The premise underlying the introduction of corporate governance principles in the Australian higher education sector is that good governance results in good performance. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the influence of internal and external corporate governance mechanisms as determinants of performance in the context of Australian publicly-funded universities. Secondary data from annual reports were transformed to create indices of internal and external governance practices, and teaching, research and financial performance. Relationships between governance and performance were analysed using correlation analysis. The study illustrated in this paper is important as literature suggests that corporate governance mechanisms and the influence of these mechanisms on performance are contradictory. The results of this study do not support the contention that in Australia, the governance of universities has a significant relationship with their performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottM., & DoucouliagosC.2003a, ‘The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis’, Economics of Education Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 89–97.
2.
AbbottM., & DoucouliagosC.2003b, ‘Research output of Australian universities’, Education Economics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 251–65.
3.
AgrawalA., & KnoeberC.R.2013, ‘Corporate governance and firm performance’, in ThomasCR, & William ShughartI.I. (eds), Oxford handbook of managerial economics, Oxford University Press, New York.
4.
AgrawalA., & KnoeberC.R.1996, ‘Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders’, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 377–397.
5.
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)1999, Applying principles and practices of corporate governance in budget funded agencies, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.
6.
Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)2003, Corporate governance council principles of good corporate governance and best practice recommendations, Australian Securities Exchange, Sydney.
7.
BermanS., WicksA., KothaS., & JonesT.1999, ‘Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 488–506.
8.
BirdJ.2007, ‘Taking it on board: quality audit for higher education governance’, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 101–115.
9.
BirrellB., & EdwardsD.2009, ‘The Bradley Review and access to higher education in Australia’, Australian Universities’ Review, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 4–13.
10.
BhagatS., & BlackB.2001, ‘Non-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance’, Journal of Corporation Law, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 231–274.
11.
BoydB.K.1995, ‘CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 301–12.
12.
BradleyD., NoonanP., NugentH., & ScalesB.2009, Review of Australian higher education: final report, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.
13.
CallenJ.L., KleinA., & TinkelmanD.2003, ‘Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: the case of nonprofits’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 493–520.
14.
ChagantiR.S., MahajanV., & SharmaS.1985, ‘Corporate board size, composition and corporate failures in the retailing industry’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 400–417.
15.
CarringtonR., CoelliT., & RaoP.2005, ‘The performance of Australian universities: conceptual issues and preliminary results’, Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy, vol. 24 no. 2, pp. 145–63.
16.
ClarkeT. (ed) 2004, Theories of corporate governance. The philosophical foundations of corporate governance, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, New York, pp. 1–370.
17.
DaltonD.R., & KesnerI.F.1987, ‘Composition and CEO duality in boards of directors: an international perspective’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 33–42.
18.
DavisJ.H., SchoormanF.D., & DonaldsonL.1997, ‘Towards a stewardship theory of management’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 20–47.
19.
De MatosJ.2001, Theoretical foundations of corporate finance, Princeton University Press, Woodstock.
20.
De Silva LokuwadugeC.S.2011, Governance and performance: an empirical study of Australian universities, School of Law, Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University, Melbourne
21.
DonaldsonL.1990, ‘The ethereal hand: organizational economics and management theory’, Journal of Management Review, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 369–381.
22.
DonaldsonL., & DavisJ.H.1991, ‘Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns’, Australian Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 49–64.
23.
DonaldsonL., & DavisJ.H.1994, ‘Boards and company performance: research challenges the conventional wisdom’, Corporate Governance, An International Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 151–160.
24.
EisenbergT., SundgrenS., & WellsM.T.1998, ‘Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms’, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 35–54.
25.
FamaE.F.1980, ‘Agency problems and the theory of the firm’, The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 288–307.
26.
FamaE.F., & JensenM.C.1983a, ‘Agency problems and residual claims’, The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 327–349.
27.
FamaE.F., & JensenM.C.1983b, ‘Separation of ownership and control’, Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 301–325.
28.
FreemanR.E.1984, Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Pitman Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
29.
GietzmannM., & IrelandJ.2005, ‘Cost of capital, strategic disclosures and accounting choice’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, vol. 32, no. 3-4, pp. 599–634.
30.
GuthrieJ., & NeumannR.2007, ‘Economic and non-financial performance indicators in universities: the establishment of a performance-driven system for Australian higher education’, Public Management Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 231–252.
31.
HarmanK., & TreadgoldE.2007, ‘Changing patterns of governance for Australian universities’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13–29.
32.
HermalinB.E., & WeisbachM.S.2003, ‘Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature’, Economic Policy Review — Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7–26.
33.
HermalinB.E., & WeisbachM.S.2007, Transparency and corporate governance, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, no. w12875, pp. 1–20viewed 24 October 2012, http://www.nber.org/papers/w12875.
34.
HimmelbergC.P., HubbardR.G., & PaliaD.1999, ‘Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance’, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 353–384.
35.
IsaacS., & MichaelW.B.1974, Handbook in research and evaluation: for education and the behavioural sciences, R. Knapp, San Diego, California.
36.
JacobsonD., & Andréosso-O'CallaghanB.1996, Industrial economics and organization, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, United Kingdom.
37.
JensenM.C.2002, ‘Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 235–256.
38.
JensenM.C., & MecklingW.H.1976, ‘Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 305–360.
39.
JohnK., & SenbetL.1998, ‘Corporate governance and board effectiveness’, Journal of Banking & Finance, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 371–403.
40.
JohnsonA.B.1981, ‘Problems of contraction: legal considerations in university retrenchment’, Journal of Law & Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 269–324.
41.
KhanchelI.2007, ‘Corporate governance: measurement and determinant analysis’, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 740–760.
42.
KesnerI.F., & JohnsonR.B.1990, ‘An investigation of the relationship between board composition and stockholder suits’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 327–336.
43.
KielG., & NicholsonG.2003, ‘Board composition and corporate performance: how the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 189–205.
44.
KleinA.1998, ‘Firm performance and board committee structure’, The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 275–303.
45.
KrivogorskyV.2006, ‘Ownership, board structure, and performance in continental Europe’, International Journal of Accounting, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 176–197.
46.
LokuwadugeC.D.S., & ArmstrongA.2014, ‘The impact of governance on the performance of the higher education sector in Australia’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 25 July 2014, DOI: 10.1177/1741143214535740.
47.
McKinnonK., WalkerS., & DavisD.2000, Benchmarking: a manual for Australian universities, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), Canberra.
48.
NelsonB.2003, Our universities: backing Australia's future, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
49.
NeumannR., & GuthrieJ.2006, ‘Performance indicators in Australian universities: establishment, development and issues’, paper presented at the EIASM 2nd Workshop on the Process of Reform of University Systems, Venice, 4-6 May
50.
OgdenS., & WatsonR.1999, ‘Corporate performance and stakeholder management: balancing shareholder and customer interests in the UK privatized water industry’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 526–538.
51.
PattonM.1997, Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
52.
RamsdenP.1991, ‘A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 129–150.
53.
RamsdenP., & MosesI.1992, ‘Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher education’, Higher Education, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 273–295.
54.
SimonsH.2009, Case study research in practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
55.
StakeR.E.2005, The art of case study research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
56.
ShleiferA., & VishnyR.1997, ‘A survey of corporate governance’, Journal of Finance, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 737–783.
UseemM.1984, The inner circle: large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the US and UK, Oxford University Press, New York.
60.
WicksA., BermanS., & JonesT.1999, ‘Using least squares to approximate unknown regression functions’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 99–116.
61.
WorthingtonA.C., & LeeB.L.2005, ‘Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998-2003’, School of Economics and Finance discussion papers and working papers series, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
62.
WilliamsR., & Van DykeN.2004, The International Standing of Australian Universities, Melbourne Institute Report No. 4, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
63.
ZarowinP.2002, Does income smoothing make stock prices morei?, working paper series, New York University, New York.
64.
ZhouX.2000, ‘CEO pay, firm size, and corporate performance: evidence from Canada’, Canadian Journal of Economics (Revue canadienne d'économique), vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 213–251.
