Advertisement

An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem

Chapter
Part of the Huebner International Series on Risk, Insurance and Economic Security book series (HSRI, volume 14)

Abstract

Most analyses of the principal-agent problem assume that the principal chooses an incentive scheme to maximize expected utility subject to the agent’s utility being at a stationary point. An important paper of Mirrlees has shown that this approach is generally invalid. We present an alternative procedure. If the agent’s preferences over income lotteries are independent of action, we show that the optimal way of implementing an action by the agent can be found by solving a convex programming problem. We use this to characterize the optimal incentive scheme and to analyze the determinants of the seriousness of an incentive problem.

Keywords

Incentive Scheme Risk Averse Incentive Problem Optimal Incentive Scheme High Return State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Arrow, K. J.: “Insurance, Risk and Resource Allocation,” Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Chicago: Markham, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bertsekas, D.: “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Existence of an Optimal Portfolio,” Journal of Economic Theory, 8 (1974), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Blackwell, D., and M. A. Girshick: Theory of Games and Statistical Decisions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Borch, K.: The Economics of Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hardy, G. H., J. E. Littlewood, and G. Polya: Inequalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Harris, M., and A. Raviv: “Optimal Incentive Contracts with Imperfect Information,” Journal of Economic Theory, 20 (1979), 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Holmstrom, B.: “Moral Hazard and Observability,” Bell Journal of Economics, 10 (1979), 74–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Keeney, R.: “Risk Independence and Multiattributed Utility Functions,” Econometrica, 41 (1973), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Milgrom, P. R.: “Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications,” Discussion Paper No. 407, Northwestern University, Illinois, Mimeo, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Mirrlees, J. A.: “The Theory of Moral Hazard and Unobservable Behavior—Part I,” Nuffield College, Oxford, Mimeo, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Mirrlees, J. A. “The Optimal Structure of Incentives and Authority Within an Organization” Bell Journal of Economics7(1976), 105–131.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Mirrlees, J. A.: “The Implications of Moral Hazard for Optimal Insurance,” Seminar given at Confer- ence held in honour of Karl Borch, Bergen, Norway, Mimeo, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Pauly, M.: “The Economics of Moral Hazard: Comment,” American Economic Review, 58 (1968), 531–536.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Pollak, R.: “The Risk Independence Axiom,” Econometrica, 41 (1973), 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Radner, R.: “Monitoring Cooperative Agreements in a Repeated Principal-Agent Relationship,” Mimeo, Bell Laboratories, 1980.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Review of Economic Studies Symposium on Incentive Compatibility, April, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Ross, S.: “The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem” American Economic Review63(1973), 134–139.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rubinstein, A. and M. Yaari: Seminar given at Conference held in honour of Karl Borch, Bergen, Norway, 1979.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    ShavelL, S.: “On Moral Hazard and Insurance,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93 (1979), 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    ShavelL, S. “Risk Sharing and Incentives in the Principal and Agent Relationship” Bell Journal of Economics10(1979), 55–73.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Spence, M., and R. Zeckhauser: “Insurance, Information, and Individual Action” American Economic Review61(1971), 380–387.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Stiglitz, J. E.: “Incentives and Risk Sharing in Sharecropping,” Review of Economic Studies, 61 (1974), 219–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Wilson, R.: “The Theory of Syndicates,” Econometrica, 36 (1968), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Zeckhauser, R.: “Medical Insurance: A Case Study of the Trade-Off Between Risk Spreading and Appropriate Incentives,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2 (1970), 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.London School of EconomicsUSA

Personalised recommendations