Is Berle and Means Really a Myth?

Cheffins, Brian R.; Bank, Steven A.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1352605

Is Berle and Means Really a Myth?

UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 09-05

ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 121/2009

58 Pages Posted: 10 Mar 2009 Last revised: 19 Oct 2010

See all articles by Brian R. Cheffins

Brian R. Cheffins

University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Steven A. Bank

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

There are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: March 3, 2009

Abstract

Berle and Means famously declared in 1932 that a separation of ownership and control was a hallmark of large U.S. corporations and their characterization of matters quickly became received wisdom. A series of recent papers (Hannah, 2007; Santos and Rumble, 2006, Holderness, forthcoming) has called the Berle-Means orthodoxy into question. This paper surveys the relevant historical literature on point, acknowledging in so doing that the pattern of ownership and control in U.S. public companies has been anything but monolithic but saying a separation between ownership and control remains an appropriate reference point for analysis of U.S. corporate governance.

Keywords: Berle-Means, ownership, control of U.S. public companies

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Cheffins, Brian R. and Bank, Steven A., Is Berle and Means Really a Myth? (March 3, 2009). UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 09-05; ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 121/2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1352605 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1352605