ESSAYS in INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Philip A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Berle and the Entrepreneur
Berle and the Entrepreneur Charles R. T. O’Kelley† I. INTRODUCTION In the first and last four chapters (“the Five Chapters”) of The Mod- ern Corporation and Private Property,1 Adolf Berle, Jr. describes in sweeping terms a fundamental transformation of the American econo- my.2 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the dominant economic actor was the sole proprietor, who owned and controlled all aspects of his business. By the first quarter of the twentieth century, the “corporate system,”3 and the few hundred large, quasi-public corporations of which it was composed, had taken control of many sectors of American indus- try and promised in years to come to gain an increasingly larger share of America’s economic wealth and power.4 Berle identified separation of ownership from control as the central characteristic of the corporate sys- tem and its constituent corporations.5 Shareholders supplied the wealth but none of the control. Managers exercised control but took none of the risks. As a result, Berle asserted, one of the fundamental assumptions underlying our system of private property no longer held true. In the early nineteenth century, we believed that allowing the businessman to † Professor and Director, Adolf A. Berle, Jr. Center on Corporations, Law and Society, Seattle Uni- versity School of Law; Martin E. Kilpatrick Chair Emeritus, University of Georgia School of Law. My thanks to Kelli Alces, Anita Anand, Jayne Barnard, Michal Barzuza, Jill Fisch, Tom Joo, Joe Knight, Ken Lipartito, Jim Mooney, Rafael Pardo, Margaret Sachs, Michael Siebecker, Faith Ste- velman, Fred Tung, Michael Wachter, Jessica Wang, and Harwell Wells for commenting on an earlier draft of this article. -
The Institutionalist Theory of the Business Enterprise: Past, Present, and Future
Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Institutionalist Theory of the Business Enterprise: Past, Present, and Future Jo, Tae-Hee State University of New York, Buffalo State 22 January 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/84036/ MPRA Paper No. 84036, posted 22 Jan 2018 18:33 UTC The institutionalist theory of the business enterprise: past, present, and future Tae-Hee Jo Economics and Finance Department The State University of New York, Buffalo State [email protected] Last updated: Monday 22nd January, 2018 Abstract This paper examines the historical developments of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise since early 1900s. We will examine the major con- tributions in order to find the theoretical characteristics of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise vis-`a-vis evolving capitalism. The paper begins with a discussion of the present state of the institutional theory, looks back on the original ideas of Veblen and Commons, and goes on to later contributions, such as Gardiner Means, John Kenneth Galbraith, William Dugger, and Alfred Eichner. The paper concludes with a discussion as to what should be done for the further development of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise. Keywords: Theory of the business enterprise, institutional economics, evolution of capitalism JEL Codes: B50, B52, D20 This paper examines the historical developments of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise (hereafter ITBE) since early 1900s.1 It is not meant to be a comprehensive review of the theory. Instead, we will examine the major contri- butions in order to find the theoretical characteristics of ITBE. The paper begins with a discussion of the present state of ITBE, looks back on the original ideas of Veblen and Commons, and goes on to later contributions. -
“The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means: the Martial Roots of a Stakeholder Model of Corporate Governance”
“The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means: the Martial Roots of a Stakeholder Model of Corporate Governance” ABSTRACT: Our paper explores how a seminal text influenced corporate governance systems in the United States and abroad. The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means (1932) remains one of the most cited works in management. Unfortunately, the radical political vision that informed this book has been ignored or forgotten by the vast majority of management academics who now cite this book. Our paper shows that Berle and Means espoused a stakeholder theory of corporate governance that challenged the idea that the sole purpose of a corporation is to create value for the shareholders. Whereas shareholder value ideology was dominant in the United States in the 1920s, the nation’s corporate governance system moved towards a stakeholder model during the New Deal. We argue that the influential text by Berle and Means contributed to this shift. Our paper, which is based on archival research in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidential Library, explores the cultural shifts that shaped how US companies have historically defined success, treated their workers, and influenced inequality in society. Our paper examines why Berle and Means choose to present a stakeholder theory of corporate governance in this text, which was written between 1928 and 1931. The paper then discusses the reception of the ideas of Berle and Means and documents how their theory came to influence how many US corporations allocated resources among different stakeholders. We suggest, somewhat tentatively, that the ideas of Berle and Means prompted corporate managers to behave in ways that contributed to the relatively low levels of income inequality that prevailed in the United States between the New Deal and approximately 1980. -
Università Degli Studi Di Siena Quaderni Del Dipartimento
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI SIENA QUADERNI DEL DIPARTIMENTO DI ECONOMIA POLITICA Luca Fiorito The Institutionalists’ Reaction to Chamberlin’s Theory of Monopolistic Competition n. 560 – Marzo 2009 Abstract - Edwin Chamberlin's The Theory of Monopolistic competition is often described as containing omportant traces of institutionalist influence. This is also confimred by Chamberlin himself who, repeadetly, referred to the work of Veblen, and John Maurice Clark among his inspirational sources. The aim of this paper is to analyse the institutionalist rection to the publication of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition. What will be argued is that the institutionalist response to Chamberlin was a mixed one, and involved some substantial criticisms of his analysis of market structures both on methodological and theoretical grounds. The paper is organized as follows. The first section presents a sketch of the main theoretical implications contained in The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. The second section analyses the general aspects of the institutionalist reaction to Chamberlin. The third and fourth sections deal with the more theoretical aspects of the institutionalist criticism of Chamberlin. The final section presents a conclusion JEL Classification: B25 Luca Fiorito, University of Palermo – [email protected] “It is probable that when future historians of economic thought look back over this century, the thirties will appear as an era of rapid development in economic theory.” (Boulding 1942, 791). The issue Some thirty years ago Rodney D. Peterson (1979) provided a stimulating discussion of the methodological and epistemological basis of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition in order to assess whether and to what extent Edward Chamberlin’s Magnus Opus – its manifest Marshallian ascendancy notwithstanding – contained pieces which were cast on an institutionalist forge. -
Institutionalist and Post Keynesian
GARDINER C. MEANS Institutionalist and Post Keynesian GARDINER C. MEANS Institutionalist and Post Keynesian Warren J. Samuels Michigan State University and Steven G. Medema University of Colorado at Denver O Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 1990 by M.E. Sharpe Published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 1990 Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notices No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ide as contained in the material herein. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Samuels, Warren J., 1933— Gardiner C.