Summary of Articles
The two articles talk of corporate organizations and problems they face regionally and in the global market. The business environment has changed leading many corporate organizations to experience problems related to their management. The article by The Economist (2012) highlights the endangered companies from the perspective of their performance. Public companies no-longer support the high number of employees like initially making it difficult to thrive in tough economic times. This has continuously declined their performance and created new opportunities for their competitors such as private, multinational companies. On the other hand, Diamond’s (2012) article on corporate personhood reconsidered is about the treatments corporate gives to its employees leading to frequent strikes and lack of improved working conditions. The author of the article argued that the personalization of corporate and the boards of directors works in managing the institution for their own benefits without considering the status of other stakeholders.
Similarities
Despite the two articles written by two different authors who had different perspectives on the corporate world, they managed to pinpoint some problems facing the current corporate organizations. Both authors had reasons in explaining challenges that organizations face; affects their performances making them competitively disadvantage leading to their collapse. According to Diamond (2012), the corporate is no longer meant for shareholders but personalization leading to more problems. Those in power and manages the organizations have personalized the corporate and introduced some practices, which do not associate with the corporate culture. This has continuously affected the growth pattern, as stakeholders do not participate in discussing some of the arising issues. On the other hand, The Economist (2012) argued on the declining performances of the public societies, as they no longer offload their offers to the public for the initial purchase. The author argues that this has been because of the rise of economic powers, policy makers, and the emergence of private companies. They have created an unfavorable environment for public companies to perform.
The two articles mention the role of government as distinctive in shaping the performance of companies. According to Diamond (2012), courts have influenced the concentration of corporate by protecting them from their stakeholders. This has made it easy for personalization because of court rulings, which gives them protection and all other manners of services. The 14th amendment protects the welfare of the corporate at the expense of their workers leading to economical injustices to the workers in the corporate.
This has lead to continuous slavery of workers because they do not receive protection and lack a body to represent them. However, this argument is contradicting to the role of government as argued by The Economist (2012). His argument is that the government is helping public companies in putting up corporate structures. According to this author, seven of the American states have passed laws allowing companies to register as Special Corporation with their profits channeled to social benefits. There are different views and arguments from the two authors on the role of the government. As one author disguises the role of government in promoting the wellbeing of its people, the other feels the government is doing enough in ensuring corporate meets the standards and adheres to laws.
Differences
The argument in the article by The Economist (2012) failed to give a solution to the problem facing public companies. It touched on investors as the owners of the public companies and their right of kicking out the managers in case they do not perform. This is not a clear way of resolving the problem affecting the public companies, but there are various ways, which can give a solution to the challenge experienced by public companies. Striking a balance in the business can help in meeting market demand hence improving the company’s performance. According to The Economist, this may provide a solution to some extent but may not solve the incumbent issues that public companies face. Diamond (2012) was categorical in his essay by pointing at the genesis of the corporate personhood. The author argues that the court ruling on “Santa Clara” is responsible for discouraging generations in exploring the relationships between the current problems incorporate and social history. He acknowledges that revising the court ruling and giving the shareholders the mandate can be the best solution n correcting the current practices in the corporate enterprises. The landmark ruling of the court bears a negative impact on the performances of the corporate as well as the relationships between the company and its stakeholders.
Diamond (2012) based his argument on one case study revolving around “Santa Clara” to generalize the whole idea that corporations are personhood. He based his arguments on the Supreme Court ruling passed in 1886, which is far much behind since things and decisions keep on changing from time to time. He generalized his arguments on surpassed court decisions and without acknowledging the dynamic economic environment. Despite the author using the court case to put his argument forward, he pointed out some of the key issues why he thinks the same. He has shown how powerful “santa clara” was and how it had centralized governance with its hundreds of shareholders. On the other hand, the article by The Economist (2012) has explained in detail the genesis of most companies collapsing. The author has named the companies in making his argument strong and stating their reaction. According to the author’s discussion, he traced the collapse of the public companies from the year 2001 with the collapse of most prominent companies in America. The author notes that the collapse of the large companies led to private companies growing. The argument by the author is extremely strong and convincing in tracing the collapse of public companies in America.
The article by The Economist (2012) has presented facts in a precise and clear manner for understanding. In his presentation, he has traced the public companies and presented facts in justifying his argument and making a conclusion. In his discussion, the author used visual representation and graphs in explaining the US stock markets. This clearly shows how knowledgeable the author as he presented the performance of different public companies. It showed the amount of money the US received from the last decade when the stocks were active. Similarly, he has outlined the decreasing trend in the number of public companies in the US. This argument is convincing and extremely strong as it gives the facts needed in giving a full explanation. This is in contrast with the article authored by Diamond (2012) who based his argument on one company without relating it with others. His argument leaves some questions since it does not present believable facts. Similarly, it cannot be used in generalizing that all corporations are people because it focused on one company.
References
Diamond, S. (2012). Occupy Santa Clara! Corporate personhood reconsidered.Dissent Magazine. Web.
The Economist (2012). The endangered public company. Web.