http://prosyn.org/x6Rwp85;
New Comment
Email this piece to a friend
Contact us
Please select an option
- Secure publication rights
- Submit a commentary for publication
- Website help
- Careers
- Advertise with us
- Feedback/general inquiries
Please wait, fetching the form
Please wait, fetching the form
Please wait, fetching the form
Please wait, fetching the form
Please wait, fetching the form
A vital distinction between market economies is the degree to which ownership of large firms is separate from a firm's day-to-day management. What makes a company's owners willingly hand over control to professional managers? That question is increasingly urgent as wealthy countries-as well as many transition and developing economies-attempt to create the robust securities markets needed to boost investment, productivity, and growth.
Separation of ownership from management and effective securities markets reinforce each other. The underlying theory is straightforward: if bosses can steal, distant owners will not buy shares. The formalistic civil-law systems that prevail in continental Europe supposedly provide inadequate protection, so ownership remains concentrated. By contrast, Anglo Saxon common-law systems empower judges to interpret open-ended fiduciary rules on a case-by-case basis, thereby establishing legal precedents that are binding on managers.
But this is a weak explanation. Before World War I, Europe's civil-law countries were developing securities markets as fast as the US and the UK. Indeed, regulatory agencies like the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) arose because common-law fiduciary duties failed to protect distant owners.
To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.
Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, pleaseĀ log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.