公司制度趋同理论检视下的中国公司治理评析

公司治理全球趋同理论是国际公司法学界在上世纪90年代发起的阶段性议题。趋同论与多元论的广泛交锋、股东中心主义模式与利益相关人模式的优劣权衡、竞争压力假说与路径依赖假说的鲜明对比、法律移植假说与境外上市推动假说的切磋琢磨等多处论战令人印象深刻，也广泛检视了现代公司治理领域的多项命题。该理论也是我国公司法近十年来立法演进与理念变革最重要的域外理论背景之一，为2005公司法修订、独立董事制度引入、股权分置改革、并购重组创新、境外上市、公司社会责任理念深化等公司治理标志性探索直接或间接贡献了理论资源。趋同论与本土论相互制约和共同影响下的近十年中国公司治理总体呈现出一定的英美化转向，与此同时，它也将长期接受来自诸如家族文化与官僚文化、习惯性漠视少数股东利益以及股权结构过度集中等与英美经验暂时难以化约的中国本土现实的挑战。跳出趋同或者多元的概念层面的争论，尊重公司治理规则的国际共识，拓展和优化对先进经验的学习路径，专注于本土问题的解决，也许是当下应当持有的态度。

Chinese Corporate Governance under the Convergence Theory

Global convergence in corporate governance has been the topic raised and discussed among international jurisprudence of company law since 1990s. Debates from multiple perspectives have been launched around the topic such as convergence argument versus divergence argument, shareholder-oriented model versus stakeholder-oriented model, Darwinian competition force theory versus political path dependence theory, legal transplant hypothesis versus convergence at the level of securities regulations through corporate migrant, which have been particularly impressive, surveying modern issues on corporate governance widely. Thus convergence theory has been arguably considered as one of the most influential theoretical backgrounds from extraterritorial jurisdictions for a decade, contributing theoretical resources to the occurrence of landmark events for Chinese corporate governance, including, without limitation, the revision of the company law in 2005, introducing independent director system, non-tradable share reform, innovation for mergers and acquisitions, etc.Convergence argument actually mirrors the growing consensus that Anglo-American corporate governance doctrine increasingly prevails all over the world with increasingly prominent competitive edge of Anglo-Saxon economy over others. Turning to the direction of Anglo-American trend in recent ten years under the resultant of both convergence and divergence theory, Chinese corporate governance will chronically be challenged by native practices such as familism and bureaucratism cultural traditions, accustomization to despising minority shareholders, morbidly concentrated ownership structure, etc. As for the reasonable response currently, we should abandon the conceptual controversy about convergence or divergence, respecting international consensus on corporate governance doctrine, while focus on home-grown problems, drawing on the experience of the advanced jurisdictions further.