英语论文网

le position of the distribution, because it can keep balance between reducing agent cost and avoiding private benefits of control. Accordingly, the relationship between ownership concentration and performance should like an inverted U-shaped curve. But from the existing literatures on this issue in the past two decades, the research results have not achieved the consistency, and even some are diametrically opposed (Figure 1) .

Figure 1 Various results from exisiting research
Studies using single-equation linear models and OLS estimation show conflicting results. Hill and Snell (1989), Gedajlovic and Shapiro (2002), and Oswald and Jahera (1991) find a positive linear relationship between ownership concentration and firm performance. Some researchers suggest that there is not any relationship between ownership concentration and accounting-based performance (Demsetz and Lehn 1985; Holderness and Sheehan 1988; Lehmann and Weigand 2000; Mehran 1995; Pedersen and Thomsen 1999). The others determine a positive, curvilinear (inverted u-shaped) relationship between ownership concentration and market-based performance (Anderson and Reeb 2003; Edwards and Nibler 2000; Ma, Naughton and Tian 2010; McConnell and Servaes 1990; Morck, Shleifer and Vishny 1988). Nevertheless, the studies mentioned above do not take the possibility of endogeneity into account. Additionally, mixed results caused by institutional environments, sample sizes, performance measures, and when the identity of shareholders is considered.
Some researchers use Two-stage Least Squares methods and Granger Causality to account for endogeneity and find no correlation even a negative impact (Agrawal and Knoeber 1996; Cho 1998; Demsetz and Villalonga 2001; Himmelberg, Hubbard and Palia 1999; Loderer and Martin 1997; Miwa and Ramseyer 2003; Pedersen and Thomsen 2003; Weiß 2010; Welch 2003). Only two studies, which were conducted by de Miguel, Pindado, and Torre (2004) and Claessens and Djankov (1999) find the significant evidence- for the “weakly robust” performance effect of ownership concentration as using 2SLS regressions. And akin to the studies using OLS estimation, results vary because of institutional environments.
As using event studies and Granger tests, some studies detect positive correlation between ownership concentration and firm performance (Agrawal and Mandelker 1990; Barclay and Holderness 1991; Jennifer, Julia Porter and Tim 1998; Lewellen, Loderer and Rosenfeld 1985; Renneboog 2000; Thomsen, Pedersen and Kvist 2006), while others do not find any effects (Slovin and Sushka 1993; Song and Walkling 1993; Thomsen, Pedersen and Kvist 2006).
Causes of Conflicting Results
According to the existing studies and the meta-analyses by Sánchez-Ballesta and García-Meca (2007) and Van Essen and Van Oosterhout (2008), it appears that analyses of effects of ownership concentration on firm performance need to account for the potential endogenous determination, curvilinear effects, alternative performance measures, and institutional environment between different corporate government systems. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify how these differences influence the research result before conducting the research.
Endogeneity
Some empirical studies, treating ownership exogenous, largely support the agency theory predictions (a convex relationship). But others, when endogeneity is controlled by simultaneous equ