Suchergebnisse

"Die Corporate-Governance-Forschung hat sich lange Zeit vor allem auf die Veränderungen in den kontinentaleuropäischen 'Insidersystemen' konzentriert. Nach den dramatischen Unternehmensskandalen in den USA und im Zuge der steigenden Anforderungen an ein 'nachhaltiges Wirtschaften' werden in den letzten Jahren jedoch auch die Veränderungen in den angelsächsischen 'Outsidersystemen' stärker thematisiert. Damit wird die Prinzipal-Agenten-Theorie als die bislang dominierende Theorie der Corporate Governance einer grundlegenden Kritik unterzogen. Es verstärkt sich der Ruf nach neuen theoretischen Modellen, die der komplexen Realität dynamischer Corporate-Governance-Systeme besser entsprechen, als das klassische Paradigma. Die kritische Reflexion der Principal-Agent-Annahmen hat in den angelsächsischen Ländern in den letzten Jahren zu einem Aufschwung von Ansätzen und Studien geführt, die gegenüber der traditionellen Forschung breitere Sichtweisen auf die Corporate Governance einnehmen und neue Fragen im Hinblick auf die Gestaltung der Systeme aufwerfen. Die Ergebnisse dieser Forschung werden in Deutschland noch wenig diskutiert. Sie können aber wichtige Impulse für die Diskussion zur Reform der Unternehmensmitbestimmung und Weiterentwicklung der Aufsichtsratsarbeit bieten. Ziel des Literaturberichts ist es, die neueren Ansätze und Studien in Abgrenzung zur Principal-Agent-Theorie darzustellen und damit Ansatzpunkte für eine ressourcen- und prozessbezogene Veränderungsperspektive des deutschen Corporate-Governance-Systems zu entwickeln." (Autorenreferat)

In an organizational setting, the board members are the persons in whom power is entrusted by the principals to act as fiduciaries and to guide the organization. A main cause of concern originates from the elassical problem of the separation of ownership and control. Although agency theory, the dominant approach to research on corporate governance in particular, holds that the separation of ownership and control constitutes an efficient division of labor, there is widespread awareness that managers and boards may take actions that hurt principals or constituencies they are meant to serve. An agency problem can manifest in several ways. First, managers and boards exert insufficient effort while overcommitting themselves to external activities. Secon, they might reap private benefits in the form of perks. Last, they may take unnecessary risks by committing to mature projects. This basic agency problem suggests a possible definition of corporate governance and nongovernmental (organizational) governance as addressing both and adverse selection and a moral hazard problem. A good governance structure is then one that selects the most able managers and makes them accountable to relevant constituents. Moreover, strengthening board performance in NGOs and thus their governance structure is widely recognized as being a major requisite for the improvement of community services that NGOs provide.

The issues of governance which received much focus during the decade of 1990s, has further expanded with the inclusion of "e-governance"- the latter has enhanced service delivery, enlarged participation and made the democracy more inclusive. India is not an exception to e- governance initiatives which is apparent in the Declaration of year 2001 as "Year of E-Governance", earmarking two to three percent of plan budget towards e-governance etc. Crisis of governability, catching up with developed world and current trend towards globalization has made India to implement e-governance.
There is no uniformity in the application of e-governance in different states or provinces in India. Some states still are in the "preliminary stage" others in "catching up" stage. Only ten states have made serious efforts. Its success rates are not uniform- it varies between partial success to complete failure, including the fact that there are criticisms leveled against it for the reasons that it is "urban biased", "one way process" and that it would reduce the importance of bureaucracy, politicians. Despite the weakness one should appreciate the fact that it has reduced the cultural and geographical barriers, shifted the paradigm of "space" and helping in completing the project of incomplete modernity. However what is needed to strengthen e-governance is not only by clubbing Cafeteria and Phase model but also the success stories from other countries.