Corporate Governance

Authors Name

Instructor Name

Subject

Date

Corporate governance

Corporate governance is based on aprioristic theorizing and tends to give emphasis to problems of collective action that prevent shareholders from monitoring managers and problems that appear in the agent principal relationship. Other works lean to found rather ad hoc definitions of corporate governance, such as dismissals of top managers, that may or may not divulge much concerning the effectiveness of corporate governance mechanisms.

Corporate governance usually has addressed issues concerned with the exercise of choice and the formation of opportunities, and how choices and prospects have an impact on institutions, decision-making and responsibility (Bird and Waters, 1987). Corporate governance has focused on corporate entities, formed under the law, and often locked mutually by ownership within groups.

From a historical perspective, the appearance of organizations that look like today's corporate entities took the shape of towns, universities and monastic orders founded in the middle Ages (Carroll, 1989). The means elements providing the basis of current corporations were that towns and other social and shared orders existed independently of any particular membership, as well as all assets and holdings belong to the collective itself, distinctive them from partnerships ( Monks and Minow, 1996 ). These collective organizations arose as a protection against the central power of royalist autocrats and as a way of persuades sources of wealth and power, free from royal authority (Monks and Minow, 1996). With the development in the Middle Ages of double-entry bookkeeping, formed to check on errors in accounting and thus separate a person's private life from his/her business, the firm appeared as a separate entity, beyond the life of the owner/operator and within a social environment of communal ownership. Subsequently, the first joint stock companies were formed in Britain and Holland during the early seventeenth century, in response to the growing markets of the East and West Indies (Monks and Minow, 1996).

In the UK and its colonies, the group of people who had the accountability of overseeing the company would meet frequently and assemble around a long board laid across two sawhorses. Therefore, the group came to be known as ‘the board’, after this makeshift table. The leader of the board was called the ‘chairman’, illustrious by being seated on a chair, compared to the stools obtainable for the others (Monks and Minow, 1996).

The pattern of corporate governance that is rising in transition economies is, at least in the short term, path reliant, reflecting the means used to privatize state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the laws that have been enacted