The company is a legal structure designed to bring together the different parties of a firm—its employees, investors, customers, and suppliers—in the delivery of its corporate purpose. Corporations were established as institutions with autonomous lives—self standing, legal entities independent of those who worked, financed, and managed them. They were devices to ensure long-term commitment to shared goals and risks, with reciprocal obligations on those engaged in them. A company had to declare its purpose before earning a licence to trade. For example, the East India Company, England’s earliest public company, to issue shares to the public as permanent capital, was given the monopoly for English trade in Asia with reciprocal obligations to protect trade along its routes. There was a mutual relationship between the company and society and a mutual benefit to both. This was carried through to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with canal and railway companies operating under charter to deliver on a public purpose. It was with freedom of incorporation in the middle of the nineteenth century that the focus on public purpose gave way to private interest. Nevertheless, public benefit remained at the heart of many private companies, with the families who owned them, such as Cadbury and Rowntree’s, having an interest in wider social purpose beyond pure financial gain. However, to meet the needs for growth in industrial firms in the twentieth century, equity was issued for internal investment and acquisition that diluted these families to the point that they lost control of their companies. Public markets provided capital that promoted economic development and brought transparency to what were previously opaque private firms. However, this came at a price in the separation of ownership from the control of firms. With the separation of ownership and control came a concern, expressed most forcefully by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property, about the need for shareholders to reassert their authority over corporations to ensure that they were run in the interest of their owners, not the self-interest of their managers. The truth, largely forgotten, is that this argument was embedded in a larger vision that wanted economic and political power, in all its guises, to be exercised to benefit the community at large. This pluralist frame of reference subsequently fell out of view, with consequences that reverberate today. So was born what has become a preoccupation ever since with the “agency problem” in the modern corporation of aligning the interests of managers with those of their shareholders to avoid unprofitable growth or undue complacency.

Securing high value and critical assets is one of the biggest challenges facing this nation and others around the world. In modern integrated systems, there are four potential modes of attack available to an adversary: 1 physical only attack, 2 cyber only attack, 3 physical-enabled cyber attack, 4 cyber-enabled physical attack. Blended attacks involve an adversary working in one domain to reduce system effectiveness in another domain. This enables the attacker to penetrate further into the overall layered defenses. Existing vulnerability assessment (VA) processes and software tools which predict facility vulnerabilities typically evaluate the physical and cyber domains separately. Vulnerabilities which result from the integration of cyber-physical control systems are not well characterized and are often overlooked by existing assessment approaches. In this paper, we modified modification of the timely detection methodology, used for decades in physical security VAs, to include cyber components. The Physical and Cyber Risk Analysis Tool (PACRAT) prototype illustrates an integrated vulnerability assessment that includes cyber-physical interdependencies. Information about facility layout, network topology, and emplaced safeguards is used to evaluate how well suited a facility is to detect, delay, and respond to attacks, to identify the pathways most vulnerable to attack, and to evaluate how often safeguards are compromised for a given threat or adversary type. We have tested the PACRAT prototype on critical infrastructure facilities and the results are promising. Future work includes extending the model to prescribe the recommended security improvements via an automated cost-benefit analysis.

The Political QuarterlyVolume 84, Issue 4 p. 442-443 The Political Quarterly Lecture 2013 Dodging the Real Arguments—A Response to John Kay WILL HUTTON, WILL HUTTON Principal of Hertford College, Chair of the Big Innovation Centre and an Observer columnistSearch for more papers by this author WILL HUTTON, WILL HUTTON Principal of Hertford College, Chair of the Big Innovation Centre and an Observer columnistSearch for more papers by this author First published: 13 December 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2013.12044.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume84, Issue4October-December 2013Pages 442-443 RelatedInformation

Tony Blair's speech challenged the media over its standards in his valedictory lecture. Many of his charges about the absence of balance, attacks on motive and a pack mentality stand up, even if some are exaggerated and also applied well before his arrival in 10 Downing Street. Mr Blair's solutions did ot match his critique. What is required is a more self‐questioning media, being held to account on the internet and on specialist blogging sites. Vigorous criticism, requiring justification, is a more credible rout than tighter regulation.Tony Blair's speech on the changing pressures on the media is both interesting and convincing in its diagnosis (although generally reported in ways that did not reveal this). It is less convincing in suggestions for change: the fact that on‐line media will fall under Of‐com, and so under its minimal ‘content regulation’ will have little impact. Effective change could begin with other types of (self or other regulation). Some steps towards change might include minimal requirements for journalists and editors to accept elementary forms of accountability, such as disclosing conflicts of interest and payments made for ‘stories’.The scale of media coverage may be crucial in determining the allocation of aid, yet the attention the media pays to particular causes is arbitrary. Many serious disasters are not reported and as a consequence do not receive adequate aid, so that the victims of the crisis will lose out. Chronic long term problems, like famine, are ignored in favour of ‘sudden emergencies’. Reporting seeks sensation and simple stories which influences the way that aid agencies respond to the media. The complex background to a faraway disaster is often overlooked and not properly reported.Tony Blair's speech describing some of the news media as ‘feral beasts’ contained one paragraph which contained an insight into his views on new media.It was known that the outgoing Prime Minister was uncomfortable with some aspects of new technology but his remarks reveal a wider disappointment with how new media has failed to deliver changes which he had hoped for in political communications.This paper records Mr Blair's problems with new media and argues that by focusing on how the new technologies might provide a better way for politicians to by‐pass the traditional media he has missed the point of their wider benefits.

The Political QuarterlyVolume 70, Issue s1 p. 97-102 New Keynesianism and New Labour Will Hutton, The ObserverSearch for more papers by this author Will Hutton, The ObserverSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 December 2002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.70.s1.9Citations: 10AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume70, Issues1Special Issue, 1999Pages 97-102 RelatedInformation

Is there now a new and sustainable model for cities and, indeed, for society as a whole? Is that what all the talk about sustainability, empowerment, stakeholders, partnership, the third sector is essentially about? Or are these terms elements of a new rhetoric that seems, but only seems, to point in that direction? We publish here further extracts from our conference1 which addressed these issues. In the first section below, ‘Toward social regeneration’, Paul Corrigan, Alain Lipietz and Will Hutton explore the nature of the problems presented by the public and private sectors and seek to clarify, in this context, the nature and potential of the third sector and of a stakeholding economy/society. In the second section, ‘Architecture and society at an impasse’, we seek to apply the above considerations to two recent stages in the development of Tower Hamlets, an area with a large Bangladeshi population in East London, through the experience of two architects, Richard MacCormac and Ian Ritchie, and of a local councillor, Michael Keith. In the third section, ‘Everyday realities and urban change’, Alison Ravetz makes use of a long involvement in community action in Leeds in order to clarify further the possibilities for, and obstacles to, urban and social regeneration.

The Political QuarterlyVolume 68, Issue 1 p. 85-87 Can the Treasury Culture Change? Will Hutton, Will Hutton The ObserverSearch for more papers by this author Will Hutton, Will Hutton The ObserverSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 December 2002 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.00068Citations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume68, Issue1January–March 1997Pages 85-87 RelatedInformation

Will Hutton is one of the leading proponents of the stakeholding concept. He originally set out his ideas in an earlier book, “The State We’re In”. In this article, he summarises the arguments contained in his latest book, “The State to Come”. He discusses six stakeholding propositions: the same value systems apply in employment and other spheres of life; macroeconomic policy needs to tighten the demand for labour; a market economy needs democratic institutions that generate social capital, particularly trust; businesses function best on the basis of internal commitment and trust; “intermediate institutions” like universities need to generate social capital and provide a long‐term perspective; and systems of social insurance and distribution of risk must be fair and inclusive.

Is there now a new and sustainable model for cities and, indeed, for society as a whole? Is that what all the talk about sustainability, empowerment, stakeholders, partnership, the third sector is essentially about? Or are these terms elements of a new rhetoric that seems, but only seems, to point in that direction? We publish here two extracts from our conference (of the above title) of 21–22 May 1996 which addressed these issues. Bob Catterall, Alain Lipietz, Will Hutton and Herbie Girardet sketch out the territory we are covering and George Monbiot sets out one course of action that addresses the problems and the possibilities.

We often talk about ‘the capitalist city’ or ‘... society’ or ‘... economy’ as though these were homogeneous. But Will Hutton's three programmes on the City for BBC Radio cast light on different forms of regulation in capitalism and the different kinds of results they have. Though the programmes do not focus on the kinds of cities which get produced under these forms of regulation, they do show how the City and the UK banking system disregard locality, minimize local knowledge and thus inhibit locally‐generated growth.

New EconomyVolume 3, Issue 3 p. 143-149 New Labour, New Economy This journal has presented a wealth of fresh ideas for a new government WILL HUTTON, WILL HUTTON Hutton is editor of the Observer and was the former economics editoof the Guardian: Corry is the editor of New EconomySearch for more papers by this authorDAN CORRY, DAN CORRY Hutton is editor of the Observer and was the former economics editoof the Guardian: Corry is the editor of New EconomySearch for more papers by this author WILL HUTTON, WILL HUTTON Hutton is editor of the Observer and was the former economics editoof the Guardian: Corry is the editor of New EconomySearch for more papers by this authorDAN CORRY, DAN CORRY Hutton is editor of the Observer and was the former economics editoof the Guardian: Corry is the editor of New EconomySearch for more papers by this author First published: September 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0041.1996.tb00132.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume3, Issue3September 1996Pages 143-149 RelatedInformation

A critical contemporary characteristic of the societies of the UK and other OECD countries is their fissuring into three segments: a disadvantaged population; a marginalized and newly insecure population; and a group that is still advantaged but whose status is under threat. The societies that result from this split can be characterized as 30-30-40 societies. In this lecture I shall first outline the principal cleavages in such societies paring particular attention to the case of Britain. I shall then outline the factors that explain these social divisions. As I shall argue, the immediate causes of the 30-30-40 split lie in the structure and dynamics of the labour market but the evolution of the labour market itself reflects a number of other international and national factors. In the third section I shall outline some of the additional factors that generate exclusion. Finally in the conclusion I shall refer to the connections between these mechanisms and the way in which Britain is governed.

New EconomyVolume 1, Issue 4 p. 207-212 Reviving Bretton Woods: Social democracy needs a new international exchange rate regime WILL HUTTON, WILL HUTTON Economics editor of The Guardian newspaperSearch for more papers by this author WILL HUTTON, WILL HUTTON Economics editor of The Guardian newspaperSearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0041.1994.tb00031.xCitations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume1, Issue4December 1994Pages 207-212 RelatedInformation