Managerial Effort, Agency, and Industrial Evolution
AbstractSimulations of the estimated model characterize managers' effort choices in response to increased product market competition. In the agency model, heightened competitive pressures that cause managerial effort to increase by 23 percent for the lowest productivity firms, which are most likely to exit. However, among high productivity firms, managers decrease their effort levels by 2 percent. In the proprietorship model, managerial effort decreases with heightened competitive pressures for almost all firms, and it does so most dramatically for the low productivity firms. These findings reflect two forces. First, when loss of managerial rents is not an issue, heightened competitive pressures reduce the return to effort. Second, when owners do not internalize the loss of rents that managers suffer in the event of exit, managers use their effort level to try to control exit probabilities. The latter force is at work in the agency model but not the proprietorship model, and it dominates among low productivity firms, which are relatively likely to exit.
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 Society for Economic Dynamics in its series 2009 Meeting Papers with number 589.
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Society for Economic Dynamics Christian Zimmermann Economic Research Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PO Box 442 St. Louis MO 63166-0442 USA
Web page: http://www.EconomicDynamics.org/society.htm
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2005.
"Market Size, Trade, and Productivity,"
NBER Working Papers
11393, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ottaviano, Gianmarco & Melitz, Marc, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," Scholarly Articles 3229096, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2005. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," Development Working Papers 201, Centro Studi Luca d\'Agliano, University of Milano.
- Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2000.
"Plants and Productivity in International Trade,"
Boston University - Institute for Economic Development
105, Boston University, Institute for Economic Development.
- Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jenson & Samuel Kortum, 2000. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," NBER Working Papers 7688, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Andrew B Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2000. "Plants and productivity in international trade," Working Papers 00-08, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
- Michael Raith, 2003. "Competition, Risk, and Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1425-1436, September.
- Nickell, S.J., 1993.
"Competition and Crporate Performance,"
Economics Series Working Papers
99155, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Mathias Dewatripont & Philippe Aghion & Patrick Rey, 1997.
"Corporate governance, competition policy and industrial policy,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/9613, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Aghion, Ph. & Dewatripont, M. & Rey, P., 1997. "Corporate governance, competition policy and industrial policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 797-805, April.
- Per Krusell & Anthony A. Smith, Jr., .
"Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in the Macroeconomy,"
GSIA Working Papers
1997-37, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
- Per Krusell & Anthony A. Smith & Jr., 1998. "Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in the Macroeconomy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 867-896, October.
- Krusell, P & Smith Jr, A-A, 1995. "Income and Wealth Heterogeneity in the Macroeconomic," RCER Working Papers 399, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Hopenhayn, Hugo A, 1992. "Entry, Exit, and Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1127-50, September.
- Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002.
"Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationship,"
NBER Working Papers
9269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728, May.
- Howitt, Peter & Griffith, Rachel & Aghion, Philippe & Blundell, Richard & Bloom, Nick, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship," Scholarly Articles 4481507, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002. "Competition and innovation: an inverted U relationship," IFS Working Papers W02/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Hale Utar, 2006. "Employment Dynamics and Import Competition," 2006 Meeting Papers 298, Society for Economic Dynamics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christian Zimmermann).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.