IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/12174.html

Complementarities among Authority, Accountability, and Monitoring: Evidence from Japanese Business Groups

In: Organizational Innovation and Firm Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Hideshi Itoh
  • Tatsuya Kikutani
  • Osamu Hayashida

Abstract

This paper offers an empirical test of complementarities among delegated authority, accountability, and monitoring, using unique survey data collected from group-affiliated companies in Japan. The survey provides information about how various decisions are made within business groups, each of which consists of a large core parent firm and its network of affiliated firms such as subsidiaries and related companies. We find some evidence that delegated authority and accountability are complementary, implying that increasing assigned accountability raises the marginal return from increasing delegated authority. We also obtain a stronger result that performance is likely to be better under the combination of low authority and low accountability or that of high authority and high accountability than under the "mix and match" combinations where one is low and the other high. We then study the effects of monitoring intensity on the authority-accountability pair and find that performance of the firm with the combination of high authority and high accountability is increasing in monitoring intensity, while the combination of low authority and low accountability is not. This result is consistent with the theoretical hypothesis that increasing monitoring intensity raises the marginal return from increasing delegated authority and accountability. J. Japanese Int. Economies 22 (2) (2008) 207-228.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hideshi Itoh & Tatsuya Kikutani & Osamu Hayashida, 2008. "Complementarities among Authority, Accountability, and Monitoring: Evidence from Japanese Business Groups," NBER Chapters, in: Organizational Innovation and Firm Performance, pages 207-228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:12174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tatsuo Ushijima, 2016. "Diversification, Organization, and Value of the Firm," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 45(2), pages 467-499, May.
    2. Elisa Gerten & Michael Beckmann & Elisa Gerten & Matthias Kräkel, 2022. "Information and Communication Technology, Hierarchy, and Job Design," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 189, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    3. Jed De Varo & Suraj Prasad, 2015. "The Relationship between Delegation and Incentives Across Occupations: Evidence and Theory," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 279-312, June.
    4. Peng XU, 2017. "Foreign Institutional Ownership and Risk Taking," Discussion papers 17061, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Christos Bilanakos & John S. Heywood & John Sessions & Nikolaos Theodoropoulos, 2016. "Delegation and worker training," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 06-2016, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    6. Yoshida, Kenichi & Iino, Yoshiaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2022. "Do Japanese keiretsu promote better CSR activities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 452-475.
    7. Christos Bilanakos & John S. Heywood & John G. Sessions & Nikolaos Theodoropoulos, 2018. "Does Delegation Increase Worker Training?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 1089-1115, April.

    More about this item

    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:nbr:nberch:12174. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.