Decentralization, Hierarchies and Incentives: A Mechanism Design Perspective
In summary, the most important lacuna of existing theoretical incentive-based literature is that it focuses on costs rather than the benefits of delegation. The latter are difficult to incorporate into traditional contract theory. Perhaps the most important benefit of delegation is the distribution of information processing tasks, but no progress has occurred in theories that marry information processing costs with incentives. Some progress has been possible with communication costs and simple measures of contract complexity, but these need better foundations. What have we learnt from the existing literature? It identifies a number of potential costs of delegation: moral hazard for intermediaries owing to non-coincidence of their own objectives with the principal’s, and their monopsony power over subordinates. These can result in production distortions (insufficient sourcing from subordinates), cascading of information rents across vertical layers, and problems of coordinating different horizontal branches. If agents do not collude, these agency costs of delegation can be avoided if (and only if) the principal can monitor subcontract costs or quantities, if contracts flow down the hierarchy, and agents are risk-neutral. If any one of these conditions do not hold then agency costs cannot be avoided. The only significant problem pertains to vertical control loss; if they can be avoided (i.e., under the above mentioned conditions) then incentive considerations do not complicate horizontal coordination across branches of the hierarchy: ‘group’-based incentive contracts can be designed to costlessly internalize these horizontal externalities. On the other hand, managerial risk aversion or limited capacity for principals to monitor local conditions or agent decisions can cause significant control losses from delegation, that grow with the size and complexity of the organization. This provides an explanation of organizational diseconomies of scale, i.e, why larger firms tend to be more ‘bureaucratic’ and less able to control costs. If agents collude, centralization is also subject to unobserved side contracting among agents, limiting the ability of the principal to moderate ‘control loss’. However, centralization potentially allows greater control over side contracting outcomes by the principal offering outside options to subordinates that limit monopsony power of intermediaries. Depending on the precise distortions engendered, this added dimension of control may or may not be valuable. Overall, the presence of collusion among agents enlarges the range of circumstances where delegation implements optimal allocations. There are numerous open questions and fruitful avenues for future research. I conclude by listing some of these. First, a better understanding of effects of collusion is still needed. The few papers on this topic emerge with different results the intuitive basis for which is not very clear. One hopes a more unified perspective will emerge in due course. There is a need to explore implications of different formulations of side-contracting, e.g., more general assignment of bargaining power within coalitions, or alternative timing assumptions. Baron-Besanko (1999) provide an intriguing model in which agents themselves decide ex ante whether to consolidate themselves into a single entity, a decision which the principal observes and takes into account before offering a contract. In the models we described, the principal can anticipate a particular pattern of side contracting, but cannot observe whether or not the agents actually do side-contract. In contexts with more agents and vertical layers, the possibility of collusion-within-collusion further complicates the analysis. Second, more effort needs to be devoted to explaining the potential benefits of delegation. Models integrating information processing or communication costs with incentive considerations are needed to provide a full-blown theory of the trade-off between centralization and decentralization. This would render the theory useful in applied work assessing the effectiveness of innovative human resource management practices and their complementarity with new information technology. A third possible avenue would consider applications and extensions to contexts involving more productive agents and a richer specification of the production technology. Questions concerning the optimal shape of hierarchies can then be addressed, e.g., tradeoffs between span of control and number of vertical layers, how to group agents within departments, organizational diseconomies of scale, and the advantages of non-hierarchical organizations. One hopes that both theory and empirical datasets regarding these organizational attributes can be developed interactively, permitting better understanding of their productivity implications, and how they respond to changes in market competition or information technology.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" 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 search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2005|
|Date of revision:||Sep 2005|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.bu.edu/econ/
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.:
- Marschak, Thomas & Reichelstein, Stefan, 1998. "Network Mechanisms, Informational Efficiency, and Hierarchies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 106-141, March.
- Laffont, J.J. & Martimort, D., 1995.
"Collusion and Delegation,"
95.397, Toulouse - GREMAQ.
- Timothy F. Bresnahan & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 1999.
"Information Technology, Workplace Organization and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence,"
NBER Working Papers
7136, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Timothy F. Bresnahan & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2002. "Information Technology, Workplace Organization, And The Demand For Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 117(1), pages 339-376, February.
- Jeremy Berkowitz & Michelle J. White, 2004. "Bankruptcy and Small Firms' Access to Credit," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 69-84, Spring.
- Baliga, Sandeep & Sjostrom, Tomas, 2001.
"Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 27-51, Spring.
- Sandeep Baliga & Tomas Sjostrom, 1999. "Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes," Discussion Papers 1290, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Sandeep Baliga, 2000. "Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1516, Econometric Society.
- Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1997.
"Formal and Real Authority in Organizations,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 1-29, February.
- Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1997. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Scholarly Articles 4554125, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1994. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," IDEI Working Papers 37, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Philippe Aghion & Jean Tirole, 1994. "Normal and Real Authority in Organizations," Working papers 94-13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Philippe Aghion & Jean Tirole, 1994. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Working papers 95-8, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Gropp, Reint & Scholz, John Karl & White, Michelle J, 1997.
"Personal Bankruptcy and Credit Supply and Demand,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 112(1), pages 217-51, February.
- Jean Tirole, 1999. "Incomplete Contracts: Where Do We Stand?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 741-782, July.
- Alvin E. Roth, 2002. "The Economist as Engineer: Game Theory, Experimentation, and Computation as Tools for Design Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1341-1378, July.
- Celik, Gorkem, 2009.
"Mechanism design with collusive supervision,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 69-95, January.
- Fan, Wei & White, Michelle J, 2003. "Personal Bankruptcy and the Level of Entrepreneurial Activity," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 543-67, October.
- Kaushik Basu, 2003.
"The Economics and Law of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,"
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 141-157, Summer.
- Basu, Kaushik, 2003. "The Economics and Law of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace," Working Papers 03-07, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
- David Andolfatto, 2000.
"A Theory of Inalienable Property Rights,"
Cahiers de recherche CREFE / CREFE Working Papers
110, CREFE, Université du Québec à Montréal.
- Genicot, Garance, 2002. "Bonded labor and serfdom: a paradox of voluntary choice," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 101-127, February.
- Beaudry, P. & Poitevin, M., 1993.
"Contract Renegotiation: A Simple Framework and Implications for Organization Theory,"
Cahiers de recherche
9332, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
- Paul Beaudry & Michel Poitevin, 1995. "Contract Renegotiation: A Simple Framework and Implications for Organization Theory," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 302-35, May.
- Tirole, Jean, 1986. "Hierarchies and Bureaucracies: On the Role of Collusion in Organizations," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 181-214, Fall.
- David P. Baron, 1985. "Noncooperative Regulation of a Nonlocalized Externality," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 553-568, Winter.
- Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Bolton, 2004.
"The firm as a communication network,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/9599, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Bolton, 1994. "The firm as a communication network," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9595, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Bolton, 1996. "The firm as a communication network," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9597, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Myerson, Roger B., 1982. "Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal-agent problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 67-81, June.
- Jacques Cremer & Michael H. Riordan, 1987. "On Governing Multilateral Transactions with Bilateral Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(3), pages 436-451, Autumn.
- Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2000. "Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 23-48, Fall.
- Poitevin, M., 2000.
"Can the Theory of Incentives Explain Devcentralization?,"
Cahiers de recherche
2000-13, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
- Michel Poitevin, 2000. "Can the theory of incentives explain decentralization?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 878-906, November.
- Michel Poitevin, 2000. "Can the Theory of Incentives Explain Decentralization?," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-32, CIRANO.
- Arrunada, Benito & Garicano, Luis & Vazquez, Luis, 2001.
"Contractual Allocation of Decision Rights and Incentives: The Case of Automobile Distribution,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 257-84, April.
- Benito Arruñada & Luis Garicano & Luis Vázquez, 1999. "Contractual allocation of decision rights and incentives: The case of automobile distribution," Economics Working Papers 424, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Dilip Mookherjee, 1997.
"Wealth Effects, Incentives and Productivity,"
Boston University - Institute for Economic Development
77, Boston University, Institute for Economic Development.
- Thomas N. Hubbard, 2000. "The Demand For Monitoring Technologies: The Case Of Trucking," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 115(2), pages 533-560, May.
- Stiglitz, J.E., 1988. "Sharecropping," Papers 11, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
- Richard J. Gilbert & Michael H. Riordan, 1995. "Regulating Complementary Products: A Comparative Institutional Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 243-256, Summer.
- Basu, Kaushik & Van, Pham Hoang, 1998. "The Economics of Child Labor," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(3), pages 412-27, June.
- Hart, Oliver, 1995. "Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288817.
- Segal, Ilya, 1999. "Complexity and Renegotiation: A Foundation for Incomplete Contracts," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(1), pages 57-82, January.
- Nahum D. Melumad & Dilip Mookherjee & Stefan Reichelstein, 1995. "Hierarchical Decentralization of Incentive Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 654-672, Winter.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bos:wpaper:wp2005-034. 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: (Gillian Gurish)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.