IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/07033.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Traditional and Innovative Approaches to Legal Reform: 'The New Company Law'

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph A. McCAHERY
  • Erik P.M. VERMEULEN
  • HISATAKE Masato
  • SAITO Jun

Abstract

In this paper, we have distinguished three different positions along the reform strategy spectrum of company law. The first position is located on the left side of the spectrum and closest to stasis - where virtually no effective legal changes can occur and where only the idea of reform clashes with legal tradition and standardization pressures. An example of a jurisdiction that takes this position is Germany. Along or near the mid-point of the spectrum, company law changes are less impeded by tradition and standardization factors, but more influenced by interest group pressures. We see England occupying this position. Japan can be seen as a more adaptable jurisdiction located toward the right end of the spectrum and therefore better able to create and introduce more functional legal rules and institutions that turn the traditional view of company law around. It is submitted that Singapore is located on the right side of the spectrum as its legislature is aware of the need to adapt the legal system to international business practices in order to develop a distinct jurisprudence, acclaimed for its efficiency and integrity, which is set apart from the English legal system.Length: 36 pages

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph A. McCAHERY & Erik P.M. VERMEULEN & HISATAKE Masato & SAITO Jun, 2007. "Traditional and Innovative Approaches to Legal Reform: 'The New Company Law'," Discussion papers 07033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:07033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/07e033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul R. Milgrom & Douglass C. North & Barry R. Weingast*, 1990. "The Role Of Institutions In The Revival Of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, And The Champagne Fairs," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, March.
    2. Berkowitz, Daniel & Pistor, Katharina & Richard, Jean-Francois, 2003. "Economic development, legality, and the transplant effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 165-195, February.
    3. Robert D. Tollison, 1985. "Public Choice and Antitrust," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 4(3), pages 905-931, Winter.
    4. Antonio E. Bernardo & Ivo Welch, 2001. "On the Evolution of Overconfidence and Entrepreneurs," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 301-330, September.
    5. Carney, William J, 1997. "The Political Economy of Competition for Corporate Charters," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(1), pages 303-329, January.
    6. de Figueiredo, John M., 2002. "Lobbying and Information in Politics," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 125-129, August.
    7. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
    8. Paul G. Mahoney, 1998. "Trust and Opportunism in Close Corporations," NBER Working Papers 6819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Rasmusen, Eric, 1994. "Judicial Legitimacy as a Repeated Game," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 63-83, April.
    10. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    11. Figueiredo John M. de, 2002. "Lobbying and Information in Politics," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-6, August.
    12. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 822-841, August.
    13. John M. de Figueiredo & Emerson H. Tiller, 2001. "The Structure and Conduct of Corporate Lobbying: How Firms Lobby the Federal Communications Commission," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 91-122, March.
    14. Oona Hathaway, "undated". "Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System," Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Paper Series yale_lepp-1002, Yale Law School John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy.
    15. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, April.
    16. Bob Thompson, 2008. "Liveability," ERES eres2008_275, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    17. Mattei, Ugo, 1994. "Efficiency in legal transplants: An essay in Comparative Law and Economics," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-19, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erik P. M. Vermeulen, 2013. "Beneficial Ownership and Control: A Comparative Study - Disclosure, Information and Enforcement," OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers 7, OECD Publishing.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian Kelleher Richter, 2013. "Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying," NBER Working Papers 19698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jean-Etienne de Bettignies & David T. Robinson, 2018. "When Is Social Responsibility Socially Desirable?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(4), pages 1023-1072.
    3. Liedong, Tahiru Azaaviele & Rajwani, Tazeeb & Lawton, Thomas C., 2020. "Information and nonmarket strategy: Conceptualizing the interrelationship between big data and corporate political activity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Eckardt, Martina, 2004. "Evolutionary approaches to legal change," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 47, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    5. McCahery, J.A. & Vermeulen, E.P.M., 2004. "The changing landscape of EU company law," Discussion Paper 2004, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    6. Dethier, Jean-Jacques, 1999. "Governance and Economic Performance: A Survey," Discussion Papers 279846, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    7. Christian Dahl Winther, 2007. "Optimal research effort and product differentiation in network industries," Economics Working Papers 2007-19, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    8. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    9. Pablo T. Spiller, 2009. "An Institutional Theory of Public Contracts: Regulatory Implications," Chapters, in: Claude Ménard & Michel Ghertman (ed.), Regulation, Deregulation, Reregulation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Ginés de Rus & Javier Campos & Daniel Graham & M. Pilar Socorro & Jorge Valido, 2020. "Evaluación Económica de Proyectos y Políticas de Transporte: Metodología y Aplicaciones. Parte 1: Metodología para el análisis coste-beneficio de proyectos y políticas de transporte," Working Papers 2020-11, FEDEA.
    11. Hadani, Michael, 2012. "Institutional ownership monitoring and corporate political activity: Governance implications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 944-950.
    12. Alessandro Stanziani, 2004. "Wine Reputation and Quality Controls: The Origin of the AOCs in 19th Century France," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 149-167, September.
    13. Moszoro, Marian W. & Spiller, Pablo T., 2014. "Third-Party Opportunism and the Theory of Public Contracts: Operationalization and Applications," MPRA Paper 101592, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto & Patricio A. Fernandez, 2008. "Case Law versus Statute Law: An Evolutionary Comparison," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 379-430, June.
    15. Thomas Grebel, 2011. "Innovation and Health," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14375.
    16. Josh Lerner, 2002. "When Bureaucrats Meet Entrepreneurs: The Design of Effective "Public Venture Capital" Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(477), pages 73-84, February.
    17. Schade, Sven & Buxmann, Peter, 2005. "A Prototype to Analyse and Support Standardization Decisions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 35795, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    18. Netsanet Haile & Jorn Altmann, 2013. "Estimating the Value Obtained from Using a Software Service Platform," TEMEP Discussion Papers 2013105, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Aug 2013.
    19. Grossbard-Shechtman, Shoshana & Lemennicier, Bertrand, 2000. "Marriage contracts and the law-and-economics of marriage: an Austrian perspective," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 665-690, June.
    20. Jeffrey S. Rosenthal & Martin J. Osborne & Matthew A. Turner, 2000. "Meetings with Costly Participation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 927-943, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:07033. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.