ABSTRACT
In the debate about the most appropriate institutions for business, sweeping claims are regularly made. In the 1990s, the institutions of the Anglo-Saxon model seemed to dominate and the (public) firm aimed at ‘shareholder’ value was proclaimed to be the most successful. Critics of this model often reiterated a set of drawbacks of the model, such as low trust, high transaction costs (due to litigation) and great uncertainty (particularly for small shareholders). But the strongest criticism, in practice, came from equally successful contenders from continental Europe and Asia who employed different societal models featuring different business institutions (for instance private firms) aimed at creating so-called ‘stakeholder’ value and in which governments played a more active role. To what extent do countries display similarities and/or divergence in their models?
