In this article,11 The authors would like to convey their special thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. The usual disclaimer applies.
we challenge the (implicit) dogmas of the current trend towards a business rescue culture within Europe.22 See, for example, the Draft Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance, and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency, and discharge procedures COM(2016) 723 Final (22 November 2016).
It is unclear why this trend – as a logical consequence of the desire to create increasingly debtor friendly insolvency regimes – keeps revealing and reinforcing itself in this time frame. Many different approaches take this concept for granted. The idea thus risks becoming an end in itself. The assumptions behind the current trend of business rescue culture should reflect the stylized facts of a firm embedded in its business ecology. An implicit dogma of current business rescue culture is that a firm is an entity that must survive and will create value indefinitely and, accordingly, deserves a second chance. However, the ability to create value and therefore the viability of a firm are the outcome of an uncertain economic process. Capitalism is a process of trial and error. Failure is a normal outcome and should be considered an essential part of capitalism. In general, the life span of firms is finite because they have to cope with many uncertainties and trade‐offs. The firm itself is only a tiny temporary (legal) shell within a self‐organized value chain that continuously reallocates resources as competition intensifies and the rate of innovation accelerates.33 Michael Mauboussin and Alexander Schay, “Innovation and Markets: How Innovation Affects the Investing Process” (Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, 2000).
The implicit assumptions or dogmas of the current business rescue culture contradict the accelerating destructive forces of capitalism and therefore can be labelled as an anachronism. Instead of focusing on the specific micro‐level of the firm, insolvency regimes should aim to provide a solution at the higher meso‐level. Copyright © 2018 The Authors International Insolvency Review published by INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

中文翻译：

---

商业救援文化的（隐性）教条

在本文中，11作者要特别感谢两位匿名审稿人的宝贵意见。通常免责声明适用。
我们向当前在欧洲开展业务救援文化的趋势的（隐性）教条提出挑战。22例如，参见关于预防性重组框架，第二次机会以及提高重组，破产和解除程序效率的措施的指令草案COM（2016）723 Final（2016年11月22日）。
目前尚不清楚为什么这种趋势（由于渴望建立对债务人越来越友好的破产制度的合乎逻辑的结果）在这个时限内不断显示和加强自身。许多不同的方法将这一概念视为理所当然。因此，这种想法本身就有可能成为目的。当前企业营救文化趋势背后的假设应反映出企业嵌入其商业生态的典型事实。当前企业营救文化的一个隐含的教条是，企业是一个必须生存并无限期创造价值的实体，因此值得第二次机会。但是，创造价值的能力以及企业的生存能力是不确定的经济过程的结果。资本主义是一个反复试验的过程。失败是正常的结果，应被视为资本主义的重要组成部分。通常，企业的寿命是有限的，因为它们必须应对许多不确定性和权衡取舍。公司本身只是自组织价值链中的一个很小的临时（法律）外壳，随着竞争的加剧和创新速度的加快，它会不断地重新分配资源。33 Michael Mauboussin和Alexander Schay，“创新与市场：创新如何影响投资过程”（瑞士信贷第一波士顿公司，2000年）。
当前商业营救文化的隐含假设或教条与资本主义的加速破坏力相矛盾，因此可以被称为过时主义。破产制度不应只关注公司的特定微观层面，而应着眼于在更高的介观层面上提供解决方案。版权所有©2018《作者国际破产评论》，由INSOL International和John Wiley＆Sons，Ltd.出版。