Business corporations interact with household units and government agencies to make investments in productive capabilities required to generate innovative goods and services. When they work harmoniously, these three types of organizations constitute 'the investment triad'. The Biden administration's Build Back Better agenda to restore sustainable prosperity in the United States has focused on investment in productive capabilities by government agencies and household units. Largely absent from the Biden agenda have been policy initiatives to ensure that, given government and household investment in productive capabilities, the governance of major U.S. business corporations supports investment in innovation. This Element explains how corporate financialization, manifested by predatory value extraction in the name of 'maximizing shareholder value', undermines investment in innovation in the United States. It concludes by outlining a policy framework, beginning with a ban on stock buybacks, that confronts predatory value extraction and puts in place social institutions that support sustainable prosperity.
William Lazonick explores how technological change has interacted with the organization of work, with major consequences for national competitiveness and industrial leadership. Looking at Britain, the United States, and Japan from the nineteenth century to the present, he explains changes in their status as industrial superpowers. Lazonick stresses the importance for industrial leadership of cooperative relations between employers and shop-floor workers. Such relations permit employers to use new technologies to their maximum potential, which in turn transforms the high fixed costs inherent in these technologies into low unit costs and large market shares. Cooperative relations can also lead employers to invest in the skills of workers themselves--skills that enable shop-floor workers to influence quality as well as quantity of production. To build cooperative shop-floor relations, successful employers have been willing to pay workers higher wages than they could have secured elsewhere in the economy. They have also been willing to offer workers long-term employment security. These policies, Lazonick argues, have not come at the expense of profits but rather have been a precondition for making profits. Focusing particularly on the role of labor-management relations in fostering "flexible mass production" in Japan since the 1950s, Lazonick criticizes those economists and politicians who, in the face of the Japanese challenge, would rely on free markets alone to restore the international competitiveness of industry in Britain and the United States.
Predatory Value Extraction explains how an ideology of corporate resource allocation known as 'maximizing shareholder value' (MSV) that emerged in the 1980s came to dominate strategic thinking in business schools and corporate boardrooms in the United States. Undermining the social foundations of sustainable prosperity, it resulted in employment instability, income inequity, and slow productivity growth. In explaining what happened to sustainable prosperity, William Lazonick and Jang-Sup Shin focus on the growing imbalance between value creation and value extraction in the U.S. economy, and the corporate-governance institutions that determine this balance in the nation's major business corporations. The imbalance has become so extreme that predatory value extraction is now a central economic activity, to the point at which the U.S. economy as a whole can be aptly described as a value-extracting economy. Balancing the contributions of economic actors to value creation with their power to extract value provides the foundation for stable and equitable economic growth. When certain economic actors are able to assert their power to extract far more value than they contribute to the value-creation process, an imbalance occurs which, when extreme, leads to dire economic, political, and social consequences. This book not only explores these consequences, but also sets out an agenda for restoring sustainable prosperity.
Lazonick explores the origins of the new era of employment insecurity and income inequality, and considers what governments, businesses, and individuals can do about it. He also asks whether the United States can refashion its high-tech business model to generate stable and equitable economic growth. --from publisher description.
The tension between innovation and financialisation is central to the business corporation. Innovation entails a 'retain-and-reinvest' allocation regime that can form a foundation for stable and equitable economic growth. Driven by shareholder-value ideology, financialisation entails a shift to 'downsize-and-distribute'. This Element investigates this tension in global pharmaceuticals, focusing on the two leading UK companies AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. In the 2000s both adopted US-style governance, including stock buybacks and stock-based executive pay. Over the past decade, however, first AstraZeneca and then GlaxoSmithKline transitioned to innovation. Critical was the cessation of buybacks to refocus capabilities on investing in an innovative drugs pipeline. Enabling this shift were UK corporate-governance institutions that mitigated US-style shareholder-value maximisation. Reinventing capitalism for the sake of stable and equitable economic growth means eliminating value destruction caused by financialisation and supporting value creation through collective and cumulative innovation. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Corporate Governance, Employee Voice, and Work Organization explores the dynamic relations between corporate governance, employee voice, and the organization of work in the automotive supply industry. It reports on research undertaken in three countries--Germany, Sweden, and the United States--that has sought to explore and compare historical patterns of the relationships between changing governance regimes, voice, and work at plant level in an era of financialization. It also explores the prospects for high-road, sustainable jobs in the sector. Three detailed case histories from each of the countries are presented which contrast companies facing three different levels of exposure to capital markets: companies relatively sheltered from stock markets; companies that are highly exposed to them; and thirdly companies owned by private equity firms. This design allows for analysis not just across different national contexts but also within them, and questions the usefulness of the 'varieties of capitalism' appraoch in understanding these differences. The cases show that governance compromises matter, that is, that recognising the role of employee voice in corporate governance regimes is essential in any comparative analysis and understanding of corporate governance.
The Corporate Triangle draws together the work of three leading economists to give a new and important view of the international differences in corporate systems.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.