有限责任制度研究
摘要
经济增长的源泉来自有效的制度安排,公司发展的关键在于设置合理的制度。由无限责任制度变迁为有限责任制度,是用一种效率更高的制度取代原有制度或对一种更有效制度的生产过程,是制度主体解决制度短缺,从而扩大制度供给以获得潜在收益的行为。
当今企业形态中,有限责任制公司占据主导地位。以有限责任界定企业形态,成为所有企业形态中最为核心的依据,深入对其研究,提高该制度运营绩效,对我国经济建设无疑具有重要的指导意义。
历史发展看,有限责任制度历经无基本原则→单一基本原则→单一基本原则分化的进程,形式从有限责任→有限责任制度→刺破公司的面纱→反向刺破公司面纱的发展表明,制度变迁和创新是一个连续不断的过程。本文明确划分了有限责任制度的发展阶段,梳理出古今中外有限责任制度沿革史的清晰脉络。
制度技术的沿袭上,社会主义国家的有限责任制度是从资本主义国家的该制度沿袭而来的,尤其与大陆法系各国的有限责任制度有同族关系。通过横向比较,将彼此对立但均有合理性的学说予以整合。将对有限责任制度的论述置于广阔的文化背景中,在古今的隧道中交融。揭示了三种制度模式的技术风格以及决定这种风格的社会条件,得出在制度构建中必须引进人的自由裁量因素才能使其免于僵化;而在避免僵化的同时又不能矫枉过正的结论。
方法论运用上,法律为“应然”的规范,经济学乃“实然”叙述。通过方法论创新,把有限责任制度看作经济领域、社会领域或政治交易领域中博弈过程中内生稳定的结果,通过理性分析而不是“工具论”得出最终结论。有限责任作为配置权利义务的有效手段,在每一制度安排的背后,都隐藏着立法者的基本政策考虑,这种政策考虑往往不能通过法律本身加以说明。运用法经济学的方法论证、破解这种本意,可以减少立法的盲目性、提高司法的可操作性和执法的自觉性。
意在构建公平、效率的制度体系。随着现代市场经济和高科技的发展,人类从事经济活动的风险越来越大,各类投资者都期望在经济活动中受到有限责任的
Efficient institutional arrangements are the source of economic growth, and the reasonable systems are the key to the development of a company. The Limited Liability System evolutes from the Unlimited Liability System and proves to be a more effective system replacing the original system or producing a new efficient one. It is an activity that the system-subject overcomes the limitation of the system itself and enlarges the institutional supply for the potential earnings.The Limited Liability System takes a dominant place as one of enterprise forms. It is the core evidence that enterprises are conceptualized as Limited Liability System. To do further study on the operating efficiency of the Limited Liability System is crucially important for the economic construction in China.Looking back to history, we can see Limited Liability System has experienced the following stages: no any basic principle → a single basic principle→dividing of the single basic principle. Its forms has changed as Limited Liability Limited Liability System → Piercing the veil of corporation →Adverse-piercing the veil of corporation. It shows that the institutional changes and creation are a continuous process. In this study, the author divided the developing stages and sorts out a clear the evolution locus of the Limited Liability System at different times both at home and in abroad.From the point of technological evolution, the Limited Liability System ongoing in the socialist countries was introduced from the capitalist countries, especially has the same roots with the continental law systems. By a horizontal comparison, the author integrates various theories, which are opposite to each other but being reasonable. Limited Liability System is analyzed on the ground of a wide cultural scope. It reveals the three system models of technical styles and the related social conditions and concludes that introducing freethinking and measurements is important for avoiding the stereotyped conclusion.In terms of methodological application, Law is a norm of "what should be exist", and Economics is narration of "what exists" . This Study, by methodological innovation, takes Limited Liability System as an endogenous stable result in the game programs of such fields as economy, society and politics, drawing the conclusion on the basis of reasonable analysis instead of "tool theory". As an efficient means of allocating the rights and obligations, Limited Liability System reflects the lawmaker's basic policy-thinking implicitly in any institutional arrangements. Usually, this kind of policy-thinking is unable to be explained through law. While adopting the methodology of law economics, it is significant for a legislation to reduce the blindness, improve serviceability and public awareness.
Aiming at building fair and efficient institutional systems . With the development of modern market economy and hi-technology, people are faced to more risks in their economic activities. Investors in different fields need protection under the Limited Liability System. Thus it is necessarily important to design and establish efficient systems motivating the investors and accelerating the company's development.Designing efficient practical institutional arrangements . The social enterprises always take the path with lower risks, costs and taxes. The Limited Liability System matches this tendency.Suggesting some policy options for preventing the institutional risks of Limited Liability System . Learning new tendencies of Limited Liability System in different countries as modification of the ten percent funds for bankrupt terms , mandatory insurance programs, etc. Based on the Chinese situations, some policy options are suggested.Building the reasonable dynamic operating models of Limited Liability System . One partner's minimizing-cost choices could be conflicted with the other's choices. The reasonable institutional arrangements brings not only the short-term but also the long-term benefits for the business partners, moreover, it is a starting point for the better going of the relevant rules and regulations.Promoting the efficiency of Chinese legislation . Company is the core of modern enterprises, while limited liability is the "king rule" of company. This Study takes Limited liability as research subject and adopt empirical and law-economics analysis to reconstruct the limited liability system under the principle of fairness and efficiency. It will produce good social benefits for reducing the inherent conflicts, accelerating company's operation and the overall economic development in China.Integrating the conflicting but reasonable theories . Law codes are sourced from the accepted everyday common practical rules. The roles of a judge are to seek for solution mechanism, which is suitable to the willingness of the groups around him. The nature of limited Liability system makes it matches the environment of the rational people's assume. Thus, although seeming to be conflict, the continental law system and that of U.S.-Britain would actually reach the same goal by different routes and finally get common understanding . This Study is intended to make up such limitations as unfairness and low efficiency in both legislation and justice by comprehensive analysis on Limited Liability System.
当今企业形态中,有限责任制公司占据主导地位。以有限责任界定企业形态,成为所有企业形态中最为核心的依据,深入对其研究,提高该制度运营绩效,对我国经济建设无疑具有重要的指导意义。
历史发展看,有限责任制度历经无基本原则→单一基本原则→单一基本原则分化的进程,形式从有限责任→有限责任制度→刺破公司的面纱→反向刺破公司面纱的发展表明,制度变迁和创新是一个连续不断的过程。本文明确划分了有限责任制度的发展阶段,梳理出古今中外有限责任制度沿革史的清晰脉络。
制度技术的沿袭上,社会主义国家的有限责任制度是从资本主义国家的该制度沿袭而来的,尤其与大陆法系各国的有限责任制度有同族关系。通过横向比较,将彼此对立但均有合理性的学说予以整合。将对有限责任制度的论述置于广阔的文化背景中,在古今的隧道中交融。揭示了三种制度模式的技术风格以及决定这种风格的社会条件,得出在制度构建中必须引进人的自由裁量因素才能使其免于僵化;而在避免僵化的同时又不能矫枉过正的结论。
方法论运用上,法律为“应然”的规范,经济学乃“实然”叙述。通过方法论创新,把有限责任制度看作经济领域、社会领域或政治交易领域中博弈过程中内生稳定的结果,通过理性分析而不是“工具论”得出最终结论。有限责任作为配置权利义务的有效手段,在每一制度安排的背后,都隐藏着立法者的基本政策考虑,这种政策考虑往往不能通过法律本身加以说明。运用法经济学的方法论证、破解这种本意,可以减少立法的盲目性、提高司法的可操作性和执法的自觉性。
意在构建公平、效率的制度体系。随着现代市场经济和高科技的发展,人类从事经济活动的风险越来越大,各类投资者都期望在经济活动中受到有限责任的
Efficient institutional arrangements are the source of economic growth, and the reasonable systems are the key to the development of a company. The Limited Liability System evolutes from the Unlimited Liability System and proves to be a more effective system replacing the original system or producing a new efficient one. It is an activity that the system-subject overcomes the limitation of the system itself and enlarges the institutional supply for the potential earnings.The Limited Liability System takes a dominant place as one of enterprise forms. It is the core evidence that enterprises are conceptualized as Limited Liability System. To do further study on the operating efficiency of the Limited Liability System is crucially important for the economic construction in China.Looking back to history, we can see Limited Liability System has experienced the following stages: no any basic principle → a single basic principle→dividing of the single basic principle. Its forms has changed as Limited Liability Limited Liability System → Piercing the veil of corporation →Adverse-piercing the veil of corporation. It shows that the institutional changes and creation are a continuous process. In this study, the author divided the developing stages and sorts out a clear the evolution locus of the Limited Liability System at different times both at home and in abroad.From the point of technological evolution, the Limited Liability System ongoing in the socialist countries was introduced from the capitalist countries, especially has the same roots with the continental law systems. By a horizontal comparison, the author integrates various theories, which are opposite to each other but being reasonable. Limited Liability System is analyzed on the ground of a wide cultural scope. It reveals the three system models of technical styles and the related social conditions and concludes that introducing freethinking and measurements is important for avoiding the stereotyped conclusion.In terms of methodological application, Law is a norm of "what should be exist", and Economics is narration of "what exists" . This Study, by methodological innovation, takes Limited Liability System as an endogenous stable result in the game programs of such fields as economy, society and politics, drawing the conclusion on the basis of reasonable analysis instead of "tool theory". As an efficient means of allocating the rights and obligations, Limited Liability System reflects the lawmaker's basic policy-thinking implicitly in any institutional arrangements. Usually, this kind of policy-thinking is unable to be explained through law. While adopting the methodology of law economics, it is significant for a legislation to reduce the blindness, improve serviceability and public awareness.
Aiming at building fair and efficient institutional systems . With the development of modern market economy and hi-technology, people are faced to more risks in their economic activities. Investors in different fields need protection under the Limited Liability System. Thus it is necessarily important to design and establish efficient systems motivating the investors and accelerating the company's development.Designing efficient practical institutional arrangements . The social enterprises always take the path with lower risks, costs and taxes. The Limited Liability System matches this tendency.Suggesting some policy options for preventing the institutional risks of Limited Liability System . Learning new tendencies of Limited Liability System in different countries as modification of the ten percent funds for bankrupt terms , mandatory insurance programs, etc. Based on the Chinese situations, some policy options are suggested.Building the reasonable dynamic operating models of Limited Liability System . One partner's minimizing-cost choices could be conflicted with the other's choices. The reasonable institutional arrangements brings not only the short-term but also the long-term benefits for the business partners, moreover, it is a starting point for the better going of the relevant rules and regulations.Promoting the efficiency of Chinese legislation . Company is the core of modern enterprises, while limited liability is the "king rule" of company. This Study takes Limited liability as research subject and adopt empirical and law-economics analysis to reconstruct the limited liability system under the principle of fairness and efficiency. It will produce good social benefits for reducing the inherent conflicts, accelerating company's operation and the overall economic development in China.Integrating the conflicting but reasonable theories . Law codes are sourced from the accepted everyday common practical rules. The roles of a judge are to seek for solution mechanism, which is suitable to the willingness of the groups around him. The nature of limited Liability system makes it matches the environment of the rational people's assume. Thus, although seeming to be conflict, the continental law system and that of U.S.-Britain would actually reach the same goal by different routes and finally get common understanding . This Study is intended to make up such limitations as unfairness and low efficiency in both legislation and justice by comprehensive analysis on Limited Liability System.
引文
[1] [美]罗伯特.考特、托马斯.尤伦:张军等译,张军校,《法和经济学》,上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,1995年版。
[2] [冰]思拉恩.埃格特森,吴经邦等译,《新制度经济学》,商务印书馆,1995年10月北京
[3] [英]G.M.霍奇逊:向以斌译,《现代制度主义经济学宣言》,北京大学出版社,1993年3月版
[4] 施锡铨:《博弈论》,上海财经大学出版社,2000年2月版。
[5] 白永秀 任保平:《中国现代企业制度的理论与实践》,世界图书出版西安公司2003年7月版。
[6] 科斯:陈坤铭等译,《厂商、市场与法律》,[台]远流出版公司,1995年版。
[7] 张维迎:《企业理论与中国企业改革》,北京大学出版社,1999年5月版。
[8] [台]王文宇:《民商法理论与经济分析》,中国政法大学出版社,2002年8月版。
[9] 周林彬:《法律经济学论纲》,北京大学出版社,1998年7月版。
[10] [美]曼昆:《经济学原理》,三联书店、北京大学出版社,1999年12月版。
[11] 宋浩波:《犯罪经济学》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2002年8月版。
[12] 科斯:《社会成本问题》,上海三联书店1991年版。
[13] [美]波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
[14] [美]迈克尔.贝勒斯:《法律的原则——一个规范的分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版。
[15] [美]波斯纳:《法理学问题》,中国政法大学出版社,1994年版。
[16] 张乃根:《经济学分析法学》,上海三联书店1995年版。
[17] [日]青木昌彦:《比较制度分析》,上海远东出版社2002年9月版。
[18] 科斯:《企业市场与法律》,上海三联书店,1993年版。
[19] 程恩富、胡乐明:《经济学方法论》,上海财经大学出版社2002年11月。
[20] [美]科斯、诺思、威廉姆森等:刘刚等译,《制度、契约与组织》,经济科学出版社,2003年1月版。
[21] [加]布莱思 R.柴芬斯:林华伟译,《公司法:理论、结构和运作》,法律出版社2002年6月。
[22] 卢代富:《企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析》,法律出版社2002年10月版。
[23] 张民安:《公司法上的利益平衡》,北京大学出版社2003年1月版。
[24] 理查德.A.波斯纳:武欣、凌斌译,《法律理论的前沿》,中国政法大学出版社,2003年1月版。
[25] 佟福全、范新宇、王德迅:《西方混合所有制企业比较》经济科学出版社,2001年5月版。
[26] 叶祥松:《国有公司产权关系和治理结构》,经济管理出版社2000年版。
[27] 卢现祥:《西方新制度经济学》,中国发展出版社1995年版。
[28] [美]道格拉斯G.拜尔、罗伯特H.格特纳、兰德尔C.皮克:《法律的博弈分析》,法律出版社2003年版。
[29] 王汉亮:《中国国有企业产权问题研究》,北京大学出版社2003年版。
[30] 蒋大兴:《公司法的展开与评判:方法.判例.制度》,法律出版社2002年版。
[31] 钱弘道:《经济分析法学》,法律出版社2003年版。
[1] 崔之元:《不完全市场与有限责任公司》,1995-2005 Tsinghua Tongfang Optical Co., Ltd.
[2] 费方域:《控制内部人控制》,《经济研究》1996年6月。
[3] 张文显:“规则.原则.概念——论法的模式”,载《现代法学》1989年第3期。
[4] 王利明:《试论法人的财产有限责任》,《中南政法学院学报》1987年第2期。王利明:《公司的有限责任制度的若干问题(上)》,《政法论坛》1994年第2期。
[5] 方流芳:《公司词义考:解读语词的制度信息——“公司”一词在中英早期交往中的用法和所指》,《中外法学》2000年第3期。
[6] 牛德生:《资产专用性理论分析》,《经济经纬》,2004年第3期。
[7] 范健、赵敏:《论公司法中的严格责任制度》,《中国法学》1995年第4期。
[8] 林忠:《论有限责任制》,1995-2005Tsinghua TongFang Optical Disc Co., Ltd.
[9] 成先平:《论现代公司法的基石》,1995-2005Tsinghua TongFang Optical Disc Co., Ltd.
[10] 谭甄:《移植与差异:有限责任公司制度研究》,中国政法大学2003年博士学位论文。
[11] 江平、虞政平:《中美有限责任公司比较研究》,载梁治平编:《法治在中国:制度、话语与实践》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
[12] 沈宗灵:《论法律移植与比较法学》,《外国法译评》1995年第1期。
[13] 陈东:《论跨国公司治理中的责任承担机制》,厦门大学2001年博士学位论文。
[14] 严冰:《剩余权之争》,《四川行政学院学报》2002年第2期。
[15] 徐向艺、孙召永:《论母子公司制条件下有限责任制度》,《东岳论丛》2002年第1期。
[16] 蔡振亚:《现代企业有限责任制度的缺陷及弥补对策》,《经济经纬》2002年第1期。
[17] 吴家骏:《论有限责任》,《理论前沿》1999年第22期。
[18] 董学立:《法人人格与有限责任》,《现代法学》2001年10月。
[19] 孙伯良:《论公有产权的市场化裂变》,《经济学家》2000年第1期。
[20] 沈四宝、王俊:《试论英美法“刺破公司面纱”的法律原则》,《对外经济贸易》1992年。
[21] 郑竹君、李明祥:《论国有独资公司的本质特性与适用度》,《法学评论》1985年。
[22] 张忠利:《有限责任原则与公司债权人利益保护》,《工业技术经济》2001年第5期。
[23] 韩长印:《有限责任公司若干法律实务简析》,《郑州大学学报》1999年第3期。
[24] 沈四宝、丁丁:《揭开公司面纱规则的借鉴意义》,《法制日报》2004年1月29日。
[25] 程波:《论“揭开公司面纱”制度及在我国的应用》,中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库。
[26] 赵信忠:《对我国适用公司法人格否认法理的质疑》,《河北法学》1999年第4期。
[27] 魏建:《理性选择与法经济学的发展》,《中国社会科学》2003年第1期。
[28] 苏力:《21世纪中国的现代化和法治》,《法学研究》1998年第1期。
[29] 黄文:《有限责任制度的负面效应探讨》,《重庆商学院学报》1999年第6期。
[30] 吴莅芳:《试论法人的有限责任利益》,《内蒙古科技与经济》2003年第1期。
[31] 虞政平:《中美有限责任公司制度比较》,《中国法学》2003年第1期。
[32] 雷兴虎:《有限责任公司与股份有限责任公司的法律界限》,《法学论坛》2003年第2期。
[33] 朱羿锟:《中小企业替代组织形式探索》,《中国工业经济》2000年第11期。
[34] 张忠利:《有限责任原则与公司债权人利益的保护》,《工业技术经济》2001年第5期。
[35] 徐向艺、孙召永:《论母子公司制条件下有限责任制度》,《工业企业管理》2002年第4期。
[36] 石俊华:《论公司侵权的股东责任》,《人民法院报》2003年5月7日。
[37] 任尔昕:《我国法人制度之批判——从法人人格与有限责任制度的关系角度考察》,《法学评论》2004年第1期。
[1] Robert W. Hamilton, The Law of Corporations,法律出版社1999年版(影印本)。
[2] Clark, Robert C.(1986) Corporation Law, Boston and Toronto: Little Brown and Company.
[3] P L. Davis and D. Prentice, Gower's Principles of Modern CompanyLaw, London, Sweet&Maxwell, 1996.
[4] B R Cheffins, Company Law: Theory, Structure, and Operation, 1997.
[5] P I Blumberg, Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: the Search for A New Corporate Personality, 1993,.
[6] Cork Committee, Insolvency Law and Practice-Report of the Review Committee, Cmnd 8558, 1982.
[7] J.Dennis Hynes, Agency, Partnership, The LLC, WestGroup ST. Paul, MINN, 2001.
[8] Michael Ottley, Briefcase on Company Law,武汉大学出版社2004年版(影印版)
[1] Hillman, R. W., Limited Liability in Historical Perspective, Washington and Lee Law Review, Spring 1997,at http.//global.umi,com/pqdweb/
[2] James ,C .D & woods ,B.W. ,piercing the veil in Limited Liability Companies Journal of Limited Liability Companies ,v.4,Issuel,Summer 1997,at http://global vgw17.global .epnet.com/
[3] Campbell, D,(ed.),Shareholders' Liability: the Comparative Law Yearbook of Internationnal Business, Special issue ,Nijhoff,1994.
[4] Christensen ,D., Concept of Limited Liability in US Business Entities, Journal of Business Law, V. 17,1989.
[5] Dodd, E.M., The Evolution of Limited Liability in American Industry:Massachusetts,Harv.L.R. V.61,1948.
[6] Blumberg, R. I. Limited Liability and corporate Groups, The Journal of corporate Law,V. 11,1986.
[7) Antoine Faure- Grimaud , Product market competition and optimal debt contracts: The limited liability effect revisited, Financial Markets Group, London School of Economics, Interdisciplinary Institute of Management 1 January 1999.
[8] Steven A. Matthews . Renegotiating Moral Hazard Contracts under Limited Liability and Monotonicity . Journal of Economic Theory 97,1-29.2001.
[9] Rohan Pitchford, Moral Hazard and limited liability, Economics Letters 61,251-259,1998.
[10] Kunal Sengupta , Limited liability: moral hazard and share tenancy Journal of Development Economics vol.52,393-407,1997.
[11] Wing Suen,Risk Avoidance under limited liability, Journal of economic theory 65,627-634,1995.
[12] Tridip Ray and Nirvikar Singh, Limited liability, contractual choice and the tenancy ladder, Journal of Development Economics vol,66,289-303,2001.
[13] Kaushik Basu , Clive Bell and Pinaki Bose, Interlinkage .limited liability and strategic interaction Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization vol.42,445-462,2000.
[14] Steven Shavell .The optimal level of corporate liability given the limited ability of corporations to penalize their employees .International Review of law and economics 17,203-213,1997.
[15] S. Deakin and A. Hughs,(1999)Economic Efficiency and the Proceduralisation of Company Law,3 CfiLR 169.
[16] C.Maughan and S.Copp,(2000)Company Law Reform and Economic Methodology Revisited 21 Co Law 14.
[17] Robert W. Hamilton (1991)The Law of corporation in a Nutshell, West Publishing Co.,3rd Ed.
[18] Posner(1976) 43 Univ. Chicago L.R.P521.
[19] Ross Grantham,the Judicial Extension of Directors ' Duties to Creditors,the Journal of Business Law, 1991.
[20] Razeen Sappideen fiduciary Obligation to Corporate Creditors,the Journal of Business Law, 1991.
[21] P.Halpern, M.Trebilcock and S .Turnbull, An Economic Analysis of Limited Liability in Corporation Law (1980) 30 U of Toronto .
[ 22 ] Bernard F.Cataldo, Limited Liability with One Man Companies and Subsidiary Corporations, (1953)18 Law and Contemporary Problems.
[23] Ramsay, Holding Company Liability for the Debts of An Insolvent Subsidiary A Law and Economics Perspective,(1994) 17(2)UNSW LJ.
[ 24 ] J.Farrar, Legal Issues Involving Corporate Groups,(1998) 16 C&SLJ 184. [25] R. Goode, Principles of Corporate, Insolvency Law(2nd edn1997).
[26] The Law Commission ReportLC272-jointly wish The Scottish Law Commission :SLC184(July ,2001)s.I (1),(3).
[27] Martin. Stepher & David parker. The impact of privatization ownership and corporate in the UK,Rontledge,1997.
[28] Rafael La Porta. Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes. Shleifer.Corporate ownership around the world,The Journal of Finance,April,1999.
[29] Edmunds v.Brown & Tilard(1668) I Lev.237.Salmon v.The hamborugh Co. I Ch.Cas.204.H.L. 1671.
[30] L.C.B.Gower. Principles of Modern Company Law[J]4th Stevens. 1979.
[31] Quoted by A.L.Diamond in Orhnia(Ed.) .Limited Liability and the corporation[J] 1982 .
[32] F.H.Easterbook and D.R.Fischel.The Economic Structure of Corporate Law[J].1991.
[33] C. Maughan and S. Copp, The Law Commission and Economic Methodology: Values Efficiency and Directors' Duties,20 Co Law 109.1999.
[34] Coase,R.H,The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics,3,1960.
[2] [冰]思拉恩.埃格特森,吴经邦等译,《新制度经济学》,商务印书馆,1995年10月北京
[3] [英]G.M.霍奇逊:向以斌译,《现代制度主义经济学宣言》,北京大学出版社,1993年3月版
[4] 施锡铨:《博弈论》,上海财经大学出版社,2000年2月版。
[5] 白永秀 任保平:《中国现代企业制度的理论与实践》,世界图书出版西安公司2003年7月版。
[6] 科斯:陈坤铭等译,《厂商、市场与法律》,[台]远流出版公司,1995年版。
[7] 张维迎:《企业理论与中国企业改革》,北京大学出版社,1999年5月版。
[8] [台]王文宇:《民商法理论与经济分析》,中国政法大学出版社,2002年8月版。
[9] 周林彬:《法律经济学论纲》,北京大学出版社,1998年7月版。
[10] [美]曼昆:《经济学原理》,三联书店、北京大学出版社,1999年12月版。
[11] 宋浩波:《犯罪经济学》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2002年8月版。
[12] 科斯:《社会成本问题》,上海三联书店1991年版。
[13] [美]波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
[14] [美]迈克尔.贝勒斯:《法律的原则——一个规范的分析》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版。
[15] [美]波斯纳:《法理学问题》,中国政法大学出版社,1994年版。
[16] 张乃根:《经济学分析法学》,上海三联书店1995年版。
[17] [日]青木昌彦:《比较制度分析》,上海远东出版社2002年9月版。
[18] 科斯:《企业市场与法律》,上海三联书店,1993年版。
[19] 程恩富、胡乐明:《经济学方法论》,上海财经大学出版社2002年11月。
[20] [美]科斯、诺思、威廉姆森等:刘刚等译,《制度、契约与组织》,经济科学出版社,2003年1月版。
[21] [加]布莱思 R.柴芬斯:林华伟译,《公司法:理论、结构和运作》,法律出版社2002年6月。
[22] 卢代富:《企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析》,法律出版社2002年10月版。
[23] 张民安:《公司法上的利益平衡》,北京大学出版社2003年1月版。
[24] 理查德.A.波斯纳:武欣、凌斌译,《法律理论的前沿》,中国政法大学出版社,2003年1月版。
[25] 佟福全、范新宇、王德迅:《西方混合所有制企业比较》经济科学出版社,2001年5月版。
[26] 叶祥松:《国有公司产权关系和治理结构》,经济管理出版社2000年版。
[27] 卢现祥:《西方新制度经济学》,中国发展出版社1995年版。
[28] [美]道格拉斯G.拜尔、罗伯特H.格特纳、兰德尔C.皮克:《法律的博弈分析》,法律出版社2003年版。
[29] 王汉亮:《中国国有企业产权问题研究》,北京大学出版社2003年版。
[30] 蒋大兴:《公司法的展开与评判:方法.判例.制度》,法律出版社2002年版。
[31] 钱弘道:《经济分析法学》,法律出版社2003年版。
[1] 崔之元:《不完全市场与有限责任公司》,1995-2005 Tsinghua Tongfang Optical Co., Ltd.
[2] 费方域:《控制内部人控制》,《经济研究》1996年6月。
[3] 张文显:“规则.原则.概念——论法的模式”,载《现代法学》1989年第3期。
[4] 王利明:《试论法人的财产有限责任》,《中南政法学院学报》1987年第2期。王利明:《公司的有限责任制度的若干问题(上)》,《政法论坛》1994年第2期。
[5] 方流芳:《公司词义考:解读语词的制度信息——“公司”一词在中英早期交往中的用法和所指》,《中外法学》2000年第3期。
[6] 牛德生:《资产专用性理论分析》,《经济经纬》,2004年第3期。
[7] 范健、赵敏:《论公司法中的严格责任制度》,《中国法学》1995年第4期。
[8] 林忠:《论有限责任制》,1995-2005Tsinghua TongFang Optical Disc Co., Ltd.
[9] 成先平:《论现代公司法的基石》,1995-2005Tsinghua TongFang Optical Disc Co., Ltd.
[10] 谭甄:《移植与差异:有限责任公司制度研究》,中国政法大学2003年博士学位论文。
[11] 江平、虞政平:《中美有限责任公司比较研究》,载梁治平编:《法治在中国:制度、话语与实践》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
[12] 沈宗灵:《论法律移植与比较法学》,《外国法译评》1995年第1期。
[13] 陈东:《论跨国公司治理中的责任承担机制》,厦门大学2001年博士学位论文。
[14] 严冰:《剩余权之争》,《四川行政学院学报》2002年第2期。
[15] 徐向艺、孙召永:《论母子公司制条件下有限责任制度》,《东岳论丛》2002年第1期。
[16] 蔡振亚:《现代企业有限责任制度的缺陷及弥补对策》,《经济经纬》2002年第1期。
[17] 吴家骏:《论有限责任》,《理论前沿》1999年第22期。
[18] 董学立:《法人人格与有限责任》,《现代法学》2001年10月。
[19] 孙伯良:《论公有产权的市场化裂变》,《经济学家》2000年第1期。
[20] 沈四宝、王俊:《试论英美法“刺破公司面纱”的法律原则》,《对外经济贸易》1992年。
[21] 郑竹君、李明祥:《论国有独资公司的本质特性与适用度》,《法学评论》1985年。
[22] 张忠利:《有限责任原则与公司债权人利益保护》,《工业技术经济》2001年第5期。
[23] 韩长印:《有限责任公司若干法律实务简析》,《郑州大学学报》1999年第3期。
[24] 沈四宝、丁丁:《揭开公司面纱规则的借鉴意义》,《法制日报》2004年1月29日。
[25] 程波:《论“揭开公司面纱”制度及在我国的应用》,中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库。
[26] 赵信忠:《对我国适用公司法人格否认法理的质疑》,《河北法学》1999年第4期。
[27] 魏建:《理性选择与法经济学的发展》,《中国社会科学》2003年第1期。
[28] 苏力:《21世纪中国的现代化和法治》,《法学研究》1998年第1期。
[29] 黄文:《有限责任制度的负面效应探讨》,《重庆商学院学报》1999年第6期。
[30] 吴莅芳:《试论法人的有限责任利益》,《内蒙古科技与经济》2003年第1期。
[31] 虞政平:《中美有限责任公司制度比较》,《中国法学》2003年第1期。
[32] 雷兴虎:《有限责任公司与股份有限责任公司的法律界限》,《法学论坛》2003年第2期。
[33] 朱羿锟:《中小企业替代组织形式探索》,《中国工业经济》2000年第11期。
[34] 张忠利:《有限责任原则与公司债权人利益的保护》,《工业技术经济》2001年第5期。
[35] 徐向艺、孙召永:《论母子公司制条件下有限责任制度》,《工业企业管理》2002年第4期。
[36] 石俊华:《论公司侵权的股东责任》,《人民法院报》2003年5月7日。
[37] 任尔昕:《我国法人制度之批判——从法人人格与有限责任制度的关系角度考察》,《法学评论》2004年第1期。
[1] Robert W. Hamilton, The Law of Corporations,法律出版社1999年版(影印本)。
[2] Clark, Robert C.(1986) Corporation Law, Boston and Toronto: Little Brown and Company.
[3] P L. Davis and D. Prentice, Gower's Principles of Modern CompanyLaw, London, Sweet&Maxwell, 1996.
[4] B R Cheffins, Company Law: Theory, Structure, and Operation, 1997.
[5] P I Blumberg, Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: the Search for A New Corporate Personality, 1993,.
[6] Cork Committee, Insolvency Law and Practice-Report of the Review Committee, Cmnd 8558, 1982.
[7] J.Dennis Hynes, Agency, Partnership, The LLC, WestGroup ST. Paul, MINN, 2001.
[8] Michael Ottley, Briefcase on Company Law,武汉大学出版社2004年版(影印版)
[1] Hillman, R. W., Limited Liability in Historical Perspective, Washington and Lee Law Review, Spring 1997,at http.//global.umi,com/pqdweb/
[2] James ,C .D & woods ,B.W. ,piercing the veil in Limited Liability Companies Journal of Limited Liability Companies ,v.4,Issuel,Summer 1997,at http://global vgw17.global .epnet.com/
[3] Campbell, D,(ed.),Shareholders' Liability: the Comparative Law Yearbook of Internationnal Business, Special issue ,Nijhoff,1994.
[4] Christensen ,D., Concept of Limited Liability in US Business Entities, Journal of Business Law, V. 17,1989.
[5] Dodd, E.M., The Evolution of Limited Liability in American Industry:Massachusetts,Harv.L.R. V.61,1948.
[6] Blumberg, R. I. Limited Liability and corporate Groups, The Journal of corporate Law,V. 11,1986.
[7) Antoine Faure- Grimaud , Product market competition and optimal debt contracts: The limited liability effect revisited, Financial Markets Group, London School of Economics, Interdisciplinary Institute of Management 1 January 1999.
[8] Steven A. Matthews . Renegotiating Moral Hazard Contracts under Limited Liability and Monotonicity . Journal of Economic Theory 97,1-29.2001.
[9] Rohan Pitchford, Moral Hazard and limited liability, Economics Letters 61,251-259,1998.
[10] Kunal Sengupta , Limited liability: moral hazard and share tenancy Journal of Development Economics vol.52,393-407,1997.
[11] Wing Suen,Risk Avoidance under limited liability, Journal of economic theory 65,627-634,1995.
[12] Tridip Ray and Nirvikar Singh, Limited liability, contractual choice and the tenancy ladder, Journal of Development Economics vol,66,289-303,2001.
[13] Kaushik Basu , Clive Bell and Pinaki Bose, Interlinkage .limited liability and strategic interaction Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization vol.42,445-462,2000.
[14] Steven Shavell .The optimal level of corporate liability given the limited ability of corporations to penalize their employees .International Review of law and economics 17,203-213,1997.
[15] S. Deakin and A. Hughs,(1999)Economic Efficiency and the Proceduralisation of Company Law,3 CfiLR 169.
[16] C.Maughan and S.Copp,(2000)Company Law Reform and Economic Methodology Revisited 21 Co Law 14.
[17] Robert W. Hamilton (1991)The Law of corporation in a Nutshell, West Publishing Co.,3rd Ed.
[18] Posner(1976) 43 Univ. Chicago L.R.P521.
[19] Ross Grantham,the Judicial Extension of Directors ' Duties to Creditors,the Journal of Business Law, 1991.
[20] Razeen Sappideen fiduciary Obligation to Corporate Creditors,the Journal of Business Law, 1991.
[21] P.Halpern, M.Trebilcock and S .Turnbull, An Economic Analysis of Limited Liability in Corporation Law (1980) 30 U of Toronto .
[ 22 ] Bernard F.Cataldo, Limited Liability with One Man Companies and Subsidiary Corporations, (1953)18 Law and Contemporary Problems.
[23] Ramsay, Holding Company Liability for the Debts of An Insolvent Subsidiary A Law and Economics Perspective,(1994) 17(2)UNSW LJ.
[ 24 ] J.Farrar, Legal Issues Involving Corporate Groups,(1998) 16 C&SLJ 184. [25] R. Goode, Principles of Corporate, Insolvency Law(2nd edn1997).
[26] The Law Commission ReportLC272-jointly wish The Scottish Law Commission :SLC184(July ,2001)s.I (1),(3).
[27] Martin. Stepher & David parker. The impact of privatization ownership and corporate in the UK,Rontledge,1997.
[28] Rafael La Porta. Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes. Shleifer.Corporate ownership around the world,The Journal of Finance,April,1999.
[29] Edmunds v.Brown & Tilard(1668) I Lev.237.Salmon v.The hamborugh Co. I Ch.Cas.204.H.L. 1671.
[30] L.C.B.Gower. Principles of Modern Company Law[J]4th Stevens. 1979.
[31] Quoted by A.L.Diamond in Orhnia(Ed.) .Limited Liability and the corporation[J] 1982 .
[32] F.H.Easterbook and D.R.Fischel.The Economic Structure of Corporate Law[J].1991.
[33] C. Maughan and S. Copp, The Law Commission and Economic Methodology: Values Efficiency and Directors' Duties,20 Co Law 109.1999.
[34] Coase,R.H,The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics,3,1960.