We study the economic impact of proposed legislation requiring processors to pay termination damages to growers when contractual relationships are prematurely severed. In doing so, we derive the optimal relational contract in the presence of asset specificity, ex post market power on the part of processors, and the presence of an exogenous shock that might destroy gains from trade from contracting. The optimal contract then provides a credible framework for assessing how government intervention might affect optimizing behavior of contracting parties. We conclude that termination damages would not be distortionary and would not undermine processors' ability to design effective relational incentives. However, the distribution of surplus would be affected.
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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI with number
19184.
Length: Date of creation: 2005 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea05:19184
Contact details of provider: Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Phone: (414) 918-3190 Fax: (414) 276-3349 Email: Web page: http://www.aaea.org More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
MacLeod, W Bentley & Malcomson, James M, 1998.
"Motivation and Markets,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 88(3), pages 388-411, June.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions: