The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0972-7981.htm

Application of capital structure Capital

structure
theories: a systematic review theories
Yukti Bajaj, Smita Kashiramka and Shveta Singh
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi, India
Abstract Received 29 January 2020
Purpose – The present study aims to analyse the literature on capital structure theories for the last 21 years to Revised 23 July 2020
identify the existing gaps and themes for prospective researchers in this domain. Accepted 2 August 2020
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 183 articles published from 1999 to 2019 in the Scopus
database using “capital structure theory” and “leverage” as keywords was analysed on various basis. A
citation analysis was also performed to recognize impactful authors and papers.
Findings – The findings revealed that though the capital structure research studies were highly focussed on
developed economies, with time, research studies in developing markets are increasing. Further, the capital
structure research studies were largely conducted by considering all the industries together, whereas the focus
on a particular industrial sector was meagre. Almost all the studies were empirical, thus providing scope for
primary research. Various forms of regression were popular econometric techniques used in this area of late.
This review highlighted the dominance of trade-off theory to elucidate the capital structure of firms,
irrespective of the status of the economy. The comprehensive review uncovered the existing gaps and identified
major themes evolving in the capital structure domain.
Originality/value – Unlike a traditional review paper, this study classifies sample articles based on several
parameters and depicts a graphical presentation of the findings to cover research gaps, avenues, evolving
themes, key aspects, impactful authors and their papers, etc. in the capital structure domain. It provides ready-
made information available for prospective research studies in this field.
Keywords Capital structure, Leverage, Citation analysis, Trade-off theory
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Maintaining a careful balance between the debt and equity sources of financing is
undoubtedly one of the firm’s key challenges. The capital structure of a firm impacts the
future source of funds, cost of capital, risk character, liquidity position, investor return and
firm valuation. Being a core financing decision, it is a heavily researched domain with major
contributions by eminent researchers in the form of capital structure theories. The seminal
piece of the theory of irrelevance proposed by Modigliani and Miller (1958) lays the
foundation for financing decisions in the field of corporate finance. Post their basic model,
many economists followed the lead and a stream of theories emerged to solve the capital
structure puzzle. Table 1 outlines the major contributions on capital structure theories by
esteemed researchers in this domain in chronological order.
As observed in Table 1, various capital structure theories have evolved over the past 60
years in modern corporate finance. However, their relevance and applicability (in practice)
remains a puzzle. The significance of this review is to take stock of the applicability of these
theories in the present business environment. There is a need to identify which theory (or a
combination of theories) holds in a particular set of environments, say in a developed
economy or a specific industry, etc. There is a need to explore that even after having a
plethora of theoretical and empirical evidence related to various capital structure theories is

The authors extend their sincere thanks to the editors for providing them the opportunity to publish in
Journal of Advances in Management Research (a journal of international repute). They would also like to
Journal of Advances in
extend their regards to the anonymous reviewers for the rigorous review, helpful comments and Management Research
constructive suggestions. The feedback has surely contributed to the enhancement of the original piece © Emerald Publishing Limited
0972-7981
of work. However, all of the remaining errors and omissions are of authors. DOI 10.1108/JAMR-01-2020-0017
JAMR Theory Researcher Conceptual contribution

The theory of Modigliani and Miller No impact of the debt–equity mix on firm valuation
irrelevance (1958)
The theory of relevance Modigliani and Miller The levered firm gets the advantage of the debt tax
(1963) shield
Trade-off theory Kraus and Litzenberger Firms borrow up to the point where the tax benefit from
(1973) an extra dollar in debt is exactly equal to the cost that
comes from the increased probability of financial
distress
Agency theory Jensen and Meckling Impact of manager–shareholder and debt holder–
(1976) shareholder conflicts on the capital structure
Signalling theory Ross (1977) Perception of the issue of debt as a favourable signal of
performance as against the issue of equity
Pecking order theory Myers (1984), Myers and Due to information asymmetry and adverse selection
Majluf (1984) problem, managers favour retained earnings and debt
over fresh equity
Trade-off theory Kane et al. (1984) Pioneering study considering the impact of continuous
(dynamics identified) time model in trade-off theory with cost, taxes,
uncertainty and tax benefits
Stakeholder theory Titman (1984) Firms will take into account the non-financial
stakeholders’ preferences when making capital
structure decisions
Dynamic trade-off Fischer et al. (1989) Firms have target ranges of leverage than ratios with
theory continual and suboptimal readjustment
Financial contracting Harris and Raviv (1992) Investors provide funds for firms’ investments with an
theory expectation to share returns in future. The financial
contract model settles the allocation of cash flows
generated to investors
Market timing theory Baker and Wurgler Executives attempt to time the market by issuing
(2002) equity when prices are high
Inertia proposition Welch (2004) The exogenous determination of capital structure due
to the prime influence of stock returns
Dynamic pecking order Morellec and Schurhoff Illustrate investment timing to be a signalling device
theory (2011) which usually favours equity over debt financing
Behavioural Cronqvist et al. (2012) Top executives of the firms behave consistently in case
consistency theory of personal or corporate leverage choices
Norm theory Lam et al. (2013) The expected managerial behaviour (or norms) in their
interactions with subordinates and environment
impacts the capital structure decisions
Bargaining theory Chu and Wang (2017) When firms raise their leverage, their suppliers will
raise their own leverage in response, so as to maintain
strength in negotiations with important customers. In
Table 1. contrast, when a customer raises his/her leverage, a
Evolution of capital firm will respond by lowering its own leverage to
structure theories minimize the risk of bankruptcy

there any theory that can be applied universally or is context specific. If not, then are we still
missing on some unobserved important aspects?
A scant body of literature reviews exists in capital structure research. This study adds to
the literature by focussing on the applicability of theories of capital structure in different
environments. This extensive review aims to recognize the trend in the capital structure
research studies over the last 21 years by assessing the sample of articles. It also intends to
identify the most accepted theory to elucidate the capital structure of firms in the present
business scenario. Further, the choice of recent time duration (1999–2019) is to identify major
themes evolving in this domain, thereby opening new avenues for research.
 In the past, only a few studies have reviewed the literature on capital structure and most of Capital
them focussed on summarizing the empirical evidence of either a single theory (such as structure
Barnia et al., 1981) or the two popular theories, namely, trade-off and pecking order (such as
Graham and Leary, 2011; Frydenberg, 2011). Thus, survey articles and articles evidencing all
theories
other theories, namely, agency cost, market timing and stakeholder theories, etc. together are
not considered in a single review paper. Besides, some of them have only reviewed the
determinants of capital structure (Kumar et al., 2017), thereby paying little attention to the
theories backing up those relationships. Furthermore, reviews by Luigi and Sorin (2009),
Miglo (2010) and Iqbal et al. (2012) do not use a systematic methodology of article screening
and selection and graphical presentation of data.
Based on the aforementioned arguments, the authors would like to shed light on the
incremental contributions and implications of this study in the corporate financing literature.
First, a usual review paper reports the results and summarizes the main conclusions.
However, here the articles are classified based on several parameters and a graphical
presentation of the findings (so derived) is depicted. Rather than the traditional way of
summarizing the results of existing research, authors attempt to provide gaps, avenues,
evolving themes, key aspects, impactful authors and their papers, etc. in this area. Second,
this research provides ready-made and processed information on major works in this domain
for the prospective researchers saving their time and efforts. Third, the review highlights that
the applicability of trade-off theory has increased lately across both developed and
developing markets. Fourth, using the systematic approach, several gaps, themes and key
aspects are highlighted, paving the way for budding researchers in this field. Finally, the
citation analysis will facilitate the researchers to refer to distinguished papers and authors in
this domain. They can even seek collaboration or guidance from these eminent authors for
future works focussing on financing decisions.
The study unveils that though the capital structure research studies were highly focussed
on developed economies, with time, the researchers have recognized the importance of
probing into the less developed markets with different attributes to identify any significant
variation between the financing decisions of firms across the two regions. With the gradual
growth and development due to reforms (such as enforced accounting disclosures) in these
less developed markets, researchers may have gained access to data leading to upcoming
corporate financing investigations in these regions and cross-country comparisons lately.
Further, research studies conducted in this domain have shown less focus on particular
industries under investigation. However, few recent studies have identified the need for
focussing on a specific sector analysis (such as manufacturing, banking, etc.) due to the
existing differences. There is still a dearth of primary research in this area due to the
challenge of reaching out to financial managers and pushing them to disclose their financing
practices. Maximum researchers resort to the use of panel data with several forms of
regression techniques for the analysis in this area due to its advantages over cross-section
and time-series data. Though there is no evidence of any single theory applicable universally,
however, most of the sample articles highlight the financing decisions backed by trade-off
theory (irrespective of the status of the economy).
To sum up, the comprehensive review points out the existing gaps and identifies major
evolving themes. “Determinants of capital structure” and “Capital structure dynamics”
continue to be a heavily researched area in this domain along with upcoming themes such as
“CSR, corporate governance and capital structure”. The study also highlights key aspects
revolving around this literature lately and a citation analysis facilitates future researchers
with impactful authors and their articles in this field.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methodology
and Section 3 presents the literature analysis and classification. Section 4 discusses some key
JAMR aspects related to capital structure research. Section 5 entails the citation analysis of the
sample articles. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the gaps and avenues for prospective research.

2. The research methodology

According to Webster and Watson (2002), a literature review aids theoretical advancement,
highlights the domains with abundant research studies and unveils the areas that necessitate
future research. Systematic literature review (SLR) is one that elucidates the process of
carrying out the review and must be comprehensive in scope (Fink, 2005). It is designed to
overcome the inherent limitations of a general literature review. It aids in collating structured
results from the existing literature to identify new emanating themes. This technique is useful
to assess the cutting-edge literature and uncover the considerable gaps for additional
investigation. Further, unlike a general literature review, this technique is useful in reducing
any unintended bias (Bimrose et al., 2005).
This study follows the SLR methodology of Jabbour (2013), Terjesen et al. (2016), Silva
et al. (2017), Paul and Singh (2017), Kumar et al. (2017), Prakash et al. (2017), Mahajan et al.
(2017) and Tamilmani et al. (2018). They suggested the following steps to be undertaken for
carrying out an SLR: first, published articles on the concept to be reviewed should be explored
in the pertinent database. Second, the articles so retrieved must be classified based on some
rational/logical codes. A framework for the concept should then be designed using the above-
mentioned classification. Third, the observations derived from the framework should be
presented as the main findings using the logical codes. Final and most important, research
gaps should be recognized to unfold avenues for prospective research studies.
To derive the sample, articles relevant to the capital structure theories published in only
peer-reviewed journals listed under A, A* and B categories based on the Australian Business
Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List 2018 were drawn. The articles published within
the period of the last 21 (1999–2019) years and limited to the subject areas of economics,
finance, econometrics, business, management and accounting were considered. Further,
irrelevant articles such as non-English and pedagogical articles were excluded. Thus, a final
sample of 183 research papers from journals of international repute was derived for carrying
out the classification and analysis (refer Figure 1).

3. The literature analysis and classification

To assess the existing research study, all the selected articles were classified based on the
following parameters:

Search input
Limited
“Capital Limited Limited Limited Limited Exclusion
to
Database structure to to to to of
quality of
“SCOPUS” theory” Subject area publication source type year of irrelevant
Journal
and type publication articles
“Leverage”

Economics, Such as Non

finance, Articles only A*, A&B
Article title, Journal Twenty one journals english
econometrics, (published articles &
abstract and business, years span (as per
and only pedagogical
keywords management (1999-2019) ABCD)
in press) articles
& accounting

Figure 1.
The article selection
process for the 474 427 399 397 362 210 183
literature review articles articles articles articles articles articles articles
 (1) The type of study Capital
(2) The publication year structure
(3) The type of industry
theories
(4) The status of the economy (developed or developing)
(5) Statistical/econometric techniques
(6) Theory backing
(7) Evolving themes
(8) Key aspects
(9) Citation analysis

3.1 The type of study

Our sample of articles was categorized into two categories: empirical and survey-based
studies.
(1) An empirical study is conducted based on observation and quantification of theory/
hypothesis whose cause or explanation is in question. Secondary data is gathered to
compare against the theory/hypothesis which is then analysed using a particular
methodology or statistical technique to corroborate the findings.
(2) A survey-based study is the analysis of primary data using either a written/online
questionnaire or telephonic/face-to-face interview.
The predominance of empirical studies in capital structure research was witnessed. It
constituted 98% (180) of the total sample articles, highlighting the dominion of empirical
research in this area. In contrast, only 2% (3) of the total articles were survey-based studies.
Therefore, it implies that the majority of researchers relied on secondary data for conducting
capital structure research studies. This could be due to lack of availability of data from
primary sources: first, since the financing decisions are one of the core decisions taken by top
management executives, it is strenuous to reach out and gather their opinions; second, if
reached, then they might not disclose information regarding such a value impacting decision
of the firm.

3.2 The publication year

Figure 2 in this subsection provides the trend of literature on capital structure theories based
on the publication year. It exhibits an upward sloping trend in this domain for the past 21
years. This depicts that capital structure research is headed in a positive direction.
Based on the sample of articles, it can be inferred that this field acquired the interest of
researchers around 2002 and gained momentum after 2008. Further, the analysis highlighted
that a substantial work done in this area was published in high-quality reputed journals from
2011 to date.

3.3 The type of industry

Figure 3 in this subsection provides the literature on capital structure theories based on
industry type. It indicates that 86% (157) of the total articles pay heed to firms across all
industrial sectors in this domain (refer “All”). It also reveals that researchers have given
negligible attention to specific industrial sectors as there is not even a single industry with a
 25
JAMR
20

Number of articles
15

10

5
Figure 2.
The trend of literature
0
on capital structure
theories based on the
publication year
Publication Year

share of more than 5% of articles in the total sample. However, a few recently published
articles (3%–4% ) focussed on the banking, manufacturing and real-estate sectors.
About the nature of firms in the sample of articles, the analysis highlighted that maximum
studies in “All” considered firms across all industries except the financial sector as firms in
this sector were highly regulated and had strict capital requirements. Further, zero leverage
firms, multinational corporations (MNCs), small–medium and micro enterprises were also
gaining the attention of researchers in this area of late.
The type of industry is an important determinant of the capital structure decision
(Remmers et al., 1974; Bajaj et al., 2018). Firms within an industry have similar debt ratios due
to similarities in technologies, liquidity needs, sets of collaterals, proceeds and growth. Also,
distinct industrial sectors have unique financial settings. Therefore, for more rigorous results,
capital structure research should be more industry specific in the future.

3.4 The status of the economy

Capital structure research had its genesis in developed economies such as the USA and
moderately proceeded to the developing economies. A similar trend was still being witnessed
as far as the status of economic development was concerned. The analysis revealed that out of

Mixed

Restaurant
Industry type

Education

REIT

Manufacturing

Banking

All
Figure 3.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The literature on
capital structure Percentage of articles
theories based on
industry type Note(s): “All” imples firms across all industries; 'Mixed implies two or more industries used
for comparison
 90
Capital
80 structure
70 theories
Number of articles

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

South Korea
Belgium

Pakistan
Brazil

Norway
Italy

Spain

USA
Australia

Canada
China
Europe

Korea

Russia

Slovenia
France
Greece
India

Macedonia
Malaysia

Nigeria
New Zealand

Portugal

South Africa

Switzerland
Taiwan
UK
Sub Saharan Africa
Mixed

Serbia
Figure 4.
The literature on
Country/Region capital structure
theories based on the
country/region
Note(s): Mixed implies two or more countries mostly used for comparisons

the total sample of 183 articles, 69% (126) of the capital structure research studies were
carried out in the developed economies. In contrast, 23% (42) of the research studies focussed
on the developing economies and only 8% (15) focussed on both developed and developing
economies [1]. The probable reasons for fewer articles in the developing economies could be
the data constraints due to relatively less stringent accounting disclosure requirements in
these regions in the early years of the sampling period.
Figure 4 in this subsection provides the literature on capital structure theories based on a
country/region. It exhibits the preponderance of capital structure research in developed
economies with supremacy by the USA in North America followed by Europe. However, very
limited research studies exist in South America, Australia and New Zealand.
About the developing economies, the figure exhibits a majority of research studies
emerging from China followed by India and Taiwan as they represent the top emerging
economies in the world. Moreover, researchers could be interested to explore the financing
decisions owing to relatively less efficient capital markets in these economies.
Figure 5 in this subsection provides the literature on capital structure theories based on
the region over 21 years. Following the evolution pattern of research, the American continent
continues to dominate this domain. It is interesting to note that researchers in Asia are
showing more interest in this area (specifically after 2013), followed by little progress in
Africa.
As the research study has picked up in developing nations, a lot of cross-country
comparisons have been undertaken. Further, the analysis revealed that out of 22 articles with
cross-country comparisons, 21 articles attempted to compare the developed and developing
scenarios based on country-specific, financial development and institutional determinants
impacting the capital structure.
To sum up, this area of research has been dominated by developed nations due to enforced
disclosures providing access to data and better institutional settings. However, with the
gradual development and enforced disclosure requirements over time in the developing
economies, the transparency and availability of data have increased leading to the increased
attention of researchers in these regions. Moreover, firms in developing economies possess
distinct attributes compared to those in developed economies, such as concentrated
JAMR 25

Number of articles 20

15

10

Figure 5.
The literature on
0
capital structure based
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
on the year of
publication and region Publication year
America Europe Africa Asia Oceania Mixed (Cross-continents)

shareholdings and control, family/state ownership, weaker institutional arrangement and

legal structure, the importance of political connections and government interventions, etc.
However, continuous reforms in the legal and regulatory framework and governance
practices in developing economies enabled the gradual development of their financial system,
thereby motivating researchers to undertake such studies. Additionally, the capital structure
issues prevailing in developing markets were different from those in developed markets
(Kumar et al., 2017), thus motivating researchers to conduct cross-country comparisons in
this domain.

3.5 Statistical/econometric techniques

Choosing the appropriate statistical/econometric technique for data analysis is one of the key
decisions taken by a researcher. It varies from basic descriptive statistics to a range of
intricate statistical inferences. Table 2 depicts the various statistical/econometric techniques
used by researchers in the capital structure literature since 1999. The analysis revealed that
the majority of researchers used panel data in this area against the time-series and cross-
section data. Panel data sets had many advantages over conventional cross-section or time-
series sets of data, specifically for financial and economic investigations. As they provide the
analyst with multiple data points to focus on, increase the degrees of freedom and diminish
the colinearity amongst explanatory variables, thus enhancing the proficiency and efficiency
of econometric estimates. Baltagi (2005) reported that panel data enabled him to deal with
errors in variables and heterogeneity under a few restrictions. Heterogeneity in firms is
considered as all firms are not the same. Technically speaking, heterogeneity is related to
those unobserved characteristics of firms that cannot be captured by the explanatory
variables (Arellano, 2003).
A total of eight types of techniques used by researchers in this domain were identified. It
was relevant to note that regression (in various forms) was the predominant and most
popular technique. Various other techniques such as simulation, mathematical modelling,
difference-in-difference (DID) approach, survey questionnaire, etc. were emerging as recent
techniques deployed in this field.
For an in-depth analysis, various forms of regression models were analysed to identify the
most popular regression technique. Table 3 presents the top five forms of regression used by
Years Regression DID Simulation Brownian motion Structural estimation Optimization Opinion survey Simultaneous equation modelling MM

1999 1
2001 2
2002 2 1
2003 5
2004 5
2005 4
2006 6 1
2007 8 1
2008 12
2009 17 1
2010 10 1
2011 26 2
2012 24 1
2013 15 1 1
2014 20 1 2
2015 18 1 1
2016 22 1 1 1 1
2017 12 1
2018 11 1
2019 7
Total 227 3 6 1 2 1 3 1 4
Note(s): DID implies a difference-in-difference approach; MM implies mathematical modelling
structure
theories
Capital

literature
techniques used in
Table 2.

capital structure
Statistical/econometric
JAMR researchers in this area. Pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) emerged as the most popular
(amongst other forms) as it is simply an OLS technique run on panel data. However, recently,
researchers favour the fixed effects model (FEM), generalized method of moments (GMM) and
two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimations against pooled OLS due to the violations of basic
assumptions like orthogonality of the error term. Further, FEM, 2SLS and GMM are well
accepted due to the consistency in estimates in the case of endogeneity issues (Chi, 2005;
Greene, 2008; Ullah et al., 2018). The use of logit, probit or tobit regression is dependent on the
functional form wherein researchers consider leverage as a binary-dependent model. Apart
from these, researchers have also applied the random-effects model (Seo and Choi, 2016),
seemingly unrelated (Wang and Esqueda, 2014), Fama–Macbeth (Chung et al., 2018),
discontinuity (Rastad, 2016), robust regression (Kaya, 2011), etc.

3.6 Theory backing

The main objective of this review is to take a stock of the applicability of capital structure
theories in the present business environment and identify the most accepted theory. Initially,
14 theories from the sample of articles were identified, which have been screened to reach a
final list of theories that appear in two or more articles. Based on this screening, seven most
prominent capital structure theories were identified. Finally, these seven theories have been
analysed based on the year, the status of economy and the type of industry.
Figure 6 in this subsection provides theory backing in the literature on capital structure
based on the year of publication. It indicates that over the last 21 years, a lot of articles

Pooled OLS FEM GMM L/P/T 2SLS

Table 3.
Most popular Percentage of the total regression forms used 30 19 13 10 6
regression forms in Rank I II III IV V
capital structure Note(s): FEM implies a fixed effects model; GMM implies the generalized method of moments; L/P/T implies
literature logit, probit and tobit regression; 2SLS implies two-stage least squares regression

25

20
Number of articles

15

10

Figure 6.
Theory backing of the Publication year
literature on capital
structure based on the Agency Pecking and trade-off Market Timing Mixed Pecking order Stakeholder Trade-off
year of publication
Note(s): “Mixed” implies more than two theories taken together
focussed on a mix of capital structure theories (refer “Mixed”). However, it is noteworthy that Capital
this graph exhibits that trade-off theory has gained momentum post-2009 and is heavily structure
researched to date. This is because firms today operate in a highly turbulent environment and
need to be flexible, so that they can quickly adapt to the environmental changes and thereby
theories
gain an advantage over their competitors (Leana and Barry, 2000). The dynamic version of
trade-off theory is based on the premise that firms in the present business scenario tend to
continually adjust their capital structure over time, contingent upon changes in various
internal and external factors (Bajaj et al., 2020).
Further, the figure also depicts that agency theory has picked up pace post-2011 with
recent empirical shreds of evidence of stakeholder theory. The probable cause could be the
emerging research studies in the areas of corporate social responsibilities and corporate
governance.
Figure 7 in this subsection provides the theories backing the literature on capital structure
based on a region. It exhibits that the majority of articles substantiate trade-off theory in
America, Asia as well as in cross-continent comparisons. There are noteworthy pieces of
evidence of agency and stakeholder theories in the American context. This supports previous
findings of Figure 6 that there is a recent increase in the inclination of the researchers towards
these three theories, particularly in America and Asia. In contrast, the analysis revealed that
the majority of European studies evinced the pecking order theory of capital structure. This
suggests the conservative approach followed by European firms for financing decisions.
Further, in the light of dearth of studies in Africa and Oceania, we could not derive conclusive
findings in these regions.
As discussed in sub-section 3.3, since the majority of work in this domain is conducted
across all the industrial sectors collectively, the analysis of the theory backing based on the
type of industry did not provide conclusive outcomes.

90

80

70
Number of articles

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
America Europe Africa Aisa Oceania Mixed
Figure 7.
Region Theory backing the
literature on capital
Agency Pecking and trade-off Market Timing Mixed Pecking order Stakeholder Trade-off structure based on the
region
Note(s): Mixed implies cross-continent studies
JAMR 3.7 Evolving themes
Any review paper aims to provide new research opportunities; the present study identifies
major themes evolving in the capital structure domain, thereby opening avenues for
prospective researchers. Initially, 35 themes from the sample of articles were identified. Then,
themes appearing in less than two articles were excluded to reduce their number to 17.
Finally, these 17 themes were grouped based on similarity to reach the final list of seven
themes.
Table 4 presents the evolving themes in the capital structure literature over the past 21
years. The three popular themes in the literature from 1999 to 2019 were “Determinants of
capital structure”, “Capital structure dynamics and adjustment” and “Testing capital
structure theories in practice”. As the table shows, “Determinants of capital structure” is a
thoroughly researched theme. However, articles on this theme continue to expand in large
numbers, specifically post-2009. This finding is consistent in light of increasing interest of
researchers to explore the impact of various country-specific, financial development and
institutional determinants impacting the capital structure, particularly in developing
economies and cross-country comparisons (refer sub-section 3.4).
“Capital structure dynamics and adjustment” is yet another theme that has gained
popularity after 2012. This finding is consistent with the expansion of trade-off theory (in
dynamic version) as discussed in subsection 3.6.
“Testing capital structure theories in practice” is a theme that was popular during 2008–
2014. This is because by 2008, major theories were developed and there was a need to
substantiate them. Several researchers tried to test the theories independently in different
economies and industries. However, after 2014 this theme did not attract as much attention as
others.
Apart from these three themes, the analysis highlighted “CSR, corporate governance and
capital structure” as an emerging theme, specifically post-2012. Empirical articles on this
theme are continuously being published in a reasonable number. This finding supports the
increase in articles on agency theory as mentioned in subsection 3.6.
Further, the literature indicated that researchers were trying to link the capital structure of
firms with various qualitative determinants. This was evident as a considerable number of
articles were also published on the themes “Personal characteristics of top executives and
capital structure” and “CEO compensation and capital structure”.

4. Key aspects related to capital structure research: a discussion

While conducting the review, the authors came across certain key aspects that were either
used as independent variables or consistently controlled for. Hence, they are discussed
herewith.

4.1 Importance of cross-section heterogeneity

An additional parameter to be considered while analysing capital structure research is the
cross-sectional heterogeneity. It implies that the significance of a particular determinant may
not be uniform across all types of firms. Thus, the sample articles with determinants of capital
structure as the focal point were analysed to recognize whether the impact of these
determinants was uniform across the cross-section units.
Frank and Goyal (2009) checked for any changes in the capital structure determinants
based on financial constraints faced by firms and reported no significant differences of the
same. Xu (2012) investigated the variation in the impact of import competition on leverage
due to changes in market share, financial strength and uniqueness of operations. His findings
indicated that firms exposed to detrimental impacts of increased competition (less unique
 Testing capital
Capital structure Capital structure CEO compensation CSR, corporate Personal characteristics structure
dynamics and and firm and capital governance and Determinants of of top executives and theories in
Years adjustment performance structure capital structure capital structure capital structure practice

1999 1
2000
2001 1
2002 1 1
2003 1 1 2
2004 1 2
2005 2 1 2
2006 1 1 1
2007 1 3 1
2008 1 2 1 3
2009 2 1 5 3
2010 1 1 4
2011 1 5 5 3 5
2012 6 1 1 3 2 2
2013 1 1 5 1 3
2014 2 1 2 2 4
2015 5 1 6 2
2016 6 2 2 7 1
2017 3 3 1 2 1 1
2018 3 1 8
2019 1 1 2
Total 38 12 2 12 54 10 35
(%) 24 7 1 7 33 6 21
structure
theories
Capital

literature
Evolving themes in the
Table 4.

capital structure
JAMR product, low financial strength and market share) reported a robust impact of import
competition on leverage. Newman et al. (2012) explored the determinants of capital structure
for Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and observed heterogeneity based on
the manufacturing or non-manufacturing type of firm. Though they reported a difference in
the magnitude of determinants considering the manufacturing sample, the direction
remained the same. Hence, findings remained consistent with the full sample suggesting the
pecking order hypothesis. Mateev et al. (2013) examined the applicability of pecking order
theory for European SMEs and reported heterogeneity based on firms’ age and size. They
documented consistency in the negative impact of cash flow for medium-sized firms only.
This indicated that relatively large-sized SMEs having enough internal finance restricted
their use of external finance. Similar was with the older firms. On comparing the determinants
impacting capital structure for leveraged buyouts and public firms, Axelson et al. (2013)
highlighted significant differences. They reported that leverage was mostly steered by
conditions in the debt market (particularly price and availability) as against the public firms,
where the driving forces were firm-specific factors.
Morri and Parri (2017) proved that pre- and post-financial crises periods impacted the
uniformity in significance and direction of the determinants of capital structure for US real
estate investment trusts (REITs). Profitability, tangibility and growth opportunities became
vital factors influencing the financing decisions post the crises. Koralun-Bere
znicka (2018)
considered the impact of various firms, industries and country-level factors on the capital
structure for 11 European Union (EU) countries. However, considering the heterogeneity
based on size and debt maturity, he reported considerable differences in the significance and
direction of their impact on leverage across all size groups and debt maturity. Similarly,
Li and Stathis (2017) investigated the impact of determinants on capital structure based on
the size and growth level of firms. Larger firms reported profits, the log of assets, capital
expenditure, median industry leverage and tangibility as significant, whereas smaller firms
reported profitability, the log of assets, industry growth, median industry leverage,
tangibility and market-to-book ratio as significant factors impacting leverage. Overall, their
results favoured pecking order theory. About the highly growing firms, the determinants
were more or less consistent with low growth firms. Yildirim et al. (2018) explored the
heterogeneity based on Shariah compliance (SC) of seven countries and did not report
uniformity in the significance and direction of firm size, growth opportunity and gross
domestic product (GDP) growth rate impacting capital structure for SC and non-SC firms.
Boubaker et al. (2018) investigated the heterogeneities based on financial constraints and
quality of corporate governance impacting the association between competition and debt
alternatives. They documented that competitive pressure reduced the requirement for bank-
monitored debt enormously for financially constrained and weakly governed firms.

4.2 The role of top executives

Top executives play a very important role in almost all major decision areas of the firm and
capital structure decision is not any different. Researchers have identified chief executive
officer (CEO) power/dominance, managerial norms, CEO compensation and their personal
leverage, employee treatment, etc. as significant factors impacting the firm’s leverage.
According to the sample, research focussing on the role of top executives in the financing
decisions was embarked by Bae et al. (2011). They probed into stakeholder theory and
suggested that firms maintaining equitable behaviour with their employees tend to sustain
lower debt ratios. Cronqvist et al. (2012) revealed that the personal financing behaviour of the
CEOs influenced their corporate financing behaviour in respect of the firms managed by
them, especially in a weak governance environment. Jiraporn et al. (2012a) explored the
impact of CEO dominance on leverage decisions of US firms. They documented that CEO
power and dominance not only aggravated the agency issues but rather exerted a negative
influence of the capital structure changes on firm valuation. This view is consistent with Capital
Chintrakarn et al. (2014), who reported that powerful CEOs tend to opt for lower leverages to structure
pursue private goals over the shareholders. However, they emphasized the non-monotonic
relationship between CEO dominance and financing decisions, asserting that agency issues
theories
may not cause managerial entrenchment till they have considerable power at hand. Similarly,
Li et al. (2017) also documented a non-linear association of CEO power with the capital
structure using a sample of Chinese SMEs. They advocated that firms with less power to CEO
have a high level of debt. However, when granted with more power, they attempted to pursue
personal goals by manipulating debt ratios.
Agha (2013), Tosun (2016) and Minhat and Dzolkarnaini (2016) linked CEO compensation
with leverage decisions. Agha (2013) suggested that leverage initially declined in case
managers were offered bonuses and stock incentives and then expanded beyond a certain
point. However, the opposite was reported in the case of option incentives. Moreover, in case
of a combination of all the incentives the entrenchment–alignment effects were witnessed.
Following the agency theory, Tosun (2016) reported that firms tend to decrease their leverage
when CEOs were compensated with additional options. Similarly, Minhat and Dzolkarnaini
(2016) reported the negative impact of CEO equity incentives on leverage for UK firms. They
supported substitutability theory wherein firms having larger debt executed less CEO equity
incentives to mitigate agency costs associated with equity. Focussing on the culture–finance
literature, Lam et al. (2013) proposed norm theory which stated that behavioural aspects,
namely, manager traits, biases, etc. influence the leverage decisions.

4.3 Debt structure

Debt structure has emerged as yet another important aspect revolving around the corporate
financing literature. Determinants like debt source, zero leverage, debt maturity, interest
rates, etc. provide some important insights into capital structure decisions. Kaya (2011)
explored the impact of the syndicated bank loan (with varying interest rates) on the capital
structure of borrowers and reported an insignificant impact of interest rates on leverage in
the long run. His findings provided a weak preference of trade-off theory for syndicated loan
borrowers as they did revert to their pre-issue leverage ratios, yet holding considerable debt
relative to the original level even after five years of the issue. Fu and Subramanian (2011)
proposed a new theory built upon the agency issues amongst undiversified managers and
well-diversified investors. Inconsistent with the existing theories, they anticipated that
financing choices including the leverage and debt maturity dynamics were based on earnings
drift and managers’ attributes.
Devos et al. (2012) probed into the reason behind the zero debt form of the capital structure
adopted by certain firms and reported that financing constraints played a significant role in
describing their choice to sustain debt free. They emphasized that young firms usually
smaller in size with negligible credit history avoid debt as it was expensive. Even banks
charge a high rate of interest with stern covenants, further making debt an unviable option.
Thus, they preferred to remain debt free until they had a reputation in the market by
improving performance. On the other hand, Lotfaliei (2018) predicted the real option to have
debt drives the firms to persist debt free. Komera and Lukose (2015) explored the capital
structure of Indian firms considering the debt capacity aspect and reported inconsistency of
their financing choices with the pecking order hypothesis. Xu (2012) supported the trade-off
theory and evinced the trade-off between debt benefits and financial distress costs as the
driving force for explaining the negative impact of import competition on firms’ leverage
decisions.
Focussing on the debt maturity, Shyu and Lee (2009) documented an inverse impact of
excess control rights (by controlling owners) on short-term debt. In a similar study, Ben-Nasr
et al. (2015) stated that the presence of multiple large shareholders favouring short-term debt
JAMR over long-term debt helped to mitigate agency issues (arisen by the controlling owners’
preference of longer maturity debt for avoiding the high level of monitoring). Awartani et al.
(2016) probed into the debt maturity structure of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
region and documented a positive association of long-term debt with leverage, despite a
restricted application of it. Koralun-Bere
znicka (2018) investigated the impact of debt
maturity on the capital structure for 11 EU countries and documented that the short-term
debt is backed by the trade-off hypothesis, whereas the long-term debt is backed by the
pecking order hypothesis. Belkhir et al. (2016) investigated the influence of labour protection
on the debt maturity structure for firms in 43 countries. They reported that due to increased
information asymmetry and agency issues associated with improved legal protection of
labour, there is a lesser usage of long-term debt. Similarly, Boubaker et al. (2019) investigated
the association between employees’ welfare practices and debt maturity structure for US
firms and evinced that firms scoring better on employees’ welfare opt for long-term debt.
While investigating the type of debt, Lin et al. (2013) posited that firms having large
shareholders possessing excess control rights opt for public debt over bank debt finance to
avoid heavy monitoring. Boubaker et al. (2018) and Bharath and Hertzel (2019) suggested that
competitive and governance pressure in the product market impelled firms to opt for bonds
instead of highly monitored bank debt, respectively.

4.4 The impact of corporate governance

Corporate governance aims to mitigate agency issues between shareholders and
management. Similarly, the agency theory of capital structure also suggests that leverage
helps in alleviating agency costs. Hence, researchers have explored the impact of corporate
governance on corporate financing decisions. They have identified board size and structure,
concentration, percentage of individual or institutional ownership, family ownership, outside
monitoring, quality of governance, etc. as significant factors impacting the firm’s leverage.
Jiraporn and Liu (2008) investigated the influence of staggered boards on corporate
financing decisions and reported that US firms having a staggered board depicted
considerably low debt ratios relative to the ones having unitary boards due to managerial
entrenchment. Jiraporn et al. (2012b) documented a negative relationship between capital
structure and the quality of corporate governance, wherein governance quality is measured
using metrics furnished by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). Thus, leverage acts as a
perfect substitute for governance to mitigate agency issues. Agha (2013) reported a positive
impact of internal governance on financing choices for US-listed firms. Chang et al. (2014)
evinced the influence of the quality of corporate governance on the leverage adjustments.
They suggested that weakly governed firms whether over or under-levered report slow
adjustment to target capital structure. However, the motive of over-levered firms is to avoid a
takeover, whereas the motive of under-levered ones is to avoid costs of the disciplinary role of
debt. Jain and Shao (2015) indentified the significance of family ownership in the financing
decisions and revealed that family initial public offering (IPO) firms carry more leverage than
non-family ones. Moreover, the kind of involvement of family members in a firm impacts the
post-IPO financing behaviour of the same. Atanasova et al. (2016) documented a robust
association between leverage decisions and corporate governance practices by small firms in
Canada. Also, firms with good quality of corporate governance tend to raise fresh equity
instead of debt. Similarly, Huang et al. (2016) focussed on Chinese SMEs to assess the
influence of corporate governance on capital structure and reported that executive
shareholding and cash compensation exerted a positive influence on leverage. In contrast,
ownership concentration tended to lower leverage. Further, Min (2018) reported the positive
impact of outsider monitoring (as better governance measure) on financing choices for
Korean firms.
 Summing up, we believe that Myers (2003) rightly said, “Theories are conditional, not Capital
general”. They might work better in certain scenarios and not in others. Thus, shedding light structure
on the cross-sectional heterogeneity in capital structure research is very important. Aspects
like human role, debt structure and governance quality have their significance and hence,
theories
these could seldom be ignored. We believe that the aforementioned discussion will facilitate
prospective researchers to gain deeper insights on corporate financing decisions.

5. The citation analysis

Alongside the abovementioned analysis, a citation analysis of the sample of articles is
performed to recognize impactful authors and their papers in capital structure research. It is
an instrument for the collection of pertinent studies as it facilitates identifying the most
influential studies in the concerned domain. The citation score acts as a standard measure as
the quality of an article is positively associated with its high citation scores (Kumar
et al., 2017).
First, the total citations of each article were gathered from Google Scholar and rank
ordered. Second, to control for the age of an article, the weighted citation scores, i.e. the total
citation score per year was calculated and rank ordered again. Table 5 presents the top 22
articles along with their authors in descending order. These include articles with a total
citation score of more than 250 (panel A) and a weighted score of more than 20 (panel B).
Both the citation analyses (panels A and B) revealed that M. Z. Frank, V. K. Goyal, M. J.
Flannery, K. P. Rangan, A. N. Berger, E. Bonaccorsi di Patti and I. A. Strebulaev were the most
cited authors in the capital structure domain from 1999 to date. Further, the table highlights
that these top 22 articles focussed on “Testing capital structure theories in practice” as well as
“Determinants of capital structure”. These findings are consistent with sub-section 3.7 as the
majority of work on the theme “Capital structure dynamics and adjustment” picked up
post-2012.
It is noteworthy that nine out of the top 22 articles were published in the Journal of
Financial Economics (JFE), implying that JFE publishes a lot of good quality articles in
this area.

6. Gaps and avenues for prospective research

The review depicted that even after six decades of the conceptualization of theories of capital
structure, it is still holding the attention of researchers. This review assessed the capital
structure literature based on the type of study, publication year, type of industry, the status of
the economy (whether developed or developing), statistical/econometric techniques
employed, evolving themes and resulting theory backing from 1999 to 2019. This section
pinpoints the gaps (G) and avenues (A) discovered for future research studies in this field.
G1. The dearth of primary studies.
The review highlighted the predominance of empirical studies in capital structure research.
However, the financing decisions are taken by top management executives such as CFOs and
CEOs of the firms. Hence, it is pertinent to seek qualitative data based on their opinions and
beliefs regarding the theories of capital structure to contribute to the existing literature.
A1. Potential researchers should conduct primary data studies for capital structure
research.
G2. Limited focus on specific industrial sectors.
The review evidenced that the maximum of research efforts in the capital structure area are
focussed on all industries taken together. Very little attention has been given to analyse
JAMR Panel A: ranking based on the total citation score Panel B: ranking based on the weighted citation score
Total Weighted
citation citation
Rank Authors Title score Rank Authors Title score

1 Frank and Testing the 2,807 1 Frank and Capital 202

Goyal (2003) pecking order Goyal (2009) structure
theory of decisions:
capital which factors
structure are reliably
important?
2 Frank and Capital 2,220 2 Frank and Testing the 165
Goyal (2009) structure Goyal (2003) pecking order
decisions: theory of
which factors capital
are reliably structure
important?
3 Flannery Partial 1,901 3 Flannery Partial 136
and Rangan adjustment and Rangan adjustment
(2006) toward target (2006) toward target
capital capital
structures structures
4 Berger and Capital 990 4 Strebulaev Do tests of 75
di Patti structure and (2007) capital
(2006) firm structure
performance: a theory mean
new approach what they say?
to testing
agency theory
and an
application to
the banking
industry
5 Strebulaev Do tests of 972 5 Berger and Capital 71
(2007) capital di Patti structure and
structure (2006) firm
theory mean performance: a
what they say? new approach
to testing
agency theory
and an
application to
the banking
industry
6 Chen (2004) Determinants 912 6 Huang and Testing 68
of capital Ritter (2009) theories of
structure of capital
Chinese-listed structure and
companies estimating the
speed of
adjustment
Table 5.
The citation analysis (continued )
Panel A: ranking based on the total citation score Panel B: ranking based on the weighted citation score
Capital
Total Weighted structure
citation citation theories
Rank Authors Title score Rank Authors Title score

7 Huang and Testing 745 7 Chen (2004) Determinants 57

Ritter (2009) theories of of capital
capital structure of
structure and Chinese-listed
estimating the companies
speed of
adjustment
8 Hovakimian Determinants 690 8 Heider and As certain as 53
et al. (2004) of target Ljungqvist debt and taxes:
capital (2015) estimating the
structure: the tax sensitivity
case of dual of leverage
debt and equity from state tax
issues changes
9 Bharath et al. Does 499 9 €
Oztekin and Institutional 46
(2008) asymmetric Flannery determinants
information (2012) of capital
drive capital structure
structure adjustment
decisions speeds
10 Gaud et al. The capital 493 10 Bharath et al. Does 45
(2005) structure of (2008) asymmetric
Swiss information
companies: an drive capital
empirical structure
analysis using decisions
dynamic panel
data
11 Sogorb-Mira How SME 459 11 Axelson et al. Borrow cheap, 45
(2005) uniqueness (2013) buy high? The
affects capital determinants
structure: of leverage and
evidence from pricing in
a 1994–1998 buyouts
Spanish data
panel
12 Delcoure The 408 12 Hovakimian Determinants 43
(2007) determinants et al. (2004) of target
of capital capital
structure in structure: the
transitional case of dual
economies debt and equity
issues
13 €
Oztekin and Institutional 364 13 Cronqvist Behavioral 34
Flannery determinants et al (2012) consistency in
(2012) of capital corporate
structure finance: CEO
adjustment personal and
speeds corporate
leverage

(continued ) Table 5.
JAMR Panel A: ranking based on the total citation score Panel B: ranking based on the weighted citation score
Total Weighted
citation citation
Rank Authors Title score Rank Authors Title score

14 L
opez-Gracia Testing trade- 355 14 Gaud et al. The capital 33

and. Sogorb- off and pecking (2005) structure of
Mira (2008) order theories Swiss
financing companies: an
SMEs empirical
analysis using
dynamic panel
data
15 Banerjee Buyer– 345 15 Delcoure The 31
et al. (2008) supplier (2007) determinants
relationships of capital
and the structure in
stakeholder transitional
theory of economies
capital
structure
16 Axelson et al. Borrow cheap, 312 16 Bae et al. Employee 31
(2013) buy high? The (2011) treatment and
determinants firm leverage: a
of leverage and test of the
pricing in stakeholder
buyouts theory of
capital
structure
17 Harford et al. Do firms have 311 17 Sogorb-Mira How SME 31
(2009) leverage (2005) uniqueness
targets? affects capital
Evidence from structure:
acquisitions evidence from
a 1994–1998
Spanish data
panel
18 Bae et al. Employee 278 18 L
opez-Gracia Testing trade- 30
(2011) treatment and and Sogorb- off and pecking
firm leverage: a Mira (2008) order theories
test of the financing
stakeholder SMEs
theory of
capital
structure
19 Cronqvist Behavioral 272 19 Banerjee Buyer– 29
et al. (2012) consistency in et al. (2008) supplier
corporate relationships
finance: CEO and the
personal and stakeholder
corporate theory of
leverage capital
structure

Table 5. (continued )
Panel A: ranking based on the total citation score Panel B: ranking based on the weighted citation score
Capital
Total Weighted structure
citation citation theories
Rank Authors Title score Rank Authors Title score

20 Heider and As certain as 265 20 Harford et al. Do firms have 28

Ljungqvist debt and taxes: (2009) leverage
(2015) estimating the targets?
tax sensitivity Evidence from
of leverage acquisitions
from state tax
changes
21 Goyal et al. Growth 261 21 Grove et al. Corporate 25
(2002) opportunities (2011) governance
and corporate and
debt policy: the performance in
case of the US the wake of the
defense financial crisis:
industry evidence from
US commercial
banks
22 Tong and Pecking order 252 22 Cole (2013) What do we 23
Green (2005) or trade-off know about the
hypothesis? capital
Evidence on structure of
the capital privately held
structure of US firms?
Chinese Evidence from
companies the Surveys of
small business
finance Table 5.

capital structure decisions about specific industries. However, there are unique firm-specific
factors impacting capital structure in a particular industry as well. Focussing a niche
segment resolves the doubt whether firms in a similar industry follow a similar theory or have
similar debt patterns.
A2. Capital structure research should be more industry-specific in future.
G3. The dearth of research in developing economies and cross-country comparisons.
This study depicted the dominion of capital structure research in the developed markets,
specifically in the USA. However, regions like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, etc. are
yet to be explored. Researchers have shown attention in the developing economies of late,
still, a huge gap exists.
Further, the majority of research studies in this domain highlighted the significance of
firm-specific factors on capital structure with very little focus on the country-specific and
institutional factors. However, firms in developing economies possess distinct attributes
compared to those in developed economies. Therefore, to comprehend the actual differences
between the financing decisions of different countries, researchers must contribute to the
literature by focussing on the developing economies and conducting cross-country
comparisons.
A3. Financing decisions should be explored owing to relatively less efficient capital and
stock markets in developing economies.
JAMR G4. Limited use of research methods.
The review pinpointed that the majority of researchers in this area have relied on a few
regression forms. However, it was observed that a change in methodology rendered
inconsistent results on the same data. Moreover, the findings were different from the same
methodologies across the different scope of environments. Hence, there is a need to explore
alternative techniques such as bias-corrected fixed-effects estimators, based on an analytical,
bootstrap or indirect inference approach, simulations, optimization, etc. to contribute to the
existing literature.
A4. More robust methodologies must be explored in the future for better results.
G5. Lack of work on qualitative aspects impacting the capital structure.
Capital structure studies have mostly used quantitative variables. However, qualitative
aspects impacting financing decisions are yet another area of research seeking attention.
A5. Qualitative variables such as personal attributes of top executives should be
examined.
It is believed that the findings of this review will be helpful for the researchers as they will be
able to use this study as a reference work.

Note
1. The definition of developed and developing economies is taken from country classifications by the
World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP) 2014 report published by the United Nations and
is still followed in the current WESP report 2019. Refer: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/
policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf.

References
Agha, M. (2013), “Leverage, executive incentives and corporate governance”, Accounting and Finance,
Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-30.
Arellano, M. (2003), Panel Data Econometrics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Atanasova, C., Gatev, E. and Shapiro, D. (2016), “The corporate governance and financing of small-cap
firms in Canada”, Managerial Finance, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 244-269.
Awartani, B., Belkhir, M., Boubaker, S. and Maghyereh, A. (2016), “Corporate debt maturity in the
MENA region: does institutional quality matter?”, International Review of Financial Analysis,
Vol. 46, pp. 309-325.
Axelson, U., Jenkinson, T., Str€omberg, P. and Weisbach, M.S. (2013), “Borrow cheap, buy high? The
determinants of leverage and pricing in buyouts”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 2223-2267.
Bae, K.H., Kang, J.K. and Wang, J. (2011), “Employee treatment and firm leverage: a test of the
stakeholder theory of capital structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 100 No. 1,
pp. 130-153.
Bajaj, Y., Kashiramka, S. and Singh, S. (2018), “Dynamics of capital structure: evidence from Indian
manufacturing firms”, Journal for Global Business Advancement, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 667-686.
Bajaj, Y., Kashiramka, S. and Singh, S. (2020), “Capital structure dynamics: China and India (Chindia)
perspective”, European Business Review. doi: 10.1108/EBR-09-2019-0203.
Baker, M. and Wurgler, J. (2002), “Market timing and capital structure”, The Journal of Finance,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Baltagi, B.H. (2005), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Banerjee, S., Dasgupta, S. and Kim, Y. (2008), “Buyer–supplier relationships and the stakeholder Capital
theory of capital structure”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 2507-2552.
structure
Barnea, A., Haugen, R. and Senbet, L. (1981), “Market imperfections, agency problems, and capital
structure: a review”, Financial Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 7-22.
theories
Belkhir, M., Ben-Nasr, H. and Boubaker, S. (2016), “Labor protection and corporate debt maturity:
international evidence”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 45, pp. 134-149.
Ben-Nasr, H., Boubaker, S. and Rouatbi, W. (2015), “Ownership structure, control contestability, and
corporate debt maturity”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 265-285.
Berger, A.N. and Di Patti, E.B. (2006), “Capital structure and firm performance: a new approach to
testing agency theory and an application to the banking industry”, Journal of Banking and
Finance, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1065-1102.
Bharath, S.T. and Hertzel, M. (2019), “External governance and debt structure”, Review of Financial
Studies, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 3335-3365.
Bharath, S.T., Pasquariello, P. and Wu, G. (2008), “Does asymmetric information drive capital
structure decisions?”, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 3211-3243.
Bimrose, J., Brown, J. and Barnes, S.A. (2005), A Systematic Literature Review of Research into Career-
Related Interventions for Higher Education, HECSU, Manchester.
Boubaker, S., Saffar, W. and Sassi, S. (2018), “Product market competition and debt choice”, Journal of
Corporate Finance, Vol. 49, pp. 204-224.
Boubaker, S., Chourou, L., Haddar, M. and Hamza, T. (2019), “Does employee welfare affect corporate
debt maturity?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 674-686.
Chang, Y.K., Chou, R.K. and Huang, T.H. (2014), “Corporate governance and the dynamics of capital
structure: new evidence”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 374-385.
Chen, J.J. (2004), “Determinants of capital structure of Chinese-listed companies”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1341-1351.
Chi, J. (2005), “Understanding the endogeneity between firm value and shareholder rights”, Financial
Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 65-76.
Chintrakarn, P., Jiraporn, P. and Singh, M. (2014), “Powerful CEOs and capital structure decisions:
evidence from the CEO pay slice (CPS)”, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 564-568.
Chu, Y. and Wang, L. (2017), “Capital structure along the supply chain: how does customer leverage
affect supplier leverage decisions?”, Quarterly Journal of Finance, Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 1750014.
Chung, C.Y., Liu, C. and Wang, K. (2018), “Do firms have target capital structures? Evidence from
institutional monitoring”, International Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 58 No. 6,
pp. 65-77.
Cole, R.A. (2013), “What do we know about the capital structure of privately held US firms? Evidence
from the surveys of small business finance”, Financial Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 777-813.
Cronqvist, H., Makhija, A.K. and Yonker, S.E. (2012), “Behavioral consistency in corporate finance:
CEO personal and corporate leverage”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 20-40.
Delcoure, N. (2007), “The determinants of capital structure in transitional economies”, International
Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 400-415.
Devos, E., Dhillon, U., Jagannathan, M. and Krishnamurthy, S. (2012), “Why are firms unlevered?”,
Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 664-682.
Fink, A. (2005), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 2nd ed., Sage
Publications, London.
Fischer, E.O., Heinkel, R. and Zechner, J. (1989), “Dynamic capital structure choice: theory and tests”,
The Journal of Finance, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 19-40.
Flannery, M.J. and Rangan, K.P. (2006), “Partial adjustment toward target capital structures”, Journal
of Financial Economics, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 469-506.
JAMR Frank, M.Z. and Goyal, V.K. (2003), “Testing the pecking order theory of capital structure”, Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 217-248.
Frank, M.Z. and Goyal, V.K. (2009), “Capital structure decisions: which factors are reliably important?”,
Financial Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-37.
Frydenberg, S. (2011), “Theory of capital structure-a review”, in FRIHET OG MANGFOLD
FESTSSKRIFT TIL ODD, Arntzen, G., Fallan, L. and Gustafsson, O. (Eds), Trondheim: Tapir/
TØH, Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.
Fu, R. and Subramanian, A. (2011), “Leverage and debt maturity choices by undiversified owner-
managers”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 888-913.
Gaud, P., Jani, E., Hoesli, M. and Bender, A. (2005), “The capital structure of Swiss companies: an empirical
analysis using dynamic panel data”, European Financial Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Goyal, V.K., Lehn, K. and Racic, S. (2002), “Growth opportunities and corporate debt policy: the case of
the US defense industry”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 35-59.
Graham, J.R. and Leary, M.T. (2011), “A review of empirical capital structure research and directions
for the future”, Annual. Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 309-345.
Greene, W.H. (2008), “The econometric approach to efficiency analysis”, The Measurement of
Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 92-250.
Grove, H., Patelli, L., Victoravich, L.M. and Xu, P. (2011), “Corporate governance and performance in
the wake of the financial crisis: evidence from US commercial banks”, Corporate Governance:
An International Review, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 418-436.
Harford, J., Klasa, S. and Walcott, N. (2009), “Do firms have leverage targets? Evidence from
acquisitions”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Harris, M. and Raviv, A. (1992), “Financial contracting theory”, in Advances in Economic Theory: Sixth
World Congress, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heider, F. and Ljungqvist, A. (2015), “As certain as debt and taxes: estimating the tax sensitivity of
leverage from state tax changes”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 684-712.
Hovakimian, A., Hovakimian, G. and Tehranian, H. (2004), “Determinants of target capital structure:
the case of dual debt and equity issues”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 71 No. 3,
pp. 517-540.
Huang, R. and Ritter, J.R. (2009), “Testing theories of capital structure and estimating the speed of
adjustment”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 237-271.
Huang, W., Boateng, A. and Newman, A. (2016), “Capital structure of Chinese listed SMEs: an agency
theory perspective”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 535-550.
Iqbal, J., Muhammad, S., Muneer, S. and Jahanzeb, A. (2012), “A critical review of capital structure
theories”, Information Management and Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 553-557.
Jabbour, C.J.C. (2013), “Environmental training in organisations: from a literature review to a framework
for future research”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 144-155.
Jain, B.A. and Shao, Y. (2015), “Family firm governance and financial policy choices in newly public
firms”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 452-468.
Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-360.
Jiraporn, P. and Liu, Y. (2008), “Capital structure, staggered boards, and firm value”, Financial
Analysts Journal, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Jiraporn, P., Chintrakarn, P. and Liu, Y. (2012a), “Capital structure, CEO dominance, and corporate
performance”, Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 139-158.
Jiraporn, P., Kim, J.C., Kim, Y.S. and Kitsabunnarat, P. (2012b), “Capital structure and corporate
governance quality: evidence from the institutional shareholder Services (ISS)”, International
Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 208-221.
Kane, A., Marcus, A.J. and McDonald, R.L. (1984), “How big is the tax advantage to debt?”, The Capital
Journal of Finance, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 841-853.
structure
Kaya, H.D. (2011), “Syndicated bank loans and capital structure”, Managerial Finance, Vol. 37 No. 8,
pp. 697-714.
theories
Komera, S. and Lukose, P.J.J. (2015), “Capital structure choice, information asymmetry, and debt
capacity: evidence from India”, Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 807-823.
Koralun-Bere
znicka, J. (2018), “Firm size and debt maturity as indirect determinants of capital
structure: evidence form European panel data”, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 25 No. 18,
pp. 1319-1322.
Kraus, A. and Litzenberger, R.H. (1973), “A state-preference model of optimal financial leverage”, The
Journal of Finance, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 911-922.
Kumar, S., Colombage, S. and Rao, P. (2017), “Research on capital structure determinants: a review
and future directions”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 106-132.
Lam, S.S., Zhang, W. and Lee, R.R.C. (2013), “The norm theory of capital structure: international
evidence”, International Review of Finance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 111-135.
Leana, C.R. and Barry, B. (2000), “Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational
life”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 753-759.
Li, H. and Stathis, P. (2017), “Determinants of capital structure in Australia: an analysis of important
factors”, Managerial Finance, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 881-897.
Li, T., Munir, Q. and Karim, M.R.A. (2017), “Nonlinear relationship between CEO power and capital
structure: evidence from China’s listed SMEs”, International Review of Economics and Finance,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Lin, C., Ma, Y., Malatesta, P. and Xuan, Y. (2013), “Corporate ownership structure and the choice
between bank debt and public debt”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 109, pp. 517-534.
L
opez-Gracia, J. and Sogorb-Mira, F. (2008), “Testing trade-off and pecking order theories financing
SMEs”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 117-136.
Lotfaliei, B. (2018), “Zero leverage and the value in waiting to have debt”, Journal of Banking and
Finance, Vol. 97 No. 12, pp. 335-349.
Luigi, P. and Sorin, V. (2009), “A review of the capital structure theories”, Annals of University of
Oradea, Economics Science Series, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 315-320.
Mahajan, R., Garg, S. and Sharma, P. (2017), “Processed food supply chain: a framework for literature
review”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 91-109.
Mateev, M., Poutziouris, P. and Ivanov, K. (2013), “On the determinants of SME capital structure in
Central and Eastern Europe: a dynamic panel analysis”, Research in International Business and
Finance, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 28-51.
Miglo, A. (2010), The Pecking Order, Trade off, Signalling and Market Timing Theories of Capital
Structure: A Review, Working Paper, University Library of Munich.
Min, B.S. (2018), “Effects of outsider’s monitoring on capital structure and corporate growth strategy:
evidence from a natural experiment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 152 No. 2, pp. 459-475.
Minhat, M. and Dzolkarnaini, N. (2016), “Is executive compensation a substitute governance
mechanism to debt financing and leasing?”, Applied Economics, Vol. 48 No. 14, pp. 1293-1302.
Modigliani, F. and Miller, M.H. (1958), “The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of
investment”, American Economic Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 261-297.
Modigliani, F. and Miller, M.H. (1963), “Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: a correction”,
American Economic Review, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 433-443.
Morellec, E. and Sch€ urhoff, N. (2011), “Corporate investment and financing under asymmetric
information”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 262-288.
JAMR Morri, G. and Parri, E. (2017), “US REITs capital structure determinants and financial economic crisis
effects”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 556-574.
Myers, S.C. (1984), “The capital structure puzzle”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 574-592.
Myers, S.C. (2003), “Financing of corporations”, in Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Elsevier,
Vol. 1, pp. 215-253.
Myers, S.C. and Majluf, N.S. (1984), “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have
information that investors do not have”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 187-221.
Newman, A., Gunessee, S. and Hilton, B. (2012), “Applicability of financial theories of capital structure
to the Chinese cultural context: a study of privately owned SMEs”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 65-83.
€
Oztekin, € and Flannery, M.J. (2012), “Institutional determinants of capital structure adjustment
O.
speeds”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 88-112.
Paul, J. and Singh, G. (2017), “The 45 years of foreign direct investment research: approaches,
advances and analytical areas”, The World Economy, Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 2512-2527.
Prakash, S., Soni, G. and Rathore, A.P.S. (2017), “A critical analysis of supply chain risk management
content: a structured literature review”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 69-90.
Rastad, M. (2016), “Capital structure pre-balancing: evidence from convertible bonds”, Journal of
Corporate Finance, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 43-65.
Remmers, L., Stonehill, A., Wright, R. and Beekhuisen, T. (1974), “Industry and size as debt ratio
determinants in manufacturing internationally”, Financial Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 24-32.
Ross, S.A. (1977), “The determination of financial structure: the incentive-signalling approach”, The
Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Seo, J. and Choi, W. (2016), “What determinants affect the capital structure of consumer co-operatives?
The case of Icoop Korea”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 117-135.
Shyu, Y.W. and Lee, C.I. (2009), “Excess control rights and debt maturity structure in family-
controlled firms”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 611-628.
Silva, W., Kimura, H. and Sobreiro, V.A. (2017), “An analysis of the literature on systemic financial
risk: a survey”, Journal of Financial Stability, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 91-114.
Sogorb-Mira, F. (2005), “How SME uniqueness affects capital structure: evidence from a 1994–1998
Spanish data panel”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 447-457.
Strebulaev, I.A. (2007), “Do tests of capital structure theory mean what they say?”, The Journal of
Finance, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 1747-1787.
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N., Alryalat, M., Al-Khowaiter, W. and Dwivedi, Y. (2018), “Social media research
in the context of emerging markets: an analysis of extant literature from information systems
perspective”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 115-129.
Terjesen, S., Hessels, J. and Li, D. (2016), “Comparative international entrepreneurship: a review and
research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 299-344.
Titman, S. (1984), “The effect of capital structure on a firm’s liquidation decision”, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 137-151.
Tong, G. and Green, C.J. (2005), “Pecking order or trade-off hypothesis? Evidence on the capital
structure of Chinese companies”, Applied Economics, Vol. 37 No. 19, pp. 2179-2189.
Tosun, O.K. (2016), “The effect of CEO option compensation on the capital structure: a natural
experiment”, Financial Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 953-979.
Ullah, S., Akhtar, P. and Zaefarian, G. (2018), “Dealing with endogeneity bias: the generalized method
of moments (GMM) for panel data”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 69-78.
Wang, D. and Esqueda, O.A. (2014), “National cultural effects on leverage decisions: evidence from Capital
emerging-market ADRs”, Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 152-177. structure
Webster, J. and Watson, R. (2002), “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature
theories
review”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 13-23.
Welch, I. (2004), “Capital structure and stock returns”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 112 No. 1,
pp. 106-132.
Xu, J. (2012), “Profitability and capital structure: evidence from import penetration”, Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 106, pp. 427-446.
Yildirim, R., Masih, M. and Bacha, O.I. (2018), “Determinants of capital structure: evidence from
Shari’ah compliant and non-compliant firms”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 51 No. 5,
pp. 198-219.

Further reading
Boubaker, S. and Nguyen, D.K. (2014), Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility:
Emerging Markets Focus, World Scientific, Singapore.

About the authors

Yukti Bajaj is a full-time research scholar in the domain of finance at the Department of Management
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Delhi), India. She has two and a half years of professional
experience as an assistant professor, accounting and finance at the School of Management Studies,
Ansal University, Gurgaon, prior to joining the PhD programme. Her current research primarily
focusses on the capital structure dynamics with a focus on emerging market firms. She has presented her
work at various national and international conferences organized by prestigious associations. Yukti
Bajaj is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Smita Kashiramka is an associate professor in the area of finance at the Department of Management
Studies, IIT Delhi. She holds a PhD degree from the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani,
Pilani Campus, in the field of mergers and acquisitions. She has more than nine years of academic
experience along with a brief corporate experience in the insurance industry. Her areas of interest
include accounting, Indian financial system, corporate restructuring and financial management. She has
published papers in international and national journals of repute. She has also presented papers in
international peer-reviewed conferences.
Shveta Singh is an associate professor of finance at the Department of Management Studies, Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT Delhi), India. She is also the co-coordinator of the National Centre for
Business Ethics, Corporate Governance and CSR (NCBECG&CSR), a centre of excellence at IIT Delhi,
accredited by the National Foundation on Corporate Governance (NFCG). She has contributed to various
consulting assignments for organizations like the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals
(DGS&D) and National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC). She has published more than 40
research papers in journals/conferences of national and international repute and co-authored research
monographs published by Springer.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]