Public Choice

, Volume 140, Issue 3–4, pp 421–429

A principal-agent approach to a self-administered organization with an elected principal

Article
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

We consider a self-administered organization characterized by a principal elected by the agents of the organization. Conditions are established under which self-administration leads to either stronger or weaker incentives in comparison to an organization which only pursues exogenous objectives. While the output of the organization is controlled by the effort of the agents and by nature, the pay-off of the principal also includes rents from office. Generally, two different contractual regimes can be observed: either a hard regime with strong incentives and low fixed payments, or a soft regime with weak incentives and high fixed payments.

Keywords

Self-administration Public organization Moral hazard Probabilistic voting 

JEL Classification

D23 D73 H41 L32 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. (1989). Electoral accountability and incumbency. In P. Ordeshook (Ed.), Models of strategic choice in politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  2. Banks, J., & Sundaram, R. (1993). Moral hazard and adverse selection in a model of repeated elections. In W. Barnett (Eds.), Political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Banks, J., & Sundaram, R. (1998). Optimal retention in agency problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 82, 293–323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro, R. (1973). The control of politicians: an economic model. Public Choice, 14(1), 19–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2005). Competition and incentives with motivated agents. American Economic Review, 95(3), 616–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canton, E. (2005). Power of incentives in public organizations when employees are intrinsically motivated. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161(4), 664–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coughlin, P. (1982). Probabilistic voting theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Dewatripont, M., Jewitt, I., & Tirole, J. (1999). The economics of career concerns, part II: application to missions and accountability of government agencies. Review of Economic Studies, 66(1), 199–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: an interpretative review. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 696–727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice, 50, 5–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holmström, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 74–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine Atherton. Google Scholar
  13. Reed, W. R. (1994). A retrospective voting model with heterogeneous politicians. Economics and Politics, 6(1), 39–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogoff, K. (1990). Equilibrium political budget cycles. American Economic Review, 80(1), 21–36. Google Scholar
  15. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1979). Bureaucrats vs. voters: on the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(4), 563–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shiozawa, Y. (2004). Evolutionary economics in the 21st century: a manifesto. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 1(1), 5–47. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergNurembergGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations