Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Professionalism, Agency, and Market Failures

  • Hasko von Kriegstein (a1)
Abstract:

According to the market failures approach to business ethics, beyond-compliance duties can be derived by employing the same rationale and arguments that justify state regulation of economic conduct. Very roughly, the idea is that managers have a duty to behave as if they were complying with an ideal regulatory regime ensuring Pareto-optimal market outcomes. Proponents of the approach argue that managers have a professional duty not to undermine the institutional setting that defines their role, namely the competitive market. This answer is inadequate, however, for it is the hierarchical firm, rather than the competitive market, that defines the role of corporate managers and shapes their professional obligations. Thus, if the obligations that the market failures approach generates are to apply to managers, they must do so in an indirect way. I suggest that the obligations the market failures approach generates directly apply to shareholders. Managers, in turn, inherit these obligations as part of their duties as loyal agents.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Professionalism, Agency, and Market Failures
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Professionalism, Agency, and Market Failures
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Professionalism, Agency, and Market Failures
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Akerlof, G. 1970. The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488500.
Arrow, K. 1973. Social responsibility and economic efficiency. Public Policy, 21: 303317.
Arrow, K., & Debreu, G. 1954. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica, 27: 82109.
Attas, D. 2004. A moral stakeholder theory of the firm. ZfWU—Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, 5: 312–8.
Balleisen, E. 2010. The prospects for effective ‘co-regulation’ in the United States: A historian’s view from the early twenty-first century. In Balleisen, E. & Moss, D. (Eds.), Government and markets: Towards a new theory of economic regulation: 443–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baron, M. 2007. Excuses excuses. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1(1): 2139.
Baumol, W. 1974. Business responsibility and economic behavior. In Anshen, M. (Ed.), Managing the socially responsible corporation. New York: MacMillan.
Blair, M. 1999. Firm-specific human capital and theories of the firm. In Blair, M. & Roe, M. (Eds.), Employees and corporate governance. Washington D.C.: Brookings.
Bowie, N. 1999. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, E. 2013. Vulnerability and the basis of business ethics: From fiduciary duties to professionalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3): 489504.
Buchanan, A. 1996. Toward a theory of the ethics of bureaucratic organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4): 419440.
Clarkson, M. 1998. Introduction. In Clarkson, M. (Ed.), The corporation and its stakeholders. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Donaldson, T. 2000. Are business managers “professionals”?. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1): 8394.
Easterbrook, F., & Fischel, D. 1989. The corporate contract. Columbia Law Review, 89(7): 14161448.
Easterbrook, F., & Fischel, D. 1991. The economic structure of corporate law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Freeman, E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, E., & Reed, D. 1983. Stockholder and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3): 88106.
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13.
Goldman, A. 1992. Professional ethics. In Becker, C. & Becker, C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics, vol. 2. New York: Garland.
Goodpaster, K. 1991. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1): 5373.
Greenfield, K. 2006. The failure of corporate law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. 2000. Abstract of ‘the end of history for corporate law’. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=204528
Heath, J. 2004. A market failures approach to business ethics. In Hodgson, B. (Ed.), The invisible hand and the common good. Berlin: Springer.
Heath, J. 2006. Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4): 533–57.
Heath, J. 2007. An adversarial ethic for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 72: 359–74.
Heath, J. 2011. Business ethics and the ‘end of history’ in corporate law. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1): 520.
Heath, J. 2013. Market failure or government failure? A response to Jaworski. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(8): 50–6.
Heath, J. 2014. Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, J., Moriarty, J., & Norman, W. 2010. Business ethics and (or as) political philosophy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3): 427–52.
Jaworksi, P. 2013a. Moving beyond market failure: When the failure is government’s. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(1): 16.
Jaworksi, P. 2013b. An absurd tax on our fellow citizens: The ethics of rent seeking in the market failures (or self-regulation) approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3): 467–76.
Langtry, B. 1994. Stakeholders and the moral responsibility of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4: 431–43.
Laufer, W. 2006. Illusions of compliance and governance. Corporate Governance, 6(3): 239249.
Lewis, M. 1989. Liar’s poker. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Locke, J. 1960. An essay concerning the true original, extent, and end of civil government [1689]. In Laslett, P. (Ed.), Locke: Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacDonald, C. 1999. Clinical standards and the structure of professional obligation. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 8(1): 717.
MacDonald, C. 2014. The right to bear corporations? Reframing the corporation as a technology for lobbying. The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 12: 413–20.
Macey, J. 1991. An economic analysis of the various rationales for making shareholders the exclusive beneficiaries of corporate fiduciary duties. 21 Stetson Law Review, 23 .
Marcoux, A. 2003. A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 124.
Marens, R., & Wick, A. 1999. Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2): 273–93.
Martin, D. 2013. The contained-rivalry requirement and a ‘triple-feature’ program for business ethics. Journal for Business Ethics, 115(1): 167–82.
McMahon, C. 1981. Morality and the invisible hand. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(3): 247–77.
McMahon, C. 2013. Public capitalism: The political authority of corporate executives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Michalos, A. 1995. A pragmatic approach to business ethics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Norman, W. 2011. Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal for Business Ethics, 102(1): 4357.
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Pogge, T. 1992. Loopholes in moralities. Journal of Philosophy, 89(2): 7998.
Rawls, J. 1996. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Spitzer, E. 2011. Government’s place in the market. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stone, K. 1991. Employees as stakeholders under state nonshareholder constituency statutes. 21 Stetson Law Review, 45 .
Von Kriegstein, H. 2015. Shareholder primacy and deontology. Business and Society Review, 120(3): 465–90.
Wesley, C., & Ndofor, H. 2013. The great escape: The unaddressed ethical issue of investor responsibility for corporate malfeasance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3): 443475.
Williams, B. 1981. Conflicts of values. Reprinted in Williams, B. (Ed.), Moral luck: Philosophical papers 1970-1980 : 7182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, O. 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87: 548–77.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business Ethics Quarterly
  • ISSN: 1052-150X
  • EISSN: 2153-3326
  • URL: /core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed