Democracy and Dysfunction: Rural Electric Cooperatives and the Surprising Persistence of the Separation of Ownership and Control

Randall S. Thomas, Debra C. Jeter, H. Wells
{"title":"Democracy and Dysfunction: Rural Electric Cooperatives and the Surprising Persistence of the Separation of Ownership and Control","authors":"Randall S. Thomas, Debra C. Jeter, H. Wells","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3155466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1930s, corporate law scholarship has focused narrowly on the public corporation and the problem of the separation of ownership and control — a problem many now believe has been mitigated or even solved. With rare exceptions, scholars have paid far less heed to other business forms that still play important roles in the American economy. In this Article we examine a significant, and almost completely overlooked business form, the Rural Electrical Cooperative (REC). RECs were founded in a moment of optimism during the New Deal. As with other cooperatives, their organizational rules differed sharply from those of for-profit corporations. They were owned by their customers, with each customer member having one vote irrespective of their energy consumption -- and it was hoped these owners would provide active oversight of the REC’s managers and activities. The reality has proven otherwise. Corporate governance innovations of the last forty years have passed RECs by, leaving an organizational sector mired in governance dysfunctions stemming from the separation of ownership and control. Here we explain why RECs evolved as they did, and why New Deal planners seized on the cooperative form to electrify the countryside; how significant governance problems have persisted, largely unaddressed, from the 1930s to today; and how a change in corporate governance rules, one allowing for a market for corporate control in RECs, could fix some persistent problems in this still-important sector. Alternatively, we propose that RECs take up a new public role as rural broadband internet providers with a reinvigorated federal regulator to police governance failures.","PeriodicalId":80402,"journal":{"name":"Alabama law review","volume":"70 1","pages":"361"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.3155466","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alabama law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3155466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Since the 1930s, corporate law scholarship has focused narrowly on the public corporation and the problem of the separation of ownership and control — a problem many now believe has been mitigated or even solved. With rare exceptions, scholars have paid far less heed to other business forms that still play important roles in the American economy. In this Article we examine a significant, and almost completely overlooked business form, the Rural Electrical Cooperative (REC). RECs were founded in a moment of optimism during the New Deal. As with other cooperatives, their organizational rules differed sharply from those of for-profit corporations. They were owned by their customers, with each customer member having one vote irrespective of their energy consumption -- and it was hoped these owners would provide active oversight of the REC’s managers and activities. The reality has proven otherwise. Corporate governance innovations of the last forty years have passed RECs by, leaving an organizational sector mired in governance dysfunctions stemming from the separation of ownership and control. Here we explain why RECs evolved as they did, and why New Deal planners seized on the cooperative form to electrify the countryside; how significant governance problems have persisted, largely unaddressed, from the 1930s to today; and how a change in corporate governance rules, one allowing for a market for corporate control in RECs, could fix some persistent problems in this still-important sector. Alternatively, we propose that RECs take up a new public role as rural broadband internet providers with a reinvigorated federal regulator to police governance failures.
民主与失灵:农村电力合作社与所有权与控制权分离的惊人坚持
自20世纪30年代以来,公司法学术一直狭隘地关注上市公司和所有权与控制权分离的问题——许多人现在认为这个问题已经得到缓解甚至解决。除了极少数例外,学者们对其他仍在美国经济中发挥重要作用的商业形式的关注要少得多。在这篇文章中,我们研究了一种重要的、几乎完全被忽视的商业形式,农村电力合作社(REC)。REC是在新政期间乐观的时刻成立的。与其他合作社一样,它们的组织规则与营利性公司的组织规则截然不同。它们由客户所有,无论其能源消耗如何,每个客户成员都有一票表决权,希望这些所有者能积极监督REC的管理人员和活动。事实证明并非如此。过去四十年的公司治理创新已经超越了REC,使组织部门陷入了所有权和控制权分离导致的治理功能障碍。在这里,我们解释了为什么REC如此发展,以及为什么新政规划者抓住合作形式为农村供电;从20世纪30年代到今天,重大的治理问题是如何持续存在的,基本上没有得到解决;以及公司治理规则的改变,即允许REC的公司控制权市场,如何解决这个仍然重要的行业中的一些持续问题。或者,我们建议REC扮演一个新的公共角色,作为农村宽带互联网提供商,通过重振联邦监管机构来监督治理失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信