Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most large enterprises in the developed world are controlled by shareholders, who choose the board of directors and can therefore replace the firm's top management. But in a few firms, control rests with the employees, who have an analogous right to choose the board of directors and hire or fire top managers. Why is the first pattern so common and the second so rare? Economists have had surprising difficulty in framing a satisfactory answer to this seemingly straightforward question. Because economists have no generally accepted explanation for the prevalence of capitalist firms, they lack a good explanation for the persistence of capitalism itself. They have also been obliged to remain largely silent on various contemporary policy debates. Should employees be represented on a firm's board of directors? Does it make sense to subsidize stock purchases by employees? Should governments encourage worker buyouts of closing plants or failing firms? Most economists could undoubtedly formulate opinions on these matters, but they would have trouble locating a systematic body of theoretical or empirical research with which to inform their opinions. With or without participation from economists, however, policy issues of this sort have become increasingly prominent across Europe and North America. This book seeks to explain why investor-controlled firms are common and worker-controlled firms are rare. The answer is not as simple as the question, but one can develop a theoretical story that is logically coherent and accounts for a good deal of the empirical evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.418 | 0.284 |
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".