Though there is criticism of the legal origin view of minority investor protection, there is no controversy about the importance of protecting them.2 The main criticism of the theory is the theoretical link between legal system and investor protection. Researchers suggests that high judicial independence (LaPorta et al. 2004), a quality legal system (Johnson et al. 2000), high protection to private property (La Porta et al. 1999) are reasons for greater protection of minority shareholders in common law countries. However, past studies do not show how these variables link legal system and minority investor protection. This paper helps to fill in this gap by empirically testing that these inherent qualities of a legal system help better legal enforcement in a country and this in turn protect minority investors which finally improves economic development of a country. The pro legal origin theory researchers suggests that legal origin is not a destiny; quality legal reform, reform sensitive to legal tradition and reform enforcement as means of minority investors right improvement (LaPorta et al. 2008). Therefore, the study on how legal enforcement links legal origin to minority investor protection can help understand Legal Origin Theory better and strengthen its theoretical underpinnings; thus it suggest policy makers whether a country should follow legal reform route to protect minority investors or not; and if they follow this route what factors they should consider implementing legal reform as a means for protecting minority investors.
Read full abstract