The Firm as a Subeconomy

Bengt Holmström
{"title":"The Firm as a Subeconomy","authors":"Bengt Holmström","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.162270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper explores the economic role of the firm in a market economy. The analysis begins with a discussion and critique of the property rights approach to the theory of the firm as exposited in the recent work by Hart and Moore (\"Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm\"). It is argued that the Hart-Moore model, taken literally, can only explain why individuals own assets, but not why firms own assets. In particular, the logic of the model suggests that each asset should be free standing in order to provide maximal flexibility for the design of individual incentives. These implications run counter to fact. One of the key features of the modern firm is that it owns essentially all the productive assets that it employs. Employees rarely own any assets; they only contribute human capital. Why is the ownership of assets clustered in firms? The paper outlines an answer based on the notion that control over physical assets gives control over contracting rights to those assets. Metaphorically, the firm is viewed as a miniature economy, an \"island\" economy, in which asset ownership conveys the CEO the power to define the \"rules of the game\", that is, the ability to restructure the incentives of those that accept to do business on (or with) the island. The desire to regulate trade in this fashion stems from contractual externalities characteristic of imperfect information environments. The inability to regulate all trade through a single firm stems from the value of exit rights as an incentive instrument and a tool to discipline the abuse of power.","PeriodicalId":224394,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Securities Law eJournal","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"548","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Securities Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.162270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 548

Abstract

The paper explores the economic role of the firm in a market economy. The analysis begins with a discussion and critique of the property rights approach to the theory of the firm as exposited in the recent work by Hart and Moore ("Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm"). It is argued that the Hart-Moore model, taken literally, can only explain why individuals own assets, but not why firms own assets. In particular, the logic of the model suggests that each asset should be free standing in order to provide maximal flexibility for the design of individual incentives. These implications run counter to fact. One of the key features of the modern firm is that it owns essentially all the productive assets that it employs. Employees rarely own any assets; they only contribute human capital. Why is the ownership of assets clustered in firms? The paper outlines an answer based on the notion that control over physical assets gives control over contracting rights to those assets. Metaphorically, the firm is viewed as a miniature economy, an "island" economy, in which asset ownership conveys the CEO the power to define the "rules of the game", that is, the ability to restructure the incentives of those that accept to do business on (or with) the island. The desire to regulate trade in this fashion stems from contractual externalities characteristic of imperfect information environments. The inability to regulate all trade through a single firm stems from the value of exit rights as an incentive instrument and a tool to discipline the abuse of power.
公司作为一个次级经济
本文探讨了企业在市场经济中的经济作用。分析开始于对Hart和Moore最近的著作(“产权和企业的性质”)中所阐述的企业理论的产权方法的讨论和批判。有人认为,从字面上看,哈特-摩尔模型只能解释为什么个人拥有资产,而不能解释为什么公司拥有资产。特别是,该模型的逻辑表明,每项资产都应该是独立的,以便为个人激励的设计提供最大的灵活性。这些暗示与事实背道而驰。现代企业的主要特征之一是它基本上拥有它所雇用的所有生产性资产。员工很少拥有任何资产;他们只贡献人力资本。为什么资产的所有权集中在公司?本文概述了基于对实物资产的控制即对这些资产的承包权利的控制这一概念的答案。打个比方,公司被视为一个微型经济体,一个“岛屿”经济,在这个经济体中,资产所有权向首席执行官传达了定义“游戏规则”的权力,也就是说,有能力重组那些接受在岛上(或与之做生意)的人的激励机制。以这种方式监管贸易的愿望源于不完全信息环境的契约外部性特征。无法通过一家公司来管理所有的贸易,其根源在于退出权作为一种激励手段和约束滥用权力的工具的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书