Firm Performance. In E. Qi, J. Shen, & R. Dou (Eds.), The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 485–495). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1993). Cross-Sectional Determinants of Analyst Ratings of Corporate Disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (2000). Investor’s Protection and Corporate Governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leng, A. C. A. (2004). The Impact of Corporate Governance Practices on Firms’ Financial Performance: Evidence from Malaysian Companies. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 21(3), 308–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, N. W., & Cheng, M.-A. (2013). Corporate Governance and Firm Value: Evidence from Chinese State-Controlled Listed Firms. China Journal of Accounting Research, 6, 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, O. Z., Su, X., & Yang, Z. (2012). State Control, Access to Capital and Firm Performance. China Journal of Accounting Research, 5(2), 101–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liker, J. K., Augustyniak, S., & Duncan, G. J. (1985). Panel Data Models of Change: A Comparison of First Difference and Conventional Two-Wave Models. Social Science Research, 14, 80–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Matolcsy, Z., & Chow, D. (2007). The Association Between Board Composition and Different Types of Voluntary Disclosure. European Accounting Review, 16(3), 555–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M., & Yang, T. (2008). The Determinants of Board Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 308–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A Modest Proposal for Improved Corporate Governance. Business Layer, 8, 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynall, M. D., Golden, B. R., & Hillman, A. J. (2003). Board Composition from Adolescence to Maturity: A Multitheoretic View. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 416–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaCurdy, T. E. (1982). The Use of Time Series Processes to Model the Error Structure of Earnings in a Longitudinal Data Analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 18(1), 83–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandaci, P. E., & Gumus, G. K. (2010). Ownership Concentration, Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 5(1), 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, J. I., Stöhr, B. S., & Quiroga, B. F. (2007). Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Public Companies in Chile. Family Business Review, 20(2), 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • McColgan, P. (2001). Agency Theory and Corporate Governance: A Review of the Literature From a UK Perspective. Department of Accounting & Finance. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mela, C. F., & Kopalle, P. K. (2002). The Impact of Collinearity on Regression Analysis: The Asymmetric Effect of Negative and Positive Correlations. Applied Economics, 34, 667–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishney, R. W. (1988). Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, V.-O. (2014). The Impact of Board Composition on the Financial Performance of FTSE100 Constituents. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 969–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustapa, I. R., Ghazali, N. A. M., & Mohamad, M. H. S. (2014). The Moderating Influence of Organizational Capacity on the Association Between Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 76–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntim, C. G. (2016). Corporate Governance, Corporate Health Accounting, and Firm Value: The Case of HIV/AIDS Disclosures in Sub-Saharan Africa. The International Journal of Accounting, 51, 155–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuryani, N., Heng, T. T., & Juliesta, N. (2015). Capitalization of Operating Lease and Its Impact on Firm’s Financial Ratios. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 268–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. M. (2009). Linear Regression Models for Panel Data Using SAS, Stata, LIMDEP, and SPSS. Working Paper. s.l.: The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington. (2008). Research Strategies Overview (unpublished Teaching Material), UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pathan, S., Skully, M. T., & Wickramanayake, J. (2007). Board Size, Independence and Performance: An Analysis of Thai Banks. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 14(3), 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, F. (2009). Research Philosophies—Importance and Relevance, Issue, 1, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peasnell, K. V., Pope, P. F., & Young, S. (2005). Board Monitoring and Earnings Management: Do Outside Directors Influence Abnormal Accruals? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 42(7&8), 2232–2346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and Its Environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puni, A. (2015). Do Board Committees Affect Corporate Financial Performance? Evidence from Listed Companies in Ghana. International Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(5), 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi, D., Wu, W., & Zhang, H. (2000). Shareholding Structure and Corporate Performance of Partially Privatized Firms: Evidence from Listed Chinese Companies. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 8(5), 587–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata (2nd ed.). Texas: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, A. R., & Ali, F. (2006). Board, Audit Committee, Culture and Earnings Management: Malaysian Evidence. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(7), 783–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (1995). What Do We Know About Capital Structure? Some Evidence from International Data. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1421–1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren, H., Chandrasekar, K., & Li, B. (2012). Moderating Effects of Board and Managerial Incentive on the Relationship Between R&D Investment and Firm Performance—Evidence from Listed Manufacturing Firms in China. The Journal of International Management Studies, 7(1), 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, J. M. S. M. (2012). An Empirical Examination of Ownership Structure, Earnings Management and Growth Opportunities in Mexican Market. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 2(7), 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, T. (2007). Independent Directors: Magic Bullet or Band-Aid? [Online]. Available at http://epublications.bond.edu.au/CGej/5.

  • Roodman, D. (2009). A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouf, A. (2012). The Relationship Between Corporate Governance and Value of the Firm in Developing Countries: Evidence from Banagladesh. Journal of Economics and Business Research, 1, 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saat, N. A. M., & Kallamu, B. S. (2014). Ownership Structure, Independent Chair and Firm Performance. Pertanika Journals of Social Sciences & Humanities, 22, 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salim, M., & Yadav, R. (2012). Capital Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from Malaysian Listed Companies. Procedia—Social and Behavioural Sciences, 65, 156–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, E. L., Tan, D. T., & Walsh, K. D. (2010). Endogeneity and the Corporate Governance—Performance Relation. Australian Journal of Management, 35(2), 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwizer, P., Soana, M.-G., & Cucinelli, D. (2013). The Advantage of Board Diversity: An Empirical Analysis of the Italian Market. In A. Carretta & G. Mattarocci (Eds.), Financial Systems in Troubled Waters: Information, Strategies, and Governance to Enable Performance in Risk Times (pp. 79–96). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • SECP. (2012). Code of Corporate Governance 2012. Islamabad: Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large Shareholders and Corporate Control. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 461–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siregar, S. V., & Utama, S. (2008). Type of Earnings Management and the Effect of Ownership Structure, Firm Size, and Corporate-Governance Practices: Evidence from Indonesia. The International Journal of Accounting, 43(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Mitchell, T. R., & Summer, C. E. (1985). Top Level Management Priorities in Different Stages of the Organizational Life Cycle. The Academy of Management Journal, 28(4), 799–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudarsanam, S. (2000). Corporate Governance, Corporate Control and Takeovers. In S. Finkelstein & C. Cooper (Eds.), Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions (Vol. 1, pp. 119–155). Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions. s.l.: Emerald Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearsons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tacheva, S. & Huse, M., 2006. Women Directors and Board Task Performance: Mediating and Moderating Effects of Board Working Style. Conference Paper presented at European Academy. Oslo, Norway, Paper presented at the EURAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J. (1969, February). A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 1(1), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berghe, L., & Levrau, A. (2004). Evaluating Boards of Directors: What Constitutes a Good Corporate Board? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12, 461–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahba, H. (2015). The Joint Effect of Board Characteristics on Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from Egypt. Review of Accounting and Finance, 14(1), 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, O. R., & Nase, K. (1995). Firm-Specific Determinants of the Comprehensiveness of Mandatory Disclosure in the Corporate Annual Reports of Firms Listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 14(4), 311–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, J. H., & Van Den Berg, S. A. (1995). Research Methods for Communication Science. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattanatorn, W., & Kanchanapoom, T. (2012). Oil Prices and Profitability Performance: Sector Analysis. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 763–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the Dynamics of Internal Corporate Governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, T., & Zhao, S. (2014). CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Evidence from an Exogenous Shock to the Competitive Environment. Journal of Banking & Finance, 49, 534–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasser, Q. R. (2011). Corporate Governance and Performance: An Analysis of Pakistani Listed Firms. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(10), 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yatim, P., Kent, P., & Clarkson, P. (2006). Governance Structures, Ethnicity, and Audit Fees of Malaysian Listed Firms. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(7), 757–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yermack, D. (1996). Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz, O., Bozkurt, Ö. Ç., Kalkan, A., & Ayci, A. (2013). The Relationships Between Technological Investment, Firm Size, Firm Age and the Growth Rate of Innovational Performance. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 590–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, M. (2013). State Ownership and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies. China Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2), 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Board of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrative Model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London, UK

    Dr. Naeem Tabassum

  2. Dubai Business School, University of Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Dr. Satwinder Singh

Authors
  1. Dr. Naeem Tabassum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Satwinder Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naeem Tabassum .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tabassum, N., Singh, S. (2020). Research Design and Statistical Method. In: Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48527-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation