Are successful businesspeople more like heroes or villains? In fictional accounts, one can find plenty of examples of each, from Charles Dickens’ miserly Ebenezer Scrooge to Ayn Rand’s rugged individualist entrepreneur John Galt. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby Tom Buchanan represents privileged old money, with its ruthlessness and incapacity for empathy, whereas Jay Gatsby is a self-made millionaire with no shortage of sentimentality and idealism.
One finds the same distinctions in social science depictions of entrepreneurs. Political economist Joseph Schumpeter and his followers viewed entrepreneurs as the engines of growth, the heroic figures who delivered “gales of creative destruction.”
By contrast, Frederick Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England heaped scorn on British industrialists who pushed their workers not just into poverty, but into inhumane working and living conditions.
However, he and Karl Marx later made the two roles an essential part of their theory of capitalism: Ruthless businesspeople exploit workers, but also unleash innovation and growth, ultimately transforming society.
These conflicting depictions reflect society’s complex views of business. Obviously, it would be naive to expect all businesspeople to be either heroes or villains. Like most people, they are often both.
Many names that are now associated with philanthropy or higher education originally belonged to the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. Industrial magnates such as John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt showed no compunction about intimidating and acquiring rivals to monopolize their respective markets and increase prices. They were also downright brutal — and sometimes murderous — toward any workers who had the temerity to ask for higher pay or better conditions.
Stanford University founder Leland Stanford was probably even worse. Not only did he and his associates corner the railway construction industry on the US’ Pacific coast; they also concocted a scheme to get taxpayers to pay for it. Stanford also savagely exploited migrant workers, especially Chinese, who labored under conditions so harsh and for pay so low that very few Americans would work for him.
Stanford then jumped into politics to solidify his gains and benefit further at taxpayers’ expense. He strong-armed California’s state legislature and municipal governments into issuing bonds that provided more public money for his railroads. As governor of the state, he organized murderous raids against Native Americans and whipped up hatred against the very Chinese who had been so crucial to his success.
Nowadays, the myth of heroic business no longer has much purchase. Johnson & Johnson, once praised for its proactive product recalls to protect customers, is using a dubious legal maneuver — the “Texas two-step” or “divisional merger” — to avoid paying damages for its marketing and sales of contaminated talcum powder.
The big oil companies, after decades of denying and sowing disinformation about climate change, are now pretending to be committed to environmental activism.
No one is buying the ruse.
Then of course, there is the tech industry, where many entrepreneurs started as idealistic outsiders promising to make the world a better place. Google’s motto was: “Don’t be evil,” but now “big tech” is synonymous with market domination, consumer manipulation, tax avoidance and other abuses. (In 2018, Google removed its motto from the preface of its code of conduct.)
For years, the sector’s biggest players have been acquiring or simply copying new entrants’ products to reinforce their own dominance. A telltale example is Facebook’s purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Internal documents have since shown that these acquisitions were motivated by top executives’ desire to neutralize potential competitors.
Even more questionable are “killer acquisitions”: A company purchases a new technology under the pretense of integrating it into its own ecosystem, only to decommission it entirely. These monopolistic methods come on top of other tried-and-true tactics, such as bundling products to stop users from switching to rival services, as Microsoft did to kill off Netscape, and as Apple has done with its iOS ecosystem.
Last but not least, big tech has benefited massively from unbridled data collection, which allows a dominant player to know much more about consumers than potential rivals do, and to mount formidable barriers to market entry. The result is not just market concentration, but also the mass manipulation of users, sometimes through misleading product offerings and even more often through digital ads.
Fortunately, businesses do not have some incorrigible tendency to misbehave. From the fin de siecle industrialists to corporate bad actors today, the common denominator has been a system that lacks proper checks against abuse. To ensure better behavior and better innovation from companies, the right institutional environment and the right type of regulation need to be provided.
James Robinson and I tried to emphasize this point in Why Nations Fail, when we compared Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Mexican telecommunications tycoon Carlos Slim.
We said that both men had an interest in making as much money with whatever means they could, but Slim could get away with much worse behavior than Gates, owing to the differences between the Mexican and US legal and regulatory regimes.
Looking back, I now think we were too generous to the US. Although US businesses had a stronger incentive than their Mexican counterparts to innovate, there were plenty of ways that they, too, could get away with misbehavior. Opportunities for exploiting the system were already multiplying by the time Microsoft had become a leading company, and they have since become much more endemic, with colossal costs for the US economy.
The tragedy of villainous business behavior is that it is largely preventable. To create the proper balance of guardrails and incentives, people must disabuse themselves of the myth of the heroic entrepreneur and recognize that the gales of creative destruction do not blow automatically.
Only with better regulations and more robust institutions can prosperity be achieved and the most powerful people in society be held accountable for their behavior.
Daron Acemoglu, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is coauthor with James Robinson of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty and The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies and the Fate of Liberty.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Over the past few decades, only judges have been the triers of fact and law in Taiwan’s judiciary. Nevertheless, ordinary people are from next year to have the opportunity to be take on that role in criminal cases, a milestone in Taiwan’s history. The Citizen Judges Act (國民法官法) was passed by the Legislative Yuan on July 22, promulgated by the president on Aug. 12 and is to be implemented on Jan. 1 next year. Under the act, lay people are to be randomly selected as citizen judges who would participate in trial proceedings and adjudicate cases alongside professional judges in
Reports that Taiwan’s semiconductor industry could be considering leaving the country amid rising geopolitical tensions, and in light of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) plans to build factories in the US and Japan, were dismissed last week by Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua (王美花). Wang said that Taiwan has an important chip manufacturing cluster, its capabilities are second to none and no other country could displace Taiwan’s dominance in semiconductors. Wang also downplayed concerns that a number of TSMC engineers relocating to the US for the company’s new plant in Phoenix, Arizona, would lead to talent shortages or a loss
As all are aware by now, United States policy toward Taiwan is guided by three canonical texts: the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. But the State Department now seems to be working with a fourth document which goes by the bland name of “state telegram number 87604” of June 26, 2007, regarding “UN references to Taiwan.” Long dormant, “07 State 87604” seems to have been rediscovered at State Department headquarters in Foggy Bottom. I doubt it will ever be enshrined with the three holy texts, but it now seems to influence American diplomacy toward
The strategically vital city of Kherson is back in the hands of Ukrainians, albeit under threat of Russian shelling and attacks on its electricity supply. However, as combatants on both sides of an increasingly static firing line prepare for a winter war, there are effectively two separate conflicts emerging — one on the land, the other in the air. What can the West do to help Ukraine meet the immediate tactical challenges, and ultimately seize the longer-term advantage? On land, the arrival of a wet, rainy fall and a harsh winter should lead to a decrease in operations. Both Russia and