脆弱性和效率(什么)

L. Mitchell
{"title":"脆弱性和效率(什么)","authors":"L. Mitchell","doi":"10.15779/Z38J862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay I address the question posed by Bill Klein that formed the basis for the symposium in which this piece appears: What are the criteria for good corporate law? I begin with the presumption that has dominated American thinking about corporations almost from the inception - corporate law should seek to promote efficiency. But there is a second dimension of equal importance that helps to legitimate this first goal. Corporate law should seek to protect those who are vulnerable to the corporation. Efficiency is almost always taken to mean efficiency to the end of wealth maximization. I question this assumption and argue that it is both an undesirable goal from the corporation's perspective as well as an incoherent goal. The proper metric for efficiency is, instead, efficiency in the production of goods and the provision of services. Production of goods and the provision of services is why, after all, we permit corporations to exist. Once the undesirability and incoherence of wealth maximization and the virtues of this new metric become clear, the protection of those vulnerable to the corporation becomes easier to conceptualize and make operational. In the end, however, to be good corporate law, as to be good law generally, we must be honest both about what law is doing and what it is capable of accomplishing. I conclude that law has little if any role to play in creating rules or incentives for corporations to maximize the efficiency of their production of goods and services. The best law can do in this regard is to get out of the way. I further conclude that we have been dishonest in our assertions that corporate law protects shareholders.","PeriodicalId":326069,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerability and Efficiency (Of What)\",\"authors\":\"L. Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38J862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this essay I address the question posed by Bill Klein that formed the basis for the symposium in which this piece appears: What are the criteria for good corporate law? I begin with the presumption that has dominated American thinking about corporations almost from the inception - corporate law should seek to promote efficiency. But there is a second dimension of equal importance that helps to legitimate this first goal. Corporate law should seek to protect those who are vulnerable to the corporation. Efficiency is almost always taken to mean efficiency to the end of wealth maximization. I question this assumption and argue that it is both an undesirable goal from the corporation's perspective as well as an incoherent goal. The proper metric for efficiency is, instead, efficiency in the production of goods and the provision of services. Production of goods and the provision of services is why, after all, we permit corporations to exist. Once the undesirability and incoherence of wealth maximization and the virtues of this new metric become clear, the protection of those vulnerable to the corporation becomes easier to conceptualize and make operational. In the end, however, to be good corporate law, as to be good law generally, we must be honest both about what law is doing and what it is capable of accomplishing. I conclude that law has little if any role to play in creating rules or incentives for corporations to maximize the efficiency of their production of goods and services. The best law can do in this regard is to get out of the way. I further conclude that we have been dishonest in our assertions that corporate law protects shareholders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":326069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Berkeley Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Berkeley Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38J862\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38J862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我提出了比尔·克莱因提出的问题,这个问题构成了这篇文章出现的研讨会的基础:好的公司法的标准是什么?我从几乎从一开始就主导着美国人对公司的思考的假设开始——公司法应该寻求提高效率。但还有一个同样重要的第二个维度,它有助于实现第一个目标。公司法应设法保护那些易受公司侵害的人。效率几乎总是被理解为达到财富最大化的效率。我对这一假设提出质疑,并认为从公司的角度来看,这既是一个不受欢迎的目标,也是一个不连贯的目标。相反,衡量效率的适当标准是商品生产和服务提供的效率。毕竟,生产商品和提供服务是我们允许公司存在的原因。一旦财富最大化的不可取之处和不一致之处,以及这种新衡量标准的优点变得清晰起来,对那些易受公司影响的人的保护就变得更容易概念化和操作。然而,最终,要成为好的公司法,就像要成为好的法律一样,我们必须诚实地对待法律正在做什么和它能够完成什么。我的结论是,法律在制定规则或激励企业最大化其产品和服务的生产效率方面几乎没有任何作用。在这方面,法律能做的最好的事情就是让路。我进一步得出结论,我们关于公司法保护股东的断言是不诚实的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vulnerability and Efficiency (Of What)
In this essay I address the question posed by Bill Klein that formed the basis for the symposium in which this piece appears: What are the criteria for good corporate law? I begin with the presumption that has dominated American thinking about corporations almost from the inception - corporate law should seek to promote efficiency. But there is a second dimension of equal importance that helps to legitimate this first goal. Corporate law should seek to protect those who are vulnerable to the corporation. Efficiency is almost always taken to mean efficiency to the end of wealth maximization. I question this assumption and argue that it is both an undesirable goal from the corporation's perspective as well as an incoherent goal. The proper metric for efficiency is, instead, efficiency in the production of goods and the provision of services. Production of goods and the provision of services is why, after all, we permit corporations to exist. Once the undesirability and incoherence of wealth maximization and the virtues of this new metric become clear, the protection of those vulnerable to the corporation becomes easier to conceptualize and make operational. In the end, however, to be good corporate law, as to be good law generally, we must be honest both about what law is doing and what it is capable of accomplishing. I conclude that law has little if any role to play in creating rules or incentives for corporations to maximize the efficiency of their production of goods and services. The best law can do in this regard is to get out of the way. I further conclude that we have been dishonest in our assertions that corporate law protects shareholders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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