Corporate Governance and 'Economic Democracy': An Attack on Freedom
Michael C. Jensen
Harvard Business School; Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP), Inc.; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
William H. Meckling
Simon School, University of Rochester (Deceased)
June 30, 1983
PROCEEDINGS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A DEFINITIVE EXPLORATION OF THE ISSUES, C.J. Huizenga, ed., UCLA Extension, 1983
Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper No. 1983
In this article we review the implications of the Nader proposals for Taming the Giant Corporation and the related campaigns for economic and corporate democracy. These campaigns, if successful, would impose costs on one group for the benefit of others, reduce economic efficiency and wealth, and finally would reduce, not increase, freedom.
Corporate democracy advocates would impose restrictions on the freedom of individuals to associate, contract, and produce through the corporate form. In doing so they often use the analogy with the political state to buttress their arguments without coming to grips with the essential difference between the government (whether local, state or federal) and a corporation: Only a governmental has the legal monopoly over the use of physical coercion and violence on individuals (including arrest and imprisonment) to compel compliance with the dictates of the state. No corporation no matter how large has the police powers. No corporation has the legal right to use violence to compel any individual to buy from it, sell to it, invest in it, or work for it.
We offer a new definition of freedom. Maximal freedom exists in a society if: (1) the rights system passes on to individuals the full set of opportunities provided by nature, and (2) the state enforces its monopoly over violence, and (3) each person has exclusive rights in his or her body. In this system the state is required to use coercion and violence to enforce the rights which resolve the physical incompatibility problem, and to maintain the state's monopoly over the use of violence.
In conclusion we call on the various public interest lawyers and organizations to use their resources to increase freedom and aggregate welfare. They can do this by focusing their resources on preventing the use of the police powers for private benefit, for wealth confiscation, and for political theft.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 24
Keywords: definition of freedom, economic democracy, corporate democracy, corporategovernance, role of government, contracting, federal chartering, violence, police powers, rightsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 11, 2002 ; Last revised: January 17, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.359 seconds