Essays on legal origin and corporate governance: Evidence from Louisiana and Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer (2008) summarize the extensive literature which investigates the effect of countries legal origin on a variety of corporate governance outcomes at the country level. Recent papers find statistically significant differences in the ownership dispersion by comparing Quebec-based firms to non-Quebec Canadian firms. This paper takes a similar approach and exploits intra-country variation in the United States, based on the observation that all US states have common law, except Louisiana which has civil law. To compare dispersion in ownership within the US, I identify matched pairs for each publicly traded company in Louisiana. Contrary to prior research on Canadian firms, I find no evidence that companies' dispersion of ownership differs significantly between Louisiana and the remaining US states. This challenges the interpretation of prior studies. Chapter 2 (co-authored with Brian M. Burnett and Bjorn N. Jorgensen): This essay provides evidence on the link between legal origin and earnings attributes often associated with earnings quality. Prior studies perform country-level analyses and find evidence that earnings quality is higher in counties with common law (English legal origin) than in countries with civil law (which includes French legal origin). This paper takes a different approach and exploits within-country variation in Canada. Specifically our research is motivated by the observation that all Canadian providences have common law with the exception of Quebec which has civil law. We investigate whether common earnings attributes typically associated with earnings quality vary at the firm-level. We find that earnings attributes do vary with legal origin. Further, we analyze Canadian firms' decision regarding where to incorporate at either the Federal or province level. Our evidence suggests that Quebec firms' incorporation decision at either the Federal (common law) or province (civil law) leads to some differences in earnings quality, after controlling for differences in accounting standards hypothesized by Ball, Kothari and Robin (2000).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".