The effects of ownership, board size and board composition on the performance of Italian water utilities

Utilities Policy

Volumn 31, Issue , 2014, Pages 18-28

  Romano, Giulia ^a   Guerrini, Andrea ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Board composition; Corporate governance; Italy; Ownership; Water utilities

Indexed keywords

CAPITAL MARKET; CORPORATE STRATEGY; FIRM OWNERSHIP; FIRM SIZE; INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; PROFITABILITY; WATER INDUSTRY;

ITALY;

EID: 84907536779     PISSN: 09571787     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2014.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abbott M., Cohen B. Productivity and efficiency in the water industry. Util. Policy 2009, 17:233-244.
2. Adams R.B., Hermailin B.E., Weisbach M.S. The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: a conceptual framework and survey. J.Econ. Lit. 2010, 48(1):58-107.
3. Adams R.B., Ferreira D. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J.Financ. Econ. 2009, 94:291-309.
4. Agrawal A., Knoeber C.R. Do some outside directors play a political role?. J.Law Econ. 2001, 44(1):179-198.
5. Bakker K. From public to private to... public? Re-regulating and mutualising private water supply in England and Wales. Geoforum 2003, 34(3):359-374.
6. Berg S.V., Marques R.C. Quantitative studies of water and sanitation utilities: a literature survey. Water Policy 2011, 13(5):591-606.
7. Bertrand M., Kramarz F., Schoar A., Thesmar D. Politicians, Firms and the Political Business Cycle: Evidence from France 2007, University of Chicago, Mimeo.
8. Bognetti G., Robotti L. The provision of local public services through mixed enterprises: the Italian case. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2007, 78(3):415-437.
9. Boardman A., Vining A. Ownership and performance in competitive environments: a comparison of the performance of private, mixed and state-owned enterprises. J.Law Econ. 1989, 32(1):1-33.
10. Boubakri N., Cosset J., Saffar W. Political connections of newly privatized firms. J.Corp. Finance 2008, 14:654-673.
11. Boycko M., Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Atheory of privatization. Econ. J. 1996, 106:309-319.
12. Bozec R., Dia M. Board structure and firm technical efficiency: evidence from Canadian state-owned enterprises. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 177:1734-1750.
13. Carrozza C. Privatising local public services: between industrial legacy and political ambition. Local Gov. Stud. 2010, 36(5):599-616.
14. Carrozza C. Italian water services reform from 1994 to 2008: decisional rounds and local modes of governance. Water Policy 2011, 13(6):751-768.
15. Carter D.Α., Simkins B.J., Simpson W.G. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financ. Rev. 2003, 38(1):33-53.
16. Claessens S., Feijen E., Laeven L. Political connections and preferential access to finance: the role of campaign contributions. J.Financ. Econ. 2008, 88(3):554-580.
17. Conyon M.J., Peck S.I. Board size and corporate performance: evidence from European countries. Eur. J. Finance 1998, 4:291-304.
18. Cruz N., Marques R. Mixed companies and local governance: no man can serve two masters. Public Adm. 2012, 90(3):737-758.
19. Cruz N., Marques R., Romano G., Guerrini A. Measuring the efficiency of water utilities: a cross-national comparison between Portugal and Italy. Water Policy 2012, 14(5):841-853.
20. Dewenter K.L., Malatesta P.H. State-owned and privately-owned firms: an empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, and labor intensity. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91(1):320-334.
21. Eckel C., Vining A. Elements of a theory of mixed Enterprise. Scott. J. Polit. Econ. 1985, 32(1):82-94.
22. Erhardt N.L., Werbel J.D., Shrader C.B. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2003, 11:102-111.
23. Erkut S., Kramer V.W., Konrad A.M. Critical mass: does the number of women on a corporate board make a difference?. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice 2008, 350-366. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. S. Vinnicombe, V. Singh, R. Burke, D. Bilimoria, M. Huse (Eds.).
24. Faccio M. Politically connected firms. Am. Econ. Rev. 2006, 96(1):369-386.
25. Faccio M. Differences between politically connected and non-connected firms: a cross country analysis. Financ. Manag. 2010, 39(3):905-927.
26. Farrell K., Hersch P. Additions to corporate boards: the effect of gender. J.Corp. Finance 2005, 11:85-106.
27. Florio M., Fecher F. The future of public enterprises: contributions to a new discourse. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2011, 82:361-373.
28. Forbes D., Milliken F.J. Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24:489-505.
29. García-Sánchez I.M. Efficiency measurement in Spanish local government: the case of municipal water services. Rev. Policy Res. 2006, 23(2):355-371.
30. García-Sánchez I. The effectiveness of corporate governance: board structure and business technical efficiency in Spain. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 18:311-339.
31. Golden B.R., Zajac E.J. When will boards influence strategy? Inclination of power in strategic change. Strat. Manag. J. 2001, 22:1087-1111.
32. Goldman E., Rocholl J., So J. Do politically connected boards affect firm value?. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2009, 22(6):2331-2360.
33. Goodstein J., Gautam K., Boeker W. The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strat. Manag. J. 1994, 15:241-250.
34. Guerrini A., Romano G. The process of tariff setting in an unstable legal framework: an Italian case study. Util. Policy 2013, 24:78-85.
35. Guerrini A., Romano G., Campedelli B. Factors affecting the performance of water utility companies. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2011, 24(6):543-566.
36. Guerrini A., Romano G., Campedelli B. Economies of scale, scope, and density in the Italian water sector: a two-stage data envelopment analysis approach. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27(13):4559-4578.
37. Guest P.M. The impact of board size on firm performance: evidence from the UK. Eur. J. Finance 2009, 15:385-404.
38. Hall D. Water Privatisation and Quality of Service. Public Services International Research Unit 2001, University of Greenwich, London, Available from:, [accessed 31.07.12]. http://www.psiru.org.
39. Hambrick D.C., Mason P.A. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9:193-206.
40. Heinfeldt J. Gender diversity and firm value: an extension of mean-variance portfolio theory. J. Acad. Bus. Econ. 2005, 5(2).
41. Hermalin B.E., Weisbach M.S. Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: a survey of the economic literature. Econ. Policy Rev. 2003, 9:7-26.
42. Huber P.J. Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann. Math. Stat. 1964, 35:73-101.
43. Jensen M., Meckling W. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. J.Financ. Econ. 1976, 3:305-360.
44. Jensen M. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J.Finance 1993, 48:831-880.
45. Judge W.Q., Zeithaml C.P. Institutional and strategic choice perspectives onboard involvement in the strategic decision process. Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35:76-94.
46. Kanter R.M. Men and Women of the Corporation 1977, Basic Books, New York.
47. Khwaja A.I., Mian A. Do lenders favor politically connected firms?. Rent. Provis. Emerg. Financ. Mark. 2005, 120(4):1371-1411.
48. Lobina E., Hall D. Experience with private sector participation in Grenoble, France, and lessons on strengthening public water operations. Util. Policy 2007, 15:93-109.
49. Marques R. Comparing private and public performance of Portuguese water services. Water Policy 2008, 10:25-42.
50. Marques R. Regulation of Water and Wastewater Services an International Comparison 2010, IWA Publishing.
51. Massarutto A., Ermano P. Drowned in an inch of water. How poor regulation has weakened the Italian water reform. Util. Policy 2013, 24:20-31.
52. Massarutto A., Antonioli B., Ermano P. Assessing the impact of water service regulatory reforms in Italy: a multidimensional approach. Water Policy 2013, 15:1046-1063.
53. McIntyre M.L., Murphy S.A., Mitchell P. The top team: examining board composition and firm performance. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Eff. Board Perform. 2007, 7(5):547-561.
54. Menozzi A., Gutiérrez Urtiaga M., Vannoni D. Board composition, political connections, and performance in state-owned enterprises. Indus. Corp. Change 2011, 21(3):671-698.
55. Niessen A., Ruenzi S. Political connectedness and firm performance. Evidence from Germany. Ger. Econ. Rev. 2010, 11(4):441-464.
56. Pearce J.H., Zahra S.A. Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. J.Manag. Stud. 1992, 29:411-438.
57. Reynaud A., Thomas A. Firm's profitability and regulation in water and network industries: an empirical analysis. Util. Policy 2013, 24:48-58.
58. Romano G., Guerrini A. Measuring and comparing the efficiency of water utility companies: a data envelopment analysis approach. Util. Policy 2011, 19:202-209.
59. Romano G., Guerrini A., Vernizzi S. Ownership, investment policies and funding choices of Italian water utilities: an empirical analysis. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27(9):3409-3419.
60. Rose C. Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corp. Gov. 2007, 15(2):404-413.
61. Shaoul J. Acritical financial analysis of the performance of privatize industries: the case of the water industry in England and Wales. Crit. Perspect. Account. 1997, 8:479-505.
62. Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Politicians and firms. Q.J. Econ. 1994, IX:995-1025.
63. Torchia M., Calabrò A., Huse M. Women directors on corporate boards: from Tokenism to critical mass. J.Bus. Ethics 2011, 102:299-317.
64. Van den Berghe L., Levrau A. Evaluating boards of directors: what constitutes a good corporate board?. Corp. Gov. 2004, 12:461-478.
65. Vinnari E.M., Hukka J.J. Great expectations, tiny benefits and decision-making in the privatization of Tallinn water. Util. Policy 2007, 15:78-85.
66. Yermack D. Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J.Financ. Econ. 1996, 40:185-211.
67. Zahra S.A., Stanton W.W. The implications of board of directors' composition for corporate strategy and value. Int. J. Manag. 1988, 5(2):229-236.