IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v18y2001i1p155-163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The robustness of optimal organizational architectures: A note on hierarchies and polyarchies

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Ben-Yashar

    (Department of Economics, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel)

  • Shmuel Nitzan

    (Department of Economics, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel)

Abstract

In this note we study the robustness of optimal organizational architectures, focusing on hierarchies and polyarchies. These two specific architectures are often applied in economic systems and have received considerable attention in the literature. It turns out that the application of these architectures usually involves inefficiency, namely, the use of suboptimal organizational systems. This is demonstrated by proposing a measure of size robustness of optimal architectures and by analyzing the implications of its magnitude for hierarchies and polyarchies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "The robustness of optimal organizational architectures: A note on hierarchies and polyarchies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 155-163.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:1:p:155-163
    Note: Received: 4 January 1999/Accepted: 10 January 2000 received considerable attention in the literature. It turns out that the application of these architectures usually involves inefficiency, namely, the use of suboptimal organizational systems. This is demonstrated by proposing a measure of size robustness of optimal architectures and by analyzing the implications of its magnitude for hierarchies and polyarchies.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00355/papers/1018001/10180155.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Danziger, Leif, 2016. "The unanimity rule and extremely asymmetric committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 107-112.
    2. Ruth Ben‐Yashar & Miriam Krausz & Shmuel Nitzan, 2018. "Government loan guarantees and the credit decision‐making structure," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 607-625, May.
    3. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Miriam Krausz & Shmuel Nitzan, 2018. "The effect of democratic decision-making on investment in reputation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 155-164, October.
    4. B. Visser, 2002. "Complexity, Robustness, and Performance," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-048/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. BAHARAD, Eyal & BEN-YASHAR, Ruth & NITZAN, Shmuel, 2018. "Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity vs. Simple Majority Rule," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-80, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    6. BEN-YASHAR, Ruth & NITZAN, Shmuel, 2017. "A Note on the Possible Advantage of Size Flexibility in Committees," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-61, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    7. Barbara Luppi & Francesco Parisi, 2013. "Jury Size and the Hung-Jury Paradox," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 399-422.
    8. Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2006. "Information is important to Condorcet jurors," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 305-319, June.
    9. BEN-YASHAR, Ruth & KRAUSZ, Miriam & NITZAN, Shmuel, 2017. "The Effect of Democratic Decision Making on Investment in Reputation," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-59, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    10. Eyal Baharad & Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2020. "Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity Versus Simple Majority Rule," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 157-167, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:18:y:2001:i:1:p:155-163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.