Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.
The issue of corporate governance started to be utilized and talked about more regularly in the 1980s (Mulili, 2011), be that as it may, it began in the nineteenth century when fuse was fronted as a method for constraining obligation (Akodo & Moya, 2001). Mulili (2011) clarifies that the 1980s were portrayed by corporate breakdown, board level abundances, and dominant chief executives in different parts of the world. As more corporate substances in various parts of the world fallen in 1980s, there was a difference in state of mind with a much higher performance expectation being placed on management boards to ensure that firms were run effectively and in the right direction (Kyondu, 2014).
Additionally, there was a developing affirmation that enhanced corporate governance as pivotal for the development and improvement of the entire economy of a nation. Different examinations set up solid connections between the execution of organizations and the governance practices of their boards (Maganga and Vutete, 2015). They found a solid relationship between great corporate governance practices and predominant investor execution, with 66% of the financial specialists studied revealing that they were set up to pay more for offers of organizations that had great corporate governance structures.
These changes extended to the present time and positively impacted the higher education sector. For example, there was a move towards more noteworthy independence of the colleges in the administration of their internal affairs and the removal of the somewhat autocratic culture that generally prevailed in the society. Further, the requirement that the president was the head of all Ghana public universities was removed, and each university was allocated its own chancellor. In short, there was a move towards reducing the politicization of the higher education sector (Festo, 2013).
Closely related to the political environment is the regulatory framework under which the higher education sector operates in Ghana. While every state funded university has its own particular Act going back to its establishment, every one of the colleges are influenced by various enactments with the Commission for Higher Education (CHE) assuming an administrative part. Despite these enactments, the division is connected to such difficulties as (a) the nonattendance of a component for deciding and evaluating all-inclusive quality gauges, (b) chronic resource deficits for Programme expansion, research and staff development, (c) the lack of decision-making autonomy for the universities, and (d) the absence of a clear mechanism for the opening of satellite public university campuses across the country.
Socially, Ghana is made of different tribes. A noteworthy social pattern in the nation has been expanded instructive levels of numerous individuals, mostly inferable from the requests of an increasingly sophisticated economy. Also, the right to speak freely is uncontrolled in the nation, and the natives are allowed to address anything that does not appear to sound good to them. There are expanded endeavors to lessen the commonness of corruption and anti-corruption crusaders tend to advocate for all forms of social change. Because of these changes, there is an awesome push for enhanced governance not only in the public practice but as well as in the private part of Ghana. Ghana’s open area is today looked with gigantic difficulties that incorporate, among numerous others, an unverifiable economy, political changes, the need to work in worldwide markets and the need to constantly change innovation. Because of these difficulties, the execution of some open division associations, particularly, state universities in Ghana has declined to the degree that they are scarcely surviving.
The study therefore seeks to assess the performance of corporate governance systems in Public Universities in Ghana. The research problem is as a result of the fact that most public universities still cannot run on their internally generated funds (IGF) due to lack of proper Corporate Governance systems. This may be partly due to the fact that decision-making in the public universities is highly politicized. Moreover, the university boards have a tendency to be unrepresentative and lopsided in their structure.
Further, the recruitment of key managers has a tendency to be managed without satisfactory publicizing and meetings, implying that the board and university councils ought to complete a superior employment of short-posting, meeting and selecting competitors following conferences with the Chancellors and other government authorities. In conclusion, the university administrators infrequently meet the prerequisites of their execution contracts while the state universities barely take after their strategic plans. The study seeks to satisfy the following objectives: