2.2 Role of Industry Affiliation and Institutional Context Galbraith (1983) states that industry is the primary determinant of all aspects...
2.2 Role of Industry Affiliation and Institutional Context Galbraith (1983) states that industry is the primary determinant of all aspects of firm performance and behavior. Industry affiliation may have a relevant influence upon financing choices (Lopez-Garcia and Aybar-Arias 2000); firms within a particular industry, facing similar prevailing circumstances, tend to adopt an analogous financing pattern (Holmes et al. 2003). A review of the literature (Harris and Raviv, 1991) suggested a strong relationship between industry classification and average firm leverage ratio, highlighting the existence of differences across industries but consistency within industries.
Hall et al. (2000) point out that also agency costs may vary across industries and lead to inter-industry differences in financial structure. In general, the life cycle of the firm is affected by the kind of industry a firm operates. The effect of industry affiliation on the life cycle was suggested already in the 1981 by Weston and Brigham. They claimed that life-cycle differs between high-growth and low-growth industries, or between emerging and traditional industries. Industry-specific features affect the role of tangible asset, business risk and growth opportunity influencing their debt ratios. For example, firms operating in high-growth industries carry less leverage, because they have stronger incentives to signal that they do not engage in adverse selection and moral hazard costs in the form of underinvestment and asset substitution. By contrast, firms operating in low-growth industries should use debt because of its disciplinary function in signalling the lack of misuse of free cash flows. However, small and mediumsized firms in high-growth industries have, as stated by Michaelas et al. (1999), a greater demand for funds and, ceteris paribus, a greater preference for external financing through debt. Young firms, and especially those that operate in fast growing sectors, tend to have greater external financing requirements than firms in low-growth sectors.
Empirical findings provide strong support for the hypothesis that industry has an influence on the capital structure of small and medium-sized firms. Hall et al. (2000) and Michaelas et al. (1999), for UK small and medium-sized firms, Lopez-Garcia and Aybar-Arias (2000) for Spanish small and medium-sized firms, and Van der Wijst and Thurik (1993) for West German small and medium-sized firms observed that leverage ratios vary across industries. Therefore, the role of industry affiliation seems to be relevant but the effect on capital structure of small and medium-sized firms needs to be controlled for.
Moreover, previous studies have highlighted the existence of systematic differences in the capital structure claims issued by companies operating in different institutional contexts (Rajan and Zingales 1995, Chittenden et al. 1996, Demirgüç-Kunt and Maksimovic 1998, Hall et al. 2001, LopezIturriaga and Rodriguez-Sanz 2007, Utrero-González 2007). The efficiency of the institutional context can reduce problems of opportunism and asymmetric information, with significant effect on the relative magnitude of the costs and benefits associated to debt. The prevalent research has examined companies that face a wide range of institutional environments and has been based on cross-country studies (Chittenden et al. 1996, Levine 1997, Demirgüç-Kunt and Maksimovic 1998, Booth et al. 2001, Titman et al. 2003, Hall et al. 2001). However, a recent literature focused on differences in institutional setting at local level (Guiso et al. 2004). In a single country institutional differences can exist at a local level, playing a crucial role in determining corporate financial decisions. Petersen and Rajan (2002) documented the importance of distance in the provision of bank credit to small firms, especially in a country where the problems of asymmetric information are substantial. This argument is close to contemporary debates in Economic Geography, interested in the understanding of firm financing across different regional contexts (Martin 1999, Pollard 2003),
and in Regional Economic (Dow and Montagnoli 2007). Specifically, the research into the relationship between law and finance (La Porta et al. 1998) takes into account the role of institutional factors, such as the efficiency of financial and enforcement systems. According to Titman et al. (2003) a principal source of the wedge influencing capital-structure choices may be asymmetric information and the cost of contracting between companies and potential providers of external financing; this wedge is particularly high in presence of a poorly developed financial system11.
A well-developed financial system can facilitate the ability of a company to gain access to external financing, providing cheaper financing to worthy companies (Guiso et al. 2004). Moreover, differences in financial development also reflect differences in credit protection (Demirgüç-Kunt and Maksimovic 1999, Cheng and Shiu 2007)12. Due to the risk of default and the difficulty to get back the liquidation value of the collateral, judicial enforcement affects the ex-ante availability of agents to provide finance. Although the legal system applies all over a country the court efficiency does not equally work among different areas. Therefore, among different geographical areas, more developed and efficient local institutions should allow for a higher use of debt.
The influence of local institutional factors on capital structure decisions is particularly relevant for small and medium-size firms; these firms face different menus of choices, opportunities and constraints according to the geographic context where they are based (Pollard 2003). While large companies that can operate multinationally are affected by country institutional factors, smaller companies are instead influenced by local institutional factors, that seems to be still important despite the international phenomenon of market integration (Guiso et al 2004).
No comments