Корпорации Людей

Sep 15, 2014 Lucy P. Marcus

ЛОНДОН – Во всем мире, сегодня, происходят два мощных изменения сил. Первое, корпоративная власть растет по отношению к власти правительств. Второе, обычные люди получают большее влияние. Что значит, что эти, казалось бы, противоречивые сдвиги происходят одновременно?

Несомненно, в руках компаний намного больше власти, чем когда-либо раньше. Люди, которые не были избраны народом контролируют все больше и больше нашу повседневную жизнь - от развлечений и поставок энергии в школы, железные дороги и почтовые услуги. В то же время, скорость технологических инноваций опережает законы, это означает, что корпоративная деятельность регулярно входит в, так называемые, серые зоны лишенные регулирования.

Но, чтобы уравновесить эту тенденцию, люди теперь имеют средства и возможности для обеспечения того, чтобы поведение компаний не оставалось безнаказанным. Они становятся более образованными и осведомленными, насчет того, как работают компании, и они более активны и откровенны, когда считают, что та или иная компания переступила черту. Общественность все чаще выступает как совесть компаний и индустрий, задавая сложные вопросы и привлекая виновных к ответственности.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

james durante Sep 15, 2014

Since the author seems to concede the point that governments are not (should not?) able to seriously check corporations, we are left with the vague, unsubstantiated claim that "new social media" will ride to the rescue. As Carpenter notes below, there is no actual evidence to support this. And there are three good reasons to believe that it won't turn out this way. Ordinary people, with all the gadgets in the world cannot investigate, require information from, or subpoena corporations and their managers. Only governments can. What happened to BP was entirely a matter of decent government action. Second, people can only tweet about what they know and, per point one, most of what becomes known about corporate malfeasance only emerges through government action. Finally, from Occupy to opinion polls to the sheer weight of economic evidence, we know that income and wealth inequality and resulting lack of aggregate demand is driving much of the continuing economic malaise. Even if it were true that people using social media could check corporations there is no reason at all to think that this will translate into higher wages and better benefits for workers.

This article is just another smoke screen for growing corporate power and growing inequality. Real reforms would involve a constitutional amendment revoking the legal concept of corporate personhood, true shareholder AND employee democracy within corporations, the legal strengthening of unions, and laws requiring better benefits for workers. It is precisely because of the immense corporate influence over states that these reforms will not, for now, see the light of day.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Sep 15, 2014

I don't doubt that corporate power is increasing relative to governments, but am highly skeptical of the claim that individuals are gaining greater influence in any enduring way. It would be interesting to see some quantitative data in support of these two claims.

Perhaps worth noting also that for many "ordinary people," government stands as the only agency with the capacity to mount a viable check on corporate power. So if we accept Ms. Marcus' first claim, it becomes increasingly difficult to take the second seriously. Particularly in an age when multinationals change governments the way most of us change socks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nancy Abeiderrahmane Sep 15, 2014

This is a central issue in today's changing world. Not only is it about activism and board rooms, but more importantly consumers vote with their wallet: what we buy can be sold, what we refuse to buy will lead to bankruptcy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
slightly optimistic Sep 15, 2014

Social-media campaigns in the United States imposed checks and balances on an international oil company?
Thus pressured perhaps, a US judge declared BP grossly negligent for the spill, and has fined the company up to $18 bn.
Smacks of questionable justice in the global economy. International arbitration wasn't allowed; the rules are that economic patriotism in the global economy should be unchallenged unless the parties both agree. At least Russia agreed to international arbitration at the Hague for its effective nationalization of Yukos.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/2jYHnXQru

Корпорации Людей

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Корпорации Людей

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification