[88]

If it’s widely accepted that placing more women on corporate boards delivers better results for companies, then investors will push companies to do just that.

Those that fail to do so will see their share price lag behind their competitors.

[hectorlorenzo]

I understand now. However, I think it unfairly assumes that markets are run (or executed?) by rational actors that always make optimal decisions without getting bogged down by biases or passed down wisdom.

[ericmay]

Sure, but then you’re replacing that with assuming the government is making the optimal decision and not being bogged down by biases or politically expedient self-serving moves.

Given that the feedback loop for government actions is slow and often time indirect, I’m not sure the government is making the best decision either.

[hectorlorenzo]

I don't think I ever said that passing this law was correct or that governments were free from bias. I just questioned whether it was a good idea to let markets make decisions and expect them to be optimal, or whether optimising for competitive advantage is inherently good.

[shaftoe]

I think it's similarly fair to question whether it is a good idea to let governments make decisions and expect them to be optimal, or whether optimizing for equity in outcome is inherently good.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Why do you think corporations aren't part of the government?

They certainly have huge influence over policy. IMO it's extremely superficial to believe that just because they're not part of the official party political process they're somehow not in a senior leadership role.

[hectorlorenzo]

I agree.