Seoul Journal of Economics
[ Article ]
Seoul Journal of Economics - Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.27-50
ISSN: 1225-0279 (Print)
Print publication date 28 Feb 1999
Received Nov 1998

High-Powered Incentives vs. Low-Powered Incentives: Why Low-Powered Incentives within Firms?

Sonku Kim
Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong skkim@ust.hk

JEL Classifications: D80, J00

Abstract

This paper explains why high-powered incentives are more common than low-powered incentives in market arrangements, while low-powered incentives are more common than high-powered incentives within firms. In a firmlike principal-agent framework in which a common principal participates in the multiple agents’ production processes with his own productive efforts, social efficiency can be obtained by relative performance schemes when the agents are risk-neutral. We derive a group of relative performance schemes which achieve a socially efficient outcome. They are different in their pay-for-performance sensitivity, ranging from a high-powered pricelike relative contract to a seemingly low-powered promotion-based contract. We show that the high-powered relative contract is the most efficient among the first-best relative contracts when the agents have private information, and the promotion-based contract is the most efficient when the agents’ limited liabilities are of serious concern.

References

  • Baker, G. P. “Incentive Contracts and Performance Measurement.” Journal of Political Economy 100 (1992): 598-614. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261831]
  • Baker, G. P., Gibbs, M., and Holmstrom, B. “Hierarchies and Compensation: A Case Study.” European Economic Review 37 (1993): 366-78. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(93)90025-6]
  • Baker, G. P. “The Internal Economics of the Firm: Evidence from Personal Data.” Quarterly Journal of Economics CIX (1994): 881-920. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2118351]
  • Baker, G. P., Jensen, M., and Murphy, K. “Competition and Incentive: Practice vs. Theory.” Journal of Finance 43 (1988): 593-616. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb04593.x]
  • Bhattacharyya, S., and Guasch, L. “Heterogeneity, Tournaments, and Hierarchies.” Journal of Political Economy 96 (1988): 867-81. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261567]
  • Bhattacharyya, S., and Lafontaine, F. “Double-Sided Moral Hazard and the Nature of Share Contracts.” RAND Journal of Economics 26 (1995): 761-81. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2556017]
  • Brickley, J. A., and Dark, F. H. “The Choice of Organizational Form: The Case of Franchising.” Journal of Financial Economics 18 (No. 2 1987): 401-20. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(87)90046-8]
  • Carmichael, L. “The Agent-Agents Problem: Payment by Relative Output.” Journal of Labor Economics 1 (1983): 50-65. [https://doi.org/10.1086/298004]
  • Green, J., and Stokey, N. “A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts.” Journal of Political Economy 91 (1983): 349-64. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261153]
  • Grossman, S., and Hart, O. “An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem.” Econometrica 51 (1983): 7-45. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1912246]
  • Harris, M., and Raviv, A. “Optimal Incentive Contracts with Imperfect Information.” Journal of Economic Theory 20 (1979): 231-59. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(79)90073-5]
  • Hart, O., and Holmstrom, B. “The Theory of Contracts.” In T. Bewley ed., Advances in Economic Theory, Fifth World Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521340446.003]
  • Holmstrom, B. “Moral Hazard and Observability.” Bell Journal of Economics 10 (1979): 74-91. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3003320]
  • Holmstrom, B. “Moral-Hazard in Teams.” Bell Journal of Economics 13 (1982): 324-40. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3003457]
  • Holmstrom, B., and Milgrom, P. “Multitask, Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 7 (SP 1991): 24-51. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24]
  • Holmstrom, B., and Tirole, J. “The Theory of the Firm.” In R. Schmalensee and R. Willig eds., Handbook of Industrial Economics. New York: North-Holand, 1989.
  • Innes, R. “Limited Liabilities and Incentive Contracting with Ex-ante Action Choices.” Journal of Economic Theory 52 (1990): 45-67. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(90)90066-S]
  • Kim, S. K. “Limited Liabilities and Bonus Contracts.” Four Essays on the Agency Problems. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA, 1991.
  • Kim, S. K., and Wang, S. “Linear Contracts and Double Moral-Hazard.” Journal of Economic Theory 82 (1998): 342-78. [https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1998.2439]
  • Krueger, A. “Ownership, Agency, and Wages: An Examination of Franchising in the Fast Food Industry.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (1991): 75-101. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2937907]
  • Lafontaine, F. “Agency Theory and Franchising: Some Empirical Results.” RAND Journal of Economics 23 (1992): 263-83. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2555988]
  • Lazear, E., and Rosen, S. “Rank Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts.” Journal of Political Economy 89 (1981): 841-64. [https://doi.org/10.1086/261010]
  • Mathewson, G. F., and Winter, R. A. “The Economics of Franchise Contracts.” Journal of Law and Economics 28 (1985): 503-26. [https://doi.org/10.1086/467099]
  • Nalebuff, B., and Stiglitz, J. “Prizes and Incentives: Towards a General Theory of Compensation and Competition.” Bell Journal of Economics 13 (1983): 21-43. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3003535]
  • Romano, R. “Double Moral Hazard and Resale Price Maintenance.” RAND Journal of Economics 25 (1994): 455-66. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2555772]
  • Sappington, D. “Limited Liability Contracts between Principal and Agent.” Journal of Economic Theory 29 (1983): 1-21. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(83)90120-5]
  • Shavell, S. “Risk Sharing and Incentives in the Principal and Agent Relationship.” Bell Journal of Economics 10 (1979): 55-73. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3003319]
  • Williamson, O. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press, 1985.