IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Corporate Law's Limits

  • Roe, Mark J

A strong theory has emerged that the quality of corporate law in protecting distant shareholders primarily determines whether ownership and control separate. The theory helps to convincingly explain why separation is weak in transition and developing nations. But in several rich nations, although legal structures as measured protect shareholders well, separation is shallow. Something else has impeded separation. Separation should be narrow if shareholders face high managerial agency costs if ownership diffused. But most managerial agency costs are not corporate law's focus. Judicial doctrine attacks self-dealing, not business decisions that hurt stockholders. Indeed, the business judgment rule puts beyond direct legal inquiry most key agency costs--such as overexpansion, overinvestment, and reluctance to take on profitable but uncomfortable risks. Even if a nation's core corporate law is "perfect," it directly eliminates self-dealing, not most managerial mistake or most misalignment with shareholders. If the risk of managerial misalignment varies widely from nation to nation, or from firm to firm, ownership structures should also vary widely, even if conventional corporate law tightly protected shareholders everywhere from insider machinations. I show why this variation in managerial alignment is likely to have been deep. Copyright 2002 by the University of Chicago.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Legal Studies.

Volume (Year): 31 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 233-71

in new window

Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:31:y:2002:i:2:p:233-71
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:31:y:2002:i:2:p:233-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.