Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:54:03.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting the Corporation in its Place

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2015

Timothy Guinnane ,
Ron Harris ,
Naomi R. Lamoreaux  and
Jean-Laurent Rosenthal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article challenges the idea that the corporation is a globally superior form of business organization and that the Anglo-American common-law is more conducive to economic development than the code-based legal systems characteristic of continental Europe. Although the corporation had important advantages over the main alternative form of organization (partnerships), it also had disadvantages that limited its appeal to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). As a result, when businesses were provided with an intermediate choice, the private limited liability company (PLLC) that combined the advantages of legal personhood and joint stock with a flexible internal organizational structure, most chose not to organize as corporations. This article tracks the changes that occurred in the menu of business organizational forms in two common-law countries (the United Kingdom and the United States) and two countries governed by legal codes (France and Germany) and presents data showing the rapidity with which firms in each country responded to enabling legislation for PLLCs. We show that the PLLC was introduced first and most easily in a code country (Germany) and last and with the most difficulty in a commonlaw country (the United States). Late introduction was associated with prolonged use of the partnership form, suggesting that the disadvantages of corporations did indeed weigh heavily on SMEs.

Type
Articles
Information
Enterprise & Society , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 687 - 729
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2007. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Business History Conference. All rights reserved.

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

Bibliography

Books

Berle, Adolf A. Jr., and Means, Gardiner C.. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, 1933.Google Scholar
Brownlee, Elliot W., Federal Taxation in America: A Short History. New York, 1996.Google Scholar
Burhop, Carsten., Die Kreditbanken in der Gründerzeit. Stuttgart, 2004.Google Scholar
Cadman, John W., The Corporation in New Jersey: Business and Politics, 1791–1875. Cambridge, Mass., 1949.Google Scholar
Carter, Susan, et al. Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial Edition. 5 vols. New York, 2006.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, Mass., 1977.Google Scholar
Clark, Robert C., Corporate Law. Boston, 1986.Google Scholar
Cräger, Hans, Die Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung. Berlin, 1912.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert W., Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Baltimore, Md., 1964.Google Scholar
Freedeman, Charles E., Joint-Stock Enterprise in France, 1807-1867: From Privileged Company to Modern Corporation. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1979.Google Scholar
Freedeman, Charles E., The Triumph of Corporate Capitalism in France, 1867–1914. Rochester, N.Y., 1993.Google Scholar
Guilini, Edgar., Die Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung nach Vereinigung aller Geschaftsanteile in einer Hand. Heidelberg, 1919.Google Scholar
Hachenburg, Max., Staub’s Kommentar zum Gesetz, betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung. 4th ed. Berlin, 1913.Google Scholar
Harris, Ron., Industrializing English Law: Entrepreneurship and Business Organization, 1720–1844. Cambridge, U.K., 2000.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Walther G., Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1965.Google Scholar
Jefferys, James B., Business Organisation in Great Britain, 1856–1914. New York, 1977.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Arthur K., A Comparative Study ofthe Law ofCorporations with Particular Reference to the Protection ofCreditors and Shareholders. New York, 1912.Google Scholar
Lyon-Caen, Charles, and Renault, Louis. Manuel de droit commercial (ycompris le droit maritime). Paris, 1924.Google Scholar
Hodge, O’Neal F., Close Corporations: Law and Practice. 2 vols. Chicago, 1958.Google Scholar
Ripert, Georges., Traité élémentaire de droit commercial. 6th ed. Paris, 1967–1970.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan, and Birdzell, L.E. Jr., How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation ofthe Industrial World. New York, 1986.Google Scholar
Roy, William G., Socializing Capital: The Rise of the Large Industrial Corporation in America. Princeton, N.J., 1997.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karsten, Gesellschaftsrecht. 4th ed. Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar
Stamp, J.C., British Incomes and Property: The Application of Official Statistics to Economic Problems. London, 1916.Google Scholar
Wagon, Eduard Die finanzielle Entwicklung deutscher Aktiengesellschaften von 1870-1900 und die Gesellschaften mit beschrankter Haftungim Jahre 1900. Halle, 1903.Google Scholar
Warren, Edward H., Corporate Advantages Without Incorporation. New York, 1929.Google Scholar

Articles and Essays

Blair, Margaret M., “Locking in Capital: What Corporate Law Achieved for Business Organizers in the Nineteenth Century.” UCLA Law Review 51 (Dec. 2003): 387–455.Google Scholar
Bolton, Patrick, and Von Thadden, Ernst-Ludwig “Blocks, Liquidity and Corporate Control.” Journal of Finance 53 (Feb. 1998): 1–25.Google Scholar
Cameron, Rondo, “The Founding of the Bank of Darmstadt.” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 8 (Feb. 1956): 112–30.Google Scholar
Cull, Robert, Davis, Lance E. Lamoreaux, Naomi R. and Jean-Laurent, Rosenthal “Historical Financing of Small- and Medium-Size Enterprises.” Journal of Banking and Finance 30 (Nov. 2006): 3017–42.Google Scholar
Demsetz, Harold “Wealth Distribution and Ownership Rights.” Journal of Legal Studies 1 (June 1972): 223–32.Google Scholar
Demsetz, Harold, and Lehn, Kenneth “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences.” Journal ofPolitical Economy 93 (Dec. 1985): 1155–77.Google Scholar
De Vries, Henry P., and Jänger, Friedrich K. “Limited Liability Contract: The GmbH”, Columbia Law Review 64 (May 1964): 866–86.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Kelvin H., “Partners in a Corporate Cloak: The Emergence and Legitimacy of the Incorporated Partnership.” American University Law Review 33 (Spring 1984): 559–600.Google Scholar
Dunlavy, Colleen A., “From Citizens to Plutocrats: Nineteenth-century Shareholder Voting Rights and Theories of the Corporation.” In Constructing Corporate America: History, Politics, Culture, eds. Kenneth, Lipartito and Sicilia, David B., New York, 2004, pp. 66–93.Google Scholar
Fohlin, Caroline, “Regulation, Taxation, and the Development of the German Universal Banking System, 1884–1913.” European Review of Economic History 6 (Aug. 2002): 221–54.Google Scholar
Gazur, Wayne M., and Goff, Neil M. “Assessing the Limited Liability Company.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 41 no. 2 (1991): 387–501.Google Scholar
Getzler, Joshua, and Macnair, Mike. “The Firm as an Entity before the Companies Act.” In Adventures in the Law: Proceedings ofthe 16th British Legal HistoryConference, eds. Paul, Brand, and Kevin, Costello Osborough, W.N., Dublin, 2003, pp. 267–88.Google Scholar
Gower, L.C.B., “Some Contrasts Between British and American Corporation Law.” Harvard Law Review 69 (June 1956): 1369–1402.Google Scholar
Guinnane, Timothy W., “Delegated Monitors, Large and Small: Germany’s Banking System, 1800–1914.” Journal of Economic Literature 40 (March 2002): 73–124.Google Scholar
Hansmann, Henry, and Kraakman, Reinier. “The Essential Role of Organizational Law.” Yale Law Journal 110 (Dec. 2000): 387–440.Google Scholar
Hansmann, Henry, and Squire, Richard. “Law and the Rise of the Firm.” Harvard Law Review 119 (March 2006): 1333–1403.Google Scholar
Horn, Nobert., “Aktienrechtliche Unternehmensorganisation in der Hocindustrialisierung (1860–1920).” In Recht und Entwicklung der Grossunternehmen im 19. und fruhen 20. Jahrhundert, eds. Norbert, Horn and Kocka, Jürgen, Gotting, 1979, pp. 123–89.Google Scholar
Hornstein, George D., “Stockholders’ Agreements in the Closely Held Corporation.” Yale Law Journal 59 (May 1950): 1040–56.Google Scholar
Howard, Stanley E., “The Limited Partnership in New Jersey.” Journal of Business ofthe UniversityofChicago 7 (Oct. 1934): 296–317.Google Scholar
Hutcheon, Peter D., “The New Jersey Limited Liability Company Statute: Background and Concepts.” Seton Hall Legislative Journal 18 no. 1 (1993): 111–60.Google Scholar
Keatinge, Robert R, et al. “The Limited Liability Company: A Study of the Emerging Entity.“ Business Lawyer 47 no. 2 (1991–92): 375–460.Google Scholar
Kocka, Jürgen, and Siegrist, Hannes. “Die hundert groBten deutschen Industrieunternehmen im spaten 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert.“ In Recht und Entwicklung der Grossunternehmen im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert: Wirtschafts-, sozial- und rechtshistorische Untersuchungen zur Industrialisierung in Deutschland, Frankreich, England und den USA, eds. Norbert, Horn and Kocka, Jürgen, Göttingen, 1979, pp. 55–122.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., “Constructing Firms: Partnerships and Alternative Contractual Arrangements in Early-Nineteenth-Century American Business.” Business and Economic History 24 (Winter 1995): 43–71.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent. “Corporate Governance and the Plight of Minority Shareholders in the United States before the Great Depression.” In Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America’s Economic History, Glaeser, Edward L. and Goldin, Claudia, eds. Chicago, 2006, pp. 125–52.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent. “Legal Regime and Contractual Flexibility: A Comparison of Business’s Organizational Choices in France and the United States during the Era of Industrialization.” American Law and Economics Review 7 (Spring 2005): 28–61.Google Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Andrei, Shleifer, and Vishny, Robert W.. “Law and Finance.” Journal of Political Economy 106 (Dec. 1998): 1113–55.Google Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Andrei, Shleifer, and Vishny, Robert W.. “Legal Determinants of External Finance.” Journal of Finance 52 (July 1997): 1131–50.Google Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Andrei, Shleifer, and Vishny, Robert W.. “The Quality of Government.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (March 1999): 222–79.Google Scholar
Lewis, William Draper, “The Uniform Limited Partnership Act.” UniversityofPennsylvania Law Review 65 (June 1917): 715–31Google Scholar
L.I.M., “Notes: Business Associations in Pennsylvania.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 82 (Dec. 1933): 151–57.Google Scholar
Matthews, James A. Jr., “Comments: Business Associations-Registered Partnership, Partnership Association or the Corporation-Selection of the Suitable Form in Pennsylvania.” Villanova Law Review 2 (April 1957): 385–95.Google Scholar
O’Neal, F. Hodge, “Close Corporations: Existing Legislation and Recommended Reform.” The Business Lawyer 33 (Jan. 1978): 873–88.Google Scholar
O’Neal, F. Hodge, “Developments in the Regulation of the Close Corporation.” Cornell Law Quarterly 50 (Summer 1965): 641–62.Google Scholar
O’Neal, F. Hodge, “Giving Shareholders Power to Veto Corporate Decisions: Use of Special Charter and By-Law Provisions.” Law and Contemporary Problems 18 (Autumn 1953): 451–72.Google Scholar
Pagano, Marco, and Ailsa, Roell. “The Choice of Stock Ownership Structure: Agency Costs, Monitoring, and the Decision to Go Public.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 113 (Feb. 1998): 187–225.Google Scholar
Passow, Richard, “Der Anteil der verschiedenen privaten Unternehmungsformen und der offentlichen Betrieben am deutschen Wirtschaftsleben.” Jahrbücher für Nationalokonomie und Statistik N.F. 96 no. 4 (1911): 506–25.Google Scholar
Petska, Thomas B., “Taxes and Organizational Choice: An Analysis of Trends, 1985–1992.” SOI Bulletin 15 (Spring 1996): 86–102.Google Scholar
Petska, Thomas B., and Wilson, Robert A.. “Trends in Business Structure and Activity, 1980–1990.” SOI Bulletin 13 (Spring 1994): 27–72.Google Scholar
Schubert, Werner, “Die Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung. Eine neue juristische Person.” Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero guiridico moderno 11/12 (1982): 589–629.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Edward R., “The Limited Partnership Association-An Alternative to the Corporation for the Small Business with ‘Control’ Problems?” Rutgers Law Review 20 (Fall 1965): 29–88.Google Scholar
Stover, Fallany O., and Pace Hamill, Susan. “The LLC Versus LLP Conundrum: Advice for Businesses Contemplating the Choice.” Alabama Law Review 50 (Spring 1999): 813–47.Google Scholar
Stransky, George E. Jr., “The Limited Partnership Association in New Jersey.” Rutgers Law Review 10 (Summer 1956): 701–15.Google Scholar
Tirole, Jean, “Corporate Governance.” Econometrica 69 (Jan. 2001): 1–35.Google Scholar
Woodward, Susan E., “Limited Liability in the Theory of the Firm.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 141 (Dec. 1985): 601–11.Google Scholar
Zweibel, Jeffrey, “Block Investment and Partial Benefits of Corporate Control.” Review of Economic Studies 62 (April 1995): 161–85.Google Scholar

Legal Documents

Appeal of Hite Natural Gas Co., 118 Pa. 436 1888.Google Scholar
Benintendi v. Kenton Hotel, 294 NY 112 1945.Google Scholar
Edwards v. Warren Linoline & Gasoline Works, 168 Mass. 564 1897.Google Scholar
Eliot v. Himrod, 108 Pa. 569 1885.Google Scholar
Gearing v. Carroll, 151 Pa. 79 1892.Google Scholar
In the MatterofBoulevard Theatre and RealtyCompany, 186 N.Y.S. 1921.Google Scholar
Jackson v. Hooper, 76 N.J. Eq. 592 1910.Google Scholar
Maloneyv. Bruce, 94 Pa. 249 1880.Google Scholar
Salomon v. Salomon, A.C. 22 1897.Google Scholar
Sheble v. Strong, 128 Pa. 315 1889.Google Scholar
Vanhorn v. Corcoran, 127 Pa. 255 1889.Google Scholar

Government Documents and Reports

Annuaire Statistique de la Justice,formerly Compte general de l’administration de la justice civile, commerciale et criminelle. Paris, 1840–1978.Google Scholar
Code de commerce, suivi des lois commerciales et industrielles, avec annotations d’aprés la doctrine et la jurisprudence et renvois aux publications Dalloz. 63rd ed. Paris, 1967.Google Scholar
Compiled Statutes ofNew Jersey. Newark, 1911.Google Scholar
Deutscher Reichsanzeiger und preussischer Staatsanzeiger. Berlin, 1867–1932.Google Scholar
Documents Parlementaires. Paris, 1921–1925.Google Scholar
Gesetz, betreffend die Kommanditgesellschaften auf Aktien und die Aktiengesellschaften, vom 18. Juli 1884/Mit Erlauterung von Paul Kayser. Berlin, 1884.Google Scholar
Page William, Herbert, ed. New Annotated Ohio General Code. Cincinnati, , Ohio, 1926.Google Scholar
Statistisches Jahrbuch fur den Preussischen Staat. Berlin, 1915, vol. 12.Google Scholar
Stewart, Ardemus, comp. A Digest of the Statute Law of the State of Pennsylvania from the Year 1700 to 1903. Philadelphia, 1905.Google Scholar
U.K. Board of Trade. General Annual Report. London, 1922–2000.Google Scholar
U.K. Board of Trade. General Annual Report under the Companies (Winding-up) Act of 1890. London, 1900–1921.Google Scholar
U.K. Companies Act 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 48).Google Scholar
U.K. Companies Act 1907 (7 Edw. 7 c. 50).Google Scholar
U.K. Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7 Ch. 69).Google Scholar
U.K. Parliamentary Papers. London, 1890–1922.Google Scholar
U.S. Session Laws ofAmerican States and Territories. Westport, Conn., 1874–1895.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office. Census of Manufactures. Washington, D.C., 1900–1920.Google Scholar

Archival and Unpublished Sources

Bebchuk, Lucian Arye, “Asymmetric Information and the Choice of Corporate Arrangements.” Harvard Law School Discussion Paper no. 398. Dec. 2002.Google Scholar
Grandy, Christopher, “The Economics of Multiple Governments: New Jersey Corporate Chartermongering, 1875–1929.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1987.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., and Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent. “Contractual Tradeoffs and SME's Choice of Organizational Form: A View from U.S. and French History.” NBER Working Paper no. W12455. Aug. 2006.Google Scholar
Tribunal de Commerce. Greffe du Tribunal. Enregistrement des Societes. Serie D32U3, registers 110–113, 115–117, 169, Archives de Paris.Google Scholar