The Legitimization of Greed in the North American Theorization of Corporate Law (La Légitimation De L'Avarice Dans La Théorisation Nord-Américaine Du Droit Des Sociétés Par Actions)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than any other area of the law, the law of business associations offers a welcoming environment for greedy behaviour. After examining traditional and contemporary archetypes of greed and the manner in which various forms of greed impact on how individuals conceive of law, the author deconstructs the dominant theoretical understanding of corporate law in North American, which has been significantly influenced by the normative strands of law and economics. He argues that the meta-theoretical conception of business associations which these approaches promote leads to a legitimization of aggressive forms of greed, by facilitating the emergence of an ethics under which assuaging one’s financial interests systematically trumps other values or interests (ethique de l’assouvissement). The emergence of such an ethics is further helped by the micro-theorization of this field of law, which reduces the firm to a network of contracts and to the status of a toy in the hands of a shareholders class that is essentialized on the basis of a simplistic and monolithic representation. The author then criticizes the law and economics theorization of the firm’s socioeconomic roles, as well as the denial of the political dimension of the firm’s action. He finally proposes re-theorizing the firm in light of its complex positioning in postmodern societies, bearing in mind the ethical aspirations that, according to him, should inform the contemporary legal understanding of socioeconomic phenomena or institutions. This paper was originally published as a reflection on the firm’s theorization in the post-Enron world and a year before the 2008 financial crisis. The author believes that this crisis has further vindicated his thesis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".