Stewardship Theory
From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Stewardship Theory as edited by Progressingamerica (Talk | contribs) at 17:27, November 24, 2019. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.
In business, the Stewardship Theory is where the shareholder interests require protection by separation of incumbency of roles of board chair and CEO[1][2].
In politics, a president following the theory of Stewardship does not only those things the Constitution commands him to do, but may also do anything at all that in his judgment serves the general welfare "unless he is expressly forbidden not to do it" by the Constitution[3]. This model of Presidential conduct as well as the modern presidency is found in Theodore Roosevelt,[4][5] who routinely used unilateral presidential action to pursue his progressive agenda. In his view, the office of the President was as a "Bully Pulpit".
Further reading
- Robinson, Randall L. The Stewardship Theory of the Presidency: Theodore Roosevelt's Political Theory of Republican Progressive Statemanship and the Foundation of the Modern Presidency (1997).
References
- ↑ Donaldson, Lex; Davis, James H. (June 1991). "Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns". Australian Journal of Management 16.
- ↑ Stewardship Theory of Corporate Governance. Houston Chronicle.
- ↑ (Apr 16, 2009) The Dilemma of Progressivism: How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 136–137. ISBN 978-0742560741.
- ↑ (Nov 1, 2010) The Myth of the Modern Presidency. Penn State Press, 19-20. ISBN 978-0271013176.
- ↑ (1916) Our chief magistrate and his powers. Columbia University Press, 139-140. “The true view of the Executive functions is, as I conceive it, that the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise. Such specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest, and there is nothing in the Neagle case and its definition of a law of the United States, or in other precedents, warranting such an inference.”
