In his recent book on Property, Power and Politics, Jean-Philippe Robé makes a strong case for the need to understand the legal foundations of modern capitalism. He also insists that it is important to distinguish between firms and corporations. We agree. But Robé criticizes our definition of firms in terms of legally recognized capacities on the grounds that it does not take the distinction seriously enough. He argues that firms are not legally recognized as such, as the law only knows corporations. This argument, which is capable of different interpretations, leads to the bizarre result that corporations are not firms. Using etymological and other evidence, we show that firms are treated as legally constituted business entities in both common parlance and legal discourse. The way the law defines firms and corporations, while the product of a discourse which is in many ways distinct from everyday language, has such profound implications for the way firms operate in practice that no institutional theory of the firm worthy of the name can afford to ignore it.

中文翻译：

---

什么是公司？回复让-菲利普·罗贝

在他最近的书中财产、权力和政治, 让-菲利普·罗贝 (Jean-Philippe Robé) 为理解现代资本主义法律基础的必要性提供了强有力的理由。他还坚持认为区分公司和公司很重要。我们同意。但罗贝批评了我们根据法律承认的能力对公司的定义，理由是它没有足够认真地对待这种区别。他认为公司在法律上不被承认，因为法律只知道公司。这种可以有不同解释的论点导致了公司不是公司的奇怪结果。使用词源和其他证据，我们表明，无论是在普通用语还是法律话语中，公司都被视为合法构成的商业实体。法律定义公司和公司的方式，