IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v111y2003i5p929-958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Limits of Bureaucratic Efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Canice Prendergast

Abstract

Bureaucracies tend to be used when consumers cannot be trusted to choose outcomes efficiently. But a primary means of bureaucratic oversight is consumer complaints. But this can give bureaucrats an incentive to inefficiently accede to consumer demands to avoid a complaint. I show that when this incentive is important, bureaucracies (efficiently) respond by (i) ignoring legitimate consumer complaints, (ii) monitoring more in situations in which it is not needed, (iii) delaying decision making "too long," and (iv) biasing oversight against consumers. I also show that bureaucracies are used only when consumers cannot be trusted. As a result, observed bureaucracies are always inefficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Canice Prendergast, 2003. "The Limits of Bureaucratic Efficiency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 929-958, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jpolec:v:111:y:2003:i:5:p:929-958
    DOI: 10.1086/376956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/376956
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/376956?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur, 2008. "Incentives and Workers' Motivation in the Public Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 171-191, January.
    2. Mads Leth Felsager Jakobsen & Thomas Pallesen, 2017. "Performance Budgeting in Practice: the Case of Danish Hospital Management," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 255-273, June.
    3. Antonio Sánchez Soliño, 2019. "Sustainability of Public Services: Is Outsourcing the Answer?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Canice Prendergast, 2016. "Bureaucratic Responses," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(S2), pages 183-215.
    5. Ester Manna, 2013. "Intinsically Motivated Agents: Blessing or Curse for Firms ?," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2013-37, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    7. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    8. Simon Burgess & Carol Propper & Marisa Ratto & Emma Tominey, 2017. "Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Government Agency," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 117-141, October.
    9. Iftikhar Hussain, 2012. "Subjective Performance Evaluation in the Public Sector: Evidence from School Inspections," CEE Discussion Papers 0135, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
    10. Tinghua Yu, 2021. "Intrinsic Motivation, Office Incentives, and Innovation," BCAM Working Papers 2106, Birkbeck Centre for Applied Macroeconomics.
    11. Clare Leaver & Gian Luigi Albano & University College London and ELSE, 2004. "Transparency, Recruitment and Retention in the Public Sector," Economics Series Working Papers 219, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Sun-Moon Jung & Jae Yong Shin, 2022. "Social Performance Incentives in Mission-Driven Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7631-7657, October.
    13. Wenche Tobiasson & Christina Beestermöller & Tooraj Jamasb, 2015. "Public Engagement in Electricity Network Development: A Case Study of the Beauly–Denny Project in Scotland," Working Papers EPRG 1506, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    14. Grout, Paul & Schnedler, Wendelin, 2008. "Non-Profit Organizations in a Bureaucratic Environment," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-17, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    15. Andrew Dustan & Stanislao Maldonado & Juan Manuel Hernandez-Agramonte, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," Working Papers 136, Peruvian Economic Association.
    16. Mikel Berdud & Juan M. Cabasés Hita & Jorge Nieto, 2012. "Motivational Capital and Incentives in Health Care Organisations," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 1209, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    17. Cory Koedel & Jiaxi Li & Matthew G. Springer & Li Tan, 2018. "Teacher Performance Ratings and Professional Improvement," Working Papers 1808, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    18. Førsund, Finn R., 2013. "Measuring Efficiency and Effectiveness in the Public Sector," Memorandum 16/2013, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    19. Nils Gutacker & Andrew Street, 2015. "Multidimensional performance assessment using dominance criteria," Working Papers 115cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    20. Huffman, Wallace E & Just, Richard E, 2004. "Implications of Agency Theory for Optimal Land Tenure Contracts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 617-642, April.

    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:ucp:jpolec:v:111:y:2003:i:5:p:929-958. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE .

    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.