Abstract 摘要

美國股市在長達(dá)十年的繁榮和美國經(jīng)濟(jì)更近的景氣助長了經(jīng)濟(jì)好處普遍的看法。股東價(jià)值最大化作為公司治理的原則TS。在本文中，我們提供股東價(jià)值的崛起為美國的企業(yè)管治原則的歷史分析，從定位跟蹤美國的轉(zhuǎn)型企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略對企業(yè)盈利和再投資企業(yè)增長滯留在20世紀(jì)70年代企業(yè)的勞動(dòng)力，企業(yè)盈利向股東分配的縮減之一，在過去的二十年。然后，，我們認(rèn)為近期美國經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)，并提高對股東價(jià)值的最大化和經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮的可持續(xù)性之間的關(guān)系問題。The decade-long boom in the US stock market and the more recent boom in the US  economy have fostered widespread belief in the economic bene. ts of the maximization  of shareholder value as a principle of corporate governance. In this paper, we  provide an historical analysis of the rise of shareholder value as a principle of corporategovernance  in the United States,tracing thetransformation ofUS corporatestrategy  from an orientation towards retention of corporate earnings and reinvestment in  corporate growth through the 1970s to one of downsizing of corporate labour forces  and distribution of corporate earnings to shareholders over the past two decades. We  then consider the recent performance of the US economy, and raise questions about  the relation between the maximization of shareholder value and the sustainability of  economic prosperity.

Introduction 介紹

Over the past two decades the ideology of shareholder value has become  entrenched as a principle of corporate governance among companies based in  the United States and Britain. Over the past two or three years, the rhetoric of  shareholder value has become prominent in the corporate governance debates in  European nations such as Germany, France and Sweden.

issued a document, The OECD Principles of  Corporate Governance, that emphasizes that corporations should be run, . rst and  foremost, in the interests of shareholders (OECD 1999). 

But what does ‘maximizing shareholder value’ mean? Is it an appropriate principle  for the governance of corporations in the advanced economies in the  twenty-. rst century? Does the implementation of this principle improve the  competitive performance of corporate enterprises? Would the reform of the  continental European and Japanese systems of corporate governance based on  the principle of maximizing shareholder value bring sustainable prosperity to  these economies? 

In the so-called Anglo-Saxon economies of the United States and Britain, the  exclusive focus of corporations on shareholder value is a relatively recent  phenomenon, having risen to prominence in the 1980s as part and parcel of the  Reaganite and Thatcherite revolutions. The decade-long boom in the US stock  market and the more recent boom in the US economy have impressed European  and Japanese corporate executives with the potential of shareholder value as a  principle of corporate governance, while American institutional investors,  investment bankers and management consultants have incessantly promoted the  virtues of the approach in Europe and Japan. 

There is, however, in both Europe and Japan, considerable misinformation  about why shareholder value has become so prominent in the governance of US  corporations over the past two decades and the actual impact of its implementation  on the performance of US corporations and the US economy. Therefore,  as a precondition for considering the arguments for ‘maximizing shareholder  value’ in those nations in which it is not yet an entrenched principle of corporate  governance, it is imperative that we understand the evolution and impact of  the quest for shareholder value in the United States over the past two decades.  Such is the purpose of this paper. 

The origins of `shareholder value’ 
William Lazonick and Mary O’Sullivan: Maximizing shareholder value 17  Shareholder value and economic performance  Problems of US economic performance  Foundations of the current prosperity 

Is the current prosperity sustainable? 

Acknowledgements 致謝

Funding for the research in this paper was provided by the Jerome Levy Economics  Institute and by the Targeted Socio-Economic Research Program of the  European Commission (Contract no. SOE1-CT98-1114). 

Notes 筆記

1 An important analysis of US loss of competitive advantage in a number of major  industries can be found in Dertouzos et al. (1989). 
2 The following paragraphs on the transformation of the US . nancial sector are based  on Lazonick and O’Sullivan (1997); see also Lazonick (1992) and O’Sullivan (2000: ch. 
5). 
3 The following paragraphs on downsizing of labour and distribution of earnings are  drawn from O’Sullivan (2000: ch. 5). 
4 The AMA survey is sent to human resources managers in AMA member companies  every year. AMA’s corporate membership consists of 9,500 organizations which together  employ 25 per cent of the American workforce. Over 85 per cent of surveyed . rms gross  more than $10 million annually, which puts them among the top 5 per cent of US corporations. 
5 For an elaboration of shareholder theory and a critique, see O’Sullivan (1999). 

References 文獻(xiàn)

Baker, G., Jensen, M. and Murphy, K. (1988) ‘Compensation and incentives: practice vs. theory’, Journal of Finance 43: 593–616. Brancato, C. (1997) Institutional Investors and Corporate Governance: Best Practices for Increasing Corporate Value, Chicago: Irwin Professional. Bruck, C. (1989) The Predators’ Ball, London: Penguin. Ciccolo, J. Jr. and Baum, C. (1985) ‘Changes in the balance sheet of the U.S. manufacturing sector, 1926–1977’,in B. Friedman (ed.) Corporate Capital Structures in the United States, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Corbett, J. and Jenkinson, T (1996) ‘The . nancing of industry, 1970–1989: an international comparison’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 10 (1): 71–96. Dertouzos, M., Lester, R. and Solow, R. and the MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity (1989) Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Edwards, F. (1996) The New Finance: Regulation and Financial Stability, Washington, DC: AEI Press. Fama, E. and Jensen, M. (1983) ‘Separation of ownership and control’, Journal of Law and Economics 26: 301–25. Farber, H. (1997) ‘The changing face of job loss in the United States’, Brookings Papers: Microeconomics, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Gaughan, P. (1996) Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings, New York: Wiley. Hall, B. (1994) ‘Corporate restructuring and investment horizons in the United States, 1976–1987’, Business History Review 68(1): 110–43. —— and Liebman, J. (1997) ‘Are CEOs really paid like bureaucrats?’, NBER Working Paper Series no. 6213. Herz, D. (1990) ‘Worker displacement in a period of rapid job expansion, 1983–1987’, Monthly Labor Review May. Jensen, M. (1986) ‘Agency cost of free cash . ow, corporate . nance, and takeovers’, American Economic Review 76: 323–9. —— (1989) ‘Eclipse of the public corporation’, Harvard Business Review 67(5): 61–74. DD and Meckling, W. (1976) ‘Theory of the . rm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–60. Lazonick, W. (1992) ‘Controlling the market for corporate control’, Industrial and Corporate Change 1(3). —— (1998) ‘Organizational learning and international competition’, in J. Michie and J. Smith (eds) Globalization, Growth, and Governance: Creating an Innovative Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— and O’Sullivan, M. (1997) ‘Investment in innovation, corporate governance, and corporate employment’, Jerome Levy Economics Institute Policy Brief No. 37. O’Sullivan, M. (1999) ‘The innovative enterprise and corporate governance’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, forthcoming. —— (2000) Contests for Corporate Control: Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the United States and Germany, Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. OECD (1999) OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, Paris: OECD. William Lazonick and Mary O’Sullivan: Maximizing shareholder value 35 Patch, E. (1995) Plant Closings and Employment Loss in Manufacturing: The Role of Local Conditions, New York: Garland. Poterba, J. and Samwick, A. (1995) ‘Stock ownership patterns, stock market . uctuations, and consumption’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 295–372. Ross, S. (1973) ‘The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem’, American Economic Review 63: 134–9. Scharfstein, D. (1988) ‘The disciplinary role of takeovers’, Review of Economic Studies 55: 185–99. Staudohar, P. and Brown, H. (1987) Deindustrialization and Plant Closure, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Taggart, R. (1988) ‘The growth of the “junk” bond market and its role in . nancing takeovers’, in A. Auerbach (ed.) Mergers and Acquisitions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. US Board of Governors, Federal Reserve (various years) Flow of Funds Accounts, Flows and Outstandings, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (various years) Employment and Earnings, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Bureau of the Census (1976) Historical Statistics of the United States from the Colonial Times to the Present, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Congress (various years) Economic Report of the President, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Commerce (various years) Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Weinstein, M. and Kochan, T. (1995) ‘The limits of diffusion: recent developments in industrial relations and human resource practices’, in R. Locke, T. Kochan and M. Piore (eds) Employment Relations in a Changing World, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

本文編號：37760