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—
We 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.
|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
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Bernard Franck & Nicolas Le Pape, 2008.
"'The Commitment Value of the Debt : a Reappraissal',"
- Chaim Fershtman & Kenneth L Judd, 1984.
"Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly,"
642, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- 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.
- 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 & 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.
- 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.
- Sean Cleary & Paul Povel & Michael Raith, 2003. "The U-shaped Investment Curve: Theory and Evidence," Finance 0311010, EconWPA.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kgu:wpaper:96. 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: (Toshihiro Okada)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.