Learning from Cooperatives to Strengthen Economic Bicameralism

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI:10.1177/00323292231163705

S. Pek

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bicameral firms can generate societal benefits both directly, by granting representatives of labor investors voice in shaping firm decision-making, and more indirectly, by serving as a transition phase from capital investor–owned firms to worker cooperatives. However, there is room to augment these benefits by leveraging insights from research on cooperatives. This article draws lessons from three types of cooperatives—traditional worker cooperatives, multistakeholder cooperatives, and union cooperatives—to help refine Ferreras's proposal for bicameral firms. First, bicameral firms should offer labor investors more opportunities to participate in firm governance and hold their representatives to account. Second, they should create robust channels for other stakeholders to influence firm decision-making. Third, they should carefully delineate the role of labor unions vis-à-vis the Chamber of Representatives of the Labour Investors. These refinements will better position bicameral firms to achieve their direct benefits and facilitate subsequent transitions to worker cooperatives.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

向合作社学习加强经济两院制

两院制企业既可以直接产生社会效益，通过让劳动力投资者代表在制定企业决策时有发言权，也可以间接地作为资本投资者所有的企业向工人合作社的过渡阶段。然而，通过利用合作社研究的见解，还有增加这些好处的空间。本文从三种类型的合作社——传统工人合作社、多方利益相关者合作社和联合合作社——中吸取教训，以帮助完善费雷拉斯关于两院制企业的建议。首先，两院制公司应该为劳工投资者提供更多参与公司治理的机会，并让他们的代表承担责任。其次，他们应该为其他利益相关者创造强有力的渠道来影响公司决策。第三，他们应该仔细界定工会相对于劳工投资者代表院的作用。这些改进将更好地定位两院制企业，以实现其直接利益，并促进随后向工人合作社的过渡。

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

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty