您所在的位置: 首頁» 新聞中心» 公告通知» 學術讲座

全球教席“云课堂” —— 张泰苏:国家建设与商业公司的兴起

全球教席“雲課堂”14講
 
題目:國家建設與商業公司的興起 State Building and the Emergence of the Business Corporation
 
时间:2020 年 11 月 7 日(周六)10:00-12:00
 
腾讯会议 ID:117 906 464
 
開講學者:
張泰蘇(美國耶魯大學法學教授
 
主持人:
章永樂(盛兴彩票副教授
 
評議人:
陳若英(盛兴彩票副教授
 
戴昕(盛兴彩票副教授
 
開講學者簡介:
 
 
  张泰苏教授为美國耶魯大學法學教授,其主要研究方向为比较法律史与经济史、私法理论以及当代中国法律与政治。张教授先后在耶鲁大学获得了历史和数学学士学位、法律博士学位和历史学博士学位;曾任杜克大学法学院副教授,并有执教布朗大学、盛兴彩票、清华大学法学院和香港大学的经历;曾任中国法律与历史国际协会会长。代表性學術成果有专著《儒家法律和经济学:前工业革命时期中英的亲属与财产关系》,该书由剑桥大学出版社出版,并于 2018 年获得了美国社会科学历史学会颁发的主席奖以及耶鲁大学麦克米伦国际与地区研究中心颁发的盖迪斯·史密斯图书奖。作为其前身的博士论文此前曾获耶鲁大学亚瑟和玛丽·莱特博士论文奖以及美国法律史协会凯瑟琳·普莱尔奖。其第二部著作《清代财政国家的思想基础》正在成稿中。张泰苏教授就广泛的研究主题发表过文章、论文和书籍,赢得了多个學術组织的奖项。
 
Taisu Zhang is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School and works on comparative legal and economic history, private law theory, and contemporary Chinese law and politics. Professor Zhang holds three degrees from Yale: a B.A. in History and Mathematics, a J.D., and a Ph.D. in History. Prior to joining the Yale faculty, Professor Zhang was an Associate Professor at the Duke University School of Law, and has taught at Brown University, Peking University Law School, the Tsinghua University School of Law, and the University of Hong Kong. He was the Immediate Past President of the International Society for Chinese Law and History. His first book, The Laws and Economics of Confucianism: Kinship and Property in Pre-Industrial China and England, was published by Cambridge University Press, and received the 2018 Presidents Award from the Social Science History Association and the 2018 Gaddis Smith Book Prize from the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies. In dissertation form, it was the recipient of Yale University’s Arthur and Mary Wright Dissertation Prize and the American Society for Legal History’s Kathryn T. Preyer Award. A second book, The Ideological Foundations of the Qing Fiscal State, is in progress. He has published articles, essays, and book chapters on a wide array of topics, winning awards from several academic organizations, and is a regular commentator on Chinese law, society, and politics in media outlets. 
 
講座摘要:
對現代商業公司之興起的既有解釋可分爲兩類:一是從需求側出發,強調區域間貿易和商業化作用,二是從供給側出發,強調國家對保護公司資産作出可信承諾的能力。本文並不否認這些需求和供給方面的條件對于現代公司的興起而言是存在的因素,但認爲這兩種解釋在以下兩個方面是不完善的:首先,需求側的條件需要以更一般化的、理論上更抽象的術語來描述,以便把握住現代公司在與長途貿易基本無關的經濟情境中所具有的持續的吸引力;其次,而且更重要的是,既有的解釋忽略了現代國家建設對于公司形式的積極貢獻。通過爲公司提供執行並購和投資協議所必需的法律和行政基礎,現代國家也爲公司的發展作出了積極貢獻,甚至可以說,現代公司的崛起有賴于,並將繼續依賴于現代國家的建設。公司發展尤其有賴于一個具有強大信息和執行能力的專業化司法系統的創建。針對這些理論欠缺,本文將闡述一個理論框架,既承認國家對于商業公司的興起所發揮的積極作用,也對需求側的條件進行了更爲系統的描述。通過將這一框架應用于中國、奧斯曼、德國、英國、荷蘭和美國這幾大曆史性法律體系,本文認爲它比先前存在的理論更好地解釋了近代和現代早期公司制度的一般發展進程。既有理論中所認定的需求和供給方面的條件並未被摒棄,而是以一種理論上更爲提純的形式,重組到這一模型之中。
 
Preexisting accounts about the emergence of the modern business corporation come in two varieties: demand-side accounts that largely emphasize the role played by inter-regional trade and commercialization, and supply-side accounts that emphasize the state’s ability to make credible commitments towards protecting corporate assets. While we do not deny that these demand and supply side conditions existed for the emergence of the modern corporation, we argue that they are incomplete in two ways. First, the demand side conditions need to be laid out in more generalized and theoretically abstract terms, in order to capture the modern corporation’s continued appeal in economic contexts that have little to do with long distance trade. Second, and more importantly, preexisting accounts overlook the positive contributions of modern state-building to the corporate form. Modern states also contributed positively to corporate development by supplying the legal and administrative infrastructure necessary to enforce incorporation and investment agreements, so much so that the rise of modern corporations depended—and continues to depend—on modern state building. In particular, it depended on the creation of professionalized judicial systems with strong informational and enforcement capacities. In response to these gaps, we construct, in this article, a theoretical framework that recognizes a more positive role for the state, while also giving a more systemic account of demand side conditions. Applying it to several major historical legal systems—Chinese, Ottoman, German, English, Dutch, and American—we argue that it does a better job of explaining the general chronology of corporate institutions in early modern and modern history than preexisting theories. The demand and supply side conditions identified in those theories are not discarded, but are instead folded into this model in a more theoretically distilled form.
 
 
 
 
對外事務辦公室
2020年10月30日