Why Efficiency: A Research Agenda for an Explanatory Account of Default Rules as Choreographers and a Tentative Concept of Regulatory Contractualization

Lécia Vicente
{"title":"Why Efficiency: A Research Agenda for an Explanatory Account of Default Rules as Choreographers and a Tentative Concept of Regulatory Contractualization","authors":"Lécia Vicente","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2575458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay is an exercise that fitted into a broader research work the author conducted for her own PhD dissertation. At that time, doctoral researchers at the European University Institute were challenged to think thoroughly about methodology in law. I accepted that challenge. As a consequence, this essay was first and foremost an attempt to conciliate law and economics from the spectrum of game theory. In this essay, I argue that existing default rules often fail to either protect shareholders from collective action problems inside private limited liability companies, or that they prevent shareholders from being able to unload their shares when desired. In other words, the weakness of particular corporate default rules is two-sided. Here, I focus mainly on the first side, that is to say, I address the collective action problem. This is demonstrated with the model of shareholders’ coordination I present herein. With this model, I illustrate how a collective action problem can force shareholders to sell lower than their total valuation of the company because they believe others will sell and, thus, they will lose power over the company’s future policies. At the end, I propose solutions that are meant to stimulate discussion about which design of default rules is more likely to overcome ownership problems deriving from the inefficiency of transfer of shares in private limited liability companies (PLLCs) – the most commonly used private units of economic development.","PeriodicalId":431428,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: LLCs","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: LLCs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2575458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay is an exercise that fitted into a broader research work the author conducted for her own PhD dissertation. At that time, doctoral researchers at the European University Institute were challenged to think thoroughly about methodology in law. I accepted that challenge. As a consequence, this essay was first and foremost an attempt to conciliate law and economics from the spectrum of game theory. In this essay, I argue that existing default rules often fail to either protect shareholders from collective action problems inside private limited liability companies, or that they prevent shareholders from being able to unload their shares when desired. In other words, the weakness of particular corporate default rules is two-sided. Here, I focus mainly on the first side, that is to say, I address the collective action problem. This is demonstrated with the model of shareholders’ coordination I present herein. With this model, I illustrate how a collective action problem can force shareholders to sell lower than their total valuation of the company because they believe others will sell and, thus, they will lose power over the company’s future policies. At the end, I propose solutions that are meant to stimulate discussion about which design of default rules is more likely to overcome ownership problems deriving from the inefficiency of transfer of shares in private limited liability companies (PLLCs) – the most commonly used private units of economic development.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么效率:作为编舞者的默认规则解释性解释的研究议程和监管契约化的初步概念
这篇文章是一个练习,适合更广泛的研究工作,作者进行了她自己的博士论文。当时,欧洲大学研究所(European University Institute)的博士研究人员面临着彻底思考法学方法论的挑战。我接受了这个挑战。因此,这篇文章首先是试图从博弈论的角度调和法律和经济学。在这篇文章中,我认为,现有的违约规则往往既不能保护股东免受私人有限责任公司内部集体行动问题的影响,也不能阻止股东在需要时抛售自己的股票。换句话说,特定公司违约规则的弱点是双面的。在这里,我主要关注第一个方面,也就是说,我要解决集体行动的问题。本文提出的股东协调模型证明了这一点。通过这个模型,我说明了集体行动问题如何迫使股东以低于他们对公司的总估值的价格出售,因为他们相信其他人会出售,因此,他们将失去对公司未来政策的权力。最后,我提出了一些解决方案,旨在激发人们的讨论,即哪种默认规则设计更有可能克服私人有限责任公司(pllc)(经济发展中最常用的私人单位)股份转让效率低下所带来的所有权问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Built-In Gain and Built-In Loss Property on Formation of a Partnership: An Exploration of the Grand Elegance of Partnership Capital Accounts Franking Credits: An Example of Formalistic Corporate Veil Piercing Ownership Piercing Corporate Family Matters Limited Liability Partnerships Under Nigerian Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1