Overheard at Starbucks This Morning
| Peter Klein |
“She always referred to herself as ‘Dr. S____,’ so I assumed she was a medical doctor. Then I found out she was a former School Superintendent, with a Doctorate in Education.”
“Yeah, the only people who call themselves ‘Dr.’ are medical doctors and people with Doctorates in Education.”
Incentives Matter, Red-Light Camera Edition
| Peter Klein |
Auto-safety laws have an ambiguous effect on injuries because people drive less carefully when they feel protected from harm. (My former colleague Dwight Lee prefers a more colorful example: Distributing condoms on college campuses may increase the rate of sexually transmitted disease because students less reluctant to, um, engage in certain behaviors when they think their actions don’t carry consequences. Of course, as Dwight points out, the net effect depends on . . . wait for it . . . elasticity.)
Now we learn that red-light cameras, installed to boost city ticket revenues by recording violations and issuing fines automatically, are actually bringing revenues down, as drivers at those intersections learn not to run red lights. Naturally, city governments are upset and plan to remove the cameras. (HT: Anthony Gregory.)
Accounting and Modern Management
| Peter Klein |
In assessing the role of accountants during the industrial revolution, historians generally have been guided by Sidney Pollard’s interpretation expressed in The Genesis of Modern Management (1965). Pollard contended that early industrial accounting exhibited a marked confusion between capital and revenues. This confusion suggested to him that early industrialists were more concerned with calculating and extracting interest on their investments rather than maximizing their rate of return. Thus, Pollard concluded, these early entrepreneurs apparently lacked the true profit motive possessed by modern capitalists.
David Oldroyd’s book seeks to test these contentions by subjecting the financial accounts of three northern [coal] estates to detailed analysis in four specific areas: the performance of contracts, investment planning, labor management, and managerial behavior. . . .
The result is a discussion of early industrial entrepreneurship that is both revealing and nuanced. For example, Oldroyd shows that an extensive network of contracts regulated the exploitation of the Durham and Northumberland coalfield. These contracts covered a myriad of circumstances involved in both the underground mining and aboveground transportation of minerals. A typical enterprise might need to contract the leasing or subcontracting of a mine, aboveground “wayleaves” to transport coal across neighboring properties, the shipment of coal to London or other ports, and the off-loading of coal at the point of sale. In all of these areas, accounting records carefully quantified not only total production and transport, but very often unit costs as well. Oldroyd therefore concludes that, contrary to Pollard, accounting was an essential and extremely adaptable tool promoting economic efficiency during this era.
This is from James Jaffe’s EH.Net review of David Oldroyd’s Estates, Enterprise and Investment at the Dawn of the Industrial Revolution (Ashgate, 2007). Interesting fodder for business historians and specialists in contracting and organization. And here are some previous posts on accounting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Defending the Undefendable
| Peter Klein |
One of the greatest influences on my intellectual development (such as it is) was Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable: The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler, Moneylender and Other Scapegoats in the Rogue’s Gallery of American Society. Yes, you read that right. It’s a brilliant polemic on the benefits of peaceful, voluntary exchange, using the most outrageous and provocative examples to illustrate the gains from trade. And oh, the cartoons! My favorite, appearing in the chapter on saving, shows a half-crazed, miserly sort running his fingers through a large pile of gold coins, shouting to his wife, “Lip up, will ya’, Edith? You knew I wasn’t a Keynesian when you married me!”
First published in 1976, the book has just been reissued by the Mises Institute. Get one today and give yourself the same experience as Hayek:
Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. . . . Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economic frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority.
See also Block’s 1994 article, “Libertarianism and Libertinism,” which clarifies some misconceptions about the argument. It appeared in the Journal of Libertarian Studies back when yours truly was assistant editor.
Choice Architecture
| Steve Phelan |
Interesting article by Thaler and Sunstein in the LA Times on “choice architecture” and the concept of “libertarian paternalism”:
the organization of the context in which people make decisions. Choice architects are everywhere. If you design the ballot that voters use to choose candidates, you are a choice architect. If you are a doctor and must describe the alternative treatments available to a patient, you are a choice architect. If you design the form that new employees fill out to enroll in the company healthcare plan, you are a choice architect. If you are a parent, describing possible educational options to your son or daughter, you are a choice architect. If you are a salesperson, you are a choice architect (but you already knew that).
AND
The libertarian aspect of the approach lies in the straightforward insistence that, in general, people should be free to do what they like. They should be permitted to opt out of arrangements they dislike, and even make a mess of their lives if they want to. The paternalistic aspect acknowledges that it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people’s behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier and better.
Hmmm….is this freedom (of choice)? How would we build a practice of choice architecture?
The Sixth Force
| Peter Klein |
Luke has a nice post today about competition and cooperation among providers of complementary products — the “sixth force” that Michael Porter left out of his famous framework. Luke points us to “How Companies Become Platform Leaders”by Annabelle Gawer and Michael Cusumano in the Winter 2008 Sloan Management Review. As Luke notes (continuing this week’s Apple meme):
One of the biggest mistakes a company can make is to pursue a product strategy and fail to recognize the platform value of their product. The best example of this is perhaps Macintosh computer which, due to its early technological lead, could have become the dominant platform for personal computing. Instead they priced high, failed to encourage complementary innovation, and let Microsoft become the dominant platform.
Porter does discuss complements in his newer work (e.g., here) but does not elevate them to the status of the original Fab Five.
New Essays on Insider Trading
| Peter Klein |
Steve Bainbridge reviews the history of insider-trading litigation and characterizes Henry Manne’s classic contribution.
Here are Manne’s own reflections (in 2005) on the influence of his work from the 1960s. The new paper, “Insider Trading: Hayek, Virtual Markets, and the Dog that Did Not Bark,” suggests that the activities of insider traders, in so far as they help move stock prices toward their “true” (full-information) values, provides valuable information to corporate decision-makers facing the Hayekian knowledge problem.
Apple, Microsoft, and Product Design
| Peter Klein |
I’m not an Apple guy. I have no doubt the Mac is a fine product but, come on, I’m not some froofy artist type! (Teppo, take note.) And I know how to use a right mouse button. I do like the iPhone, and would definitely consider buying one if it weren’t tethered to AT&T. At present, however, the only Jobs et al. product I’ve owned is an Apple II back in high school. (With 48K and dual floppies, it sizzled!)
This week I’m teaching the Apple 2006 HBS case in my undergraduate strategy course. As the case materials emphasize, Apple’s product design and packaging capabilities are an important source of its competitive advantage. The Zen thing is certainly a refreshing change from the industry norm. In preparing the case I was reminded of a funny item that circulated a couple of years ago, What if Microsoft Designed the iPod Package? You don’t have to be one of the bad Kleins to enjoy it.
Hubbard on Firm Boundaries
| Peter Klein |
Thomas Hubbard has a nice review article in the May 2008 issue of the Canadian Journal of Economics, “Empirical Research on Firms’ Boundaries.” (Thanks to Fabio Chaddad for the pointer.) It’s a well-worn subject but there is certainly room for new interpretations. And Hubbard himself has been an important contributor to this literature (e.g., here and here). Here’s the abstract:
La recherche empirique sur les déterminants des frontières de l’entreprise a fleuri au cours des derniers 25 ans. Cet article discute des progrès accomplis en mettant l’accent sur les avancées intellectuelles faites par les chercheurs dans la littérature spécialisée durant cette période. On souligne le rôle important des chercheurs empiriques dans l’opérationnalisation des concepts théoriques, et on explique comment les succès dans ce registre ont contribué à faire que ces concepts ont eu un impact sur les décisions de faire-ou-faire-faire dans la vie réelle. On discute aussi des déficiences de cette littérature — en particulier la pauvreté des travaux de recherche sur l’impact de la variation dans les frontières des entreprises sur les rendements économiques — et on suggère comment de telles déficiences pourraient être corrigées.
Ha ha, April Fool’s! OK, here it is in English: (more…)
Jeffrey Pfeffer in the Lion’s Den
| Nicolai Foss |
Management theory heavy-weight and über-econ-basher Jeffrey Pfeffer (cf. these posts) makes an appeareance in the Fall 2007 issue of . . . the Journal of Economic Perspectives — admittedly a rather “open” journal, but still one of the house journals of the American Economic Association. (more…)
Newspapers as Coasian Firms
| Peter Klein |
The hunter-gatherer model of journalism is no longer sufficient. Citizens can do their own hunting and gathering on the Internet. What they need is somebody to add value to that information by processing it — digesting it, organizing it, making it usable.
This is why we still need newspapers — or something like them. Ronald Coase, the British economist, once asked why we need business firms. Why can’t all their activities be coordinated by individuals contracting with one another instead of working in a bureaucratic, command-and-control environment? The answer, he said, is transaction costs. If a manager had to negotiate with a free-lancer for every task, the cost in time would be unbearably high.
Searching for information on the Internet involves something like transaction costs because we have so many varied sources to evaluate. We need somebody we trust to organize them for us. That can be the task of the new journalism.
That’s from the retirement speech of UNC journalism professor
Mizzou J-School Centenary
| Peter Klein |
My colleague Steve Weinberg‘s new book on John D. Rockefeller and Ida Tarbell, Taking on the Trust, is reviewed in today’s Wall Street Journal. You can read an exerpt here (may be gated for non-subscribers). Steve has another new book, A Journalism of Humanity: A Candid History of the World’s First Journalism School, about the University of Missouri’s J-School, which is celebrating its centenary this year. As explained in the book the journalism school, like the first programs in business administration at Wharton, Tuck, HBS, and elsewhere, struggled to gain acceptance as a legitimate academic program and to escape the “trade-school” stigma.
While vocational programs in law and medicine have long been accepted as legitimate parts of the Academy, and engineering, agriculture, and architecture have been welcomed since at least the late 19th century (in the US, after the Morrill Act), business and journalism have faced particular difficulties becoming integrated into the academic mainstream. Actually, journalism today is even more of an outsider than business administration; for example, while many B-school faculty hold PhDs in economics, sociology, psychology, or other “traditional” disciplines, many J-school professors do not hold PhDs at all, with most being former industry professionals, more like B-school clinical professors. Those of you interested in the history and current problems of business schools might learn something from the experiences of journalism and other professional schools.
The Make-or-Buy Decision: Corporate Lawyer Edition
| Peter Klein |
What are our Lawyers made of?
What are our Lawyers made of?
Of Causes and fees, demurrers and pleas,
Learned Brother and lots of pother,
Counsel and jury with very wise looks,
Flaw in the indictment and statue books,
Such are our Lawyers made of,
Such are our Lawyers made of.
That’s one answer. It ain’t sugar and spice and everything nice, that’s for sure. Whatever lawyers are made of, should firms make them in-house, or hire ones made by somebody else? Steven Schwarcz addresses this question in a new paper, “To Make or to Buy: In-House Lawyering and Value Creation” (Journal of Corporation Law, Winter 2008). Schwarcz notes that large firms have been shifting much of their transactional work from outside law firms to in-house lawyers. Analysis of survey data suggests that information costs and scale and scope economies are the most important drivers of this trend. Asset specificity seems to play a less important role, mainly because reputation effects are sufficient to mitigate opportunistic behavior by outside law firms. A very interesting paper on the make-or-buy decision.
Riding Off Into the Sunset. . . .
| Steve Phelan |
Dear colleagues, this post represents my 22nd and final post as a guest blogger on O&M. Over the last four months I have learned a lot about blogs and successful blogging. For instance, the average post on O&M gets seen/read by about 70 people in the first 48 hours. Of these, perhaps only 5% will comment on a post. But blog posts have an incredibly “long tail”. The top posts on O&M average 3,000 or more views, with the top post over 7,000 views (see physics envy if you wish to add to the count). As a result of this long tail of posts, O&M receives about 1,000 hits per day! (more…)
Shared Governance: Benefits and Costs
| Peter Klein |
Back in grad school I was regularly hectored by a fellow student about joining the Association of Graduate Student Employees (AGSE), our local collective-bargaining association. Despite his attempt to stigmatize me as a free rider, I never joined. I didn’t think I agreed with the organizations goals, and I was sure I didn’t want to be associated with AGSE’s parent organization, the United Auto Workers (go figure). One year there was even a strike, which I found silly (I scabbed).
This semester I’m getting repeated invitations to join the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Again, I hesitate. Of course, as an American university professor, I’m happy to see more power, prestige, and perquisites go to American university professors (OK, specifically, to me). But the AAUP has a strange agenda. Its mission includes not only protecting academic freedom and defending the role of the university in public life, but also preserving shared governance. Having spent many years in university settings, I’m convinced that shared governance is grossly inefficient, at least most of the time. There can be benefits, of course, to offset these costs, as is the case with worker-owned cooperatives and other non-standard forms of organization. But one searches the AAUP’s website in vain for any analysis or evidence on shared governance. What are the benefits and costs, relative to other feasible organizational forms? Why should professors defend this peculiar institution? (more…)
Maybe Sociology Is Worth Something After All
| Peter Klein |
This passage from yesterday’s WSJ front-pager on Sheraton’s attempt to upgrade its image should delight Brayden and the Boys:
[Sheraton’s Hoyt] Harper, whose father was a psychologist, says he takes an inclusive approach to negotiating with [franchisees]. Instead of issuing blanket instructions, he has brought in major Sheraton owners, such as Host, early on in the design process to get their input and help tweak the final plan. This means that Starwood must endure a lot of criticism from its hotel owners and that the owners must endure criticism from Starwood. “My sociology major was much more appropriate for this job than my business degree,” he says.
On a more serious note, the article contains interesting general information about the hotel industry and the dominant franchise model. It should have mentioned Francine Lafontaine’s work on franchising, particularly this recent paper (with Renata Kosova and Rozenn Perrigot) on the hotel industry and a chain’s choice to own or franchise particular units.
A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Bullet Points
| Peter Klein |
An alert reader directs me to slide 241 of the slide pack for Dick Langlois’s Economics of Organization course. Click the image below for a look. Dick seems to be raising the point that Williamson’s TCE (as well as other theories of economic organization) pays insufficient attention to the processes by which firms reach their “optimal” organizational structures. TCE holds that firms try to minimize (or should minimize) the sum of production and transaction costs. But do firms actually do this? Do they make mistakes? Do they experiment and learn? Is the selection environment strong enough that inefficient organizational choices are quickly eliminated, or do inefficiencies persist? (The problem is particularly important for empirical literature on organizational form — see pp. 440-42 of this paper.) Or, can we assume, with Dr. Pangloss, that whatever is, is optimal?
To illustrate the point, Dick includes a photo of Williamson giving a seminar, with some additional background art — an etching from Candide — added to the frame. If you’re not paying attention you might think the etching is part of the original. I give Dick points for cleverness, but my anonymous correspondent finds the illustration a bit too subliminal. What do you think?
Intelligence Doping
| Peter Klein |
Posner and Becker weigh in on “intelligence doping,” using drugs to increase cognitive performance (see our earlier remarks here). Both argue, on utilitarian grounds, against regulating Provigil and similar stimulants. I bet they’d go for the new Snickers bar too.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments