Yönetim Kurullarını Vekâlet Teorisi Perspektifiyle Ele Alan Araştırmaların Bibliyometrik Analizi

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 317 - 335, 07.10.2022

Selcen Sarı Aytekin

https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.1166089

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yönetim kurullarını vekâlet teorisi perspektifiyle irdeleyen akademik yazının gelişimi ve eğilimlerini ortaya koyarak yazına ve bu konuda araştırma yapmayı hedefleyen araştırmacılara katkıda bulunmaktır. Bu amaçla Scopus veri tabanında “agency theory”, “board of directors”, “board structure”, “board composition”, “board characteristic” ve “CEO duality” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak arama yapılmıştır. Arama sonucunda 1992-2022 yılları arasında işletme, yönetim ve muhasebe alanlarında yapılan toplamda 573 çalışma araştırma örneklemini oluşturmuştur. Bu örneklemden elde edilen veri seti RStudio programında yer alan “biblioshiny” uygulamasında analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, alanın gelişiminin makaleler aracılığıyla gerçekleştiğini, en sık kullanılan anahtar kelimelerin ise “kurumsal yönetim”, “vekâlet teorisi” ve “yönetim kurulu” olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca araştırma sonuçları en çok atıf alan yayınların, yayınlandıkları dergileri en çok atıf yapılan dergiler listesinin başına yerleştirdiğine işaret etmektedir. Tematik harita ise, temsil teorisi ve kaynak bağımlılığı teorilerini vekâlet teorisi ile birleştiren araştırmalar mevcut olsa dâhi bu çabaların alanın gelişimi için sınırlı öneme sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Vekâlet Kuramı, Yönetim Kurulu Yapısı, Bibliyometrik Analiz, Biblioshiny.

Bibliometric Analysis of Researches Examining Board of Directors with Agency Theory Perspective

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the development and trends of academic literature examining the board of directors with agency theory perspective, and thus to contribute to the literature and researchers who aim to do research on this subject. For this purpose, a search was conducted by using the keywords "agency theory", "board of directors", "board structure", "board composition", "board characteristic" and "CEO duality" in the Scopus database. As a result of the search, a total of 573 studies in business, management and accounting fields which were conducted between 1992-2022 constituted the research sample. The data set obtained from this sample was analyzed in “biblioshiny” application in the RStudio program. Analysis results reveal that the development of field is provided through articles, and the most frequently used keywords are "corporate governance", "agency theory" and "board of director". Also, the results indicate that the most cited publications put their journals at the top of the most cited journals list. Thematic map, on the other hand, reveals that even efforts to combine stewardship theory and resource dependence theory with agency theory have limited importance for the development of the field.

Keywords

Agency Theory, Board Structure, Bibliometric Analysis, Biblioshiny

References

• Akyüz, B. (2009). Kurumsal yönetim ve Türkiye’de kurumsal yönetim düzenlemeleri. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 2(2), 53-81.
• Antwi, I. F. (2021). Bibliometric analysis: Agency theory in accounting. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies, 7(1), 56-76.
• Aria, M., Misuraca, M., & Spano, M. (2020). Mapping the evolution of social research and data science on 30 years of Social Indicators Research. Social Indicators Research, 149(3), 803-831.
• Aria, M., Alterisio, A., Scandurra, A., Pinelli, C., & D’Aniello, B. (2021). The scholar’s best friend: Research trends in dog cognitive and behavioral studies. Animal Cognition, 24(3), 541-553.
• Aşkun, V. Ve Çizel, R. (2019). Kompleks problem çözme üzerine R programı ile bir bibliyometrik analiz. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 9(1), 37-47.
• Bathala, C. T., & Rao, R. P. (1995). The determinants of board composition: An agency theory perspective. Managerial and Decision Economics, 16(1), 59-69.
• Beatty, R. P., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Managerial incentives, monitoring, and risk bearing: A study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 313-335.
• Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), 301-312.
• Brickley, J. A., Coles, J. L., & Jarrell, G. (1997). Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and chairman of the board. Journal of Corporate Finance, 3(3), 189-220.
• Brigham, E. F., & Daves, P. R. (2007). Intermediate Financial Management (9th ed.). USA: Thomson South-Western.
• Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373-379.
• Buchanan, A. (1996). Toward a theory of the ethics of bureaucratic organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4), 419-440.
• Cai, C. X., Hillier, D., Tian, G., & Wu, Q. (2015). Do audit committees reduce the agency costs of ownership structure?. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35, 225-240.
• Carter, D. A., D'Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(5), 396-414.
• Cobo, M. J., Martínez, M. A., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 80, 3-13.
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. M. (2002). Corporate governance and the audit process. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4), 573-594.
• Diodato, V. P. (2012). Dictionary of bibliometrics. NewYork: Routledge.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
• Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307.
• Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983a). Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 327-349.
• Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983b). Seperation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
• Fauzi, F., & Locke, S. (2012). Do agency costs really matter? A non-linear approach to panel data. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4(1), 359-376.
• Fontrodona, J., & Sison, A. J. G. (2006). The nature of the firm, agency theory and shareholder theory: A critique from philosophical anthropology. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 33-42.
• Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235-255.
• Huang, C. Y., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). Historical research on corporate governance: A bibliometric analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 276-284.
• Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
• Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1996). Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3), 409-438.
• Kırkbeşoğlu, E., Sözen, H. C. ve Kurt, E. (2015). Türkiyede örgüt kuramı çalışmalarının bibliyometrik profili: Atıf ağlarının dönemsel karşılaştırılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, (52), 109-136.
• Li, J. (1994). Ownership structure and board composition: A multi-country test of agency theory predictions. Managerial and Decision Economics, 15(4), 359-368.
• Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.
• McKnight, P. J., & Weir, C. (2009). Agency costs, corporate governance mechanisms and ownership structure in large UK publicly quoted companies: A panel data analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49(2), 139-158.
• Miller, J. L. (2002). The board as a monitor of organizational activity: The applicability of agency theory to nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 429-450.
• Nedelchev, M. (2018). Bibliometric review of corporate governance theories and methods. Economic Studies, (4), 126-145.
• Peasnell, K. V., Pope, P. F., & Young, S. (2005). Board monitoring and earnings management: Do outside directors influence abnormal accruals?. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32(7-8), 1311-1346.
• Poletti-Hughes, J., & Briano-Turrent, G. C. (2019). Gender diversity on the board of directors and corporate risk: A behavioural agency theory perspective. International Review of Financial Analysis, 62, 80-90.
• Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981-1004.
• Roberts, J. (2005). Agency theory, ethics and corporate governance. In C. R. Lehman (Ed.), Corporate governance: Does any size fit? (pp. 249-269). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
• Rosenstein, S., & Wyatt, J. G. (1990). Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 26(2), 175-191.
• Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 134-139.
• Sanders, W. G., & Carpenter, M. A. (1998). Internationalization and firm governance: The roles of CEO compensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 158-178.
• Sivankalai, S., & Sivasekaran, K. (2021). Mucormycosis (black fungus) maiming Covid patients: Scientometrics analysis through prism of Biblioshiny. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 5546, 1-20.
• Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
• Susilo, B., & Ria, R. (2022). Trends of agency theory in accounting, financial and management research: Systematic literature review. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(2), 14430-14436.
• Şen, A. (2006). Asimetrik bilgi-finansal kriz ilişkisi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (14), 1-24.
• Turgut, E. ve Begenirbaş, M. (2016). Türkiye’deki örgütsel davranış yazınına bakış: Örgütsel davranış kongrelerinin yazar ve içerik yönünden ağ analizi ile incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 328-354.
• Tuzlukaya, Ş. E. (2019). Sosyal ağdüzeneği kuramı çalışmaları: Yönetim ve işletme alanlarına dair bibliyometrik bir analiz. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(1-2), 28-49.
• Vafeas, N. (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53(1), 113-142.
• Young, G. J., Stedham, Y., & Beekun, R. I. (2000). Boards of directors and the adoption of a CEO performance evaluation process: Agency -and institutional- theory perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 277-295.
• Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., & Duan, Z. (2016). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 967-972.
• Zheng, C., & Kouwenberg, R. (2019). A bibliometric review of global research on corporate governance and board attributes. Sustainability, 11(12), 1-25.