Typification of Latin American Universities: Levels of Information Disclosure and Corporate Governance Attributes

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21664/2238-8869.2022v11i4.p253-270

Keywords:

universities, corporate governance, disclosure, corporate governance attributes, regression trees

Abstract

It has been empirically demonstrated that the average level of disclosure in Latin American universities is low and very heterogeneous (Abello 2018; Abello et al. 2018). Attributes of university corporate governance may explain the level of disclosure. However, only the direction of the effect of these variables on disclosure is currently understood. In order to advance in the understanding of disclosure processes and the incidence of corporate governance attributes, a typification of universities can be made. Using a quantitative approach, this paper aims to typify 219 Latin American universities according to their level of disclosure of information, considering the attributes of their university corporate governance. A non-parametric technique called regression trees is introduced to achieve the objective, which is used in many disciplines and is part of machine learning techniques. The results indicate that there are four nodes (or clusters) of universities whose levels of disclosure are different, and the attributes of their university corporate governance are closely related. These findings allow us to propose public policies to increase information disclosure in a more targeted way.

References

Abello JB 2018. Impactos de los atributos de los gobiernos corporativos universitarios sobre la divulgación de información: el caso de las universidades latinoamericanas. Tesis de doctorado, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, p. 229.
Abello J, Mancilla C 2018. Análisis Multi-Teórico de los gobiernos corporativos universitarios sobre la divulgación de información. Revista Opción 34(86): 358-392.
Abello J, Mancilla C, Molina C, Palma A 2018. Relación entre divulgación de información y características universidades latinoamericanas. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia 23(1): 67-89.
Abello-Romero JB, Mancilla C, Ganga-Contreras F, Estay-Sepúlveda JG 2019. Determinantes de la divulgación de información en las universidades latinoamericanas para un buen gobierno corporativo. Contaduría y Administración 64(4): 1-16.
Agyei-Mensah BK 2017. Does the corruption perception level of a country affect listed firms´ IFRS 7 risk disclosure compliance? Corporate Governance-The International Journal of Business in Society 17(4): 727-747.
Alfraih, M 2016. The effectiveness of board of directors´ characteristics in mandatory disclosure compliance. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 24(2): 154-176.
Alfraih M, Almutawa A 2017. Voluntary disclosure and corporate governance: empirical evidence from Kuwait. International Journal of Law and Management 59(2): 217-236.
Alves H, Canadas N, Rodrigues A 2015. Voluntary disclosure, information asymmetry and the perception of governance quality: An analysis using a structural equation model. TEKHNE- Review of Applied Management Studies 13: 66-79.
Balmaceda F 2020. Contracting with moral hazard, adverse selection and risk. International Journal of Game Theory 49: 601-637.
Basuony M, Mohamed E, Samaha K 2018. Board structure and corporate disclosure via social media: An empirical study in the UK. Online Information Review 42(5): 595-614.
Bergh D, Ketchen D, Orlandi I, Heugens P, Boyd B 2019. Information asymmetry in management research: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. Journal of Management 45(1): 122-158.
Bleiklie I, Kogan M 2007. Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy 20: 477-493.
Borges G, Mafra F 2014. Ensino de contabilidade na graduacao em administracao: Uma análise sob anperspective discente. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizacöes 8(21): 58-70.
Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ 1984. Classification and Regression Trees, CRC Press.
Briano-Turrent G, Saavedra-García ML 2015. La composición del consejo de administración y la escritura accionaria como factores explicativos de la transparencia en el gobierno corporativo en Latinoamérica: evidencia en empresas cotizadas de Argentina, Brasil, Chile y México. Estudios Gerenciales 31: 275-286.
De Castro M, Jacometti M, Goncalves S 2016. Governance in the context of inter-organizational networks: A study in local productive arrangements from Parana state regarding the institutional approach. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Administrativa 15(2): 90-115.
Deman R, Jorissen A, Lavenen E 2018. Board Monitoring in a privately held firm: When Does CEO Duality matter? The moderating effect of ownership. Journal of Small Business Management 56(2): 229-250
Dias A, Lima-Rodriguez L, Craig R 2017. Corporate governance effects on social responsibility disclosures. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 11(2): 3-22.
Duque E 2009. La gestión de la universidad como elemento básico del sistema universitario: Una reflexión desde la perspectiva de los Stakeholders. Revista Innovar Journal 19: 25-41.
Fan G, Gray JB 2005. Regression tree analysis using TARGET. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 14(1): 206-218.
Fasan M, Mio C. 2017. Fostering stakeholder engagement: The role of materiality diclosure in integrated reporting. Business Strategy and the Invironment 26: 288-305.
Fauver L, Naranjo A 2010. Derivate Usaje and Firm Value; The Influence of Agency Costs and Monitoring Problems. Journal of Corporate Finance 16: 719-735.
Ferrero-Ferrero I, Fernández-Izquierdo M, Muñoz-Torres M 2015. Integrating sustainability into corporate governance: An empirical study on board diversity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22: 193-207.
Flórez-Parra JM, López-Pérez MV, López AM 2014. El gobierno corporativo de las Universidades: Estudio de las 100 primeras Universidades del ranking de Shanghái. Revista de Educación 364: 170-196.
Flórez-Parra J, López-Pérez M, López-Hernández A 2017. Transparency and its determinants at colombian universities. Higher Education Research & Development 36(4): 674-687.
Fossatti P, Monticelli JM, Danesi LC, Jung HS 2020. Limits of Sustainability Management at Community Universities. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science 9 (3): 33-54.
Galve-Górriz C, Hernández-Trasobares A 2015. Institutional framework, concentration of ownership and results of large family corporation in Latin America and Spain. Corporate governance 15(4): 409-426.
Ganga-Contreras F, González E 2020. Tipología De Las Universidades Colombianas Y Características De Su Gobierno Corporativo, Una Revisión Desde Sus Estatutos. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science 9 (3): 220-238.
Ganga-Contreras F, Sáez, Rodríguez-Ponce E, Calderón A, Wandercil M. 2018. Universidades Públicas De Chile Y Su Desempeño En Los Rankings Académicos Nacionales. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science 7 (3): 316-41.
García-Sánchez I, Noguera-Gámez L 2017. Integrated reporting and stakeholder engagement: The effect on information asymmetry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24: 395-413.
Ghafoor A, Zainudin R, Mahdzan N. 2019. Corporate fraud and information in emerging markets: Case of firms subject to enforcement actions in Malaysia. Journal of Financial Crime 26(1): 95-112.
Gheler-Costa C, Antoniassi B, Monteiro M. 2021. Percepção E Conhecimento De Estudantes Do Ensino Médio Sobre Popularização Da Ciência Em Escolas Apoiadas Pelo PIBID. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science 10 (1): 205-14.
Ghosh A, Karuna C, Tian F 2015. Causes and consequences of the CEO also being the chair of the board. Journal of Mangement Accounting Research 27(2): 197-223.
Gray S, Nowland J 2017. The diversity of expertise on corporate boards in Australia. Accounting and Finance 57(2): 429-463.
Guney Y, Karpuz A, Komba G 2020. The effects of board structure on corporate performance: evidence from East African frontier markets. Research in International Business and Finance, 53: 1-43.
Hidalgo C 2017. El triunfo de la Información. Barcelona: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, S.A.U, 249 pp.
Ismail S, Abu Bakar N 2011. Reporting practices of Malaysian public universities: the extent of accountability disclosure. African Journal of Business Management 5(15): 6366-6376.
Isukul A, Chizea J 2017. Corporate governance disclosure in developing Countries: A comparative Analysis in Nigerian and South African Banks. Sage Open 7(3): 1-17.
James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R, Springer, New York
Jensen M, Meckling N 1976. Theory of the Firm: managerial behavior, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial of Economics 3:305-360.
John K, Demasi S, Paci A 2016. Corporate Governance in Banks. Corporate Governance: An International Review 24(3): 303-321.
Khan M, Zahid R, Saleem A, Sági J 2021. Board composition and social & environmental accountability a dynamic model analysis of chinese firms. Sustainability, 13: 10662.
Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, Friedmann PD, Rakowski W 2003. Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Annals of behavioral medicine 26(3): 172-181.
Liu X, Liu S, Lu L. Shi Y, Xiong X 2021. Voluntary information disclosure with heterogeneous beliefs. Journal of Economics & Control 124: 1-18.
Loh W-Y 2011. Classification and regression trees. WIREs Data Mining Knowl Discov 1: 14-23.
Mackey R 2011. University governing boards and the risk of agency capture: A study of board members´ interest group affiliations. Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 9(1): 10-21.
Mancilla C, Abello-Romero J, Ganga-Contreras F 2020. Factores que influyen en la percepción de asimetría de información en los gobiernos corporativos universitarios. Interciencia, (8): 390-396.
Menicucci E 2018. Exploring forward-looking information in integrated reporting: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 19(1): 102-121.
Merl R 2022. Literature review of experimental asset markets with insiders. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 33: 1-13.
Nguyen T, Nguyen N, Nguyen H 2020. Factors affecting voluntary information disclosure on annual reports: Listed companies in Ho Chi Minh City stock Exchange. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 7(3): 53-62.
Nielsen B, Nielsen S 2013. Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: a multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal 34(3): 373-382.
Ntim C, Soobaroyen T 2013. Corporate Governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: New empirical insights from a Neo Institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review 21(5): 468-494.
Ntim C, Soobaroyen T, Broad M 2017. Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability: The case of UK Higher Education Institutions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 30(1): 65-118.
OCDE 2016. Principios de Gobierno Corporativo de la OCDE y del G20. Paris: Editions OCDE. https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/37191543.pdf acceso 30 de agosto de 2021.
Pavlopoulos A, Magnis C, Latridis G 2017. Integrated reporting: Is it last piece of the accounting disclosure puzzle? Journal of Multinational Financial Management 41: 23-46.
Qahruzzaman M, Jahan I, Karim S 2021. The impact of voluntary disclosure on firm´s value: evidence from manufacturing firms in Bangladesh. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 8(6): 671-685.
Rashid A 2018. The influence of corporate governance practices on corporate social responsibility. Social Responsibility Journal 14(1): 20-39.
Rivera-Arrubla A, Zorio-Grima A, Garcia-Benau M 2017. Integrated reports: disclosure level explanatory factors. Social Responsibility Journal 13(1): 155-176.
Rowlands J 2013. The Effectiveness of Academic Boards in University Governance. Tertiary Education and Management 19(4): 338-352.
Said R, Rahim A, Hassan R 2018. Exploring the effects of corporate governance and human governance on management commentary disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal 14(4): 843-858.
Sajadi H, Maleki M, Michael S (2020). The medical university-governing board: an investigation of critical factors in the board performance in Iran. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 12(5): 1281-1301.
Sulaiman M, Abd Majid N, Arifin, N 2015. Corporate governance of Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysa. Asia Journal of Business and Accounting 8(1): 65-93.
Tejedo-Romero F, Lima-Rodriguez L, Craig R 2017. Women directors and disclosure of intellectual capital information. European Research on Management and Business Economics 23: 123-131.
Van Buskirk A 2012. Disclosure Frequency and information asymmetry. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 38(4): 411-448.
Vilkinas T, Peters M 2014. Academic governance provided by academic boards within the australian higher education sector. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36(1): 15-28
Zardkoohi A, Harrison J, Josefy M 2017. Conflict and Confluence: The Multidimensionality of Opportunism in Principal–Agent Relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 146: 405-417.

Published

2022-12-30

How to Cite

MANCILLA, Claudio; ABELLO-ROMERO, Juan. Typification of Latin American Universities: Levels of Information Disclosure and Corporate Governance Attributes. Fronteiras - Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science, [S. l.], v. 11, n. 4, p. 253–270, 2022. DOI: 10.21664/2238-8869.2022v11i4.p253-270. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unievangelica.edu.br/index.php/fronteiras/article/view/6554. Acesso em: 24 nov. 2024.

Issue

Section

Edição Especial Educação 2024