IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/aelcon/v10y2020i3p25n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How America’s Corporations Lost their Public Purpose, and How it Might be (Partially) Restored

Author

Listed:
  • Ciepley David

    (University of Virginia, Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, 3 University Circle, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22903, USA)

Abstract

In honor of Lynn Stout’s efforts to better suit the business corporation for the pursuit of long-term, publicly-beneficial purposes, the present essay reviews critically the historical process by which the corporation’s tie to public purposes—a precondition of the earliest grants of corporate powers to business enterprisers—was slowly severed. And it explores a form of corporate control, once widespread in the U.S. and easily revivable, that could partially restore corporate emphasis on public benefits—the foundation-controlled corporation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ciepley David, 2020. "How America’s Corporations Lost their Public Purpose, and How it Might be (Partially) Restored," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:25:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/ael-2019-0088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0088
    Download Restriction: Download restriction for institutions: For access to full text, subscription to the journal is required. Individual readers who register with De Gruyter Online get free access.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ael-2019-0088?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ciepley, David, 2013. "Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 139-158, February.
    2. Ciepley, David, 2017. "Is the U.S. Government a Corporation? The Corporate Origins of Modern Constitutionalism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(2), pages 418-435, May.
    3. Matt Hopkins & William Lazonick, 2016. "The Mismeasure of Mammon: Uses and Abuses of Executive Pay Data," Working Papers Series 49, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    4. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 2001. "The Firm as a Dedicated Hierarchy: A Theory of the Origins and Growth of Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(3), pages 805-851.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. North,Douglass C. & Wallis,John Joseph & Weingast,Barry R., 2013. "Violence and Social Orders," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107646995.
    7. John Asker & Joan Farre-Mensa & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2011. "Comparing the Investment Behavior of Public and Private Firms," NBER Working Papers 17394, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Michael C. Jensen & Kevin J. Murphy, 2010. "CEO Incentives—It's Not How Much You Pay, But How," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 64-76, January.
    9. David Ciepley, 2019. "Can Corporations Be Held to the Public Interest, or Even to the Law?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 1003-1018, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Ciepley, 2019. "Can Corporations Be Held to the Public Interest, or Even to the Law?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 1003-1018, February.
    2. Eric Hilt, 2014. "History of American Corporate Governance: Law, Institutions, and Politics," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Wu, Jianfeng & Tu, Rungting, 2007. "CEO stock option pay and R&D spending: a behavioral agency explanation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(5), pages 482-492, May.
    4. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "The Governance of the New Enterprise," CRSP working papers 487, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
    5. A. Cole, Rebel & Mehran, Hamid, 1998. "The effect of changes in ownership structure on performance: Evidence from the thrift industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 291-317, December.
    6. Nadejda SERDIUC & Hanen KHEMAKHEM, 2015. "The Impact of SOX Adoption on the Compensation of Non-US Companies’ Boards: The Case of Canadian Companies," Expert Journal of Business and Management, Sprint Investify, vol. 3(2), pages 182-188.
    7. Szu-Wen Chou, 2002. "Flattened Resource Allocation, Hierarch Design and the Boundaries of the Firm," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000056, David K. Levine.
    8. Gregory J. Robson, 2023. "How to Object to the Profit System (and How Not To)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 205-219, November.
    9. Guidi, Marco G.D. & Hillier, Joe & Tarbert, Heather, 2010. "Successfully reshaping the ownership relationship by reducing ‘moral debt’ and justly distributing residual claims: The cases from Scott Bader Commonwealth and the John Lewis Partnership," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 318-328.
    10. Te Bao & Edward Halim & Charles N. Noussair & Yohanes E. Riyanto, 2021. "Managerial incentives and stock price dynamics: an experimental approach," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 617-648, June.
    11. Tyrone M. Carlin & Guy Ford, 2006. "Options Plans — Some Australian Empirical Evidence," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 16(38), pages 75-84, March.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Bruno Frey, 2006. "Shareholders Should Welcome Knowledge Workers as Directors," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 10(3), pages 325-345, September.
    13. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Shareholders Should Welcome Employees as Directors," CREMA Working Paper Series 2005-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    14. Eric A. Fong, 2010. "Relative CEO Underpayment and CEO Behaviour Towards R&D Spending," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 1095-1122, September.
    15. Luigi Zingales, 2000. "In Search of New Foundations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1623-1653, August.
    16. Manel Gharbi & Anis Jarboui, 2017. "Institutional investors’ role in diversifying orientation decision across Tunisian companies," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1244873-124, January.
    17. David B. Audretsch & Erik E. Lehmann, 2013. "Corporate governance in newly listed companies," Chapters, in: Mario Levis & Silvio Vismara (ed.), Handbook of Research on IPOs, chapter 9, pages 179-206, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Michael Mayberry, 2020. "Good for managers, bad for society? Causal evidence on the association between risk‐taking incentives and corporate social responsibility," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(9-10), pages 1182-1214, October.
    19. Walid Ben‐Amar & Claude Francoeur & Sylvain Marsat & Aida Sijamic Wahid, 2021. "How do firms achieve corporate social performance? An integrated perspective," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 1078-1090, May.
    20. Bernhardt, Annette & Batt, Rosemary & Houseman, Susan & Appelbaum, Eileen, 2016. "Domestic Outsourcing in the U.S.: A Research Agenda to Assess Trends and Effects on Job Quality," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt2fm4m444, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:25:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.