Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics

Editor-in-Chief: Schipper, Burkhard

Ed. by Fong, Yuk-fai / Peeters, Ronald / Puzzello , Daniela / Rivas, Javier / Wenzelburger, Jan

2 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.229
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.271

CiteScore 2016: 0.30

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.458
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.553

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2015: 0.16

See all formats and pricing
In This Section

Regulation by Negotiation: the Private Benefit Bias

Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky
  • 1CERAS Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées,
/ Pierre Picard
  • 2University Paris X - Nanterre (THEMA),
Published Online: 2002-02-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1534-598X.1042

This paper analyses the role of the managers' non-pecuniary private benefits in an incomplete contract approach to the regulation of utilities. Private benefits may take various forms: excessive job security, perks, overstaffing, feeling of power. The model describes the relationship between a government and the manager of a firm which produces a pure public good, under private or public ownership. The firm's production is characterized by its quantity and its flexibility, the latter corresponding to adaptability to changes in consumers' tastes or to new technologies. A larger output quantity entails larger private benefits to the manager, while increasing flexibility runs counter to the managers' private benefits. The manager decides upon non-verifiable investment in human and non-human capital so as to facilitate an increase in the output quantity (capacity investment) or to improve the firm's flexibility (investment in organizational adaptability). We compare the effects of the ownership regime on the manager's incentives to invest and on the aggregate welfare. The private firm under-invests in capacity and organizational flexibility. This is because the government holds up a part of the gains through ex post renegotiation of the initial (incomplete) contract. Our analysis also highlights a fundamental bias in the investment behavior of the state-owned firm: the manager of the public firm only invests in capacity (he may even invest more than under private ownership) but he never invests in organizational adaptability. The model shows that an increase in the government's bargaining power exacerbates the hold up problem when the firm is privately owned, but that this result may be reversed for capacity investment under public ownership. Finally, we show that the superiority of private or public ownership depends simultaneously on three factors: the respective bargaining power of the manager and of the government, the degree of specificity of investments and the relative weight of quantity and flexibility concerns in the social welfare.

Keywords: regulation; incomplete contracts; privatization; private benefit

About the article

Published Online: 2002-02-25

Citation Information: Topics in Theoretical Economics, ISSN (Online) 1534-598X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1534-598X.1042.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in