[We defend Adam Smith's theory of the firm from the standpoint of positive economics. We argue that his evaluation of the joint-stock firm was not moralistic but instead based on available empirical evidence. The record showed that joint-stock companies had a poor survivorship record, even when granted legal monopoly status. His analysis contained an explanation of the role of agency costs within the firm. Finally, he did not discuss the East India Company as an ordinary joint-stock firm but rather as an aberrant form created by government.]

We defend Adam Smith's theory of the firm from the standpoint of positive economics. We argue that his evaluation of the joint-stock firm was not moralistic but instead based on available empirical evidence. The record showed that joint-stock companies had a poor survivorship record, even when granted legal monopoly status. His analysis contained an explanation of the role of agency costs within the firm. Finally, he did not discuss the East India Company as an ordinary joint-stock firm but rather as an aberrant form created by government.