IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ratioi/0306.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Municipally owned enterprises: Nested principal-agent relations and conditions for accountability

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Market-inspired reforms have been particularly pronounced in Swedish local government. Noteably, municipally owned enterprises (MOEs) have rapidly grown in numbers. Principal-agent theory leads us to suspect that the massive introduction of MOEs may have worsened conditions for accountability. To study this, we have employed social network analysis, mapping networks for 223 MOEs in 11 strategically chosen municipalities, covering a total of 723 politicians. The analysis shows substantial overlaps between principals (representatives of the owners) and agents (the boards of the MOEs), quantified using network modularity. Corporatization of public services therefore implies worrisome entanglings between the politicians who are set to steer, govern and oversee MOEs on the one hand, and the board members of MOEs on the other. The increasing numbers of MOEs, we argue, may hence have adverse effects on accountability in important and growing parts of the local economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Bergh, Andreas & Erlingsson, Gissur & Gustafsson, Anders & Wittberg, Emanuel, 2018. "Municipally owned enterprises: Nested principal-agent relations and conditions for accountability," Ratio Working Papers 306, The Ratio Institute, revised 18 Oct 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ratioi:0306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.se/publikationer/working-paper-no-306-municipally-owned-enterprises-as-danger-zones-for-corruption/
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    2. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2004. "The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    3. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    4. Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2011. "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1274-1311, June.
    5. Shaoul, Jean & Stafford, Anne & Stapleton, Pamela, 2012. "Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 213-229.
    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. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    2. Shaikh, Ibrahim A. & O'Brien, Jonathan Paul & Peters, Lois, 2018. "Inside directors and the underinvestment of financial slack towards R&D-intensity in high-technology firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 192-201.
    3. Tarek Roshdy Gebba & Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged, 2016. "Corporate Governance of UAE Financial Institutions: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7.
    4. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    5. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    6. Etienne Redor & Magnus Blomkvist, 2021. "Do all inside and affiliated directors hold the same value for shareholders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 882-895.
    7. David Hillier & Patrick McColgan, 2008. "An analysis of majority owner‐managed companies in the UK," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(4), pages 603-623, December.
    8. Martin Kyere & Marcel Ausloos, 2021. "Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 1871-1885, April.
    9. Mohamed Ali Khaldi, 2016. "Mesure opérationnelle de la valeur partenariale et sa répartition," Post-Print hal-01900615, HAL.
    10. Ferrell, Allen & Liang, Hao & Renneboog, Luc, 2016. "Socially responsible firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 585-606.
    11. Stavros E. Arvanitis & Theodoros V. Stamatopoulos & Dimitris Terzakis, 2018. "Is There a Non-linear Relationship of Market Value with Cash and Ownership?," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 68(1), pages 3-25, January-M.
    12. Ansgar Richter & Susanne Schrader, 2017. "Levels of Employee Share Ownership and the Performance of Listed Companies in Europe," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 396-420, June.
    13. Isabelle Le Breton–Miller & Danny Miller, 2006. "Why Do Some Family Businesses Out–Compete? Governance, Long–Term Orientations, and Sustainable Capability," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(6), pages 731-746, November.
    14. Abdullah, Azrul Bin, 2018. "Company-specific characteristics and the choice of hedge accounting for derivatives reporting: Malaysian case," SocArXiv npa6v, Center for Open Science.
    15. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    16. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "The Governance of the New Enterprise," CRSP working papers 487, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
    17. Ben Slimane, Faten & Padilla Angulo, Laura, 2019. "Strategic change and corporate governance: Evidence from the stock exchange industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 206-218.
    18. Ali Uyar & Cemil Kuzey & Merve Kilic & Abdullah S. Karaman, 2021. "Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1730-1748, November.
    19. Alley Ibrahim S. & Adebayo Abimbola L. & Oligbi Blessing O., 2016. "Corporate Governance and Financial Performance Nexus: Any Bidirectional Causality?," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 50(1), pages 82-99, June.
    20. Paul Tanyi & David B. Smith & Xiaoyan Cheng, 2021. "Does firm payout policy affect shareholders’ dissatisfaction with directors?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 279-320, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Networks; Accountability; Transparency; Corruption; Publicly Owned Enterprises; Hybrid Organizations; Local Government; New Public Management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:ratioi:0306. 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: Martin Korpi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ratiose.html .

    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.