Bainbridge on Corporations

Bainbridge on Corporations

Share this post

Bainbridge on Corporations
Bainbridge on Corporations
Accountability is Not Corporate Law's Sole Value

Accountability is Not Corporate Law's Sole Value

Accountability must be balanced with authority

Stephen Bainbridge's avatar
Stephen Bainbridge
Jul 30, 2025
∙ Paid
2

Share this post

Bainbridge on Corporations
Bainbridge on Corporations
Accountability is Not Corporate Law's Sole Value
1
Share

One of the things that bugs me the most about much of normative corporate law scholarship is the fixation on accountability. Virtually everything you read in the field follows a basic formula. Step 1: spot a problem. Step 2: advocate solving it with a new, bigger, better accountability mechanism. Usually that mechanism is some new legal rule; occasionally, it is some new extrajudicial mechanism.

We are told agency costs are pervasive. Reducing agency costs is therefore the central problem of corporate law. Accountability is therefore essential.

But what almost nobody stops to consider is the question: “at what cost”? Are there countervailing values that suggest letting some things fall through the cracks? Letting existing market forces deal with the problem?

This essay draws on my book The New Corporate Governance in Theory and Practice, which sets out at length my director primacy theory of corporate law.

Bainbridge on Corporations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Bainbridge on Corporations to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Stephen Bainbridge
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share