Form and Function in Doing Business Rankings: Is Investor Protection in Italy Still So Bad?’

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
L. Enriques, Matteo Gargantini
{"title":"Form and Function in Doing Business Rankings: Is Investor Protection in Italy Still So Bad?’","authors":"L. Enriques, Matteo Gargantini","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/5583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The World Bank’s Doing Business Report (DBR) ranks every year numerous jurisdictions across the globe according to their ability to facilitate business activities. Among the indexes contributing to the definition of the global competitiveness of the legislations, the “Protecting investors index” (PII) measures the protection of minority shareholders in listed companies. In this paper, we analyse the DBR’s assessment of the Italian regulatory framework on investor protection. We find that the PII falls short of properly evaluating the applicable rules. First, it underrates Italy because the DBR evaluation falls short of properly evaluating the role performed by independent directors under Italian rules on related party transactions. In particular, the DBR fails to properly account for independent directors’ power to veto unfair transactions before they are submitted to the board, a safeguard that ensures minority investors’ protection at least as well as mandatory abstention by conflicted directors. Second, past DBR overrated the PII, so that subsequent reforms that substantially improved investor protection have not been grasped by more recent assessments, giving the misleading impression that no relevant changes have occurred. Far from representing one of the multiple coding errors reported in the literature, these flaws aptly show that the DBR methodology, while correctly attempting to preserve consistency in the evaluation of different jurisdictions, adopts an excessively formalistic approach and disregards the function of the rules it scrutinizes. In light of the influence that the DBR exerts on national policymakers, this approach is detrimental because it might induce window-dressing reforms. Moreover, it may rule out experimentation, which is key to ensuring that the applicable rules keep pace with the variety of techniques adopted to expropriate minority shareholders.","PeriodicalId":36563,"journal":{"name":"University of Bologna Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Bologna Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/5583","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The World Bank’s Doing Business Report (DBR) ranks every year numerous jurisdictions across the globe according to their ability to facilitate business activities. Among the indexes contributing to the definition of the global competitiveness of the legislations, the “Protecting investors index” (PII) measures the protection of minority shareholders in listed companies. In this paper, we analyse the DBR’s assessment of the Italian regulatory framework on investor protection. We find that the PII falls short of properly evaluating the applicable rules. First, it underrates Italy because the DBR evaluation falls short of properly evaluating the role performed by independent directors under Italian rules on related party transactions. In particular, the DBR fails to properly account for independent directors’ power to veto unfair transactions before they are submitted to the board, a safeguard that ensures minority investors’ protection at least as well as mandatory abstention by conflicted directors. Second, past DBR overrated the PII, so that subsequent reforms that substantially improved investor protection have not been grasped by more recent assessments, giving the misleading impression that no relevant changes have occurred. Far from representing one of the multiple coding errors reported in the literature, these flaws aptly show that the DBR methodology, while correctly attempting to preserve consistency in the evaluation of different jurisdictions, adopts an excessively formalistic approach and disregards the function of the rules it scrutinizes. In light of the influence that the DBR exerts on national policymakers, this approach is detrimental because it might induce window-dressing reforms. Moreover, it may rule out experimentation, which is key to ensuring that the applicable rules keep pace with the variety of techniques adopted to expropriate minority shareholders.
《营商环境报告》的形式与功能:意大利的投资者保护还那么糟糕吗?”
世界银行的《营商环境报告》(DBR)每年都会根据促进商业活动的能力对全球多个司法管辖区进行排名。在有助于界定立法全球竞争力的指标中,“保护投资者指数”(PII)衡量的是对上市公司中小股东的保护。在本文中,我们分析了DBR对意大利投资者保护监管框架的评估。我们发现,PII未能正确评估适用的规则。首先,它低估了意大利的价值,因为根据意大利的关联方交易规则,DBR评估未能恰当地评估独立董事所发挥的作用。特别是,DBR未能恰当地考虑到独立董事在不公平交易提交董事会之前拥有否决权力,这是一项保障措施,至少可以确保对中小投资者的保护,以及冲突董事的强制性弃权。其次,过去的DBR高估了PII,因此,后来的改革大幅改善了投资者保护,却没有被最近的评估所把握,从而给人一种没有发生相关变化的误导性印象。这些缺陷远非代表文献中报道的多种编码错误之一,而是恰当地表明,DBR方法虽然正确地试图保持不同司法管辖区评估的一致性,但采用了过度形式主义的方法,忽视了其审查的规则的功能。鉴于DBR对国家政策制定者施加的影响,这种做法是有害的,因为它可能导致粉饰帐面的改革。此外,它可能会排除实验,这是确保适用规则与征收少数股东的各种技术保持同步的关键。
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
University of Bologna Law Review
University of Bologna Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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