Re: Mondragon: Mondragon papers

[Dan Bell <dbell@kent.edu>]

Dear Shann,

I agree completely. Depending on what the beholder understands as
as ownership, the term covers a broad spectrum which falls short
of meeting the needs of people who want to develop policy around
governance, financial participation and residual claims and other
possible characteristics often associated with the word ownership.

A typology, as you propose, would allow us to add a modifier before
the word ownership to distinguish several possibilities from one another.
My guess is that there are several forms that would emerge from the
typology which would be worth the attention of public policy to get
into the hands of employees and other stakeholders. There would also
be several forms which would not deserve this.

In fact, the ability to grade different types of ownership, would allow
policymakers to create a spectrum of incentives which correspond to
a spectrum of ownership types, from less meaningful to most meaningful,
and which increase in value.

For example, with ESOPs, retiring owners must sell at least 30% of
the company to the ESOP before benefiting from the ability to defer
indefinitely payment of capital gains tax. It used to be that banks
could only take a tax deduction on interest earned from loans to
ESOPs with pass-through voting rights for participants.

I guess the issue before Race, as our moderator, and the other participants
on the Mondragon list is: Is a discussion of typology something that
will enhance the focus of this group, or will it side-track this
group and thus would it be better to spin it off to a "typology" list?

It would not be difficult for me to set up a typology@cog.kent.edu
list if requested.

Dan

--
Dan Bell
International Program Coordinator
Ohio Employee Ownership Center
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
(330) 672-0333 << Direct number!
(330) 672-3028 general office number
(330) 672-4063 fax
dbell@kent.edu
http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/
http://cog.kent.edu