A few days ago I came across this definition of a "corporation" in Easterbrook and Fischel's The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Before reading this definition, I would invite you, reader, to briefly attempt to define a "corporation" in your owns words. Got it? Now compare:
"A corporation is characterized by a statement of capital contributions as formal claims against the firms income that are distinct from participation in the firm's productive activities."
This is not how I imagine most people define corporations. Stereotypically it seems that people point to characteristics such as unlimited life, limited liability, legal life, etc. (Or at least this is how my high school economics teacher described corporations, so this is the rudimentary definition I imagine most people adopt.) But as Easterbrook / Fischel (hereafter E/F) point out, these facets of a corporation don't distinguish it from many other entities. Trusts, for example, can sue and be sued and have infinite life. As for limited liability, E/F note that this is a function of most investments - not just corporate investments. For example, a bondholder never puts all of his or her wealth at risk when buying a debt investment - so why should an equity investment be any different? Rather, the E/F definition (which may have come from someone else first) is much more accurate, as in encapsulates the exact feature of corporations that differentiates it from other forms: capital contributions (i.e. investments) that are distinct from productive activities (i.e. investors don't run the company).
The definition is particularly interesting because it is so innocuous. I can't imagine Ralph Nader saying, "we have to reign in the legal forms in which capital contributors are distinct from productive activities!" I've heard many liberals complain that corporations owe a "duty" to society because they are given corporate forms and the attendant "privileges." I think there's something to be said for the E/F definition simply because it highlights that what makes a corporation a corporation is not really that "special." As a historical matter, however, corporations were not particularly warmly welcomed. Rather, corporations had to receive corporate charters approved by legislatures - and even then, they were limited in function (e.g. corporation formed to build a railroad) and size (e.g. with a capitalization of $10 million). At the time, corporations could not act outside their legislative grant (otherwise known as acting ultra vires - a ground for vitiating any contracts or activities undertaken outside the grant). These were pretty severe restrictions and almost certainly caused losses in social wealth (limitations keep the corporation from functioning at an efficient size).
Obviously we've become much more relaxed in our approach to corporations, but it still seems (at least from my experience) that conservatives tend to be much more comfortable with corporations, while liberals tend to distrust corporations (and oftentimes exhibit tremendous animosity towards them). It could be that that assessment is way off - I sometimes make assessments that are way off - but such is my experience. This is not to say that conservatives tend to view corporations as bland investment-type vehicles (that is, adopt the F/E definition of corporations), but I do think they distrust them less.
The problem, for those who distrust corporations, is that it's nearly impossible to do anything about them. It is possible to legislatively remove limited liability, but parties to the corporation would simply bargain around this (with nonrecourse loans, for example, rather than equity investment through stock). Total welfare would go down because transaction costs would go up. No one would be better off in the long run. Others have argued for controlling corporations by requiring them (or, in a weaker instance, simply allowing them) to take social welfare (rather than investor wealth maximization) into account. This is also an indefensible position, even if reasonable in spirit. If management is beholden to both investors (who want wealth maximization) and society (which wants social welfare maximization), it is beholden to no one and can do whatever it wants. Any attempt to reign in corporations would result in a total lower social welfare because of increased monitoring costs and increases in capital costs (investors will be wary and want to watch over managers more carefully).
I've digressed a long way from where I started, I suppose, but I think the issue is interesting (and hopefully I got some interesting issues on the table). Obviously there's lots more to say -- but point was simply: What does your definition of corporations say about your approach to their regulation and their role in society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(473)
-
▼
January
(116)
- A Home for the Imagination: It grew up around the ...
- Car Talk question
- Snopes on Superbowl
- Mr Cranky strikes again
- Strategic deterrence
- Never Say Die, by Michael Kinsley
- General Malaise: Democrats, for the good of the co...
- The Heart of Politics: One Woman, Two Senators and...
- Claremont Review of Books on Volokh
- BBC Apologises As Dyke Quits
- In Shake-Up, Dean Names Gore Ally to Run Campaign
- Chevron's Station
- To ponder on...
- Scalia and Stevens - An introduction
- Up and coming analysis
- Yeahs and Boos on immigration
- Judge Says R. Kelly Must Avoid Jackson
- Trailer watch.
- Cline on Kucinich
- Good Scalia quote
- Clark Contrasts Humble Roots with Yale-Educated Ri...
- With Fanfare and a Grand Parade, Paris Celebrates ...
- Water birthing
- Kazaa sues music industry...
- Alert: Dancing German Monster Thing
- Death penalty responses
- "Xerox"
- "Apple's diplomatic core"
- Adopting law
- Blockbuster rents porn
- Agatha Christie - One published lady.
- Note the email...
- Political compass
- Kobe Bryant racism charge...
- Thomas Kinkade
- Hey, Nobody Noticed!
- Mars rover sending data again
- Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old So...
- California Democrats Face Grim Post-Mortem
- 2 Jewish Leaders Upset After Viewing 'Passion'
- Michael Moore
- Blogging from Atlanta
- Bargaining for Freedom, by Nicholas D. Kristof
- Rehnquist Questioned on Cheney-Scalia Trip
- Dean Plans Return To 'Who I Really Am'
- Chinese Move to Relax Severe Judicial Penalties
- Death penalty thoughts
- The Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator
- Nintendo's Big, Bad Gamble
- Commenting Feature Changed
- More lawsuits filed by RIAA
- Brian was right?!
- Pitzer College: A Bunch of Loons
- Microsoft Compliance Report
- Look before you leap
- Kozinski Quotables
- Imperfect credit markets
- Iowa Caucus Roundup
- 1000 Hits and a Few More Links
- Michael Jackson proves his innocence!
- Efficient contract avoidance
- Kucinich's New Strategy
- Illegal downloading on the rise
- Grover
- An...err... interesting writing competition
- U Chicago Law Clinic Victory
- Trailer Watch
- Michael Moore: 'We're going to have the best chanc...
- Cass-piracy Theories
- Airline Gave Government Information on Passengers
- Cheney Hunting Trip With Scalia Raises Impartialit...
- Rumors of Castro's Death Sweep Miami-Dade -- Again
- What A Day!
- President Bush Uses Recess Appointment for Pickering
- Release Saddam Say Jordan Lawyers
- Carol Moseley Braun Reportedly Dropping Out of Rac...
- Chicago Judges Project
- *The* Ad
- Irony defined:
- Defining corporations...
- The Bush Democrats, by David Brooks
- Jeff Jarvis - Claremont Man
- Carol for President!
- Tournament of Federal Appellate Judges
- The Food Network and Good Eats
- A Great Time-waster!
- Law and Econ at work...
- Public Service Messages
- One approach to free cable...
- A (not THE) Ginsburg in Chicago?
- Blogging Excuse
- Telepathic horses
- Law & Order coloring books!
- The New Republic Endorses Lieberman
- Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper
- Woman Says She Lost Ticket Worth $162 Million
- Hillary Clinton 'truly regrets' Gandhi Joke: Remar...
- Arkansas Executes Mentally Ill Inmate
- Bill Bradley to Back Dean
- 500 Hits and Counting
-
▼
January
(116)
No comments:
Post a Comment