DOI: 10.4018/IJRLEDM.2020070102 International Journal of Responsible Leadership and Ethical Decision-Making Volume 2 • Issue 2 • July-December 2020 Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 17 Do CEO Political Connections and Firm Social Responsibility Afect Debt Level? Mohamed Ali Azouzi, Faculty of Economics and Management of Mahdia, University of Monastir, Tunisia ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to describe the effect of CEO political connection and firm social responsibility on debt access. These constructions have been evaluated in Tunisian firms. The results showed the presence of a positive relationship between political connection, corporate social responsibility, and the debt level. The authors also verified the presence of a negative relationship between political connection and the social responsibility of Tunisian companies. This research has shown how political connection and social responsibility improve the image of the company and facilitate their access to external funding methods. Tunisian companies are advised to know the importance of political connection and social responsibility in the selection of their leaders. KEywORDS Capital Structure Choice, Debt Access, Performance, Political Connection, Social Responsibility 1. INTRODUCTION For decades, the company’s capital structure choice has remained a primordial subject he was passionate about the world of finance and gave birth too many theories and studies. The academic reflection relating to the choice and the determinants of the financial structure of historically knows three major approaches. First, the classic approach is based on the accounting concept of financial leverage. It affirms the neutrality of companies’ profitability. In this context, debt has both an increasing advantage for the shareholder (positive leverage) and an increasing disadvantage for the shareholder (Roy, 1952; Tobin, 1958; Gordon, 1959 ; Roberts, 1959…). Second, the neoclassical approach, the debate on the structure of capital is started by Modigliani and Miller (1958). They theoretically analyzed the impact of the financial structure and more particularly the debt ratio (debts / equity) on the value of the firm. In fact, they demonstrated the independence between financial structure and cost of capital in a perfect world. In (1963) Modigliani and Miller corrected their first model and take into account corporate tax, in particular the deductibility of financial interest on taxable income. They demonstrate that the value of the indebted enterprise is greater than that of the non- indebted enterprise. The additional value of is equal to the discounted sum of the tax savings due to the deductibility of interest charges on the debt. Therefore the neoclassical objective of maximizing the value of the company leads it to go into debt as much as possible. Miller (1977) has taken up the work of Modigliani and Miller (1958 and 1963). He adds a new concept consists of the introduction of personal tax. The researcher’s objective is to find justifications preventing companies from going into debt. They found that personal tax divergence limits the level of debt of firms. Finally, the third approach, known as the “modern theory of the firm”, this theory intervening in the mid-70s after the work of Modigliani and Miller. The objective of this theory is to explain and define the financing