 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
|
 Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are the four theories of the origians of a state?
[edit] Controversy?
This article needs some factual touch-ups which I'll try to fix in the next couple of days, but I have one question. The final line states that legal origins is controversial among financial economists and scholar of corporate law. I'm not sure that's entirely correct, particularly since it's without a source. That was likely true after the first few years when LLSV published their first article ("Legal Determinants of External Finance") in 1997, but I'm not sure that in 2010 this is accurate anymore. My reading of the literature generally is that the overwhelming majority of financial economists accept the proposition of legal origins whereas scholars of corporate law who are not economists generally have far greater disagreement over the legal origins position. From what I read, in the circles of financial economists the debate is generally how great the effect is and on the issues of legal convergence, and even large consensus on that is emerging in recent years. Is it really true there is still hot debate among financial economists because I just don't see that? Seelum (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
