Abstract:In providing an ethical guide for managers, the Clarkson Principles offer one part of a possible professional code, namely, that managers have a fiduciary duty—a duty of loyalty of the corporation’s stakeholders. However, the Clarkson Principles contain little advise for managers when they act politically to fashion the regulatory framework in which stakeholders negotiate. When managers participate in these arenas, I argue that they ought to assume a second fiduciary duty—a duty of loyalty to fair bargaining. Where the first duty (...) of loyalty pertains to the firm’s “constituents,” the second refers to the firm’s “constitution”—to the rules by which the firm’s stakeholders bargain and to the background conditions that distribute advantages. Together, these two fiduciary duties establish the large good—development as freedom—from which a managerial profession can mature. (shrink)

Using theories by Pierre Bourdieu and the Frankfurt School that causally link art to class interests, this article examines the differential development of modern architecture in the United States and central Europe during the early 20th century. Modern architecture was the aesthetic expression of technocracy, a movement of the new class of professionals, managers and engineers to place itself at the center of rationalized capitalism. The aesthetic of modernism, which glorified technology and instrumental reason, was weak and undeveloped in the (...) US, because this class defined by its cultural capital was quickly integrated into modernizing corporations, where it was compelled to cater to the emerging mass market and drop its distinctive aesthetic. Modern architecture emerged mainly in interwar central Europe, because here industrial modernization was blocked, forcing the new class to pursue an alliance with state managers pushing modernization. Thus unencumbered by the demands of the mass market, modern architects were free to express their machine aesthetic in state-financed housing projects. (shrink)

This article presents a reevaluation of C. Wright Mills’s classic book, The Power Elite, in light of recent historical evidence about the changing nature of the corporate elite in the United States. I argue that Mills’s critique of the mid-twentieth century American elite, although trenchant and in large part appropriate, fails to acknowledge the extent to which business leaders of that era adopted a moderate and pragmatic approach to politics. Operating with an orientation they termed “enlightened self-interest,” the elites of (...) that era promoted policies that—at least to an extent—served the interests of the larger population. I show how the history of the American corporate elite as well as the character of the current US big business community allows us to gain a clearer perspective on the actions of the group’s mid-century counterparts. (shrink)

Scholars studying the global diffusion of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) practices and the associated rise of privatized forms of economic governance have tended to shift attention away from the role of corporations in motivating these processes to the one played by nonbusiness forces seeking social control of corporations. We bring corporate power back in by turning the spotlight to the agency of business classes, the business entities capable of pursuing transcorporate, societal-level, macro-political endeavors. Building on a comparative investigation of two (...) of the world’s earliest mass CSR adoptions, in postwar Venezuela and Britain, we argue that business classes responding to anti-capitalist challenges were the original diffusers of CSR practices and, interrelatedly, promoters of CSR-based, privatized forms of regulation and governance. Organized by peak business associations, the purpose of these “business-class CSR mobilizations” was to weaken the state in its relation to corporations and increase the control of business over social trends. We discuss the contribution of our historical perspective and analytical approach to a more complete and balanced picture of the global rise of CSR in late capitalism. (shrink)

Research Articles Eldon J. Eisenach, Social Philosophy and Policy, FirstView Article.

Historical analyses of the genesis of the National Science Foundation have given insufficient attention to the role of business in the legislative struggle to establish a postwar research policy agency. This has led to an incomplete understanding of the defining characteristics of the final NSF legislation. Agency focus on basic research has heretofore been interpreted largely as a response to scientists' interests rather than to those of scientists and business. Moreover, the concern of industry with the intellectual property provisions of (...) the legislation has also been underappreciated. In this article, the standard history of the genesis of the National Science Foundation is revised by dissecting the concerns of business with NSF legislation and the role of business in shaping the legislation. The character and influence of industry on proposals for a National Science Foundation are clarified through an examination of three distinct ways in which industry shaped National Science Foundation legislation. The article concludes that in the debate over the establishment of the NSF, interests and influence must be seen as layered, overlapping, and blurred. (shrink)

One of the main economic debates taking place in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century America was between supporters of protectionism and advocates of free-trade policies. Protectionists won this debate, as the 1897 Dingley Tariff raised tariff rates to record highs. An analysis of this outcome highlights the overlapping interests of Republican politicians and business groups. Both of these groups endorsed particular economic arguments in favour of protectionism. Contemporary studies by academic economists informed the debates surrounding protectionist policies at this time, and also (...) analysed the impacts of these policies. Evidence from politicians, business owners, and economists provides a broad view of who favoured protectionist policies in turn-of-the-century America. This analysis also focuses on how the impacts of these policies were studied and presented in contemporary academic and public discourse. (shrink)

With the growth in income inequality now regarded as a crucial social issue, business and society scholars need to prepare themselves for the ambitious task of studying how corporate practices, intentionally or not, contribute to this trend. This article offers starting points for scholars wishing to explore this topic but lacking the necessary background for doing so. First, it offers suggestions as to finding the extant empirical work necessary for informed analysis. This is followed by an examination of alternate methods (...) of theory construction relevant to this topic, which transcend the limitations of the experimental science model of theory building. It then provides an example of a social science theory that exemplifies how empirically informed open theory can illuminate the dynamics behind growing inequality. The article concludes by suggesting that progress in this area requires embracing the spirit of earlier approaches to business and society scholarship while abandoning some outdated assumptions. (shrink)

This review of Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government, by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, lauds its virtues, while criticizing its tendencies toward a partial and one-sided understanding of the nature of the revolution it extols. In bracketing out a deeper analysis of the role of business in the creation of modern corporatist political economy and the debilitating effects of war and the national security state on markets at home and abroad, the authors ultimately fail (...) to provide the more robust defense of freedom that Rand’s project implies. (shrink)

In the United States, big government was a child of the Progressive Era. Much recent work in American history, especially that of the ?organizational? school, shows that big business played an active, perhaps dominant, role in the Progressive Era push for big government. This work undercuts an older, liberal interpretation emphasizing conflict between business and government. But why big business pushed for big government is still unclear. This paper advances the hypothesis that the push did result from a conflict between (...) business and government, namely, a conflict between big business and state government in the late nineteenth century. As the power and influence of big business grew, it saw big government at the federal level as the solution to many of its problems resulting from the conflict with state government. (shrink)

Working in the tradition of Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939), and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), the Molinari Society is a philosophical society dedicated to promoting critical discussion and innovative research in radical libertarian theory.