EXPLORING THE HOTSPOTS AND FRONTIERS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN EMERGING MARKETS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS BASED ON WEB OF SCIENCE CORE COLLECTION AND CITESPACE

Abstract

Through using co-citation analysis, this paper presents a general picture of the research hotspots and research frontiers in corporate governance in emerging markets. Paper’s sample for analysis consists of 2980 original research articles and review articles dated 2000-2019, retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection. With the help of the whole variety of tools, CiteSpace offers authors conduct a visual domain analysis of corporate governance in emerging markets research. The findings allow authors to conclude that current research hotspots are corporate governance, emerging markets, corporate social responsibility, firm performance, ownership structure, etc. Besides, thirteen still active terms are collected from the Strongest Citation Bursts that can be considered as the research fronts of corporate governance in emerging markets. The latest citation bursts that smoothly flow into the present are: panel data (2017-2019), Indian firms (2017-2019), moderating role (2017-2019) and institutional ownership (2017-2019) and the longest citation burst streak are associated with audit committee (2016-2019).
This study has provided a scientometric review that could be valuable to those who are interested in this topic and complement other types of research in this field.

How to quote:

Oleh Pasko, Zhang Li. Exploring the hotspots and frontiers of corporate governance in
emerging markets: a bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science Core Collection and
CiteSpace. Scientific notes of the National University "Ostroh Academy".
Series "Economics": a scientific journal. Ostrog: NaUAA Publishing House, September 2020.
№ 19 (47). Pp. 64–73.

Formula: 0; fig .: 3; tab .: 1; bibl .: 54.

Link:

1. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo‐Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of Good Governance. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 17(3), 376-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00737.x [The United States]
2. Aharony, J., Wang, J., & Yuan, H. (2010). Tunneling as an incentive for earnings management during the IPO
process in China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 29(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaccpubpol.2009.10.003 [The Netherland]
3. Avcın, M., & Balcıoğlu, H. (2017). Corporate Governance: A Model of Modern Corporate Governance Framework
for the Better Governance of Companies (pp. 207–234). https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-052320170000012009 [Germany]
4. Baek, J.-S., Kang, J.-K., & Park, K. S. (2004). Corporate governance and firm value: Evidence from the Korean
financial crisis. Journal of Financial economics, 71(2), 265-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00167-3 [The
Netherland]
5. Bereskin, F. L., Kim, B., & Oh, F. D. (2015). Do credit rating concerns lead to better corporate governance?
Evidence from Korea. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35, 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2015.10.005 [The
Netherland]
6. Bhaumik, S. K., Driffield, N., & Pal, S. (2010). Does ownership structure of emerging-market firms affect their
outward FDI? The case of the Indian automotive and pharmaceutical sectors. Journal of International Business Studies,
41(3), 437-450. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.52 [The United Kingdom]
7. Black, B. S., De Carvalho, A. G., & Gorga, É. (2012). What matters and for which firms for corporate governance
in emerging markets? Evidence from Brazil (and other BRIK countries). Journal of corporate Finance, 18(4), 934-952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2011.10.001 [The Netherland]
8. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Hug, S. E. (2018). Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers
published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics, 114(2), 427–437. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8 [The Netherland]
9. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New
perspectives on private governance. Socio-economic review, 10(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr030 [The
United Kingdom]
10. Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family–controlled firms. Entrepreneurship
theory and practice, 29(3), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00081.x [The United States]
11. Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(Supplement 1), 5303–5310. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.0307513100 [The United States]
12. Chen, C. (2012). Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for
information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431-449. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21694 [The United States]
13. Chen, C. (2017). Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Data and Information
Science. 2(2), 1-40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006 [China]
14. Chen, Y., & Wu, C. (2017). The hot spot transformation in the research evolution of maker. Scientometrics,
113(3), 1307-1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2542-4 [The Netherland]
15. Choi, S. B., Lee, S. H., & Williams, C. (2011). Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy: Evidence
from China. Research Policy, 40(3), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.004 [The Netherland]
16. Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools:
Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for information Science and
Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525 [The United States]
17. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Dau, L. A. (2009). Promarket reforms and firm profitability in developing countries.
Academy of Management journal, 52(6), 1348-1368. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.47085192 [The United States]
18. Dharwadkar, B., George, G., & Brandes, P. (2000). Privatization in emerging economies: An agency theory
perspective. Academy of management review, 25(3), 650-669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3363533 [The United
States]
19. Garay, U., & González, M. (2008). Corporate governance and firm value: The case of Venezuela. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 194-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00680.x [The United
Kingdom]
20. Gupta, P. K., & Singh, S. (2018). Corporate Governance Structures in Transition Economies – Issues and
Concerns for India. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(6), 1459–1467. https://
doi.org/10.11118/actaun201866061459 [The Netherland]
21. He, X., Pittman, J. A., Rui, O. M., & Wu, D. (2017). Do social ties between external auditors and audit committee
members affect audit quality? The Accounting Review, 92(5), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51696 [The United
States]
22. Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 492-509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00760.x
[The United Kingdom]
23. Jizi, M. (2017). The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 26(5), 640-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1943 [The United States]
24. Johnson, S., Boone, P., Breach, A., & Friedman, E. (2000). Corporate governance in the Asian financial crisis.
Journal of Financial economics, 58(1-2), 141-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00069-6 [The Netherland]
25. Kent Baker, H., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of board diversity:
Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 108, 232–246. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025 [The Netherland]
26. Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. (2007). Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of
economic literature, 45(2), 331-372. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.45.2.331 [The United States]
27. Kim, W. S., Kiymaz, H., & Oh, S. (2020). Do country-level legal, corporate governance, and cultural characteristics
influence the relationship between insider ownership and dividend policy? Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 64, 101457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101457 [The Netherland]
28. Klapper, L. F., & Love, I. (2004). Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging
markets. Journal of corporate Finance, 10(5), 703-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(03)00046-4 [The
Netherland]
29. Li, D., Cao, C., Zhang, L., Chen, X., Ren, S., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Effects of corporate environmental responsibility
on financial performance: The moderating role of government regulation and organizational slack. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 166, 1323-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.129 [The Netherland]
30. Li, W., & Zhang, R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference:
Evidence from China. Journal of business ethics, 96(4), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0488-z [The
Netherland]
31. Lin, C. P., & Chuang, C. M. (2011). Principal‐principal conflicts and IPO pricing in an emerging economy.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(6), 585-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00870.x
[The United Kingdom]
32. Masulis, R. W., & Zhang, E. J. (2019). How valuable are independent directors? Evidence from external
distractions. Journal of Financial Economics, 132(3), 226–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.02.014 [The
Netherland]
33. Melón-Izco, Á., Ruiz-Cabestre, F. J., & Ruiz-Olalla, C. (2019). Determinants of good governance practices: the
role of board independence. Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad. https://doi.org/10.1080/02102412.201
9.1655336 [The United Kingdom]
34. Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D., & Yeung, B. (2005). Corporate governance, economic entrenchment, and growth.
Journal of economic literature, 43(3), 655-720. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205105774431252 [The United States]
35. Musleh Alsartawi, A. (2019). Board independence, frequency of meetings and performance. Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 10(1), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-01-2018-0017 [The United States]
36. Neville, F., Byron, K., Post, C., & Ward, A. (2019). Board Independence and Corporate Misconduct: A CrossNational Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2538–2569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318801999 [The
United States]
37. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate
social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92, 163. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17183795 [The
United States]
38. Roussy, M., & Brivot, M. (2016). Internal audit quality: a polysemous notion? Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2014-1843 [The United Kingdom]
39. Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and society, 37(1),
1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760833 [The United Kingdom]
40. Shan, Y. G. (2019). Managerial ownership, board independence and firm performance. Accounting Research
Journal, 32(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-09-2017-0149 [The United Kingdom]
41. Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. (2009). Business group affiliation, firm governance, and firm performance: Evidence
from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8683.2009.00750.x [The United Kingdom]
42. Singh, D., & Delios, A. (2017). Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international
markets: Evidence from India. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 615-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.02.002
[The United Kingdom]
43. Singla, C., Veliyath, R., & George, R. (2014). Family firms and internationalization‐governance relationships:
Evidence of secondary agency issues. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 606-616. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2111
[The United States]
44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 [The
United States]
45. Stein, L. C. D., & Zhao, H. (2019). Independent executive directors: How distraction affects their advisory
and monitoring roles. Journal of Corporate Finance, 56, 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2019.02.003 [The
Netherland]
46. Wang, R., Wijen, F., & Heugens, P. P. (2018). Government’s green grip: Multifaceted state influence on
corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.2714 [The United States]
47. Wang, W., & Lu, C. (2020). Visualization analysis of big data research based on Citespace. Soft Computing,
24(11), 8173–8186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04384-7 [Germany]
48. Wei, F., & Zhang, G. (2020). Exploring the intellectual structure and evolution of 24 top business journals: a
scientometric analysis. The Electronic Library, 38(3), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2019-0279 [The United
Kingdom]
49. Wu, K., Sorensen, S., & Sun, L. (2019). Board independence and information asymmetry: family firms vs nonfamily firms. Asian Review of Accounting, 27(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-05-2018-0110 [The United
Kingdom]
50. Yang, K.-C. (2016). Intellectual structure of trust in business and management: a co-citation analysis. The
Electronic Library, 34(3), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2014-0121 [The United Kingdom]
51. Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2002). Governing the Corporation in Emerging
Economies: A Principal-Principal Perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2002(1), E1-E6. https://doi.
org/10.5465/apbpp.2002.7516497 [The United States]
52. Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Corporate governance in emerging
economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. Journal of management studies, 45(1), 196-220. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00752.x [The United Kingdom]
53. Zaid, M. A. A., Abuhijleh, S. T. F., & Pucheta‐Martínez, M. C. (2020). Ownership structure, stakeholder
engagement, and corporate social responsibility policies: The moderating effect of board independence. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, csr.1888. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1888 [The United States]
54. Zattoni, A., Pedersen, T., & Kumar, V. (2009). The performance of group‐affiliated firms during institutional
transition: A longitudinal study of Indian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 510-523.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00761.x [The United Kingdom]

This magazine is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License.

The texts of the journal's articles are checked with the help of an anti-plagiarist
UniCheck