Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:27:39.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Financial Misdemeanants to Recidivists: The Perspective of Social Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2019

Fenghua Bao ,
Yapu Zhao ,
Longwei Tian Open the ORCID record for Longwei Tian [Opens in a new window]  and
Yuan Li
Fenghua Bao
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Yapu Zhao
Affiliation:
Tongji University, China
Longwei Tian*
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Yuan Li
Affiliation:
Tongji University, China
*
Corresponding author: Longwei Tian (tianlongwei@sjtu.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acts of financial misconduct in business affect firms in many negative ways. Therefore, why do certain misdemeanants repeatedly commit these acts? We suggest that financial misdemeanants with different social networks will perceive the costs and benefits of committing financial frauds differently, thereby affecting the likelihood of committing financial frauds in the future. To be specific, we suggest that politically connected misdemeanants are less likely to recommit financial frauds, while misdemeanants at interlock network center are more likely to recommit financial frauds. In addition, we propose that misdemeanants are less likely to recommit financial frauds when their partners in the interlock network community are punished for financial frauds. To test our theory, we collected panel data from Chinese listed firms from 2005 to 2014 and employed event history analysis (EHA).

摘要

财务违规一旦被发现会给企业带来很多消极影响。那么，为什么有些企业会重复违规呢？本研究认为，违规企业的社会网络会影响违规企业对再次违规所面临的成本收益的判断，进而影响其重复违规的可能。具体而言，我们认为有政治关系的违规企业重复违规的可能性较低，而处在董事连锁网络中心位置的违规企业更有可能重复违规。此外，当违规企业所处的董事连锁网络小群体的伙伴因财务违规受过惩罚时，该企业重复违规的可能性会降低。运用事件分析方法（EHA），我们对2005年到2014年中国上市公司财务违规面板数据进行了分析，验证了本文的理论和假设。

Аннотация

Финансовые нарушения в бизнесе оказывают негативное влияние на компании. В таком случае, почему определенные нарушители постоянно совершают эти проступки? Мы предполагаем, что финансовые правонарушители с различными социальными связями будут по-разному воспринимать преимущества и недостатки, связанные с финансовыми махинациями, что влияет на вероятность совершения финансовых нарушений в будущем. Прежде всего, мы считаем, что нарушители с политическими связями реже совершают финансовые проступки, в то время как нарушители, которые находятся в центре сети социальных отношений, с большей вероятностью повторно совершают финансовые мошенничества. Кроме того, мы предполагаем, что нарушители с меньшей вероятностью вновь совершают финансовые махинации в том случае, если их партнеры в сети социальных отношений получают наказание за финансовые проступки. Для того, чтобы проверить нашу теорию, мы собрали панельные данные из китайских компаний, зарегистрированных на фондовой бирже в период с 2005 по 2014 годов, и провели исторический анализ событий.

Resumen

Los actos de malversación financiera en los negocios afectan las empresas de muchas maneras negativas. Por lo tanto, ¿por qué ciertos delincuentes de delitos menores cometen repetidamente estos actos? Sugerimos que los delitos financieros menores con diferentes redes sociales percibirán de manera diferente los costos y los beneficios de cometer fraudes financieros, por ende, afectando la probabilidad de cometer fraudes financieros en el futuro. Para ser específicos, sugerimos que los delincuentes de delitos menores menos políticamente conectados son menos propensos a volver a comer fraudes financieros. Además, proponemos que los delincuentes de delitos menores son menos propensos a volver a cometer fraudes financieros cuando sus aliados en la red comunitaria entrelazada son castigados por fraudes financieros. Para probar nuestra teoría, recolectamos datos de panel de empresas chinas que cotizan en bolsa entre el 2005 al 2015 y usamos análisis histórico de eventos.

Keywords

cost benefit analysisEHAfinancial misconduct recidivismsocial networks财务违规社会网络成本收益分析事件分析рецидивизм финансовых проступковсоциальные связианализ затрат и выгодисторический анализ событийreincidentes de malversación financieraredes socialesanálisis de costo beneficioanálisis histórico de eventos
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 809 - 835
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The International Association for Chinese Management Research 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor Lin Cui

References

REFERENCES

Apostolou, B., Hassell, J. M., & Webber, S. A. 2000. Forensic expert classification of management fraud risk factors. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 1(2): 181–192.Google Scholar
Arthaud-Day, M. L., Certo, S. T., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. 2006. A changing of the guard: Executive and director turnover following corporate financial restatements. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1119–1136.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. 1968. A social learning interpretation of psychological dysfunctions. In London, P. & Rosenham, D. (Eds.), Foundations of abnormal psychology: 293–344. New York: Holt, Rinehart.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barnett, R. E. 2014. The structure of liberty: Justice and the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D. A. 1997. Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 129–151.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A., Shipilov, A. V., & Rowley, T. J. 2003. Where do small worlds come from. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4): 697–725.Google Scholar
Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. 1999. Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3): 563–589.Google Scholar
Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. 2012. The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2): 279–305.Google Scholar
Bonacich, P. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5): 1170–1182.Google Scholar
Breslow, N. 1974. Covariance analysis of censored survival data. Biometrics, 30(1): 89–99.Google Scholar
Chen, G., Firth, M., Gao, D. N., & Rui, O. M. 2006. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and fraud: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3): 424–448.Google Scholar
Clauset, A., Newman, M. E., & Moore, C. 2004. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70(6): 066111.Google Scholar
Clement, J., Shipilov, A., & Galunic, C. 2018. Brokerage as a public good: The externalities of network hubs for different formal roles in creative organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2): 251–286.Google Scholar
Cowen, A. P., & Marcel, J. J. 2011. Damaged goods: Board decisions to dismiss reputationally compromised directors. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 509–527.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R. 1972. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 34(2): 187–200.Google Scholar
De Carolis, D. M., & Saparito, P. 2006. Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(1): 41–56.Google Scholar
Efron, B. 1977. The efficiency of Cox's likelihood function for censored data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(359): 557–565.Google Scholar
Fan, G., Wang, X. L., & Zhu, H. P. 2011. NERI Index of Marketization of China's Provinces 2011 Report. Beijing: Economic Science Press (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Firth, M., Rui, O. M., & Wu, W. 2011. Cooking the books: Recipes and costs of falsified financial statements in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(2): 371–390.Google Scholar
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. 1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34(4): 575–608.Google Scholar
Gomulya, D., & Boeker, W. 2014. How firms respond to financial restatement: CEO successors and external reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1759–1785.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. 2010. Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 53–107.Google Scholar
Grewal, R., Lilien, G. L., & Mallapragada, G. 2006. Location, location, location: How network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Management Science, 52(7): 1043–1056.Google Scholar
Groysberg, B., Lin, E., & Serafeim, G. 2016. Scandal and stigma: Does corporate misconduct affect the future compensation of bystander managers. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1): 11631.Google Scholar
Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. 1999. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3): 473–506.Google Scholar
Gulati, R., Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. 2012. The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organization Science, 23(2): 449–471.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2):149–164.Google Scholar
Harris, J., & Bromiley, P. 2007. Incentives to cheat: The influence of executive compensation and firm performance on financial misrepresentation. Organization Science, 18(3): 350–367.Google Scholar
Hayward, M. L., & Hambrick, D. C. 1997. Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 103–127.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(1): 153–161.Google Scholar
Hertz-Picciotto, I., & Rockhill, B. 1997. Validity and efficiency of approximation methods for tied survival times in Cox regression. Biometrics, 53(3): 1151–1156.Google Scholar
Jack, S. L. 2005. The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6): 1233–1259.Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. 2017. The contagion of financial misconduct within interlock networks: A contingency of status. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1): 16238.Google Scholar
Jonsson, S., Greve, H. R., & Fujiwara-Greve, T. 2009. Undeserved loss: The spread of legitimacy loss to innocent organizations in response to reported corporate deviance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2): 195–228.Google Scholar
Kang, E. 2008. Director interlocks and spillover effects of reputational penalties from financial reporting fraud. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 537–555.Google Scholar
Katila, R., & Shane, S. 2005. When does lack of resources make new firms innovative. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 814–829.Google Scholar
Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 591–612.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. 2003. A guide to econometrics (5th edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. 2009. Playing well together: Creating corporate social capital in strategic alliance networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(12): 1690–1708.Google Scholar
Krishnan, R., & Kozhikode, R. K. 2015. Status and corporate illegality: Illegal loan recovery practices of commercial banks in India. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1287–1312.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. 2012. Guanxi and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 139–172.Google Scholar
Ma, R., Huang, Y.-C., & Shenkar, O. 2011. Social networks and opportunity recognition: A cultural comparison between Taiwan and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11): 1183–1205.Google Scholar
Markóczy, L., Li Sun, S., Peng, M. W., & Ren, B. 2013. Social network contingency, symbolic management, and boundary stretching. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11): 1367–1387.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Bird, Y. 2018. The paradox of responsive authoritarianism: How civic activism spurs environmental penalties in China. Organization Science, (in press).Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance. Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.Google Scholar
Maula, M. V., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. 2013. Top management's attention to discontinuous technological change: Corporate venture capital as an alert mechanism. Organization Science, 24(3): 926–947.Google Scholar
Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. 2010. Why ‘good’ firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 701–722.Google Scholar
Murphy, D. L., Shrieves, R. E., & Tibbs, S. L. 2009. Understanding the penalties associated with corporate misconduct: An empirical examination of earnings and risk. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(1): 55–83.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1): 187–206.Google Scholar
Ozmel, U., & Guler, I. 2015. Small fish, big fish: The performance effects of the relative standing in partners’ affiliate portfolios. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13): 2039–2057.Google Scholar
Ozmel, U., Reuer, J. J., & Gulati, R. 2013. Signals across multiple networks: How venture capital and alliance networks affect interorganizational collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3): 852–866.Google Scholar
Pappas, J. M., & Wooldridge, B. 2007. Middle managers’ divergent strategic activity: An investigation of multiple measures of network centrality. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3): 323–341.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and organizational performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 486–501.Google Scholar
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2): 379–429.Google Scholar
Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1): 33–60.Google Scholar
Ren, B., Au, K., & Birtch, T. 2009. China's business network structure during institutional transitions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2): 219–240.Google Scholar
Sampath, V., Rahman, N., & Gardberg, N. A. 2013. Firm misconduct and rehab: Effects of corporate reintegration initiatives on sanction severity. Academy of Management, 2013(1): 14630.Google Scholar
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. 2000. Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1248–1264.Google Scholar
Schnake, M. E., & Williams, R. J. 2008. Multiple directorships and corporate misconduct: The moderating influences of board size and outside directors. Journal of Business Strategies, 25(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Semadeni, M., Cannella, A. A., Fraser, D. R., & Lee, D. S. 2008. Fight or flight: Managing stigma in executive careers. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5): 557–567.Google Scholar
Shan, W. 1990. An empirical analysis of organizational strategies by entrepreneurial high-technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(2): 129–139.Google Scholar
Shi, W. S., Connelly, B. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2017. External corporate governance and financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory perceptions. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6):1268–1286.Google Scholar
Shi, W. S., Connelly, B. L., & Sanders, W. 2016. Buying bad behavior: Tournament incentives and securities class action lawsuits. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1354–1378.Google Scholar
Shi, W. S., Sun, S. L., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Sub-national institutional contingencies, network positions, and IJV partner selection. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1221–1245.Google Scholar
Shi, W. S., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B. C., & Peng, M. W. 2014. Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3): 338–362.Google Scholar
Shipilov, A.V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. 2010. When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 846–864.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. S. 2013. White-collar crime: A review of recent developments and promising directions for future research. Annual Review of Sociology, 39: 309–331.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. S., & Koper, C. S. 1992. Deterring corporate crime. Criminology, 30(3): 347–376.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M., & Hoang, H. 1995. Sunk costs in the NBA: Why draft order affects playing time and survival in professional basketball. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 474–494.Google Scholar
Stuart, T., & Wang, Y. 2016. Who cooks the books in China, and does it pay? Evidence from private, high-technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13): 2658–2676.Google Scholar
Sullivan, B. N., Haunschild, P., & Page, K. 2007. Organizations non gratae? The impact of unethical corporate acts on interorganizational networks. Organization Science, 18(1): 55–70.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Hu, H. W., & Hillman, A. J. 2016. The dark side of board political capital: Enabling blockholder rent appropriation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1801–1822.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Mellahi, K., Wright, M., & Xu, H. 2015. Political tie heterogeneity and the impact of adverse shocks on firm value. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8): 1036–1063.Google Scholar
Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. 2014. Exploring the locus of invention: The dynamics of network communities and firms’ invention productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1): 249–279.Google Scholar
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. 2015. How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1338–1357.Google Scholar
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Martinez, A. G. 2014. Two faces of shame: The roles of shame and guilt in predicting recidivism. Psychological Science, 25(3): 799–805.Google Scholar
Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. 2003. Learning about failure: Bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view. Organization Science, 14(5): 497–509.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35–67.Google Scholar
White, L. T. 2005. Legitimacy: Ambiguities of political success or failure in East and Southeast Asia (Vol. 1). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. 2007. When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. 1996. Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1641–1658.Google Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Wan, W. P., & Xu, Y. 2018. Alternative governance and corporate financial fraud in transition economies: Evidence from China. Journal of Management (in press).Google Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Xu, Y., & Wan, W. P. 2014. The deterrence effects of vicarious punishments on corporate financial fraud. Organization Science, 25(5): 1549–1571.Google Scholar
Yu, T., & Cannella, A. A. 2007. Rivalry between multinational enterprises: An event history approach. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 665–686.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Bartol, K. M., Smith, K. G., Pfarrer, M. D., & Khanin, D. M. 2008. CEOs on the edge: Earnings manipulation and stock-based incentive misalignment. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 241–258.Google Scholar
Zheng, W., Singh, K., & Mitchell, W. 2015. Buffering and enabling: The impact of interlocking political ties on firm survival and sales growth. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11): 1615–1636.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & Lu, Q. 2016. Repeat or halt? Learning from the previous financial restatements. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1): 12485.Google Scholar