The political connections of businesses bear implications for the economy. This dissertation studies the political connection of railways in the United Kingdom during the 19th century using several novel data sets. The first chapter of the dissertation begins by quantitatively investigating the implications of the political connections of railways for capital investment. Politically connected railways did significantly more capital investment than their non-connected counterparts. In addition, within-firm increases in political connections were associated with increased subsequent capital investment. The latter part of chapter one introduces the private bill process in the legislature as a likely channel relating political connections and capital investment. Politically connected firms proposed and passed considerably more legislation enabling capital investment than non-politically connected firms. Chapter two of the dissertation focuses on consumer and employee safety, relating safety to political connections and showing that politically connected railways were considerably deadlier than non-politically connected railways. A century of fatal railway accidents data is presented along with supplementary data sources to demonstrate this point. Chapter three of the dissertation looks at political connections as the outcome rather than as the explanatory variable. Political connections are related to voting rights in U.K. constituencies across five general elections spanning major franchise reforms. Within-constituency results show that for a given constituency increases in the franchise are associated with decreased likelihood that railway directors will run or win seats in the House of Commons.

I förevarande uppsats behandlas frågor i gränslandet mellan processrätt och associationsrätt, närmare bestämt den processform som stipuleras för tvister med anledning av inlösen av minoritetsaktier. Av hävdvunnen princip ska inlösentvister slitas genom ett legalt skiljeförfarande som första instans. Givet att stadganden om legala skiljeförfaranden i dag utgör en tämligen sällsynt företeelse i svensk rätt, samt mot bakgrund av den starka presumtion mot specialfora som råder, är det följaktligen av intresse att diskutera ifrågavarande tvistemålsreglerings ändamålsenlighet. Syftet med uppsatsen är således att dels analysera ändamålsenligheten av ett legalt skiljeförfarande som primär tvistlösningsform vid inlösen av minoritetsaktier, dels att presentera några synpunkter avseende regleringens utformning de lege ferenda.      I analysen avseende regleringens ändamålsenlighet behandlas initialt de argument lagstiftaren lyft fram som avgörande vid valet av tvistlösningsform. Analysen visar att dessa argument inte är särdeles välgrundade i bemärkelsen att de inte självständigt kan motivera den processuella särreglering som stadgas för inlösentvister. Vidare uppmärksammas flera andra rättsliga och praktiska problem som kan uppstå i samband med att tvisten ska prövas av skiljemän i stället för allmän domstol, såsom hinder för verkställighet av skiljedomen utomlands. Den övergripande slutsatsen av analysen är att ändamålsenligheten av det legala skiljeförfarandet vid inlösen av minoritetsaktier med fog kan ifrågasättas.      Beträffande tvistlösningsregleringens utformning de lege ferenda, presenteras i uppsatsen två förslag till lagändringar. Det första förslaget utgår från ett fakultativt legalt skiljeförfarande. Sålunda presumeras alltjämt skiljeförfarande som primär processform, men kompletteras med möjligheten till föreskrift i bolagsordningen att tvisten ska prövas i allmän domstol. Det andra förslaget tar avstamp i en form av självreglering, där allmän domstol som huvudregel är behörig att ta upp talan. Undantag härifrån kan göras genom föreskrift i bolagsordningen vari stadgas att tvisten i stället ska prövas av skiljemän. En sådan föreskrift har samma verkan som ett skiljeavtal.      Sammanfattningsvis och i ljuset av de slutsatser som presenteras, påvisar uppsatsen att det finns skäl att se över och ändra nuvarande särreglering med legalt skiljeförfarande som tvistlösningsform vid inlösen av minoritetsaktier. / The thesis addresses issues regarding procedural law and the right of association, more specifically, the proceedings in disputes regarding buy-out of minority shareholders. By tradition, buy-out disputes shall be submitted for arbitration. Since compulsory arbitration is a rather rare phenomenon in modern Swedish law, and in consideration of the prevailing presumption against special fora, it is of interest to discuss the appropriateness of this special legislation. Thus, the purpose of the thesis is to analyse the appropriateness of compulsory arbitration as the primary form of dispute resolution in case of a buy-out of minority shareholders, and to present some comments concerning the legislation de lege ferenda.      In the analysis regarding the appropriateness of the legislation, the arguments put forward by the legislator as crucial when determining the form of dispute resolution, are addressed initially. The analysis suggests that these arguments independently cannot warrant the special legislation stipulated for buy-out disputes. Furthermore, several other legal and practical problems that may arise in connection with having the dispute settled by arbitrators instead of a general court are brought to attention, exempli gratia the impediment to enforcement of arbitral awards in a foreign country. Overall, the analysis leads to the conclusion that the appropriateness of compulsory arbitration in case of a buy-out of minority shareholders can be questioned.      As to the dispute resolution legislation de lege ferenda, two legislative proposals are presented in the thesis. The first proposal promotes a non-compulsory arbitration. Hence, arbitration would still be the primary form of dispute resolution but supplemented with the option of prescribing in the articles of association of the company that the dispute shall be settled by a general court. The second proposal stipulates a sort of self-regulation, whereby the parties, as a general rule, can bring the action before a general court. Exception from the general rule can be made by a provision in the articles of association prescribing that the dispute shall be settled by arbitrators. Such provision would have the same force as an arbitration agreement.      In summary, and in the light of the conclusions presented, the thesis implies that there are reasons to review and change the present special legislation with compulsory arbitration stipulated for disputes in case of a buy-out of minority shareholders.