Posts filed under 'Papers'
Organizations or Markets in Morality?
| Benito Arruñada |
Moral codes can be produced and enforced through markets or through organizations. In particular, Catholic theology can be interpreted as a paradigm of the organizational production of morality. In contrast, the dominant moral codes are now produced in something resembling more a market.
The organizational character of Catholicism comes from its centralized production and enforcement of the moral code by theologians and priests and the mediation role played by the Church between God and believers. The epitome of both features is the old institution of confession of sins, a cultural universal that reaches full sophistication — for good and for bad — within Catholicism. My forthcoming JSSR paper argues that confession was a strikingly organizational solution to the production and enforcement of morality, something that Western societies now do mostly through markets. (more…)
3 comments 30 June 2009
If You’re So Smart …
| Nicolai Foss |
… that it makes sense to delegate a lot of decision-making authority to you when you perform as an agent for a principal, you may also be so smart that you can game the incentive plan. In “Ability and Agency Costs: Evidence From Polish Banking,” Douglas Frank and Tomasz Obloj, both INSEAD, argue (rightly, IMO) that the link between cognitive ability and agency costs has not yet been studied in agency theory. (more…)
1 comment 16 June 2009
Campello and Fluck
| Lasse Lien |
Here is a paper from 2006 by Maurillo Campello and Zsuzsanna Fluck that is even more interesting now than it was in 2006. If you are interested in the micro-implications of the current crisis, you’ll surely like this one.
Abstract: We model the interaction of product market competition and firms’ financing decision when firms face capital market imperfections and consumers face switching costs. In our model, consumers anticipate that capital market frictions may drive their supplier out of business and account for welfare losses that firm bankruptcy imposes upon them. Likewise, managers, when investing in long-term market share building, take into account the possibility of business failure and the residual value they may capture from the firm’s liquidation process. Our theory yields four central implications. In response to a negative shock to demand: (1) more leveraged firms will experience significant market share losses; (2) the market share losses of more leveraged firms will be more pronounced in industries where low debt usage is the norm; (3) the market share losses of more leveraged firms will be more pronounced in industries where consumers face higher switching costs; and (4) the market share losses of more leveraged firms will be magnified in industries where asset liquidation is less efficient. Using detailed firm- and industry-level data from U.S. manufacturers over the 1990-91 recession, we present empirical evidence supporting our model’s predictions. We later expand our empirical analysis, studying a large panel of firms over the various phases of the full business cycles contained in the 1976-96 period. Results from these broader tests provide additional evidence in support of our theory.
2 comments 16 June 2009
Factor-Biased Technological Change
| Dick Langlois |
Back in October, I blogged about Daron Acemoglu’s presentation at the Economic History Association meeting. There now seems to be an NBER working paper version of that talk, called “When Does Labor Scarcity Encourage Innovation?” Here is the abstract.
This paper studies the conditions under which the scarcity of a factor (in particular, labor) encourages technological progress and technology adoption. In standard endogenous growth models, which feature a strong scale effect, an increase in the supply of labor encourages technological progress. In contrast, the famous Habakkuk hypothesis in economic history claims that technological progress was more rapid in 19th-century United States than in Britain because of labor scarcity in the former country. Similar ideas are often suggested as possible reasons for why high wages might have encouraged rapid adoption of certain technologies in continental Europe over the past several decades, and as a potential reason for why environmental regulations can spur more rapid innovation. I present a general framework for the analysis of these questions. I define technology as strongly labor saving if the aggregate production function of the economy exhibits decreasing differences in the appropriate index of technology, theta, and labor. Conversely, technology is strongly labor complementary if the production function exhibits increasing differences in theta and labor. The main result of the paper shows that labor scarcity will encourage technological advances if technology is strongly labor saving. In contrast, labor scarcity will discourage technological advances if technology is strongly labor complementary. I provide examples of environments in which technology can be strongly labor saving and also show that such a result is not possible in certain canonical macroeconomic models. These results clarify the conditions under which labor scarcity and high wages encourage technological advances and the reason why such results were obtained or conjectured in certain settings, but do not always apply in many models used in the growth literature.
5 comments 15 June 2009
World Bank’s “Doing Business” Changing Course
| Benito Arruñada |
Thanks to O&M for the opportunity to join the conversation. I plan to be blogging about some issues discussed in my book.
One of my recent research areas is the cost of business formalization. In particular, I have criticized the World Bank’s Doing Business project for the narrow focus of its “Starting a Business” indicator on reducing the initial costs of incorporating companies (Arruñada, 2007, 2009), which disregards the more important role of business registers as a source of reliable information for judges, which is essential for reducing transaction costs in future business dealings. In many developing countries, registers produce documents that judges do not trust and, therefore, registration does not facilitate impersonal transactions that it should be supporting. Reducing the explicit cost of registers and speeding production of useless paperwork will not help. The priorities of reform policies should therefore be thoroughly reviewed, aiming first for registers to achieve a minimum reliability. (See this discussion).
In April, following continuing pressure by Barney Frank, chairman of the US House Financial Services Committee, the World Bank decided to drop Doing Business’s “Employing Workers Indicator” and develop a new “Worker Protection Indicator” after concluding that the first indicator “does not represent World Bank policy and should not be used as a basis for policy advice or in any country programme documents that outline or evaluate the development strategy or assistance programme for a recipient country” (Aslam, 2009).
In line with my argument about registration, meaningful indicators of institutional quality should be comprehensive of costs and values. Therefore, an indicator of the quality of employment regulation should consider not only workers’ protection but other aspects, such as, most prominently, unemployment rates.
1 comment 4 June 2009
More Economic Institutions of Strategy
| Nicolai Foss |
In his post of yesterday, Peter failed to mention that among the O&M bloggers not just Klein and Lien but also yours truly contributed to the Nickerson and Silverman 2009 edition of Advances in Strategic Management. Specifically, with Stieglitz (Nils — and with an “e”) I have written “Opportunities and New Business Models: Transaction Costs and Property Rights Perspectives on Entrepreneurship.” The paper can be downloaded from SSRN.
1 comment 21 April 2009
New Foss Sell-Out (?) Paper
| Nicolai Foss |
With Siegwart Lindenberg, Professor of Cognitive Sociology at the University of Groningen, I have written “Why Firms Work? A Goal-Framing Theory of the Firm.” Colleagues already refer to it as the “Foss sell-out paper” (but wait until I blog on that recent sell-out paper on entrepreneurship and the government by a certain O&M blogger . . . ).
Whatever that is, the paper starts from the familiar and long-standing debate between organizational economists and proponents of the knowledge-based view, and the many interesting recent attempts to merge key insights from TCE with ideas on learning and capabilities (Argyres, Nickerson, Mayer, Leiblein, Zenger, Hoettker, and others). The underlying idea is that additional explanatory leverage, for example, with respect to understanding the boundaries of the firm, will emerge from an integration of the two (clusters of) theories. (more…)
6 comments 21 April 2009
New AEA Journals
| Lasse Lien |
The AEA has recently introduced no less than four new journals. AEJ: Microeconomics, AEJ: Macroeconomics, AEJ: Applied Economics and AEJ: Economic Policy. I’m sure all four will all be great journals, but judging from the first issue, I think AEJ: Microeconomics will be my favorite. Here are two examples why:
Reputational Incentives for Restaurant Hygiene
Ginger Zhe Jin and Phillip Leslie
How can consumers be assured that firms will endeavor to provide good quality when quality is unobservable prior to purchase? We test the hypothesis that reputational incentives are effective at causing restaurants to maintain good hygiene quality. We find that chain affiliation provides reputational incentives and franchised units tend to free-ride on chain reputation. We also show that regional variation in the degree of repeat customers affects the strength of reputational incentives for good hygiene at both chain and nonchain restaurants. Despite these incentives, a policy intervention in the form of posted hygiene grade cards causes significant improvements in restaurant hygiene.
The Geography of Trade in Online Transactions: Evidence from eBay and MercadoLibre
Ali Hortaçsu, F. Asís Martínez-Jerez and Jason Douglas
We analyze geographic patterns of trade between individuals using transactions data from eBay and MercadoLibre, two large online auction sites. We find that distance continues to be an important deterrent to trade between geographically separated buyers and sellers, though to a lesser extent than has been observed in studies of non-Internet commerce between business counterparties. We also find a strong “home bias” for trading with counterparties located in the same city. Further analyses suggest that location-specific goods such as opera tickets, cultural factors, and the possibility of direct contract enforcement in case of breach may be the main reasons behind the same-city bias.
4 comments 20 March 2009
Our Collective Delusions
| Dick Langlois |
I just ran across a new NBER working paper by Roland Benabou called “Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets.” Looks like an interesting paper. But why does he pick on this blog? I believe we here at O&M are far more resistant than most to groupthink. And I’m sure you all share this view.
6 comments 5 March 2009
That Great Klein (1996) Paper
| Peter Klein |
No, not this one. I’m talking about Ben Klein’s 1996 Economic Inquiry paper, “Why Would Hold-Ups Occur: The Self-Enforcing Range of Contractual Relationships.” It’s from a special issue honoring Armen Alchian, the entire contents of which are worth reading. Klein’s paper extends the Klein, Crawford, and Alchian (1978) model by explaining why, in equilibrium, holdups can occur, even if parties are farsighted. The basic story — that parties deliberately leave “gaps” in their contracts because the marginal costs of filling in the gaps exceed the marginal benefits — is closer in spirit to neoclassical economics than is Williamson’s Carnegie-style appeal to bounded rationality. Writes Klein:
[In an uncertain world where complete contractual specification is costly, transactors use incomplete contracts that deliberately do not take account of every contingency. As a result, transactors knowingly leave themselves open to the possibility of hold-ups.
The costs associated with contractual specification that lead transactors to use incomplete and imperfect contracts involve much more than the narrow transaction costs of writing down responses to additional contingencies. In addition to these extra “ink costs,” complete contractual specification entails wasteful search and negotiation costs associated with discovering and negotiating prespecified contractual responses to all potential contingencies. Because most future events can be accommodated at lower cost after the relevant information is revealed, much of this activity involves largely redistributive rent dissipation with little or no allocative benefit. Transactors are merely attempting to obtain an informational advantage over their transacting partners, hoping to place themselves in a position where they will be more likely to collect on (and less likely to pay for) hold-ups. Therefore, rather than attempting to determine all of the many events that might occur during the life of a contractual relationship and writing a prespecified response to each, the gains from exchange are increased by the use of incomplete contracts.
Transactors also use incomplete contracts because writing something down to be enforced by the court creates rigidity. Since contract terms are necessarily imperfect, once something is written down transactors can engage in a hold-up by rigidly enforcing these imperfect contract terms, even if the literal terms are contrary to the intent of the contracting parties (p. 447). (more…)
5 comments 21 January 2009
New Foss Thought Piece
| Nicolai Foss |
I blatantly confess that I enjoy writing what are known in academic putdown-ese as ”essays” or ”thought pieces,” that is, ”conceptual” papers that do not construct a theoretical model, and/or engage in empirical analysis. My most recent product in this genre is inelegantly titled, “Alternative Research Strategies in the Knowledge Movement: From Macro Bias to Micro-Foundations and Multi-level Explanation.” It is an invited paper for European Management Review (the other invited contributors are David Teece, Bronwyn Hall and Will Mitchell). Mail me at njf.smg@cbs.dk if you want a copy. Here is the abstract:
The emergence over the last two decades or so of “knowledge” as an important part of the explanatory structure of management research is an intellectual breakthrough that is comparable in terms of its transforming impact to the behavioral revolution of the 1960s. A veritable “knowledge movement” has emerged that spans several fields in management. I take stock on alternative research strategies with that movement, distinguishing between “capabilities first,” “networks first,” and “individuals first” strategies. Reasons are given why more research attention need to be allocated to the latter strategy if the knowledge movement is to continue making progress, but that the aim should ultimately be to reach towards multi-level research that combines aggregate constructs with top-down processes and bottom-up processes.
1 comment 14 January 2009
New NBER Working Papers
| Peter Klein |
Three new NBER papers likely to interest the O&M crowd. (Aggressive Googlers can probably find ungated versions.)
Railroads and the Rise of the Factory: Evidence for the United States, 1850-70 by Jeremy Atack, Michael R. Haines, and Robert A. Margo
Over the course of the nineteenth century manufacturing in the United States shifted from artisan shop to factory production. At the same time United States experienced a transportation revolution, a key component of which was the building of extensive railroad network. Using a newly created data set of manufacturing establishments linked to county level data on rail access from 1850-70, we ask whether the coming of the railroad increased establishment size in manufacturing. Difference-in-difference and instrument variable estimates suggest that the railroad had a positive effect on factory status. In other words, Adam Smith was right – the division of labor in nineteenth century American manufacturing was limited by the extent of the market.
The Limited Partnership in New York, 1822-1853: Partnerships Without Kinship by Eric Hilt and Katharine O’Banion
In 1822, New York became the first common-law state to authorize the formation of limited partnerships, and over the ensuing decades, many other states followed. Most prior research has suggested that these statutes were utilized only rarely, but little is known about their effects. Using newly collected data, this paper analyzes the use of the limited partnership in nineteenth-century New York City. We find that the limited partnership form was adopted by a surprising number of firms, and that limited partnerships had more capital, failed at lower rates, and were less likely to be formed on the basis of kinship ties, compared to ordinary partnerships. The latter differences were not simply due to selection: even though the merchants who invested in limited partnerships were a wealthy and successful elite, their own ordinary partnerships were quite different from their limited partnerships. The results suggest that the limited partnership facilitated investments outside kinship networks, and into the hands of talented young merchants.
Inside the Black of Box of Ability Peer Effects: Evidence from Variation in Low Achievers in the Classroom by Victor Lavy, Daniele Paserman, and Analia Schlosser
In this paper, we estimate the extent of ability peer effects in the classroom and explore the underlying mechanisms through which these peer effects operate. We identify as low ability students those who are enrolled at least one year behind their birth cohort (repeaters). We show that there are marked differences between the academic performance and behavior of repeaters and regular students. The status of repeaters is mostly determined by first grade; therefore, it is unlikely to have been affected by their classroom peers, and our estimates will not suffer from the reflection problem. Using within school variation in the proportion of these low ability students across cohorts of middle and high school students in Israel, we find that the proportion of low achieving peers has a negative effect on the performance of regular students, especially those located at the lower end of the ability distribution. An exploration of the underlying mechanisms of these peer effects shows that, relative to regular students, repeaters report that teachers are better in the individual treatment of students and in the instilment of capacity for individual study. However, a higher proportion of these low achieving students results in a deterioration of teachers’ pedagogical practices, has detrimental effects on the quality of inter-student relationships and the relationships between teachers and students, and increases the level of violence and classroom disruptions.
Add comment 27 October 2008
The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility
| Dick Langlois |
Another sign of the Apocalypse: Robert Reich channels Milton Friedman.
9 comments 21 October 2008
Strong-Man Economics
| Lasse Lien |
Here is an interesting paper from the NBER working paper series. Bolton, Brunnermeier and Veldkamp show that it can be optimal for organizations to hire an irrational manager. Irrational in the sense that the manager is less likely to revise strategy as new information becomes available (i.e. is resolute).
The basic setup is that in the first stage the manager receives a signal about the state of the environment and formulates an initial strategy. In the second stage the organizational members act, deciding how closely the will align their actions to the proposed strategy. The actions of individual members are chosen given their knowledge about the manager’s type and a private signal about the environment. The latter may lead them to anticipate a revision of the strategy. In the third stage the manager receives a second signal about the state of the environment, and in the fourth and final stage the leader decides on the final strategy and payoffs are realized.
The essence of the argument is that the less likely the manager is to revise strategy, the better the coordination of the individual members actions. So there is a time-consistency problem that is reduced when a manager is resolute in the sense of not updating as much as optimal adaptation would suggest, and this is known by followers. The paper also supplies interesting discussions of what happens if the leader can commit to not revising strategy (instead of being a resolute “type”), and the cost of resoluteness if the manager can learn from followers.
One can always quibble about the assumptions made in game-theoretic models. An example here would be the assumption that there is no coordination problem after the manager announces his/her final strategy, only in the period between the initial strategy announcement, and the arrival of the second signal about the environment. But definitely a good read, which nicely captures the trade-off between coordination and adaptation. Hereby recommended (the paper, that is, not the hiring of irrational managers or politicians).
Add comment 16 October 2008
Monetary Policy and the Housing Crisis
| Dick Langlois |
I know I’m swimming over my head in macro-infested waters, but I thought I would think out loud some more about the housing mess. In my previous post on the subject (and comments), I posed the question whether a politically influenced (exogenous) lowering of credit standards was more of a culprit than monetary policy (or other macro forces) in causing the housing bubble and subsequent collapse. So I looked at an NBER Working Paper by John Taylor at Stanford that’s been out for a few months. Taylor argues that it was indeed Fed policy that caused the run-up in housing prices. He rejects the alternative possibilities (A) that most of the liquidity fueling the boom was money rushing in to the U.S. from overseas or (B) that it was the increased liquidity that came from securitization and financial innovation. Most interestingly, he argues — as have others, though I can’t find a good reference — that a large part of the reduction in lending standards was endogenous. Foreclosure risk was (is) anticorrelated with an increase in housing prices; so in the run-up, risk of foreclosure was actually declining ceteris paribus. Partly because of the complex and often impenetrable structure of housing finance, lenders took these foreclosure rates as stable in the long term. Moreover, as others have pointed out, lenders were concerned less with default in the run-up than with the risk of early repayment as people refinanced the equity out of their houses (or sold quickly for speculation, as Liebowitz says). All of this meant that lenders considered it optimal to lower credit standards.
This story strikes me as having a Hayekian flavor to it, though I don’t know if Peter and his commentators would agree. It also has something of Leijonhufvud about it, as Taylor’s main message is that the Great Moderation was a matter of the Fed sticking to the program — staying within the “corridor” — and not deviating as it did in 2003-2006, presumably in an effort to stimulate the economy after the Internet crash. The deviation of 2003-06 was “comparable to the turbulent 1970s.”
5 comments 8 October 2008
Motivation in Knowledge-Sharing Networks
| Nicolai Foss |
Knowledge-sharing networks have become a huge research subject in various fields in management. Much of this work builds from applications of the work of Mark Granovetter or Ronald Burt. It probably represent the most potent sociological impact on management research over the last decade. Even strategic management — which has traditionally been strongly influenced, even dominated, by economics — has been influenced by this research. Prominent work has been done by Hansen (e.g., here and here), Tsai (e.g., here), and Reagans and McEvily (here) (and here is an excellent related paper by Obstfeld).
Most of this work treats motivation in a somewhat indirect manner, if at all. Implicitly, individuals that are placed in similar network positions are taken to give or receive knowledge to the same extent. This need not be the case, however, as individuals need to be motivated to seize opportunities, and motivation can differ across networks and employees. However, most studies of knowledge sharing in networks abstract from the role played by motivation. This may be partly justified to the extent that a network position translates directly into motivation. However, this should be treated as an empirical issue rather than as a starting point for analysis. (more…)
2 comments 19 September 2008
How Well Does the Market Handle Network Effects?
| Peter Klein |
Quite well, according to Dan Spulber’s paper “Consumer Coordination in the Small and in the Large: Implications for Antitrust in Markets with Network Effects,” out recently in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics (June 2008). Dan distinguishes between network effects in small- and large-numbers bargaining situations; Coasean bargaining can solve the problem in the former while Hayekian “spontaneous order” can emerge in the latter. The paper also contains a useful, up-to-date summary of the network effects literature. Highly recommended!
Add comment 8 September 2008
Organizational Structure and the Diversification Discount
| Peter Klein |
Do diversified conglomerates trade at a discount relative to more specialized firms? A huge literature in strategy and corporate finance emerged over the last couple of decades devoted to this question. Early studies claimed to find a substantial diversification discount, though more recent papers claim that the observed discount is due to measurement error, self-selection, and other characteristics, not a harmful effect of diversification per se. (For a good overview of this literature, now slightly dated, see this roundtable report edited by Belén Villalonga. Some of my own contributions are here and here.)
Seemingly lost in the search for a diversification discount, however, is a related question: What is being discounted? Potential benefits of diversification, according to the literature, include access to internal capital markets and more efficient redeployment of distressed assets; potential costs include inefficient rent-seeking, bargaining problems, and bureaucratic rigidity. But these benefits and costs have little to do with industry or geographic diversification per se — they apply to the management of any multi-unit organization, even if its activities do not span different industries or regions.
In a new paper, “Organizational Structure and the Diversification Discount: Evidence from Commercial Banking,” Marc Saidenberg and I try to distinguish the effects of diversification and organiztaional complexity by studying multi-unit firms within a single industry, commercial banking. (more…)
Add comment 11 August 2008
MDE Special Issue: Frontiers of Strategic Management Research
| Nicolai Foss |
Managerial and Decision Economics has become a favorite journal of mine. It has a strong econ orientation, to be sure, but the journal stresses econ that is relevant, readable, and right. In other words, there is lots of applied microeconomics, transaction cost economics, etc. Moreover, over the last few years MDE – presumably as a result of Margie Peteraf’s tenure as co-editor — has become very much of an econ-based strategic management journal, not like the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, to be sure, but more economics-oriented than the Strategic Management Journal.
The most recent issue(s — issue 2 and 3 are bundled into one special issue) features a string of excellent papers under the heading “Frontiers of Strategic Management Research,” edited by Peteraf and Catherine Maritan. Several of the papers should be of interest to the O&M readership. For example, Kyle Mayer (with Janet Bercovitz) continues to work with his information technology service contracts dataset, this time looking at the influence of inertia on what contract clauses that are included in these kind of contracts. Maritan and Robert Florence engage in a nice modelling exercise, modelling strategic factor markets in a way that seems quite different from earlier attempts (e.g., by Rich Makadok). Michael Jacobides builds an interesting argument, linking foreign direct investment to the investing firm’s embeddedness in value chains in the home country and value chain conditions in the host country. And, of course, there is the usual handful of alliance articles. A great special issue. Highly recommended.
1 comment 22 April 2008
Langlois Paper on the Theory of the Firm and Austrian Economics
| Nicolai Foss |
Former O&M guest blogger Dick Langlois is IMHO one of the most original thinkers in the field of economic organization. He is also one of the best writers in management and in economics. So I try to keep track of his writings and usually succeed. However, this paper, “The Austrian Theory of the Firm: Retrospect and Prospect,” written for a conference at the George Mason Law School last May, had escaped my attention until today.
Dick develops a number of related arguments. One is that Hayek (of the 1945 essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”) developed richer insights in economic organization than Coase. Moreover, by pointing out the importance of dispersed knowledge, the coordination problem this raises, and the importance of ”change” for “economic problems,” Hayek anticipated the capabilities theory of the firm. In a parallel argument, Dick links his own work on the capabilities theory of the firm to Austrian capital theory (see also here and here). He ends by speculating on the future of Austrian arguments in the theory of the firm, noting various manifestations, particularly in strategic management, of these arguments (he notes that “Some work in this literature is close in spirit to my own, in some cases extremely close (Jacobides and Winter 2005)” — one agrees). Definitely worth a read!
3 comments 19 April 2008
“Let’s Write a Paper”
| Nicolai Foss |
I have noticed that an increasing number of colleagues build up and afterwards desperately try to manage increasingly large portfolios of paper projects. It is very common to have paper portfolios that encompass more than 20 ongoing projects. At any rate, that’s about the size of my own current portfolio.
I have also noticed that a lot of these paper ideas don’t seem to ever come to be written, or, at best exist in a fragmentary form. I can relate many anecdotes (some from personal experience!) relating to substantial regret over set-up costs (aka pissing your would-be co-author off). It is possible that this may increasingly become a management problem, certainly on the level of the individual scholar, but perhaps also on the level of university managers (mainly dept. heads).
The question is: Is this (personally and socially) wasteful? The basic problem is that in order to end up with a suitable amount of published papers a certain amount of exploration is necessary. Co-authoring papers is a Hayekian discovery process. It is pretty hard, perhaps particularly for younger, unexperienced colleagues, to make reasoned decisions on how many papers one should initiate and with whom (given the costs of experimentation, i.e., set-up costs, the risk of ruining your reputation, etc.). Reputation mechanisms work imperfectly. Big, but lazy, guys may exploit this, hoping for the rookie to do the job. Problems of procastination and melioration may complicate the decision problem. Etc.
From another point of view, however, not much has really changed. Whereas scholars in the past may have spent much time discussing research issues over the lunch table, etc., the publication pressure that most of us are subject to nowadays means that many discussions that would previously have simply ended over the lunch table are now turned into paper ideas. If that is the case, the process appears much less wasteful — and, importantly, in need of less intenvention by well-intentioned, but (naturally!) misguided university bureaucrats.
4 comments 22 January 2008
Rent and Quasi-Rent
| Steve Phelan |
In a recent paper in the Journal of Business Venturing, Sharon Alvarez attempts to construct a theory of entrepreneurship and the firm. The central question is why new resource combinations are sometimes carried out by entrepreneurs starting new ventures rather than within established firms. (more…)
1 comment 20 December 2007
The Logic of Appropriateness
| Nicolai Foss |
To paraphrase Fritz Machlup, the rational-choice model has been a sort of “universal bogey” for many scholars in sociology, psychology, and management. The nature of the alternative(s) has, however, seldom been clarified. Thus, most models of bounded rationality are really variations on the basis RC model.
However, a much-cited attempt to characterize an actual alternative is James March’s notion of the “logic of appropriateness,” which may be characterized thus:
The logic of appropriateness is a perspective that sees human action as driven by rules of appropriate or exemplary behavior, organized into institutions. Rules are followed because they are seen as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate. Actors seek to fulfill the obligations encapsulated in a role, an identity, a membership in a political community or group, and the ethos, practices and expectations of its institutions. Embedded in a social collectivity, they do what they see as appropriate for themselves in a specific type of situation” (quoted from this paper).
In in a logic of appropriateness, the agent/actor does not begin by identifying alternatives, preferences, etc. as in the rational choice model, but rather asks, “What kind of situation is this? Who or what am I? What is the appropriate thing to do given who I am?” (more…)
9 comments 14 December 2007
Deconstructing Bob and Jeff
| David Hoopes |
For better or worse the hard-hearted authors at O&M have hurt the feelings of our colleagues in other fields. In the spirit of being more specific about why the bloggers here are so harsh I’d like to take a look at an award-winning paper from the Academy of Management Review (Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R.I., “Economics Language and Assumptions: How Theory Can Become Self-Fulfilling”). In this paper we are told how the language of economics (the assumptions that people are selfish cheats) encourages people to be selfish cheats. Aside: in my opinion sociologists have a much darker image of humankind than economists (if we must make careless generalizations).
As I note in an earlier post, the idea of self-interest is often grossly misrepresented. Perhaps economists can thank themselves for this. I don’t know. However, it is important to examine this component of price theory by looking at its roots. In developing public policy toward government intervention in the allocation of goods (mercantilists vs. free traders in Smith’s day) allowing people to make their own decisions is more efficient than having a handful of people making the decisions for everyone. And even if individuals focus on their own needs the result for society is better than having a few people guessing at what everyone else wants and imposing their guesses.
The starting point of the AMR critique is the ever-present complaint about the economics world telling us all that we need to be selfish and greedy (make decisions based on our own self-interest). From here, our friends in the org. theory camp state, “If people are relentless in the pursuit of their own self-interest and equally relentless in the their lack of concern for others’ interests. . . .” What? Where did that second part come in? A very important bridge theory has been added. If people pursue their own self-interest then they also cannot care about anyone else. Management scholars wonder why their (our) work is not used in public policy debates. Small wonder. (more…)
7 comments 20 November 2007
Demsetz, Coase, Postrel, and Williamson
| David Hoopes |
A recent post by Nicolai ponders Demsetz’s approach to transaction costs. My understanding (interpretation) of Demsetz’s “The Theory of the Firm Revisited” is quite different from Nicolai’s. Here’s how I remember that paper.
One of Demsetz’s complaints about transaction costs economics is that a number of very different events are bundled together under the term “transaction.” Williamson’s take on transaction costs focuses largely on comparative governance costs. How does making sure a supplier doesn’t cheat you compare to making sure your employees don’t cheat you? Coase’s version of transaction costs is very different. Coase tends to talk about a variety of other frictions that can occur independently of governance costs. These are what Demsetz calls management costs. Demsetz thinks (quite correctly) that referring to these two types of costs using the same term is confusing. In his Nobel speech Coase notes how his beliefs were more consistent with Demsetz’s than with those emphasizing governance.
Steve Postrel and I (in disucssing capabilities in SMJ 1999) separate cooperation costs from coordination costs. I think of this as fitting the Williamson versus Demsetz and Coase types of transaction costs (or management costs as Harold says). Costs dedicated to aligning incentives are different from costs of making sure everyone has the same plan. Steve and I go on to differentiate the costs of sharing specialized knowledge from the costs of coordinating. (Notice how I moved from Coase and Demsetz to myself?!).
Back to Harold. Demsetz believes that you needn’t have oppourtunism to have organizations. Postrel (2003) in an earlier version compared knowledge and governance as theories of the firm. Where Demsetz believes firms economize on managerial costs (or Coasian transaction costs) Postrel believes that without opportunism the firm is unnecessary.
I’m more with Harold (at least in my own mind I’m not sure Harold really wants me tagging along).
3 comments 5 November 2007
More on the Noble Prize (or the Economics Prize in Memory of Nobel)
| David Hoopes |
Since the O&Mers have been so quiet about the N prize I guess I’ll ramble a bit. In a comment on one of Peter’s posts I mentioned Demsetz and Alchian. For some reason I had it in my head that A.A. had already won. That’s what I get for staying at UCLA for so long (Alchian had just quit teaching when I got there).
I don’t know why I thought Alchian had won it. “Production, Information costs and Economic Organization” (with Harold Demsetz), American Economic Review 62 (1972): 777-95 is a pretty amazing paper. And “Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process” (with Robert Crawford and Bejamin Klein), Journal of Law and Economics (1978) has been very influential. Though I think people think of Ben Klein for that paper. As noted above, Alchian is very well known for (and thought of because of ) “Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy 58 (1950): 211-21.
Having said all that, I think srp is correct in that Alchian’s best chance is going in with Nelson and Winter for evolutionary economics or Demsetz and Williamson or Oliver Hart for theory of the firm. It’s hard to imagine that evolutionary economics is that appreciated. I think Sid Winter is grossly underrated. His body of work in economics and strategy is pretty amazing.
As readers of my posts might guess, I am a pretty big fan of Demsetz. I don’t know that Harold is as productive or quantitative as most award givers might like. Stilger and Coase were pretty big fans. But, Hart and Williamson seem more likely award winners.
Over at orgtheory.net they’ve been discussing sociologists and management people who (in some alternate universe) might win. There are not too many Herb Simons out there.
2 comments 18 October 2007
Why Are Markets So Scary? Some Things (Liberal) Academics Get Wrong
| David Hoopes |
Many people make incorrect assumptions about capitalism. Some would have us believe that capitalism is based on greed, selfishness, and promotes behavior that is completely self-centered. This is a common interpretation of Smith’s advice to allow people to make decisions based on self-interest. Examples are easy to find in the many organization theory-based papers complaining about economics and economists.
Two very good papers can aid in a deeper understanding of the invisible hand. First is James Q. Wilson’s “Adam Smith on Business Ethics.” A central point Wilson makes is that Adam Smith assumed people will behave with a moral sense. Wilson, “A moral man is one whose sense of duty is shaped by conscience; that is, by that impartial spectator within our breast who evaluates our own actions as others would evaluate it.” By suggesting people be allowed to make decisions based on their own self interest Smith was not advocating selfishness and greed. What then was he advocating?
This leads to the second paper, Harold Demstez’s “The Theory of the Firm Revisited.” In the third paragraph Demsetz notes that the debate between mercantilists and free traders was over the role of the government in the economic affairs of the state. “Is central economic planning necessary to avoid chaotic economic conditions?” The great achievement of the perfect competition model, what Demsetz argues should be called perfect decentralization, is its abstraction from centralized control of the economy.
Thus, the central element to capitalism is that decision making is pushed down as far as possible. (more…)
16 comments 11 October 2007
Foss & Klein Chapter on “Organizational Governance”
| Nicolai Foss |
Peter and I often get requests that we blog something of a more introductory nature on organizational economics, the theory of the firm, etc. Until now, we haven’t really had the opportunity.
However, we just completed a draft of a chapter on “Organizational Governance” for the Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research, a major project initiated by sociology professors Rafael Wittek, Tom Snijders and Victor Nee for the Russell Sage Foundations (thus dispelling strange claims by Brayden and others that this is the anti-sociology blog). As the title suggests, the contributors, representing economics (/game theory), anthropology, and sociology are united by their commitment to the rational choice approach. The project involves such luminaries as Avner Greif, Jean Ensminger, Sigwart Lindenberg, and others. You can find the chapter under “Papers.” (more…)
Add comment 9 October 2007
Economic Freedom and Entrepreneurial Activity
| Nicolai Foss |
Christian Bjørnskov and I have just had our paper with the above title accepted for publication in Public Choice. I was very favorably impressed with the review process, which was comparable to the process at the top academy journals in terms of speed and thoroughness. Mail me at njf.smg@cbs.dk if you want a copy of the paper. Here is the abstract:
While much attention has been devoted to analyzing how the institutional framework and entrepreneurship impact growth, how economic policy and institutional design affect entrepreneurship appears to be much less analyzed. We try to explain cross-country differences in the level of entrepreneurship by differences in economic policy and institutional design. Specifically, we use the Economic Freedom Index from the Fraser Institute to ask which elements of economic policy making and the institutional framework are conducive to the supply of entrepreneurship, measured by data on entrepreneurship from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. We find that the size of government is negatively correlated with entrepreneurial activity and sound money is positively correlated with entrepreneurial activity. Other measures of economic freedom are not significantly correlated with entrepreneurship
Add comment 14 August 2007
Most Overrated Econ or Management Papers
| Nicolai Foss |
Here is a controversial, but perhaps fun, exercise for the O&M readership: nominate a paper that you think is grossly overrated. In operational terms you may think of “overrated” in terms of the ratio of Google Scholar hits to actual content/substance. Remember that you, in contrast to the resident O&M bloggers, have the option and benefit of remaining anonymous. Uninspired? You may draw inspiration from our Pomo Periscope series. (And you are welcome to nominate Ferraro, Pfeffer, and Sutton, Academy of Management Review, 2005. ;-))
6 comments 22 July 2007
