Este trabalho buscou investigar os principais determinantes da produtividade. Para tanto, o trabalho construiu medidas da Produtividade Total dos Fatores (PTF) e analisou o impacto do Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), de seus subíndices e dos 12 pilares de competitividade que compõem esses subíndices, sobre a PTF. Os principais resultados encontrados são: a heterogeneidade não observada dos países é correlacionada com os regressores, causando estimativas inconsistentes caso não seja tratada; as variáveis apresentaram endogeneidade nos modelos, a qual também deve ser levada em consideração nas estimações; a produtividade passada se mostrou relevante para explicar seu comportamento futuro; os pilares \"ambiente macroeconômico\", \"saúde e ensino básico\" e \"desenvolvimento do mercado financeiro\" afetam positivamente a PTF; já a \"capacidade de absorção tecnológica\" apresentou efeito líquido negativo sobre a PTF, ao contrário do que era esperado; os subíndices apresentaram poucos resultados estatisticamente significantes e em linha com o esperado; e, por último, a análise do índice GCI revelou que um aumento em uma unidade desse indicador, em uma escala de 1 a 7, está relacionado a um crescimento líquido de 21% na produtividade / This study aimed to investigate the main determinants of productivity. Therefore, the work built measures of Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and analyzed the impact of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), its subindexes and the 12 pillars of competitiveness that make up these subindexes on the PTF. The main results are: the unobserved heterogeneity of countries is related to the covariates, causing inconsistent estimates if not treated; the variables presented endogeneity in the models, which should also be taken into account in the estimation; productivity lags proved relevant to explain their future behavior; the pillars \"macroeconomic environment\", \"health and basic education\" and \"financial market development\" positively affect the TFP; on the other hand, \"technological readiness\" had a negative net effect on TFP, contrary to what was expected; the subindexes showed few statistically significant results and in line with what was expected; and finally, the analysis of the GCI index revealed that an increase in one unit of this indicator, on a 1 to 7 scale, is related to a net increase of 21% in productivity

The rapid growth of financial markets and the increasing diffusion of corporate ownership have placed tremendous emphasis on the effectiveness of corporate governance in resolving agency conflicts within the firm. This study investigates the corporate governance and firm performance/failure relation by implementing various econometric modelling methods to disaggregate causal relations and spurious correlations. Using a panel dataset of Australian firms, a comprehensive suite of corporate governance mechanisms are considered; including the ownership, remuneration, and board structures of the firm. Initial ordinary least squares (OLS) and fixed-effects panel specifications report significant causal relations between various corporate governance measures and firm outcomes. However, the dynamic generalised method of moments (GMM) results indicate that no causal relations exist when taking into account the effects of simultaneity, dynamic endogeneity, and unobservable heterogeneity. Moreover, these results remain robust when accounting for the firm??s propensity for fraud. The findings support the equilibrium theory of corporate governance and the firm, suggesting that a firm??s corporate governance structure is an endogenous characteristic determined by other firm factors; and that any observed relations between governance and firm outcomes are spurious in nature. Chapter 2 examines the corporate governance and firm performance relation. Using a comprehensive suite of corporate governance measures, this chapter finds no evidence of a causal relation between corporate governance and firm performance when accounting for the biases introduced by simultaneity, dynamic endogeneity, and unobservable heterogeneity. This result is consistent across all firm performance measures. Chapter 3 explores the corporate governance and likelihood of firm failure relation by implementing the Merton (1974) model of firm-valuation. Similarly, no significant causal relations between a firm??s corporate governance structure and its likelihood of failure are detected when accounting for the influence of endogeneity on the parameter estimates. Chapter 4 re-examines the corporate governance and firm performance/failure relation within the context of corporate fraud. Using KPMG and ASIC fraud databases, the corporate governance and firm outcome relations are estimated whilst accounting for the firms?? vulnerability to corporate fraud. This chapter finds no evidence of a causal relation between corporate governance and firm outcomes when conditioning on a firm??s propensity for fraud.

The rapid growth of financial markets and the increasing diffusion of corporate ownership have placed tremendous emphasis on the effectiveness of corporate governance in resolving agency conflicts within the firm. This study investigates the corporate governance and firm performance/failure relation by implementing various econometric modelling methods to disaggregate causal relations and spurious correlations. Using a panel dataset of Australian firms, a comprehensive suite of corporate governance mechanisms are considered; including the ownership, remuneration, and board structures of the firm. Initial ordinary least squares (OLS) and fixed-effects panel specifications report significant causal relations between various corporate governance measures and firm outcomes. However, the dynamic generalised method of moments (GMM) results indicate that no causal relations exist when taking into account the effects of simultaneity, dynamic endogeneity, and unobservable heterogeneity. Moreover, these results remain robust when accounting for the firm??s propensity for fraud. The findings support the equilibrium theory of corporate governance and the firm, suggesting that a firm??s corporate governance structure is an endogenous characteristic determined by other firm factors; and that any observed relations between governance and firm outcomes are spurious in nature. Chapter 2 examines the corporate governance and firm performance relation. Using a comprehensive suite of corporate governance measures, this chapter finds no evidence of a causal relation between corporate governance and firm performance when accounting for the biases introduced by simultaneity, dynamic endogeneity, and unobservable heterogeneity. This result is consistent across all firm performance measures. Chapter 3 explores the corporate governance and likelihood of firm failure relation by implementing the Merton (1974) model of firm-valuation. Similarly, no significant causal relations between a firm??s corporate governance structure and its likelihood of failure are detected when accounting for the influence of endogeneity on the parameter estimates. Chapter 4 re-examines the corporate governance and firm performance/failure relation within the context of corporate fraud. Using KPMG and ASIC fraud databases, the corporate governance and firm outcome relations are estimated whilst accounting for the firms?? vulnerability to corporate fraud. This chapter finds no evidence of a causal relation between corporate governance and firm outcomes when conditioning on a firm??s propensity for fraud.

Este trabalho buscou investigar os principais determinantes da produtividade. Para tanto, o trabalho construiu medidas da Produtividade Total dos Fatores (PTF) e analisou o impacto do Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), de seus subíndices e dos 12 pilares de competitividade que compõem esses subíndices, sobre a PTF. Os principais resultados encontrados são: a heterogeneidade não observada dos países é correlacionada com os regressores, causando estimativas inconsistentes caso não seja tratada; as variáveis apresentaram endogeneidade nos modelos, a qual também deve ser levada em consideração nas estimações; a produtividade passada se mostrou relevante para explicar seu comportamento futuro; os pilares \"ambiente macroeconômico\", \"saúde e ensino básico\" e \"desenvolvimento do mercado financeiro\" afetam positivamente a PTF; já a \"capacidade de absorção tecnológica\" apresentou efeito líquido negativo sobre a PTF, ao contrário do que era esperado; os subíndices apresentaram poucos resultados estatisticamente significantes e em linha com o esperado; e, por último, a análise do índice GCI revelou que um aumento em uma unidade desse indicador, em uma escala de 1 a 7, está relacionado a um crescimento líquido de 21% na produtividade / This study aimed to investigate the main determinants of productivity. Therefore, the work built measures of Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and analyzed the impact of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), its subindexes and the 12 pillars of competitiveness that make up these subindexes on the PTF. The main results are: the unobserved heterogeneity of countries is related to the covariates, causing inconsistent estimates if not treated; the variables presented endogeneity in the models, which should also be taken into account in the estimation; productivity lags proved relevant to explain their future behavior; the pillars \"macroeconomic environment\", \"health and basic education\" and \"financial market development\" positively affect the TFP; on the other hand, \"technological readiness\" had a negative net effect on TFP, contrary to what was expected; the subindexes showed few statistically significant results and in line with what was expected; and finally, the analysis of the GCI index revealed that an increase in one unit of this indicator, on a 1 to 7 scale, is related to a net increase of 21% in productivity