Refine
Year of publication
- 1996 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (6) (remove)
Institute
The corporate governance systems in Europe differ markedly. Economists tend to use stylized models and distinguish between the Anglo-American, the German and the Latinist model.1 In this view, for instance, the Austrian, Dutch, German, and Swiss systems are said to be variations of one model. For lawyers the picture is of course, much more detailed as particular rules may vary even where common principles prevail. Many comparative studies on these differences have been undertaken meanwhile.2 I do not want to add another study but to treat a different question. Are there as a consequence of growing internationalization, globalization of markets and technological change, also tendencies of convergence of our corporate governance systems? My answer will be in two parts. As corporate governance systems are traditionally mainly shaped by legislation, the first part will analyze the influence of the economic and technological change on the rule-setting process itself. How does this process react to the fundamental environmental change? That includes a short analysis of the solution of centralized harmonizing of company law within the EU as well as the question of whether EU-wide competition between national corporate law legislators can be observed or be expected in the future. The second part will then turn to the national level. It deals with actual tendencies of convergence or, more correctly, of approach by the German corporate governance system to the Anglo-American one.
The previous proposal for a company law directive on takeovers in 1990 was rejected in Germany almost unanimously for several different reasons. The new "slimmed down" draft proposal, in the light of the subsidiarity principle, takes the different approaches to investorprotection in the various member states better into account. Notably, the most controversial principle of the previous draft, viz. the mandatory bid rule as the only means of investorprotection in case of a change of control, has been given up. Therefore a much higher degree of acceptance seems likely. The Bundesrat (upper house) and the industry associations have already expressed their consent; the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) will deal with the proposal shortly. The technique of a "frame directive" leaves ample leeway for the member states. That will shift the discussion back to the national level and there will lead to the question as to how to make use of this leeway (cf. II, III, below) rather than to a debate about principles as in the past. It seems likely that criticism will confine itself to more technical questions (cf. IV, below).
Did earnings inequality in the Federal Republic of Germany increase from the 1960s to the 1980s?
(1996)
The political reform process that gathered momentum in eastern and south-eastern Europe during 1987 and 1988 was accompanied by a growing exodus of ethnic and cultural Germans (Aussiedler) who sought resettlement in West Germany. The Aussiedler were welcomed enthusiastically by Chancellor Kohl as fellow German compatriots who would be a benefit to the economy. The opposition SPD voiced its concerns over the government's motives for maintaining the open-door Aussiedler immigration policy and over the likely integration difficulties. The government sought to respond to public concerns in 1988 by reassessing its Aussiedler policy. It decided firstly to continue the open-door Aussiedler policy (as a constitutional right), secondly to implement an Aussiedler integration assistance programme and thirdly to seek to persuade potential Aussiedler not to emigrate to West Germany. The thesis adopts a multi-disciplinary approach to analysing the government's open-door Aussiedler policy during the period 1988 to 1992, formulating the political and public concerns over the Aussiedler policy into three main research questions. These questions analyse: 1. Whether the government's declared motives for maintaining the open-door Aussiedler policy were justified. 2. Whether the government's optimism over the ability of Aussiedler to successfully integrate into the employment market was justified. 3. Whether the government's policy of seeking to persuade potential Soviet Aussiedler to remain in their country, by negotiating on the re-creation of an autonomous German Volga republic, was viable. The findings for these three main questions allow for an assessment of government Aussiedler policy for the period 1988 - 1992. The thesis argues that there was evidence during the period of study to support the argument that the Aussiedler group was to a degree instrumentalised by the government to serve its own political, economic and nationalistic purposes. Government confidence concerning Aussiedler employment integration proved to be too optimistic, as Aussiedler had specific causes of unemployment. Furthermore, the attempt to negotiate the re-creation of an autonomous German republic in Russia was unsuccessful. The exodus has continued.