Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-13T21:35:20.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A further reply to Jean-Philippe Robé on the firm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Simon Deakin ,
David Gindis Open the ORCID record for David Gindis [Opens in a new window]  and
Geoffrey M. Hodgson
Simon Deakin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law and Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
David Gindis
Affiliation:
Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire Hatfield, Hatfield, UK
Geoffrey M. Hodgson*
Affiliation:
Emeritus, Loughborough University London, Institute of International Management, Stratford, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: g.hodgson2@lboro.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite agreement on many points, including our shared insistence that ‘corporation’ and ‘firm’ are different concepts, Jean-Philippe Robé still maintains that they are mutually exclusive: no corporation is a firm, and no firm is a corporation. In contrast, we follow standard nomenclature when we point out that all (business) corporations are firms, but some firms are not corporations. We show here that this is a standard practice among lawyers writing in leading law journals and note that Robé seems to have abandoned the task of defining the firm.

Keywords

Business corporationsfirmslegal institutionalismlegal personalityB52D20K10L20
Type
Comment
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 703 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

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

Braun, E. (2015), ‘Carl Menger's Contribution to Capital Theory’, History of Economic Ideas, 23(1): 77–99.Google Scholar
Ciepley, D. (2020), ‘The Anglo-American Misconception of Stockholders as “Owners” and “Members”: Its Origins and Consequences’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(5): 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deakin, S., Gindis, D. and Hodgson, G. M. (2021), ‘What is A Firm? A Reply to Jean-Philippe Robé’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 17(5): 861–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deakin, S., Gindis, D., Hodgson, G. M., Huang, K. and Pistor, K. (2017), ‘Legal Institutionalism: Capitalism and the Constitutive Role of Law’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 45(1): 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2019), ‘Taxonomic Definitions in Social Science, with Firms, Markets and Institutions as Case Studies’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(2): 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, P. W. (1999), ‘Company Law and the Myth of Shareholder Ownership’, Modern Law Review, 62(1): 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A. (1920), Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume (8th edn), London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Menger, C. (1888), ‘Zur Theorie des Kapitals’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 17: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robé, J.-P. (2020), Property, Power and Politics: Why We Need to Rethink the World Power System, Bristol: Bristol University Press.Google Scholar
Robé, J.-P. (2021), ‘Firms Versus Corporations: A Rebuttal of Simon Deakin, David Gindis, and Geoffrey M. Hodgson’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. doi:10.1017/S1744137421000771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. (1950), Definition, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar