Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy

By L. Stout. 2002

185 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Who is in charge? A property rights perspective on stakeholder governance (2012, unknown): “Dodd (1932) argued for what is now called a ‘stakeholder approach’ – the view that the proper purpose of the corporation also included more secure jobs for employees, better quality products for consumers, and greater contributions to the welfare of the community (see Stout, 2002).”
Towards a Property Rights Foundation for a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm (2005, background): “Stout (2002) provides an insightful analysis of the intellectual progress made over the years concerning the Berle-Dodd debate.”
Advancing the Human Capital Perspective on Value Creation by Joining Capabilities and Governance Approaches (2015, background): “Thus, in the complete contracting view, the economic basis for shareholders’ supremacy is more justifiable (Stout, 2002).”
Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Social Welfare: A Utilitarian Critique (2013, unknown): “…political science (Bainbridge, 1993, 2002; Blair & Stout, 1999; Ehrlich, 2005; Green, 1993; Lee, 2005; Rebérioux, 2007; Sheehy, 2005; Smith, 1998; Stout, 2012, 2002), and management (Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1973; Freeman et al., 2010; Ghoshal et al., 1999; Jones, 1980; Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz,…”