IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-01o10001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk aversion as effort incentive: A correction and prima facie test of the moral hazard theory of share tenancy

Author

Listed:
  • Mark DeWeaver

    (Ithaca Advisors, LLC)

  • James Roumasset

    (University of Hawaii at Manoa)

Abstract

We show that Stiglitz's (1974) principal-agency theory of share tenancy does not imply, as alleged, that the optimal tenant share is less than one for risk-averse tenants nor that the share decreases monotonically with tenant risk aversion. Tenants may self insure by working harder increasingly so for higher levels of risk aversion with the result that the more risk averse work for higher shares. When the model is parameterized based on previous studies of Philippine agriculture, it predicts a U-shaped relationship between optimal tenant''s share and risk aversion. Landlords choose rent contracts for both high and low levels of risk aversion and shares from 80-99% for intermediate levels. In contrast, actual shares in the study area ranged from 50-60%, with most farmers contracted on a 50:50 basis. We conclude that rent contracts must have additional disadvantages and/or share tenancy additional benefits that are not accounted for in the static principal-agency theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark DeWeaver & James Roumasset, 2002. "Risk aversion as effort incentive: A correction and prima facie test of the moral hazard theory of share tenancy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-01o10001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2002/Volume15/EB-01O10001A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1974. "Incentives and Risk Sharing in Sharecropping," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 219-255.
    2. Reid, Joseph D., 1973. "Sharecropping As An Understandable Market Response: The Post-Bellum South," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 106-130, March.
    3. Ross, Stephen A, 1973. "The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 134-139, May.
    4. David E. M. Sappington, 1991. "Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 45-66, Spring.
    5. Rao, C H Hanumantha, 1971. "Uncertainty, Entrepreneurship, and Sharecropping in India," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(3), pages 578-595, May-June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roumasset, James, 2004. "Rural Institutions, Agricultural Development, and Pro-Poor Economic Growth," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-20, June.
    2. James Andreoni & Deniz Aydin & Blake Barton & B. Douglas Bernheim & Jeffrey Naecker, 2020. "When Fair Isn’t Fair: Understanding Choice Reversals Involving Social Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1673-1711.
    3. James Andreoni & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2009. "Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1607-1636, September.
    4. Roumasset, James A., 2006. "The Economics of Agricultural Development: What Have We Learned?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25598, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:15:y:2002:i:4:p:1-16 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Mark A. DeWeaver & James A. Roumasset, 2002. "Risk Aversion as Effort Incentive: A Correction and Prima Facie Test of the Moral Hazard Theory of Share Tenancity," Working Papers 200206, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    3. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    4. Roumasset, J., 1995. "The nature of the agricultural firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 161-177, March.
    5. David Nash, 2003. "Determinants of the use of financial incentives in investment banking," Working Papers wp256, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    6. Elliott, Matthew & James, Harvey Jr., 2013. "Nature Of The Farm: Revisited," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150726, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2018. "Moral hazard: Base models and two extensions," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 16, pages 453-485, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. M. A. Taslim, 1992. "A Survey of Theories of Cropshare Tenancy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(3), pages 254-275, September.
    9. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2017. "The Revolution of Information Economics: The Past and the Future," NBER Working Papers 23780, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Konstantinos Serfes, 2000. "Risk Sharing vs. Incentives Revisited," Department of Economics Working Papers 00-02, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    11. Luis H. B. Braido, 2008. "Evidence on the Incentive Properties of Share Contracts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 327-349, May.
    12. Ho, Peter, 2018. "Institutional function versus form: The evolutionary credibility of land, housing and natural resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 642-650.
    13. Sen, Debapriya, 2011. "A theory of sharecropping: The role of price behavior and imperfect competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 181-199.
    14. B. Michael Gilroy & Daniel Kruse, 2011. "Die Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie als Erklärungsinstrumentarium von Korruption: Angewendet auf den Praxisfall „Siemens“," Working Papers CIE 34, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    15. Pakes, Ariel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1983. "Optimum Contracts for Research Personnel, Research Employment, and the Establishment of "Rival" Enterprises," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 345-365, October.
    16. Gebrehiwot, D. & Holden, S.T., 2018. "Variation in output shares and endogenous matching in land rental contracts," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277362, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Edward P. Lazear, 1986. "Incentive Contracts," NBER Working Papers 1917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. repec:fgv:epgrbe:v:66:n:1:a:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Yoder, Jonathan & Hossain, Ishrat & Epplin, Francis & Doye, Damona, 2008. "Contract duration and the division of labor in agricultural land leases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 714-733, March.
    20. Debapriya Sen, 2005. "Sharecropping, interlinkage, and price variation," Department of Economics Working Papers 05-10, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    21. Fasshauer, Stephan, 2001. "Das Principal-Agent-Verhältnis zwischen Bevölkerung und Politik als zentrales Problem der Alterssicherung in Deutschland," W.E.P. - Würzburg Economic Papers 31, University of Würzburg, Chair for Monetary Policy and International Economics.
    22. Andrew B. Whitford & William P. Bottom & Gary J. Miller, 2013. "The (Negligible) Benefit of Moving First: Efficiency and Equity in Principal-Agent Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 499-518, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agricultural contracts;

    JEL classification:

    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • D2 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-01o10001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.