A Critique of the Diagnosis and Cure for `Enronitis': The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Neoliberal Governance of Corporate America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Enron collapse in 2001 represented a high-water mark in the recent round of corporate scandals in the United States. In response to this crisis, the US government introduced the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Act or SOX) in July 2002. Until now, the debates have remained silent on the political and social dimensions of the Act. By situating the discourse of corporate governance within the context of capitalist society, I offer an alternative explanation of the role and significance of SOX. I argue that the pre-eminence of the corporate governance framework explains away the deeper causes of crisis by maintaining our focus on the symptoms, such as greed on the part of corporate executives, lack of transparency and an absence of accountability, as opposed to the structural causes connected to neoliberal-led restructuring of capitalist society and the contradictions therein.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".