A Critique of the Article "Corporate Governance Reforms in China and India" by Rajagopalan and Zhang (2008)
The article by Rajagopalan and Zhang was aimed at evaluating the emergence and development of corporate reforms in the economies of China and India. The authors begin by explaining the main forces that drive corporate governance reforms in the two countries. According to them, the two main forces in this respect are globalization and privatization. The authors have presented an overview of the emergence and development of governance reforms in the context of each country in the case. They as well explain the major barriers that have hindered the implementation of governance and corporate reforms in the two countries. According to the authors, the major barriers, which they identified include, a) the influence of the dominant shareholder, and b) and inadequate or little incentives.
Further, the authors present a highlight of how these barriers affect the whole process of implementing corporate governance in the context of the two countries. They as well analyze how multilateral firms that have already invested in these emerging countries or those planning to do so are affected by the various challenges analyzed. The authors conclude by providing a suggestion for future research in a similar area.
This article will be quite essential for an international manager since, the information presented therein is credible (peer reviewed). In addition, the international manager will be exposed to the forces that drive corporate governance as well as the barriers particularly in the emerging economics. They will also get some insights on how to leverage such barriers for effectiveness in corporate governance.
A Critical Review of the Article
What I liked in the article is that the authors have presented an extensive review of literature in putting their point across. The extensive literature in the study has further helped in disclosing the relevant theoretical structure of the study problem. In addition, it has provided sufficient insights regarding the topic and variables under study. From the literature, one can get enough information on what is being studied.
Further, publication of this article in a peer-reviewed journal translates that the information presented therein is credible. It also means that the work had undergone scrutiny by relevant experts in the field. Publication of this article in the peer review journal also translates that the required standard and quality in the particular discipline were adhered to prior to publication in this journal.
Rather than using many cases in the study, the authors have employed only two cases, that of China and India. This has seemed to work positively since readers may not get confused, as would be in the context of multiple cases. The use of cases has made the study to be coherent and has helped in presenting the issues at hand in practical terms. This factors apparently makes the article to be worth reading.
However, this article also harbors some side backs such as lack of identification of the methodology and research design used in conducting the study. It is understandable that the information presented in the article was not acquired in a vacuum, but in a specific context. The authors could have indicated the method, which they used in retrieving the articles and other information, the websites and databases, and other sources that were used in this process.
It is also notable that the researchers did not include the limitations, which hampered this study. There is no research, which is devoid of weaknesses. The weaknesses in the study may be out of the researchers and hence, should be included. Similarly, the authors have not pointed out the delimitations in this study. Delimitations are those features, which limit the study’s scope and boundaries. Some of the delimiting factors include the research questions, choice of objectives, the variables, and theoretical perspectives, which are adopted in the study, and the scope of the study. These factors are notably missing in this article. Another element in this article is that the authors have included many variables, which have widened the scope of the study. It could have been better if they opted to use a maximum of four variables.