Why did the Dutch East India Co. outperform the British East India Co.? —A theoretical explanation based on the objective of the firm and limited liability—
AbstractWe examine the relationship between the objective of a monopolist and limited liability. We establish that the owners of a monopolistic firm are better off to choose profit maximization rather than sales maximization under both unlimited and limited liability. This is consistent with the fact that the Dutch East India Company, whose objective was profit maximization, was better off in the seventeenth century than the British East India Company, whose objective was sales maximization. We also show that a monopolist should choose to organize as a limited liability entity regardless of its objective.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University in its series Discussion Paper Series with number 96.
Length: 17 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2012
Date of revision: Dec 2012
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1-155 Uegahara Ichiban-cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 662-8501
Web page: http://www-econ.kwansei.ac.jp/~econ/index_e.html
More information through EDIRC
limited liability; firm objective; managerial incentives; monopoly;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
- L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
- L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-12-22 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2012-12-22 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-HIS-2012-12-22 (Business, Economic & Financial History)
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.:
- Chaim Fershtman & Kenneth L Judd, 1984.
"Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly,"
642, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Franck, Bernard & Le Pape, Nicolas, 2008. "The commitment value of the debt: A reappraisal," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 607-615, March.
- Tetsuya Shinkai & Takao Ohkawa & Makoto Okamura & Kozo Harimaya, 2012. "Delegation and Limited Liability in a Modern Capitalistic Economy," Discussion Paper Series 87, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Apr 2012.
- Cleary, Sean & Povel, Paul E M & Raith, Michael, 2004.
"The U-Shaped Investment Curve: Theory and Evidence,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4206, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Cleary, Sean & Povel, Paul & Raith, Michael, 2007. "The U-Shaped Investment Curve: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(01), pages 1-39, March.
- Sean Cleary & Paul Povel & Michael Raith, 2003. "The U-shaped Investment Curve: Theory and Evidence," Finance 0311010, EconWPA.
- Povel, Paul & Raith, Michael, 2004. "Financial constraints and product market competition: ex ante vs. ex post incentives," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 917-949, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Toshihiro Okada).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.