Power Without Property, Still: Unger, Berle, and the Derivatives Revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was produced for “In Berle’s Footsteps,” a symposium marking the launch of the Adolf A. Berle, Jr. Center on Corporations, Law and Society at the University of Seattle School of Law. It considers the light that the “derivatives revolution” sheds on the theoretical perspectives of Roberto Unger and Adolf Berle. While an unlikely pair, both Unger and Berle focused, in different ways, on the same issues: property, the power associated with property, and the impact of “smashing the atom” of traditional property rights. For Unger, breaking down consolidated property holding at the societal level was a pro-democratic move. For Berle, analyzing corporate law, the separation of ownership from control risked promoting exactly the kind of concentration of power that Unger, through destabilization, sought to destroy. Financial derivatives products deconstruct property well beyond what Berle contemplated, and through a fundamentally different mechanism than what Unger envisioned. Both the differences and the similarities between real life and theory are illuminating. We describe the effects of derivatives at three levels: at the level of corporate law; of financial firm practices and the originate-to-distribute model, and of the global over-the-counter derivatives market. In each case, we find that the fluidity produced by disassembling traditional property rights creates a space within which sophisticated parties are able to consolidate and reaffirm their power. Thus while Unger’s claim about the necessity of “destabilization rights” still resonates, Berle’s insight into the human will to power is central to understanding the risks associated with that destabilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".