Research Journal of Business and Management
Araştırma Makalesi
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2017, Cilt 4, Sayı 4, 460 - 468, 30.12.2017

Ozcan Isik

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Ammari, A. B. B., Kadria, M., & Ellouze, A. 2014. “Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from French Firms Listed in SBF 120”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 4(3), pp. 580-590.
  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. 1995. “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Model”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, pp. 29-51.
  • Aygün, M. ve İç, S. 2010. “Genel Müdürün Aynı Zamanda Yönetim Kurulu Üyesi Olması Firma Performansını Etkiler mi?”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Sayı: 47, s. 192-201.
  • Belhaj, S., & Mateus, C. 2016. "Corporate Governance Impact on Bank Performance Evidence From Europe", Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(4), pp. 583-597.
  • Baltagi, B. H. 2005. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition, John Wiley&Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England.
  • Belkhir, M. 2009. “Board of Directors' Size and Performance in the Banking Industry”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, 5(2), pp. 201-221.
  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. 1998. “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), pp. 115-143.
  • Bond, S. R. 2002. “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, Portuguese economic journal, 1(2), pp. 141162.
  • Boussaada, R., & Karmani, M. 2015. “Did Board of Directors Have an Impact on MENA Bank Performance?”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 7(4), pp. 46-56.
  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. “Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management”, Academy of Management Review, 22(1), pp. 20-47.
  • De Jonghe, O., Disli, M., & Schoors, K. 2012. “Corporate Governance, Opaque Bank Activities, and Risk/Return Efficiency: Pre-and Post-Crisis Evidence from Turkey”, Journal of Financial Services Research, 41(1-2), pp. 51-80.
  • Doğan, M., Elitas, B. L., Agca, V. & Ögel, S. 2013. “The Impact of CEO Duality on Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2), pp. 149-155.
  • Donaldson, L. & Davis, J. H. 1991. “Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns”, Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), pp. 49-64.
  • Duru, A., Iyengar, R. J., & Zampelli, E. M. 2016. “The Dynamic Relationship between CEO Duality and Firm Performance: the Moderating Role of Board Independence”, Journal of Business Research, 69(10), pp. 4269-4277.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Agency theory: An Assessment and Review”, Academy of Management Review, 14(1), pp. 57-74.
  • El-Chaarani, H. 2014. “The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Performance of Lebanese Banks”, the International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 8(5), pp. 35-46.
  • Elsayed, K. 2010. “A Multi‐theory Perspective of Board Leadership Structure: What Does the Egyptian Corporate Governance Context Tell Us?, British Journal of Management, 21(1), pp. 80-99.
  • Ersoy, E., Bayrakdaroğlu, A. ve Şamiloğlu F. 2011. “Türkiye’de Kurumsal Yönetim ve Firma Performansı (Tobin-Q ve Anormal Getiri) Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi”, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 48(554), s. 71-83.
  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. “Separation of Ownership and Control”, the journal of law and Economics, 26(2), pp. 301-325.
  • Greene, W. H. (2003), Econometric Analysis (5th ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Grove, H., Patelli, L., Victoravich, L. M., & Xu, P. T. 2011. “Corporate Governance and Performance in the Wake of the Financial Crisis: Evidence from US Commercial Banks”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), pp. 418-436.
  • Gujarati, D.N., (2004). Basic Econometrics (4th Ed.), The McGraw−Hill Companies, Avenue of the Americas, New York.
  • Hewa Wellalage, N., & Locke, S. 2011. “Does CEO Duality is Really Matter? Evidence from an Emerging Market”, Corporate Ownership & Control, 8(4), pp. 112-122.
  • Hsiao, C., (2003). Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge University Press.
  • Jensen, M. C. 1993. “The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems”, the Journal of Finance, 48(3), pp. 831-880.
  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of financial Economics, 3(4), pp. 305-360.
  • Kaymak, T., & Bektas, E. 2008. “East Meets West? Board Characteristics in an Emerging Market: Evidence from Turkish Banks”, Corporate Governance, 16(6), pp. 550-561.
  • Kouki, M., & Guizani, M. 2015. “Outside Directors and Firm Performance: The Moderating Effects of Ownership and Board Leadership Structure”, International Business Research, 8(6), pp. 104-116.
  • Kula, V. 2005. “The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: evidence from Turkey”, Corporate Governance, 13(2), pp. 165-176.
  • Liang, Q., Xu, P., & Jiraporn, P. 2013. “Board Characteristics and Chinese Bank Performance”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), pp. 29532968.
  • Montgomery, C. A., & Kaufman, R. 2003. “The Board's Missing Link”, Harvard Business Review, 81(3), pp. 86-93.
  • Moscu, R. G. 2015. “Study on Correlation between CEO Duality And Corporate Performance of Companies Listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange”, Journal of Social and Economic Statistics, 4(1), pp. 47-53.
  • Nickell, S. 1981. “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects”, Econometrica, 49, pp. 1417-1426.
  • Nahar Abdullah, S. 2004. “Board Composition, CEO Duality and Performance among Malaysian Listed Companies”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 4(4), pp. 47-61.
  • Naushad, M., & Malik, S. A. 2015. “Corporate Governance and Bank Performance: A Study of Selected Banks in GCC Region”, Asian Social Science, 11(9), pp. 226-234.
  • Nguyen, T., Locke, S., & Reddy, K. 2014. “A Dynamic Estimation of Governance Structures and Financial Performance for Singaporean Companies”, Economic Modelling, 40, p. 1-11.
  • Nicholson, G. J., & Kiel, G. C. 2007. “Can Directors Impact Performance? A Case‐Based Test of Three Theories of Corporate Governance”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(4), pp. 585-608.
  • Ramdani, D., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. 2010. ”The Impact of Board Independence and CEO Duality on Firm Performance: A Quantile Regression Analysis for Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand”, British Journal of Management, 21(3), pp. 607-627.
  • Rechner, P. L., & Dalton, D. R. 1991. “CEO Duality and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), pp. 155-160.
  • Roodman, D. 2009. “How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata” The Stata Journal, 9(1), pp. 86–136.
  • Shrivastav, S. M., & Kalsie, A. 2016. “The Relationship Between CEO Duality and Firm Performance: An Analysis Using Panel Data Approach”, IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 15(2), pp.37-58.
  • Strebel, P. 2004. “The Case for Contingent Governance”, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(2), pp. 59-66.
  • Tian, J. J., & Lau, C. M. 2001. “Board Composition, Leadership Structure and Performance in Chinese Shareholding Companies”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), pp. 245-263.
  • Veprauskaitė, E., & Adams, M. 2013. “Do Powerful Chief Executives Influence the Financial Performance of UK Firms?”, The British Accounting Review, 45(3), pp. 229-241.
  • Windmeijer, F. 2005. “A finite Sample Correction for the Variance of Linear Efficient Two-Step GMM Estimators”, Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), pp. 25-51.
  • Yan Lam, T., & Kam Lee, S. 2008. “CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Evidence from Hong Kong”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8(3), pp. 299-316.
  • Yermack, D. 1996. “Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors”, Journal of Financial Economics, 40, pp. 185211.

THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE

Yıl 2017, Cilt 4, Sayı 4, 460 - 468, 30.12.2017

Ozcan Isik

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754

Öz

Purpose - The aim of this study is to examine the association between CEO-duality and bank financial performance in Turkey.

Methodology - All parameter estimates of regression models are based on the system GMM panel regression analyses. Our data covers all commercial banks operating in Turkish banking sector during the period 2007-2013.

Findings - Our empirical results imply that CEO-duality has a significantly positive effect on bank financial performance measured by the ratio of net income to the average total assets. In addition, we find a negative moderating impact of board on the positive linkage between CEO-duality and bank performance.

Conclusion - It can be concluded that as the number of members of the board raises, the positive influence of CEO-duality decreases for Turkish banking sector in the analyzed period.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

CEO-duality, board size, corporate governance, commercial banks, Turkey

Kaynakça

  • Ammari, A. B. B., Kadria, M., & Ellouze, A. 2014. “Board Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence from French Firms Listed in SBF 120”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 4(3), pp. 580-590.
  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. 1995. “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Model”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, pp. 29-51.
  • Aygün, M. ve İç, S. 2010. “Genel Müdürün Aynı Zamanda Yönetim Kurulu Üyesi Olması Firma Performansını Etkiler mi?”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Sayı: 47, s. 192-201.
  • Belhaj, S., & Mateus, C. 2016. "Corporate Governance Impact on Bank Performance Evidence From Europe", Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(4), pp. 583-597.
  • Baltagi, B. H. 2005. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition, John Wiley&Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England.
  • Belkhir, M. 2009. “Board of Directors' Size and Performance in the Banking Industry”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, 5(2), pp. 201-221.
  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. 1998. “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), pp. 115-143.
  • Bond, S. R. 2002. “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, Portuguese economic journal, 1(2), pp. 141162.
  • Boussaada, R., & Karmani, M. 2015. “Did Board of Directors Have an Impact on MENA Bank Performance?”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 7(4), pp. 46-56.
  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. “Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management”, Academy of Management Review, 22(1), pp. 20-47.
  • De Jonghe, O., Disli, M., & Schoors, K. 2012. “Corporate Governance, Opaque Bank Activities, and Risk/Return Efficiency: Pre-and Post-Crisis Evidence from Turkey”, Journal of Financial Services Research, 41(1-2), pp. 51-80.
  • Doğan, M., Elitas, B. L., Agca, V. & Ögel, S. 2013. “The Impact of CEO Duality on Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2), pp. 149-155.
  • Donaldson, L. & Davis, J. H. 1991. “Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns”, Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), pp. 49-64.
  • Duru, A., Iyengar, R. J., & Zampelli, E. M. 2016. “The Dynamic Relationship between CEO Duality and Firm Performance: the Moderating Role of Board Independence”, Journal of Business Research, 69(10), pp. 4269-4277.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Agency theory: An Assessment and Review”, Academy of Management Review, 14(1), pp. 57-74.
  • El-Chaarani, H. 2014. “The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Performance of Lebanese Banks”, the International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 8(5), pp. 35-46.
  • Elsayed, K. 2010. “A Multi‐theory Perspective of Board Leadership Structure: What Does the Egyptian Corporate Governance Context Tell Us?, British Journal of Management, 21(1), pp. 80-99.
  • Ersoy, E., Bayrakdaroğlu, A. ve Şamiloğlu F. 2011. “Türkiye’de Kurumsal Yönetim ve Firma Performansı (Tobin-Q ve Anormal Getiri) Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi”, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 48(554), s. 71-83.
  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. “Separation of Ownership and Control”, the journal of law and Economics, 26(2), pp. 301-325.
  • Greene, W. H. (2003), Econometric Analysis (5th ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Grove, H., Patelli, L., Victoravich, L. M., & Xu, P. T. 2011. “Corporate Governance and Performance in the Wake of the Financial Crisis: Evidence from US Commercial Banks”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), pp. 418-436.
  • Gujarati, D.N., (2004). Basic Econometrics (4th Ed.), The McGraw−Hill Companies, Avenue of the Americas, New York.
  • Hewa Wellalage, N., & Locke, S. 2011. “Does CEO Duality is Really Matter? Evidence from an Emerging Market”, Corporate Ownership & Control, 8(4), pp. 112-122.
  • Hsiao, C., (2003). Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge University Press.
  • Jensen, M. C. 1993. “The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems”, the Journal of Finance, 48(3), pp. 831-880.
  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of financial Economics, 3(4), pp. 305-360.
  • Kaymak, T., & Bektas, E. 2008. “East Meets West? Board Characteristics in an Emerging Market: Evidence from Turkish Banks”, Corporate Governance, 16(6), pp. 550-561.
  • Kouki, M., & Guizani, M. 2015. “Outside Directors and Firm Performance: The Moderating Effects of Ownership and Board Leadership Structure”, International Business Research, 8(6), pp. 104-116.
  • Kula, V. 2005. “The Impact of the Roles, Structure and Process of Boards on Firm Performance: evidence from Turkey”, Corporate Governance, 13(2), pp. 165-176.
  • Liang, Q., Xu, P., & Jiraporn, P. 2013. “Board Characteristics and Chinese Bank Performance”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), pp. 29532968.
  • Montgomery, C. A., & Kaufman, R. 2003. “The Board's Missing Link”, Harvard Business Review, 81(3), pp. 86-93.
  • Moscu, R. G. 2015. “Study on Correlation between CEO Duality And Corporate Performance of Companies Listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange”, Journal of Social and Economic Statistics, 4(1), pp. 47-53.
  • Nickell, S. 1981. “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects”, Econometrica, 49, pp. 1417-1426.
  • Nahar Abdullah, S. 2004. “Board Composition, CEO Duality and Performance among Malaysian Listed Companies”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 4(4), pp. 47-61.
  • Naushad, M., & Malik, S. A. 2015. “Corporate Governance and Bank Performance: A Study of Selected Banks in GCC Region”, Asian Social Science, 11(9), pp. 226-234.
  • Nguyen, T., Locke, S., & Reddy, K. 2014. “A Dynamic Estimation of Governance Structures and Financial Performance for Singaporean Companies”, Economic Modelling, 40, p. 1-11.
  • Nicholson, G. J., & Kiel, G. C. 2007. “Can Directors Impact Performance? A Case‐Based Test of Three Theories of Corporate Governance”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(4), pp. 585-608.
  • Ramdani, D., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. 2010. ”The Impact of Board Independence and CEO Duality on Firm Performance: A Quantile Regression Analysis for Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand”, British Journal of Management, 21(3), pp. 607-627.
  • Rechner, P. L., & Dalton, D. R. 1991. “CEO Duality and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), pp. 155-160.
  • Roodman, D. 2009. “How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata” The Stata Journal, 9(1), pp. 86–136.
  • Shrivastav, S. M., & Kalsie, A. 2016. “The Relationship Between CEO Duality and Firm Performance: An Analysis Using Panel Data Approach”, IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 15(2), pp.37-58.
  • Strebel, P. 2004. “The Case for Contingent Governance”, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(2), pp. 59-66.
  • Tian, J. J., & Lau, C. M. 2001. “Board Composition, Leadership Structure and Performance in Chinese Shareholding Companies”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), pp. 245-263.
  • Veprauskaitė, E., & Adams, M. 2013. “Do Powerful Chief Executives Influence the Financial Performance of UK Firms?”, The British Accounting Review, 45(3), pp. 229-241.
  • Windmeijer, F. 2005. “A finite Sample Correction for the Variance of Linear Efficient Two-Step GMM Estimators”, Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), pp. 25-51.
  • Yan Lam, T., & Kam Lee, S. 2008. “CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Evidence from Hong Kong”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8(3), pp. 299-316.
  • Yermack, D. 1996. “Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors”, Journal of Financial Economics, 40, pp. 185211.

Ayrıntılar

Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Articles
Yazarlar

Ozcan Isik
0000-0003-2230-8738
Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Aralık 2017
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017, Cilt 4, Sayı 4

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { rjbm367474, journal = {Research Journal of Business and Management}, issn = {}, eissn = {2148-6689}, address = {}, publisher = {PressAcademia}, year = {2017}, volume = {4}, pages = {460 - 468}, doi = {10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754}, title = {THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE}, key = {cite}, author = {Isik, Ozcan} }
APA Isik, O. (2017). THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE . Research Journal of Business and Management , 4 (4) , 460-468 . DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754
MLA Isik, O. "THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE" . Research Journal of Business and Management 4 (2017 ): 460-468 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/rjbm/issue/33045/367474>
Chicago Isik, O. "THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE". Research Journal of Business and Management 4 (2017 ): 460-468
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE AU - Ozcan Isik Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754 DO - 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754 T2 - Research Journal of Business and Management JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 460 EP - 468 VL - 4 IS - 4 SN - -2148-6689 M3 - doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754 UR - https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754 Y2 - 2022 ER -
EndNote %0 Research Journal of Business and Management THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE %A Ozcan Isik %T THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE %D 2017 %J Research Journal of Business and Management %P -2148-6689 %V 4 %N 4 %R doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754 %U 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754
ISNAD Isik, Ozcan . "THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE". Research Journal of Business and Management 4 / 4 (Aralık 2017): 460-468 . https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754
AMA Isik O. THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE. RJBM. 2017; 4(4): 460-468.
Vancouver Isik O. THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE. Research Journal of Business and Management. 2017; 4(4): 460-468.
IEEE O. Isik , "THE DYNAMIC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CEO-DUALITY AND BANK PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF BOARD SIZE", Research Journal of Business and Management, c. 4, sayı. 4, ss. 460-468, Ara. 2017, doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.754

Research Journal of Business and Management (RJBM) is a scientific, academic, double blind peer-reviewed, quarterly and open-access online journal. The journal publishes four issues a year. The issuing months are March, June, September and December. The publication languages of the Journal are English and Turkish. RJBM aims to provide a research source for all practitioners, policy makers, professionals and researchers working in all related areas of business, management and organizations. The editor in chief of RJBM invites all manuscripts that cover theoretical and/or applied researches on topics related to the interest areas of the Journal. RJBM publishes academic research studies only. RJBM charges no submission or publication fee.

Ethics Policy - RJBM applies the standards of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). RJBM is committed to the academic community ensuring ethics and quality of manuscripts in publications. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden and the manuscripts found to be plagiarized will not be accepted or if published will be removed from the publication. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. Plagiarism, duplicate, data fabrication and redundant publications are forbidden. The manuscripts are subject to plagiarism check by iThenticate or similar. All manuscript submissions must provide a similarity report (up to 15% excluding quotes, bibliography, abstract, method).

Open Access - All research articles published in PressAcademia Journals are fully open access; immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.