Abstract:State-owned enterprises (SOEs) contribute approximately 10% of the world's GDP. SOEs at one time were predicted to disappear from the economic landscape of the world, but today SOEs are growing more prevalent in the world economy. The current theories of the firm that form the pillars of the management discipline largely ignore the theoretical differences that SOEs introduce into the conceptualization of the firm. Therefore, we extend four core theories of the firm by incorporating SOEs as a mainstream (not sp… Show more
“…In sum, state ownership has traditionally been a drag on firm productivity and performance in China. However, considering the temporal role of market reforms that primarily focuses on developing a market orientation for SOEs in China (Peng et al, ), we suggest that many SOEs have evolved into strategic players and adapted to the new realm of corporate governance. Therefore: Hypothesis 4a : State ownership is negatively related to firm performance. Hypotheses 4b : The relationship between state ownership and firm performance becomes more positive over time.…”
Section: State Ownershipmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…These reforms exposed SOEs to the scrutiny of both internal and external governance mechanisms such as the board of directors and public investors (Tenev and Zhang, ). During institutional transitions, SOEs have gained greater autonomy regarding strategic decisions and profit allocation (Peng et al, ). To respond to the increasing market pressures, the State‐Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) started to intervene less by giving more authority to SOE boards and managers.…”
Section: State Ownershipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, because of the market reforms and the increasing integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world, Chinese SOEs face intense product market competition from both private and foreign‐owned companies (Mutlu et al, ). The competitive pressure has led some Chinese SOEs to become competitive players not only locally, but also increasingly globally (Peng et al, ). This is especially evident in industries such as telecommunications, banking, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and petrochemical – in which SOEs are prominently active (Ralston et al, ).…”
How has the impact of ‘good corporate governance’ principles on firm performance changed over time in China? Amassing a database of 84 studies, 684 effect sizes, and 547,622 firm observations, we explore this important question by conducting a meta‐analysis on the corporate governance literature on China. The weight of evidence demonstrates that two major ‘good corporate governance’ principles advocating board independence and managerial incentives are indeed associated with better firm performance. However, we cannot find strong support for the criticisms against CEO duality. In addition, we go beyond a static perspective (such as certain governance mechanisms are effective or ineffective) by investigating the temporal hypotheses. We reveal that over time, with the improvement in the quality of market institutions and development of financial markets, the monitoring mechanisms of the board and state ownership become more strongly related to firm performance, whereas the incentive mechanisms lose their significance. Overall, our findings advance a dynamic institution‐based view by substantiating the case that institutional transitions matter for the relationship between governance mechanisms and firm performance in the second largest economy in the world.
“…In sum, state ownership has traditionally been a drag on firm productivity and performance in China. However, considering the temporal role of market reforms that primarily focuses on developing a market orientation for SOEs in China (Peng et al, ), we suggest that many SOEs have evolved into strategic players and adapted to the new realm of corporate governance. Therefore: Hypothesis 4a : State ownership is negatively related to firm performance. Hypotheses 4b : The relationship between state ownership and firm performance becomes more positive over time.…”
Section: State Ownershipmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…These reforms exposed SOEs to the scrutiny of both internal and external governance mechanisms such as the board of directors and public investors (Tenev and Zhang, ). During institutional transitions, SOEs have gained greater autonomy regarding strategic decisions and profit allocation (Peng et al, ). To respond to the increasing market pressures, the State‐Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) started to intervene less by giving more authority to SOE boards and managers.…”
Section: State Ownershipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, because of the market reforms and the increasing integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world, Chinese SOEs face intense product market competition from both private and foreign‐owned companies (Mutlu et al, ). The competitive pressure has led some Chinese SOEs to become competitive players not only locally, but also increasingly globally (Peng et al, ). This is especially evident in industries such as telecommunications, banking, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and petrochemical – in which SOEs are prominently active (Ralston et al, ).…”
How has the impact of ‘good corporate governance’ principles on firm performance changed over time in China? Amassing a database of 84 studies, 684 effect sizes, and 547,622 firm observations, we explore this important question by conducting a meta‐analysis on the corporate governance literature on China. The weight of evidence demonstrates that two major ‘good corporate governance’ principles advocating board independence and managerial incentives are indeed associated with better firm performance. However, we cannot find strong support for the criticisms against CEO duality. In addition, we go beyond a static perspective (such as certain governance mechanisms are effective or ineffective) by investigating the temporal hypotheses. We reveal that over time, with the improvement in the quality of market institutions and development of financial markets, the monitoring mechanisms of the board and state ownership become more strongly related to firm performance, whereas the incentive mechanisms lose their significance. Overall, our findings advance a dynamic institution‐based view by substantiating the case that institutional transitions matter for the relationship between governance mechanisms and firm performance in the second largest economy in the world.
“…A key role in managing state-owned resources is played by the so-called State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). An SOE is a "firm that is (wholly or partially) owned and controlled by the state (government)" [2]. The state exercises ownership over SOEs in the interests of the public.…”
State Forest Management Organizations (SFMOs) play a crucial role in the European forest sector, managing almost half of the forests in the region. SFMOs are often only managed for timber production, whereas, being publicly owned, they should play an important role in providing a vast range of public goods (e.g., soil protection, biodiversity conservation). Their management goals depend on the history and current conditions of the forest sector at a national level, as well as different challenges and the potential for development. Although there is a lack of knowledge about the current performance of SFMOs, there have been recent changes to their management goals and practices in response to the new demands expressed by society (e.g., transparency, social inclusion). The main purpose of this study was to analyze the current situation of SFMOs by grouping them with the help of a Cluster Analysis according to indicators that reflect the three pillars of the common understanding of the sustainable forest management (SFM) concept. Additionally, in light of the differences in the forest practices and management priorities in each country, we used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to group countries according to common characteristics of the forest sector at the national level. The results showed three main clusters of SFMOs in Europe. The first cluster had a rather small but commercially-oriented forestry unit together with other business activities and a strong focus on public services. The second focused on public interest, rather than commercially-oriented organizations. The third is mainly profit-seeking. The existence of diverse SFMO clusters shows the possibility of different approaches for SFM with a focus on different goals (e.g., profit gaining, public service delivery).
“…The study of SOEs from strategic entrepreneurship perspectives is tremendously limited, which is surprising given that SOEs face the similar challenges in common with other type of enterprises, private, small and medium, family and multi-national enterprises, competing in an open and free market (Verreynne & Luke, 2006). Most strategic management and entrepreneurship theories also based on the archetypical firm of private-owned and smallmedium enterprises (Peng et al, 2016). How these theories applied to SOEs have not much been studied, specifically the SOEs in emerging economies such as Indonesia.…”
State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) play crucial roles in the economy, including in the most advanced ones. SOEs, especially in Indonesia, are facing dynamic changes and need to adapt to rapid environmental changes and high complexities. Internally, they are required to ensure that wealth is created and distributed throughout the nation as mandated by the law to meet the demand of public services and to protect domestic concerns. On the other side, they must improve their competitiveness to deal with global open market competition in both technological and demand changes. SOEs' transformation has been the goal of Indonesia's economic renewal. This paper aimed to understand the SOEs' strategic entrepreneurship processes in developing their capabilities to create systematic innovation performance. Dynamic capability framework is used to explain entrepreneurship and strategic actions through the variables of firm absorptive capacity in the changing environment and the relationship on dynamic innovation capability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
