Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/99343
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Management and Marketingen_US
dc.creatorChung, CNen_US
dc.creatorLuo, XRen_US
dc.creatorZheng, Wen_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-06T09:17:05Z-
dc.date.available2023-07-06T09:17:05Z-
dc.identifier.issn0022-2380en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/99343-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen_US
dc.rights© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.en_US
dc.rightsThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.en_US
dc.rightsThe following publication Chung, C.-N., Luo, X.R. and Zheng, W. (2024), Institutional Divide, Political Ties, and Contested Corporate Governance Reform in Taiwan. J. Manage. Stud., 61: 1327-1363 is available at https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12921.en_US
dc.subjectCorporate governance reformen_US
dc.subjectCorporate political tiesen_US
dc.subjectInstitutional divideen_US
dc.subjectPresidential democracyen_US
dc.titleInstitutional divide, political ties, and contested corporate governance reform in Taiwanen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage1327en_US
dc.identifier.epage1363en_US
dc.identifier.volume61en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/joms.12921en_US
dcterms.abstractThis study attempts to address the question of under what conditions political ties buffer firms from, or bind firms to, political pressure. We draw attention to the institutional divide between the executive and legislative branches of a presidential democracy. Using the case of Taiwan, a ‘third wave’ democracy with relatively strong state intervention, we argue that the two branches differ in their respective institutional roles, basis of legitimacy, and resources in a context in which the regime is seeking to fulfil its national agenda and please floating voters. We posit that corporate ties to these respective branches exert divergent influence on the adoption of government-initiated but highly contested corporate governance reforms. Ties to the executive branch push firms to reform because they depend on the government for resources, while ties to the legislative branch act as a buffer to reform as legislators court the support of firms in pursuit of electoral gains. Empirical analysis of reforms to enhance board independence from 2002 to 2005 supports our thesis. Our study contributes to research on corporate political strategy and corporate governance reform, revealing how the structural fragmentation of the state can give rise to conflicting roles of political ties to different branches.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of management studies, June 2024, v. 61, no. 4, p. 1327-1363en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of management studiesen_US
dcterms.issued2024-06-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85152376309-
dc.identifier.eissn1467-6486en_US
dc.description.validate202307 bcvcen_US
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera2173a, a2399, a3489b-
dc.identifier.SubFormID46876, 47615, 50238-
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingSourceSelf-fundeden_US
dc.description.fundingTextFunds of Rudolf and Valeria Maag at INSEADen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.description.oaCategoryCCen_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Chung_Institutional_Divide_Political.pdf931.61 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

70
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

Downloads

37
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
Citations as of Dec 19, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

3
Citations as of Sep 26, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.