ABSTRACT
This chapter extends the relevance of the doctrine into thinking about checking the power of private institutions. It reviews an increasingly coherent body of theory and data on why attempts to deter abuse of power with countervailing power evoke defiance and counter-control. The chapter shows why weak sanctions, especially dialogic ones, generally do better than strong sanctions directed against those who abuse power. It explores that those weak sanctions are least likely to work when directed against those who actually benefit from the abuse of power; they are more likely to work when directed against non-beneficiaries of the abuse who have preventative capabilities. The chapter also shows that plural separations of power both within and between the public and private sectors create the conditions in which dialogic mechanisms to control abuse of power can flourish. It explains what separation of powers means within the private sector.
