A comparative study of the ownership control vs. management right issue between the Chinese enterprise laws and Canadian corporate laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An examination of the different laws concerning the ownership control vs. management right issue in China’s legal regime as well as in Canada’s legal regime will provide the basis of further comparison and analysis. In light of statutes as well as relevant Canadian case law, some literal differences are shown. The analysis of legal implications of the literal differences of the laws involves four approaches. These are the relationships between the owners and the corporate management, the ownership composition, the government treatment of the government entities, and the commitments, interests and liabilities of the directors. In the SOECs, the government controls have been curbed and the autonomy of the enterprises has been advocated in recent years by legislation and dominant Party policy. The boundary of government control over the SOECs and the enterprise autonomy has not been defined clearly. In the CCCs government controls have been kept very firm by statute and case law. In the SOECs, the ownership right of the enterprise assets belongs to the state whereas the statutory right to possess, utilize and dispose of the enterprise entities belongs to the enterprise. The division of the ownership right and the property right to the same object - the enterprise assets - renders a certain inconsistency in managing the enterprise business. However, the ownership of the CCCs is exclusively in the hands of the government. The ownership of the Canadian private corporations lies exclusively in the corporation - the judicial person itself. The pure ownership composition may reduce the tension of the owners and management to a minimum level. A SOEC is treated by the government both as a government appendage, designed to carry out government policy, and a self-survivor. A CCC is treated by the government as a special instrument. The directors of the Canadian private corporations can enjoy substantial autonomy in managing corporations, although in many circumstances they are subject to the courts’ involvement. The Chinese Enterprise Laws require the directors to fulfill their mandates - the commands of the government - although at the same time they are expected to make the enterprises as profitable as possible. The directors of the CCCs have an interest in fulfilling their commitments to the government, which are to serve the mandates of the CCCs. The interests and commitments of the directors in Canadian private corporations lie in making competitive capital return for the corporations and the shareholders The reasons why different legal implications exist in the different economic and social milieus. And significantly, it is found that both the legislative implications of the CCCs and the SOECs reveal a kind of compromise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".