DOCSLIB.ORG

The Political Origins of Corporate Governance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Political Origins of Corporate Governance Ugo Pagano University of Siena and Central European University. The Evolution of the American Corporation and Global Organizational Biodiversity. The Evolution of the Modern Corporate Structure has been one of the most influential chapters of The Modern Corporation & Private Property. However, Berle’s and Means’ superb analysis is framed in the American context and cannot be easily generalized to other experiences. Their corporate model arose in a democratic country where what Veblen called production engineers commanded more respect than financiers and capitalist dynasties. Other countries followed different organizational paths. The paper seeks to compare these alternative paths with the evolution of the American corporation and to inquiry whether organizational biodiversity is likely to survive in the corporate sector of the global economy. Berle III Conference. Seattle, January 2012 1 1. Introduction The work of Berle and Means included a careful study of the evolution occurring in the United States in the inter-war period. Berle and Means described how the corporation evolved as a process of decentralization of powers that used to be monopolies centralized by National States. Similar processes were at work also in other countries and their analysis could be seen as a useful guide for the general evolution of capitalism. However, since the advent of the new organizational species, which was to become known as the "Berle and Means Public Company", required a complex political process, the asymmetric political conditions of different countries were bound to have a strong influence on its institutional structure1. As argued by Roe (2003), different political conditions, such as social democracy, have an important influence on corporate governance systems. However, different corporate governance systems can generate different political reactions. For instance, social democracy can be seen as a set of political conditions impeding the separation between ownership and control and the development of the public company. At the same time, social democracy can also be seen a reaction to a concentrated family-based corporate governance system. In Belloc and Pagano (2009), we show that causation runs both ways: from politics from corporate governance and vice versa. Politics and corporate governance co-evolve. Initial conditions in history can have a decisive role in shaping a processes of cumulative causation and the political conditions, existing when "big business" emerged in a country, had a decisive role for the structuring of its is future institutions of production. Berle and Means considered the evolution of the corporation in a special framework where at the time of the second industrial revolution a robust democracy already 1 An ample overview of the corporate governance systems of the different countries see the essays contained in Morck 2005. Corporate systems with concentrated ownership are considered in Morck (2006). Fuller (1969) pointed out how the firm involves a decentralization of a public ordering into a private ordering where some transactions are centralized – a point that is particularly evident in the case of the modern corporation (Stout 2005). Pagano (2010) integrates Fuller's approach with the Coasian approach using the Cathedral framework developed by Calabresi and Melamed (1972). 2 existed. The American experience (with the possible exception of Switzerland) is unique2. Its uniqueness is only hidden by the dominant role that America has had in the world economy that has turned an exception in some sort of a rule which other countries are supposed to follow. If, by the time of the emergence of the large enterprises, a robust democratic system had already emerged, the concentration of economic power of the wealthy was likely to be challenged and, often, limited by political action. In the same framework, also the growth of the power of the unions was somehow limited by the political constraints acting on power of the counterpart. In the U. S., trade unions' organizations turned out to be less popular and powerful than in most other capitalist countries. Neither the employers nor the workers had to balance the concentration of power of the other side. This was a case of a "dispersed equilibrium", where both workers and owners did not organize because a democratic State was in charge to limit the power of other centralized organizations. These "democratic roots" marked the particular setting where the "Berle and Means Public Company" did in fact emerge. Most countries had a different evolutionary paths. If, by the time of the development of the large capitalist enterprises, a robust democratic system had not yet emerged, the unchecked concentration of power of the capitalist dynasties would go well beyond their private wealth. In this case, union's and social- democratic power were likely to arise as a counterbalance and to be later an important ingredient in a democratization of society. The end-result of this process was that both workers and employers could find a justification of the concentration of their own interests in the high degree of concentration of the other. This equilibrium may be also rather stable, even if its stabilization involves a long process of conflictual growth of centralized organization. 2 Becht and De Long (2005) introduce their interesting paper by considering the two (related) sources of American exceptionalism: "A century ago European academics like Werner Sombart worried why the United States was exceptional in that it did not have socialism. Today we academics worry about a different form of American exceptionalism: why is there so little block holding in the United States?" 3 "Concentrated equilibria" are likely to have "aristocratic roots"3 in the sense that the existence dynastic privileges and social exclusion favor also a concentration of workers' interests. Since, outside the United States, dynastic and aristocratic privileges were still widespread at the time of the second industrial revolution, it is not surprising that a pattern partially different from illustrated by the Berle and Means emerged in other capitalist countries, opening numerous questions also about the nature of the corporations emerging in the new fast developing economies. The paper is structured as follows. The following section considers the different collective action problems faced by owners, managers and workers when they try to obtain safeguards for their specific investments. There can be complementarities or trade-offs among these safeguards, often leading to arms' races and to multiple equilibria that are characterized by different incentives to invest for each social group. In any case the emergence of the corporation is a political process involving a complex relation among several actors such as workers, owners, managers and National State. The third section focuses on two idealized cases of "democratic" and "aristocratic" roots and on the mechanisms by which each type of "political origin" may select a particular type of equilibrium. In section 4 we consider in detail how that mechanism may work in the rich European variety of "aristocratic roots" and in the rather unique case of American "democratic roots". We frame the Berle and Means corporation in the context of the American Nineteenth century which nourished a strong preference for Veblenian instincts of workmanship with respect to purely pecuniary activities and a widespread distaste for dynastic privileges. In section 5 we criticize the hypothesis that there was a single "Anglo-Saxon" model of corporate governance common to U. K. and to U. S. and show that the biodiversity of capitalism is much more complex than the contrast between an Anglo-Saxon and continental tradition would imply. In the final section, we consider the implications of our analysis for the current crisis and we argue that the global biodiversity of capitalism is unlikely to decrease, 3 In section 4 we will see that has been a considerable variety of aristocratic political and social roots. 4 especially with the addition of the new corporate species emerging in the recently industrialized countries. 2. Safeguards for specificity and collective action. Oliver Williamson (2006) observes that labor markets and financial markets share an important characteristic, distinguishing them from intermediate product markets: in both cases, the individuals make specific investments and face, at the same time, a collective action problem. Information asymmetries characterize both cases. However, according to Williamson, the asymmetric information problem is more serious in the case of the relationship between shareholders and directors and involves that the latter can easily collude with top-management. The integrity of delegation of decision- making, which is the most remarkable advantage of the public company, would be lost if shareholders have to re-balance information asymmetries in a way similar to that characterizing the relationship between the workers and their representatives. Thus, according to Williamson shareholder democracy can easily degenerate into oligarchy – a point that was forcefully made in Berle and Means (1932) path breaking contribution. The main difference between the collective action problems, faced by workers and shareholders, is related to the inseparability between human capital and its owner. The problem of "absentee ownership" is obviously less severe in the case of human capital. Even very absent-minded individuals cannot be really absent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Information Technology, Organizational Form, and Transition to the Market
    Upjohn Institute Working Papers Upjohn Research home page 6-1-2004 Information Technology, Organizational Form, and Transition to the Market John S. Earle W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Ugo Pagano University of Siena Maria Lesi Budapest University of Economic Sciences Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 02-82 **Published Version** In Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 60(4): 471-489 (2006). Follow this and additional works at: https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers Part of the Eastern European Studies Commons Citation Earle, John S., Ugo Pagano, and Maria Lesi. 2002. "Information Technology, Organizational Form, and Transition to the Market." Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 02-82. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/wp02-82 This title is brought to you by the Upjohn Institute. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Information Technology, Organizational Form, and Transition to the Market Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper 02-82 John S. Earle* Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Central European University Ugo Pagano University of Siena Central European University and Maria Lesi Budapest University of Economic Sciences Central European University Revised: June 2004 Abstract The paper reviews theories of information technology adoption and organizational form and applies them to an empirical analysis of firm choices and characteristics in four transition economies: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. We argue that these economies have gone through two major structural changes – one concerning technology and another concerning ownership and boundaries of firms – and we consider if and how each of the two structural changes has affected the other.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Ugo Pagano. Organizational Equilibria and Production
    1 UGO PAGANO. ORGANIZATIONAL EQUILIBRIA AND PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY1. New Institutional Theory has pointed out mechanisms by which technology can influence property rights and organizational forms. We argue that the argument can be integrated and enriched by using also the opposite argument: property rights and technology can also influence technology. We develop an "organizational equilibria" framework and we show that when New Institutional Theory is developed in this direction, a multiplicity of "organizational equilibria" can arise and production efficiency may no longer be achieved. The paper introduces the argument by pointing out some similarities between Marx's theory of history and modern transaction cost theories, which imply a common substantial departure form the standard methodology of traditional neoclassical neoclassical theory. 1 This paper has been written for the conference on Production Organization, Dynamic efficiency and Social Norms to be held in Rome on April 4-6 1991. I thank the discussant of this paper Stefano Zamagni for his useful comments. 2 Introduction. A simple definition of an organization of production can be based on two factors. The first is its technology and, in particular, the technological characteristics of the resources used in production. The second is the set of rights (which may be legal rights and/or customary rights supported by social norms) on the resources employed in the organization and on the organization itself. The relationship between these two factors has traditionally been a controversial issue in social sciences: if causation exists, it can go both ways. On the one hand property rights can be seen as factors shaping the nature and the characteristics of the resources used in production.
    [Show full text]
  • Privatisation and Supply Chain Management: on the Effective Alignment of Purchasing and Supply After Privatisation/Andrew Cox, Lisa Harris, and David Parker
    Privatisation and Supply Chain Management Privatisation and Supply Chain Management brings together two of the most important issues in current management thinking: the impact of privatisation on the performance and behaviour of the companies involved, and the increasingly important role of purchasing and supplier relationships. The notion that efficiency is improved with privatisation is critically examined, as is the idea that privatised organisations have recognised the importance of the procurement role and developed both their procurement functions and supplier relationships so as to enhance competitiveness. Grounded in economic theory, and providing rich case study material, this volume makes a major contribution to an increasingly important area. It will be of interest to students and researchers in economics, business and management studies and specialist courses in procurement management. Andrew Cox is Professor of Strategic Procurement Management and Director of the Centre for Strategic Procurement Management at Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK. Lisa Harris works in supply management for the BMW/Rover Group. David Parker is Professor of Business Economics and Strategy and Head of the Strategic Management Group at the Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. Routledge studies in business organizations and networks 1 Democracy and Efficiency in the Economic Enterprise Edited by Ugo Pagano and Robert Rowthorn 2 Towards a Competence Theory of the Firm Edited by Nicolai J.Foss and Christian
    [Show full text]
  • Interlocking Complementarities and Institutional Change
    Journal of Institutional Economics (2011), 7: 3, 373–392 C The JOIE Foundation 2010 doi:10.1017/S1744137410000433 First published online 21 December 2010 Interlocking complementarities and institutional change UGO PAGANO∗ University of Siena, Siena, Italy and Central European University, Budapest, Hungary Abstract: In biology, the laws that regulate the structuring and change of complex organisms, characterised by interlocking complementarities, are different from those that shape the evolution of simple organisms. Only the latter share mechanisms of competitive selection of the fittest analogous to those envisaged by the standard neoclassical model in economics. The biological counterparts of protectionism, subsidies and conflicts enable complex organisms to exit from long periods of stasis and to increase their capacity to adapt efficiently to the environment. Because of their interlocking complementarities, most institutions share the laws governing the structure and change of complex organisms. We concentrate on the complementarities between technology and property rights and consider historical cases in which organisational stasis has been overcome by mechanisms different from (and sometimes acting in spite of) competitive pressure. The evolution of institutions cannot be taken for granted; but even when institutions seem frozen forever by their interlocking complementarities, their potential for change can be discovered by analysis of those interactions. 1. Introduction Exchanges of analogies between economics and evolutionary biology
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis-Thiago-Oliveira-Finale Compressed.Pdf
    ESSAYS ON THE MATHEMATIZATION OF ECONOMICS Thiago Dumont Oliveira Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics Supervisor: Carlo Zappia Examination Board: Nicola Giocoli Harro Maas Ivan Moscati Universities of Florence, Pisa, and Siena Joint PhD Program in Economics Program Coordinator: Ugo Pagano Cycle XXXII — Academic Year: 2019-2020 ii iii iv Acknowledgements I should start by thanking my parents Angela and José Carlos, and my sisters Carla and Florença for their unconditional love and support. Without my parents’ help this thesis would never have materialized, so I thank them with all my heart for everything they have done for me. They have always believed in me, even when I did not, and I dedicate this thesis to them for without them neither my M.A. nor my PhD would have been possible in the first place. Next I would like to thank Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak who has been a friend and mentor throughout the past five years. I have learned a great deal from him about the process of writing academic papers when he was my supervisor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais. During my PhD I was fortunate to keep working with him on a couple of projects and that increased even more my admiration for him and also gave me the opportunity to develop further as a researcher. I also owe much to Rebeca Gomez Betancourt and Pedro Garcia Duarte who were part of the examination board at the end of my masters and gave me invaluable suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx Versus Walras on Labour Exchange
    Marx versus Walras on Labour Exchange Motohiro Okada Abstract: This paper compares Léon Walras’s and Marx’s thoughts on labour exchange, thereby illuminating the latter’s perspective that can lead to a forceful counterargument to the neoclassical principle of labour exchange, for which the former affords a foundation. Both Walras and Marx distinguish between labour ability as a factor of production and labour as its service, but exhibit a striking contrast in their explanations of the distinction. Walras’s distinction between ‘personal faculties’ and labour never attempts to re- veal the peculiarities of the relationship they share. Walras essentially equates the re- lationship between the two with that between non-human factors and their respective services by stripping the former of human elements. This not only allows labour ex- change to be incorporated into Walras’s general equilibrium system but also provides the groundwork for its neoclassical principle, which, on the basis of marginal theory, assumes work conditions to be determinable through the stylised market adjustment of the demand and supply of labour on each entrepreneur’s and worker’s maximisa- tion behaviour. In contrast, especially in his pre-Capital writings, Marx underlines the worker’s subjectivity in deciding her labour performance. This implies that the type and inten- sity of time-unit labour varies depending on the worker’s will and the constraints upon it. Accentuating the particular characteristics of the relationship between labour power and labour in this way, Marx’s arguments lead to the invalidation of the neo- classical principle of labour exchange and rationalise the intervention of socio-politi- cal factors represented by the labour-capital class struggle in the determination of work conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopedia of Law and Economics
    Encyclopedia of Law and Economics Alain Marciano Giovanni Battista Ramello Editors Encyclopedia of Law and Economics With 146 Figures and 50 Tables Editors Alain Marciano Giovanni Battista Ramello MRE and University of Montpellier DiGSPES Montpellier, France University of Eastern Piedmont Alessandria, Italy Faculté d’Economie Université de Montpellier and IEL LAMETA-UMR CNRS Torino, Italy Montpellier, France ISBN 978-1-4614-7752-5 ISBN 978-1-4614-7753-2 (eBook) ISBN 978-1-4614-7754-9 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019930845 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Globalisation, Institutional Diversity and the Unequal Accumulation of Intellectual Capital
    Cambridge Journal of Economics 2007, 31, 649–667 doi:10.1093/cje/bem015 Advance Access publication 6 August, 2007 Cultural globalisation, institutional diversity and the unequal accumulation of intellectual capital Ugo Pagano* National economies used to be characterised by cultural standardisation and social protection. Globalisation pushes cultural standardisation beyond the boundaries of national states and induces a global dilution of the standards of social protection. At the same time, if national economies specialise according to their comparative institutional advantage, global economic integration may help promote institutional diversity and variety in welfare policies. However, the institution of a global system of intellectual property rights may seriously limit the ‘biodiversity’ of capitalism and imply a global revenge of a new international form of Taylorism. The overall result may be a very unequal accumulation of intellectual capital. Paradoxically, the modern global economy may end up sharing some aspects of the agrarian societies that have been displaced by modern nation states. Key words: Global economy, Global development, Cultural standardisation, Social protection, Institutional diversity, Intellectual property rights JEL classifications: F020, O340, P140, P510 1. Introduction Is globalisation pushing the world towards a single model of capitalism characterised by a more unequal distribution of the intellectual assets embodied in individuals and in commodities such as patents, copyrights and trademarks? What can national governments and international organisations do to promote a more egalitarian access to the acquisition of intellectual capital? Globalisation is a complex phenomenon and the answer changes according to the particular mechanisms on which we focus our attention. Even when we restrict our analysis to the problems considered above, the answers are complicated by the fact that each mechanism involves different tendencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge JOURNAL of ECONOMICS
    ISSN 0309-166X (PRINT) Cambridge Journal of Economics ISSN 1464-3545 (ONLINE) Volume 38 Number 6 November 2014 Cambridge Journal of Economics Introduction S. Blankenburg The future of capitalism: a consideration of alternatives Cambridge Wendy Harcourt Towards a political economy of the theory of economic policy K. Vela Velupillai Journal of Economic history and economic theory: the staples approach to economic development Alexander Dow and Sheila Dow A neo-Kaleckian–Goodwin model of capitalist economic growth: monopoly Economics power, managerial pay and labour market conflict Thomas I. Palley A new theoretical analysis of deindustrialisation Fiona Tregenna Triggers of change: structural trajectories and production dynamics Volume 38 Number 6 November 2014 Antonio Andreoni and Roberto Scazzieri Special Issue The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism Ugo Pagano Contemporary capitalism and progressive political economics: Back to which Bretton Woods? Liquidity and clearing as alternative principles for reforming international money Contributions to heterodox debates about economic Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci 2014 38 Number 6 November Volume A bright future can be ours! Macroeconomic policy for non-eurozone method, analysis and policy Western countries J. W. Nevile and Peter Kriesler Identity economics meets financialisation: gender, race and occupational stratification in the US labour market Philip Arestis, Aurelie Charles and Giuseppe Fontana Veblen Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt lineages in capital controversies
    [Show full text]
  • The Code of Capital
    THE CODE OF CAPITAL The Code of Capital How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality Katharina Pistor PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON AND OXFORD Copyright © 2019 by Katharina Pistor Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to permissions @press .princeton .edu Published by Princeton University Press 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TR press .princeton .edu All Rights Reserved LCCN: 2018965763 ISBN 978- 0- 691- 17897- 4 British Library Cataloging- in- Publication Data is available Editorial: Joe Jackson and Jackie Delaney Production Editorial: Nathan Carr Production: Jacquie Poirier Publicity: Caroline Priday and James Schneider Copyeditor: Karen Verde This book has been composed in Adobe Text Pro and Gotham Printed on acid- free paper. ∞ Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To Carsten CONTENTS Preface ix 1 Empire of Law 1 2 Coding Land 23 3 Cloning Legal Persons 47 4 Minting Debt 77 5 Enclosing Nature’s Code 108 6 A Code for the Globe 132 7 The Masters of the Code 158 8 A New Code? 183 9 Capital Rules by Law 205 Notes 235 Index 279 vii PREFACE The idea for this book has been with me for quite some time. It first emerged when, in the fall of 2007, the global financial system began to teeter toward the abyss. The speed of the unfolding crisis left little time for deep thinking, but once the eye of the storm had passed, I, along with many others, sought to discover what might explain finance’s stupendous expansion in recent decades, and what ac- counted for its steep fall.
    [Show full text]
  • On Keynes's Theory of the Aggregate Price Level in the Treatise: Any Help for Modern Aggregate Analysis?
    29 Max Gillman On Keynes's Theory of the Aggregate Price Level in the Treatise: Any Help for Modern Aggregate Analysis? W a r s a w , 1 9 9 9 Responsibility for the information and views set out in the paper lies entirely with the editor and author. Published with the support of the Center for Publishing Development, Open Society Institute –Budapest. Graphic Design: Agnieszka Natalia Bury DTP: CeDeWu – Centrum Doradztwa i Wydawnictw “Multi-Press” sp. z o.o. ISSN 1506-1639, ISBN 83-7178-172-5 Publishers: CASE – Center for Social and Economic Research ul. Sienkiewicza 12, 00-944 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (4822) 622 66 27, 828 61 33, fax (4822) 828 60 69 e-mail: [email protected] Open Society Institute – Regional Publishing Center 1051 Budapest, Oktober 6. u. 12, Hungary tel.: 36.1.3273014, fax: 36.1.3273042 Contents 1. Abstract 5 1. Introduction 6 2. The Treatise's Theory of the Aggregate Price 6 3. Construction of a Keynesian Cross 8 4. Linkage Between the Treastise – Type Cross Diagram and the IS-LM Analysis 10 5. Modification with a Neoclassical Definition of Profit 13 6. A Treatise – Motivated Approach to Aggregate Demand Analysis 15 References 21 CASE-CEU Working Papers Series No. 29 – Max Gillman Max Gillman Department of Economics, Central European University e-mail: [email protected]. Max Gillman is an assistant professor in the Economics Department of Central European University. He writes on monetary economics and macroeconomics, with some applications to transition countries. He served as a fellow at the Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute in Prague, the University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Otago, and served as aide for tax and social security legislation in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx After New Institutional Economics
    Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev. 4(1): 27–53 (2007) ARTICLE Karl Marx after New Institutional Economics* Ugo PAGANO Department of Economics, University of Siena, Siena, Italy and Central European University, Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we consider the two main causation mechanisms characterizing the Marxian theory: the one running from productive forces to relations of production (Marx I) and the other moving in the opposite direction (Marx II). We argue that Marx did not achieve a satisfactory integration of the two mechanisms and that he failed to point out how multiple technological-institutional paths may stem from the cumulative interactions between relations of production and productive forces. In spite of many important analytical insights, NIE has exacerbated the primacy of technology and productive forces, which characterized “Marx I”. After NIE, the analysis of the complex relations between “Marx I” and “Marx II” can still help to extend the scope of institutional theory and, in particular, its application to the comparative analysis of models of capitalism coexisting in the global economy. Keywords: Marxian Theory, New Institutional Economics, organizational equilibria, institutional complementaries. 1. Introduction The main claim of this paper is that there are some parts of Marxian theory that, together with “Old-Institutionalism”,1) can be used to improve upon the important contributions of New Institutional Economists, like Coase, Alchian, Demsetz and Williamson, who have greatly helped our profession to overcome the sterility of the neoclassical theory. In this paper I will draw a schematic distinction between two Marxes—a senior brother Marx (or Marx I) and a junior brother Marx (or Marx II)—which will strike JEL: B130, B140, B250, P100, P140.
    [Show full text]