Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T07:45:39.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Citizenship and the Corporation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Ian B. Lee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the contribution made by the concept of citizenship to contemporary understandings of the widely held business corporation. Because the conventional economic understanding of corporations and corporate law cannot fully explain the nature of the business corporation and the purposes of corporate law, the framework within which teachers and students of corporate law approach the corporation must be enlarged. By looking at the corporation exclusively through the lens of economics we are unable to account for all features of the corporation and corporate law, and we risk mistaking the purpose of these features, or wrongly supposing that they serve no purpose. The article proposes that through resort to a distinct set of conceptual tools—the concept of citizenship, borrowed from political theory—we can attain a fuller comprehension of the meaning of the corporation.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Winter 2009 , pp. 129 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alchian, Armen A., and Demsetz, Harold. 1972. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. American Economic Review 62:777–95.Google Scholar
Allen, William T. 1992. Our Schizophrenic Conception of the Corporation. Cardozo Law Review 14:261–82.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, Stephen M. 1993. In Defense of the Shareholder Wealth Maximization Norm: A Reply to Professor Green. Washington and Lee Law Review 50:1423–47.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, Stephen M. 2003. Director Primacy: The Means and Ends of Corporate Governance. Northwestern University Law Review 97:547–606.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, Stephen M. 2006. The Case for Limited Shareholder Voting Rights. UCLA Law Review 53:601–36.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, Stephen M. 2008. Director Primacy and Bylaws. http://www.businessassociationsblog.com/lawandbusiness/comments/director_primacy_and_bylaws/ (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E. 2006. Scalia's Infidelity: A Critique of “Faint‐Hearted” Originalism. University of Cincinnati Law Review 75:7–27.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, Lucian A. 2003. The Case for Shareholder Access to the Ballot. Business Lawyer 59:43–66.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, Lucian A., and Ferrell, Allen. 1999. Federalism and Corporate Law: The Race to Protect Managers from Takeovers. Columbia Law Review 99:1168–99.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, Lucian A., and Fried, Jesse. 2004. Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, Lucian A., Fried, Jesse M., and Walker, David I. 2002. Managerial Power and Rent Extraction in the Design of Executive Compensation. University of Chicago Law Review 69:751–846.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1992. The economic way of looking at life. Nobel Prize Lecture presented at the Nobel Foundation, Dec. 9, in Stockholm, Sweden. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1992/becker‐lecture.html (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Beiner, Ronald, ed. 1995. Introduction: Why Citizenship Constitutes a Theoretical Problem in the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century to Theorizing Citizenship, 1–28. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Beitz, Charles. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berle, Adolph A. 1932. For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note. Harvard Law Review 45:1365–72.Google Scholar
Berle, Adolph A., and Means, Gardiner C. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. 1986. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Charles L. 1997. A New Birth of Freedom: Human Rights, Named and Unnamed. New York: Grosset/Putnam.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William. 1979 176569. Commentaries on the Law of England, 4 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M. 2003. Locking in Capital: What Corporate Law Achieved for Business Organizers in the Nineteenth Century. UCLA Law Review 51:387–455.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M., and Stout, Lynn A. 1999. A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law. Virginia Law Review 85:248–328.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M., and Stout, Lynn A. 2001. Director Accountability and the Mediating Role of the Corporate Board. Washington University Law Quarterly 79:403–48.Google Scholar
Boot, Arnoud W. A., and Macey, Jonathan R. 2004. Monitoring Corporate Performance: The Role of Objectivity, Proximity, and Adaptability in Corporate Governance. Cornell Law Review 89:356–93.Google Scholar
Bottomley, Stephen. 2007. The Constitutional Corporation: Rethinking Corporate Governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Branson, Douglas M. 2002. Corporate Social Responsibility Redux. Tulane Law Review 76:1207–26.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Buck, Tobias. 2005. EU Seeks to End Bias Among Shareholders. Financial Times, October 17, 1.Google Scholar
Butler, Henry N., and McChesney, Fred S. 1999. Why They Give at the Office: Shareholder Welfare and Corporate Philanthropy in the Contractual Theory of the Corporation. Cornell Law Review 84:1195–1226.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido. 1991. The Pointlessness of Pareto: Carrying Coase Further. Yale Law Journal 100:1211–39.Google Scholar
Cary, William L. 1974. Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections upon Delaware. Yale Law Journal 83:663–705.Google Scholar
Cicero. 1935 [~70 BCE]. The Verrine Orations, vol. 2. Trans. Greenwood, L. H. G. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ciepley, David. 2007. Political Theory and the Corporation. http://faculty.virginia.edu/pol‐theoryprogram/ciepley%20pt%20and%20the%20corporation.pdf (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4 (16): 386–405.Google Scholar
Coates, John C. 1999. Measuring the Domain of Mediating Hierarchy: How Contestable Are U.S. Public Corporations? Journal of Corporation Law 24:837–68.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ronnie. 1994. Feminist Thought and Corporate Law: It's Time to Find Our Way Up from the Bottom (Line). American University Journal of Gender & Law 2:1–35.Google Scholar
Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. 2002. Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada. Saskatoon: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.Google Scholar
Condon, Mary. 2000. Limited by Law? Gender, Corporate Law, and the Family Firm. In Law as a Gendering Practice, ed. Chunn, Dorothy E. and Lacombe, Dany, 181–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, C. A. 1950. Corporation, Trust and Company. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Dallas, Lynne L. 2002. The New Managerialism and Diversity on Corporate Boards of Directors. Tulane Law Review. 76:1363–1407.Google Scholar
Dodd, E. Merrick. 1932. For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees? Harvard Law Review 45:1145–63.Google Scholar
Dunlavy, Colleen A. 2006. Social Conceptions of the Corporation: Insights from the History of Shareholder Voting Rights. Washington & Lee Law Review 63:1347–88.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, David. 2004. Consent, Legitimacy and the Foundation of Political and Legal Authority. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Consortium on Democratic Constitutionalism, October 2, Victoria, BC. http://www.law.uvic.ca/demcon/papers/dyzenhaus_hobbesraz.doc (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H., and Fischel, Daniel R. 1989. The Corporate Contract. Columbia Law Review 89:1416–48.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H., and Fischel, Daniel R. 1991. The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elhauge, Einer R. 2005. Sacrificing Corporate Profits in the Public Interest. New York University Law Review 80:733–869.Google Scholar
Fannon, Irene Lynch. 2003. Working Within Two Kinds of Capitalism: Corporate Governance and Employee Stakeholding—US and EC Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Fischel, Daniel R. 1982. The Corporate Governance Movement. Vanderbilt Law Review 35:1259–92.Google Scholar
Fossum, John Erik. 2003. The European Union in Search of an Identity. European Journal of Political Theory 2:319–40.Google Scholar
Fraser, Andrew W. 1983. The Corporation as a Body Politic. Telos 57:5–40.Google Scholar
Fraser, Andrew W. 1998. Reinventing Aristocracy: The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13, 32–33 and 122.Google Scholar
Frug, Gerald. 1980. The City as a Legal Concept. Harvard Law Review 93:1059–154.Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon L. 1964. The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gabaldon, Theresa A. 1992. The Lemonade Stand: Feminist and Other Reflections on the Limited Liability of Corporate Shareholders. Vanderbilt Law Review 45:1387–1456.Google Scholar
Gabaldon, Theresa A. 2002. Assumptions about Relationships Reflected in the Federal Securities Laws. Wisconsin Women's Law Journal 17:215–49.Google Scholar
Gierke, Otto. 1900. Political Theories of the Middle Age. Trans. Maitland, F. W. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Kent. 2002. September 11th and the End of History for Corporate Law. Tulane Law Review 76:1409–29.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Citizenship and National Identity. In Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. Rehg, William, 491–516. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hallis, Frederick. 1930. Corporate Personality: A Study in Jurisprudence. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansmann, Henry, and Kraakman, Reinier. 2000. The Essential Role of Organizational Law. Yale Law Journal 110:387–440.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1997. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver W. 1897. The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review 10:457–78.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J. 1986. Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory. West Virginia Law Review 88:173–224.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, Allan C. 2005. The Companies We Keep: Corporate Governance for a Democratic Society. Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Arthur J., and McCormick, John P. 2005. The Business of Democracy Is Democracy. International Journal of Constitutional Law 3:706–22.Google Scholar
Jensen, Michael C., and Meckling, William H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3:305–60.Google Scholar
Johnson, Lyman P. Q. 2002. The Social Responsibility of Corporate Law Professors. Tulane Law Review 76:1483–1500.Google Scholar
Kim, Pauline T. 2007. Lower Court Discretion. New York University Law Review 82:383–442.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will, and Norman, Wayne. 1995. Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory. In Theorizing Citizenship, ed. Beiner, Ronald, 283–322. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Ian B. 2005. Corporate Law, Profit Maximization, and the “Responsible” Shareholder. Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance 10:31–72.Google Scholar
Lee, Ian B. 2006. Corporate Law and the Role of Corporations in Society: Monism, Pluralism, Markets and Politics. Canadian Bar Review 85:1–28.Google Scholar
Liebeler, Susan W. 1984. A Proposal to Rescind the Shareholder Proposal Rule. Georgia Law Review 18:425–68.Google Scholar
Lipton, Martin, and Rosenblum, Stephen A. 1991. A New System of Corporate Governance: The Quinquennial Election of Directors. University of Chicago Law Review 58:187–253.Google Scholar
Maitland, F. W. 1911. Moral Personality and Legal Personality. In The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, vol. 3, ed. Fisher, H. A. L., 304–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manne, Henry G. 1965. Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control. Journal of Political Economy 73:110–20.Google Scholar
Manne, Henry G. 1973. The Limits and Rationale of Corporate Altruism: An Individualistic Model. Virginia Law Review 59:708–22.Google Scholar
Manne, Henry G. 2003. A Free Market Model of a Large Corporation System. Emory Law Journal 52:1381–1400.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Larry. 2001. Corporate Irresponsibility: America's Newest Export. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Marleen. 2000. Labor's Role in the American Corporate Governance Structure. Comparative Law & Labor Policy Journal 22:97–134.Google Scholar
Pender, Kathleen. 2004. Google's Weak Governance Rating. San Francisco Chronicle, August 24. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi‐bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/24/BUGBU8D46M1.DTL&type=tech (accessed July 24, 2008).Google Scholar
Plato. 1892 [360 BCE]. Crito. Trans. Jowett, Benjamin. Raleigh, NC: Alex Catalog of Electronic Texts.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1986. Free Speech in an Economic Perspective. Suffolk University Law Review 20:1–54.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1998. Economic Analysis of the Law, 5th ed. New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar
Ratner, David L. 1970. The Government of Business Corporations: Critical Reflections on the Rule of “One Share, One Vote.” Cornell Law Review 56:1–56.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1985. Authority and Justification. Philosophy & Public Affairs 14:3–29.Google Scholar
Ribstein, Larry. 2004. Is a Corporation a Person? http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/05/is_a_corporatio.html (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Ribstein, Larry. 2005. Accountability and Responsibility in Corporate Governance. Univerity of Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE05‐015. http://ssrn.com/abstract=746844 (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Usha. 2006. The Seductive Comparison of Shareholder and Civic Democracy. Washington & Lee Law Review 63:1389–1406.Google Scholar
Romano, Roberta. 1985. Law as a Product: Some Pieces of the Incorporation Puzzle. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 1:225–83.Google Scholar
Romano, Roberta. 2001. Less Is More: Making Institutional Investor Activism a Valuable Mechanism of Corporate Governance. Yale Journal on Regulation 18:174–251.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 2003 [1762]. On the Social Contract. Trans. Cole, G. D. H. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech. 2006. Law's Legitimacy and “Democracy‐Plus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26:377–409.Google Scholar
Sarra, Janis. 2002. The Gender Implications of Corporate Governance Change. Seattle Journal for Social Justice 1:457–97.Google Scholar
Seligman, Joel. 1987. Equal Protection in Shareholder Voting Rights: The One Share, One Vote Controversy. George Washington Law Review 54:687–724.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya Kumar. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden‐Day.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya Kumar. 1987. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shareholder Association for Research and Education. 2004. Second Class Investors: The Use and Abuse of Subordinated Shares in Canada. http://www.share.ca/files/Second_Class_Investors.pdf (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Sherwin‐White, A. N. 1980. The Roman Citizenship, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sossin, Lorne. 1994. Redistributing Democracy: An Inquiry into Authority, Discretion and the Possibility of Engagement in the Welfare State. Ottawa Law Review 26:1–46.Google Scholar
Stigler, George. 1981. Economics or Ethics? In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. McMurrin, Sterling M., 145–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Testy, Kellye Y. 2004. Capitalism and Freedom—For Whom?: Feminist Legal Theory and Progressive Corporate Law. Law and Contemporary Problems 67 (Fall): 87–108.Google Scholar
Tribe, Laurence H. 2000. American Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2006. The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. Yale Law Journal 115:1346–1406.Google Scholar
Walker, David I. 2005. The Manager's Share. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 05–02. http://ssrn.com/abstract=671742 (accessed August 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph. 1999. The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Melissa S. 2001. Citizenship and Identity, Citizenship as Shared Fate and the Functions of Multicultural Education. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Legal Theory Workshop Series 2001–02 No. 1. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. 1981. The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. American Journal of Sociology 87:548–77.Google Scholar
Winter, Ralph K. 1977. State Law, Shareholder Protection, and the Theory of the Corporation. Journal of Legal Studies 6:251–92.Google Scholar