全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
中外法学  2009 

汉斯曼的企业所有权理论

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

References

[1]  包括但不限于Henry Hansmann, “Ownership of Enterprise”,4 Journal of Law, Economics And Organi-zation, 267(1988).Hausmann, A Theory of Status Organizations, 2 Journal of Law, Economics and Organization1986,(2):119-130.。Hansmann, “The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise”.89 Yale law journal, 835(1980).reprin-ted in Susan-Ackerman,(ed.).The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions,Oxford University Press, 1986. Hansmann,“When Does Worker Ownership Work? ESOPs, Law Firms,Codetermination, and Economic Democracy,”99 YaleL. J. 1749(1990);Hansmann, The Viability of Worker Ownership: An Economic Perspective on the PoliticalStructure of the Firm, in The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties 162(Masahiko Aoki et al. eds.,1990).Hansmann,“Condominium and Cooperative Housing. Transactional Efficiency, Tax Subsidies, and Tenure Choice,”20 J. LegalStud. 25(1991)
[2]  Henry Hansmann, Ownership Of Enterprise, Harvard University Press, 1996.
[3]  参见(美)汉斯曼:《企业所有权论》,于静译,中国政法大学出版社2001年。
[4]  例如,2005年《广西大学学报》一篇论文引用了汉斯曼介绍的美国的合作和共有公寓的一些数据。2006年某法学CSSCI论文通过引用该书转引了其他文献。
[5]  虽然有的也只是笼统地引用了一句据说是该书中的话,如2007年《西安交通大学学报(社会科学版)》上的一篇文章。
[6]  可以相比较的是Hart & Moo,的观点,认为企业所有权是对企业专用资产特别是有形资产的控制权。Hart&Moore, Property rights and the Nature of the firm, 98 Journal of Political economy 1119(1990)
[7]  值得注意的是,这种方法“在经济学方法论中并不常见”,因为“最典型的新古典方法总是从理论开始,然后试图从经验来验证理论,甚至有时用理论强加给实践”,参见杨瑞龙、卢周来:“对劳动管理型企业的经济学研究”,《中国社会科学》2005年第2期。Ruskola也指出,“先引导性的指出特定形式的企业的法律安排,然后发展理论来解释这种特定安排,而不是从一个法律形式和一个伴随性的、必须有事实和其配套的理论为起点进行阐述”,是汉斯曼研究的特点。Teemu Ruskola, “Conceptualizing Corporations and Kinship: Com-parative Law and Development Theory in a Chinese Perspective” ,52 Stan. L. Rev. 1599,note59.
[8]  Robert Cooter,“Models of Morailty in Law and Economics:Self-Control and Self-Improvement forthe”Bad Man“ of Holmes”,78 B. U. L. Rev. 903,911.
[9]  Coase,The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica 386(1937).
[10]  Michael C. Jensen&William H. Meckling, “Ihe Theory of the Firm:Managerial Behavior, Agen-cy Costs, and Ownership Structure”,3 J. Fin. Econ. 305(1976).
[11]  Oliver Williamson, Transaction Cost Economics,from Schmalensee&Willig eds. Handbook of In-dustrial Organization, v. 1,p. 135,Elsevier Science Pub,1989.
[12]  之前比较少的理论探索是Jensen & Meckling曾指出集体决策是一个“控制的问题”,对不同利益进行协调是雇员管理企业所要面临的一个重大问题,但没有进一步的分析。Jensen & Meckling, “Rights and pro-duction functions: an application to labor managered firms and codetermination”,52 Journal of business 469(1979),pp. 488-489.
[13]  Romano,Foundations of Corporate Law, Foundation Press 1993.法律出版社2005年影印本,pp. 1-3,25.
[14]  Anup Malaniand Eric A. Posner, “The Case For For-Profit Charities”,93 Va. L. Rev. 2017,2037.
[15]  Michael C. Jensen&William H. Meckling, “The Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, AgencyCosts, and Ownership Structure”,3 J. Fin. Econ. 305(1976)
[16]  如Kevin A. Kordana,“Tax Increases in Municipal Bankruptcies” ,83 Va. L. Rei.1035. Alan Schwar-tz,“ A Contract Theory Approach to Business Bankruptcy”,107 Yale L. J. 1807
[17]  Melvin A. Eisenberg,“The Conception That the Corporation is a Nexus of Contracts,and the Dual Na-ture of the Firm” , 24 Iowa J. Corp. Law. 819,831.(认为这种观点意味着一个非“合同连结”的法律实体的预先存在,不适用于无法律实体的企业如合伙,及不能解释企业内的章程、决议等)
[18]  Henry Hansmann&Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89 Geo. L. J. 439(2001).对这篇文章的述评可见缪因知:“趋同抑或维系:公司治理模式演化的逻辑与实证”,《中国政法大学研究生院学报》2007年第2期。
[19]  Ronald Chen and Jon Hanson, “The Illusion of Law: The Legitimating Schemas Of Modem Policy AndCorporate Law ,103 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 39.(不过这篇文章的作者本身并不赞同汉斯曼和克拉克曼的关于公司法和公司治理趋同的观点)
[20]  不过汉斯曼也指出了这种做法的局限性,如公共补贴和政府干预会影响这种市场的“生存测试”的有效性,先进的所有权形式也可能在短时间内不能普及,见页30。
[21]  杨瑞龙、卢周来,见前注[7]。不过该文作者对此假设本身的有效性表达了一定的怀疑,这篇文章的基调是支持雇员管理企业的,与汉斯曼相反。
[22]  如Hansmann, “The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise”. 89 Yale law Journal 835 (1980)经常被同时引用。
[23]  NOTE: Developing A Demutualization Acquisition Strategy For Private Equity Firms, 110 Harv. L. Rev1904(1997), 1905(关于所有权包含了控制权和剩余索取权)。forum: Commentary on “Toward Common Senseand Common Ground? Reflections on the Shared Interests of Managers and Labor in a More Rational System of Corpo-rate Governance” by Leo E. Strine, Jr. ,33 Iowa J. Corp. L. 85.(征引此书作为第一个注释,指出此书“讨论了公司了的各个方面”)。Clarisa Long, “ Information Costs in Patent and Copyright” , 90 Va. L. Rev. 465. RobertCooter,“Models of Morailty in Law and Economics: Self-Control and Self-Improvement for the”Bad Man“ofHolmes”, 78 B. U. L. Rev. 903(1998),911.(称其是“对公司形式的现代观点”)
[24]  Roderick M. Hills, Jr.,“The Constitutional Rights Of Private Governments”,N. Y. U. L. Rev. 144.Kevin A. Kordana,“Political Parties as Donative Intermediaries” ,85 Va. L. Rev. 1683. Jon D. Hanson&Kyle D.Logue , “The Costs of Cigarettes : The Economic Case for Ex Post Incentive-Based Regulation” ,107 Yale L. J. 1163.(关于“锁定”)Daryl J. Levinson, “Collective Sanctions”,56 Stan. L. Rev. 345(所有权理论)
[25]  Merritt B. Fox&Michael A. Heller,“Corporate Governance Lessons from Russian Enterprise Fias-coes” ,75 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1720. C. Scott Hemphill, “Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Reg-ulatory Design Problem” ,81 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1553. Barry E. Adler and Ian Ayres, “A Dilution Mechanism for Val-uing Corporations in Bankruptcy” ,111 Yale L. J. 83.
[26]  Joseph Warburton,“Should Mutual Funds Be Corporations? A Legal&Econometric Analysis” ,IowaJ. Corp. L. 745,758. K. A. D. Camara,“Classifying Institutional Investors”,30 Iowa J. Corp. L. 219.John C. Coates IV,“Team Production In Business Organizations: Measuring the Domain of Mediating Hierar-chy: How Contestable Are U. S. Public Corporations?”,24 Iowa J. Corp. L. 837. Katrina Miriam Wyman,“From Fur To Fish: Reconsidering The Evolution Of Private Property” ,80 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 117.
[27]  Richard A. Posner,“Social Norms, Social Meaning, And The Economic Analysis Of Law: A Con-ference Sponsored by the University of Chicago Law School and the John M. Olin Program in Law and Econom-ics. Social Norms,Social Meaning, and Economic Analysis of Law: A Comment” ,27 J. Legal Stud. 553.
[28]  Michael Heller&Rick Hills,“Land Assembly Districts”,121 Harv. L. Rev. 1465(2008),1507J. William Callison,“Venture Capital and Corporate Governance:Evolving the Limited Liability Company to Fi-nance the Entrepreneurial Business”,Iowa J. Corp. L. 97. Margaret M. Blair and Lynn A. Stout,“A TeamProduction Theory of Corporate Law”,85 Va. L. Rev. 247. David B. Wilkins and G. Mitu gulati, “Tracking,Seeding, and Information Control in the Internal Labor Markets of Elite Law Firms”,84 Va. L. Rev. 1581.Robert C. Ellickson,“Unpacking the Household: Informal Property Rights Around the Hearth”,116 Yale L.J.226.
[29]  Kevin A. Kordana,“Note: Law Firms and Associate Careers. Tournament Theory Versus the Pro-duction-Imperative Model”,104 Yale L. J. 1907. George Rutherglen and Kevin A. Kordana,“The Need ForAn Alternative Explanation Of Law Firm Structure And Growth”,84 Va. L. Rev. 1695.
[30]  G. Mitu Gulati, T. M. Thomas Isaac, William A. Klein,“When a Workers'' Cooperative Works: TheCase of Kerala Dinesh Beedi”, 49 Ucla L. Rev. 1417(分析了印度的一家大型工人合作社为何能成功).
[31]  Kevin E. Davis, “Panel Three: Production Of Boilerplate: The Role Of Nonprofits In The Production OfBoilerplate”,104 Mich. L. Rev. 1075. Rob Atkinson,“Unsettled Standing: Who(Else) Should Enforce the Du-ties of Charitable Fiduciaries?” ,23 Iowa J. Corp. L. 655. Matthew T. Bodie, “Information And The Market For U-nion Representation” ,94 Va. L. Rev. 1. Julia D. Mahoney,“The Market For Human Tissue” , 86 Va. L. Rev.163. John Morley,“Note: For-Profit and Nonprofit Charter Schools: An Agency Costs Approach”,115 Yale L. J.1782. Robert A. Katz,“Let Charitable Directors Direct: Why Trust Law Should Not Curb Board Discretion Over ACharitable Corporation''s Mission And Unrestricted Assets”,80 Chi. -Kent. L. Rev. 689.
[32]  George G. Triantis, “Organizations As Internal Capital Markets: The Legal Boundaries of Firms, Collat-eral, And Trusts in Commercial And Charitable Enterprises” ,117 Harv. L. Rev.1102(2004),1148.也有文献对汉斯曼在此问题上的观点提出了不同的看法,Yochai Benkler, “Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the E-mergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production”,114 Yale L. J. 273 ( 2004).
[33]  参见杨瑞龙、卢周来,见前注[7]。
[34]  Jensen & Meckling:《权利与生产函数:对劳动者管理型企业和共同决策的一种应用》,Michael C.Jensen等:《所有权、控制权与激励》,上海人民出版社,1996年。
[35]  参见张舫:“职工参与公司控制质疑”,《现代法学》2004年第2期。
[36]  参见邓辉:“我国职工持股实践中的信托需求与信托设计”,《江西财经大学学报》2001年第4期,页62。
[37]  参见如彭飞荣等:“劳动力权之正当性依据”,《河南政法管理干部学院学报》2006年第1期,页130。当然,这本身无可厚非,不少美国文献同样是以此种方式征引的。
[38]  如《北京大学教育评论》在2004年、2005年译介了汉斯曼的两篇论文《具有连带产品属性的高等教育》和《高等教育中国家与市场的关系》,其理论分析方式与《企业所有权论》第十章相关。
[39]  参见方流芳:“证券交易所的法律地位”,《政法论坛》2007年第1期等。
[40]  参见缪因知:“合创型农业合作之法律问题初探”,《经济法研究(第四卷)》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
[41]  参见范世乾:“公司社会责任理念的哲学和经济学基础”,《理论界》2008年第2期。
[42]  Michael C. Jensen&William H. Meckling,“The Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, AgencyCosts, and Ownership Structure”,3 J. Fin. Econ. 305 (1976).
[43]  通用汽车、美国钢铁公司就曾经发行过所谓目标股,股份回报和特定业务如钢铁、石油挂钩,见《企业所有权论》,页91。
[44]  对于很少有企业自觉采用雇员管理型企业的论述,也可见Jensen & Meckling:“权利与生产函数:对劳动者管理型企业和共同决策的一种应用”,载陈郁主编:《所有权、控制权与激励》,上海人民出版社1998年版。
[45]  Easterbrook&Fischel, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law,Harvard University Press.,1991,p. 15.
[46]  包括该书中文版在内的许多论著把hostile takeover翻译为“恶意收购”。笔者认为应当翻译为“敌意收购”。此类收购中,收购人不与被收购方董事会和管理层协商,而通过市场收购股份,“强行”获得控股权,并通常替换掉被收购公司的原有董事会和管理层。所以对后者来说,这些收购者是“敌意”的,也勉强可以说是“恶意”的。但这种收购很可能通过重组带来公司的经营效率提高,更不见得说这些收购者必然是会恶意损害公司利益的,所以为防止歧义,笔者称之为“敌意收购”。
[47]  如有学者认为,税务上的优惠是许多效率上不如营利性企业的农业合作社能够生存的根本原因。见Philip Porter&Gerald Schully,Economic Efficiency in Cooperatives, 30 Journal of Law and Economics 489 (1987 ).
[48]  需要指出的是,即使税法的确可以对某种企业所有权形式的盛衰产生影响,但仍可能会在实践中走样。如美国税法一度鼓励商业用户租房,结果出现了租房合同“带有很多所有权色彩”的现象,如长达十年、承租人要自己承担维修费、水电费等,见页325-326 。
[49]  Henry Hansmarn, Reinier Kraakman and Richard Squire, “The New Business Entities in EvolutionaryPerspective”,1 University of Illinois Law Review 5 (2005).

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133