Conventional wisdom warns that unaccountable political and business
agents can enrich a few at the expense of many. But logically extending
this wisdom implies that associated principals - voters, consumers,
shareholders - will favor themselves over the greater good when 'rules
of the game' instead create too much accountability. Democratic
Governance and Economic Performance rigorously develops this hypothesis,
and finds statistical evidence and case study illustrations that
democratic institutions at various governance levels (e.g., federal,
state, corporation) have facilitated opportunistic gains for electoral,
consumer, and shareholder principals. To be sure, this conclusion does
not dismiss the potential for democratic governance to productively
reduce agency costs. Rather, it suggests that policy makers, lawyers,
and managers can improve governance by weighing the agency benefits of
increased accountability against the distributional costs of favoring
principal stakeholders over more general economic opportunities.
Carefully considering the fundamentals that give rise to this tradeoff
should interest students and scholars working at the intersection of
social science and the law, and can help professionals improve their own
performance in policy, legal, and business settings.