IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Incitations Managériales et Concurrence : Synthèse de la Littérature

  • Ahmed Ennasri

Ce papier survole la littérature théorique et empirique de l’effet de la concurrence sur les schémas de rémunération et sur l’effort du dirigeant. Les études théoriques montrent que la concurrence affecte les incitations et l’effort du dirigeant par son effet sur la structure informationnelle quant à l’effort du dirigeant (effet informationnel), par son effet sur la fonction d’utilité du dirigeant (effet revenu-direct) et par le biais de l’impact de la concurrence sur la performance de l’entreprise. Sur le plan empirique, très peu de travaux ont été consacrés à l’effet de la concurrence. Ces travaux s’intéressent généralement à l’effet de la concurrence sur la rémunération incitative, sur la productivité des employés au sein des entreprises ou sur les coûts d’agence.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documents/ES2010-03.pdf
File Function: First version, 2010
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier in its series Studies and Syntheses with number 10-03.

as
in new window

Length: 30 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2010
Date of revision: Oct 2010
Handle: RePEc:lam:estudy:10-03
Contact details of provider: Postal: Avenue Raymond Dugrand, CS 79606, 34960 Montpellier Cedex 2
Phone: +33-467-158-568
Fax: +33-467-158-467
Web page: http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/
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.:

as in new window
  1. repec:lmu:muenar:19529 is not listed on IDEAS
  2. Martin Stephen, 1993. "Endogenous Firm Efficiency in a Cournot Principal-Agent Model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 445-450, April.
  3. Chaim Fershtman & Kenneth L Judd, 1984. "Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly," Discussion Papers 642, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  4. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
  5. Januszewski, Silke I. & Köke, Jens & Winter, Joachim K., 1999. "Product market competition, corporate governance and firm performance: an empirical analysis for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 99-63, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  6. Stewart C. Myers, 1984. "Capital Structure Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 1393, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Nickell, S.J., 1993. "Competition and Crporate Performance," Economics Series Working Papers 99155, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  8. Horn, H. & Lang, H. & Lundgren, S., 1991. "Competition, Long Run Contracts and Internal Inefficiencies in Firms," Papers 506, Stockholm - International Economic Studies.
  9. Jagannathan, Ravi & Srinivasan, Shaker B., 1999. "Does product market competition reduce agency costs?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 387-399.
  10. Schmidt, Klaus M., 1997. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," Munich Reprints in Economics 19772, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  11. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
  12. Rachel Griffith, 2001. "Product market competition, efficiency and agency costs: an empirical analysis," IFS Working Papers W01/12, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  13. Martimort, David, 1994. "Exclusive Dealing, Common Agency and Multiprincipals Incentive Theory," IDEI Working Papers 43, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 1996.
  14. Green, Alison & Mayes, David, 1991. "Technical Inefficiency in Manufacturing Industries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(406), pages 523-38, May.
  15. Reitman, David, 1993. "Stock Options and the Strategic Use of Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 513-24, June.
  16. Sanford Grossman & Oliver Hart, . "An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 15-80, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
  17. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-29, May.
  18. Myers, Stewart C., 1984. "Capital structure puzzle," Working papers 1548-84., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
  19. Michael Raith, 2003. "Competition, Risk, and Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1425-1436, September.
  20. Robert Gibbons, 1998. "Incentives in Organizations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 115-132, Fall.
  21. DeFond, Mark L. & Park, Chul W., 1999. "The effect of competition on CEO turnover1," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 35-56, February.
  22. Myers, Stewart C, 1984. " The Capital Structure Puzzle," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 575-92, July.
  23. David Scharfstein, 1988. "Product-Market Competition and Managerial Slack," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 147-155, Spring.
  24. Hay, Donald A & Liu, Guy S, 1997. "The Efficiency of Firms: What Difference Does Competition Make?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(442), pages 597-617, May.
  25. Fee, C Edward & Hadlock, Charles J, 2000. "Management Turnover and Product Market Competition: Empirical Evidence from the U.S. Newspaper Industry," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 205-43, April.
  26. Bernheim, B Douglas & Whinston, Michael D, 1986. "Common Agency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 923-42, July.
  27. Matthias Kräkel, 2005. "Strategic delegation in oligopolistic tournaments," Review of Economic Design, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 377-396, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lam:estudy:10-03. 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: (Patricia Modat)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.