The traditional literature on agency models predicts that, for zero liability contracts, it is optimal for the principal to pay for the information he cannot observe. However, this principle is not valid for a set of contracts mostly used by government agencies whose distinguishing feature is represented by a stringent budget constraint for the principal. This paper shows that in this environment the principal will either choose a structure exhibiting pooling or a bargaining solution. The bargaining solution represents the analytical proof to the intuition of the difficulty in implementing procurement contracts stated by Laffont and Tirole (1993). Copyright 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Public Choice.
Volume (Year): 101 (1999) Issue (Month): 1-2 (October) Pages: 23-37 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)