On some alleged “problems” and alleged “solutions” in democratic firms

D. Ellerman
{"title":"On some alleged “problems” and alleged “solutions” in democratic firms","authors":"D. Ellerman","doi":"10.1108/jpeo-04-2020-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper will discuss two problems that have plagued the literature on the Ward-Domar-Vanek labor-managed firm (LMF) model, the perverse supply response problem and the horizon problem. The paper also discusses the solution to the horizon problem and the alleged “solution” of a membership market.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper so it analyzes the two problems and shows how they can be resolved. It also shows how one alleged “solution” (membership market) is based on several conceptual mistakes about the structure of rights in a democratic firm.FindingsThe perverse supply response is based on the assumption that the members of a democratic firm can expel for no cause some members when it would benefit the remaining members. It is shown that the same perverse behavior happens conceptually and historically in a conventional firm under the same assumptions. The horizon problem is resolved by the system of internal capital accounts (ICAs) that has been independently invented at least four times.Research limitations/implicationsThe idea of a democratic firm is quite often dismissed by conventional economists: “At first it seems like a good idea but unfortunately it is plagued by structural problems such as the perverse supply response and the horizon problem.” Hence it is important to see that the first is not a problem under ordinary assumptions and that the second is a solved problem.Practical implicationsThe perverse supply response problem can be reproduced in a conventional firm under similar assumptions, and the horizon problem is real problem for social or common ownership firms but is solved in the Mondragon-type worker cooperatives by the system of ICAs. This has been known and published since the early 1980s, but conventional economists ignore the solution and still cite it as an inherent structure problem of a democratic firm.Originality/valueIt has not been previously shown in the LMF literature that the perverse supply response can be reproduced in a conventional corporation under similar assumptions since the maximand for the conventional firm is not total market value but that value per current shareholder. The solution to the horizon problem using ICAs has long been “known” but never acknowledged in the conventional literature as if it was a necessary feature of workplace democracy. The idea of a membership market is analyzed and criticized.","PeriodicalId":354541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership","volume":"50 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jpeo-04-2020-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

PurposeThis paper will discuss two problems that have plagued the literature on the Ward-Domar-Vanek labor-managed firm (LMF) model, the perverse supply response problem and the horizon problem. The paper also discusses the solution to the horizon problem and the alleged “solution” of a membership market.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper so it analyzes the two problems and shows how they can be resolved. It also shows how one alleged “solution” (membership market) is based on several conceptual mistakes about the structure of rights in a democratic firm.FindingsThe perverse supply response is based on the assumption that the members of a democratic firm can expel for no cause some members when it would benefit the remaining members. It is shown that the same perverse behavior happens conceptually and historically in a conventional firm under the same assumptions. The horizon problem is resolved by the system of internal capital accounts (ICAs) that has been independently invented at least four times.Research limitations/implicationsThe idea of a democratic firm is quite often dismissed by conventional economists: “At first it seems like a good idea but unfortunately it is plagued by structural problems such as the perverse supply response and the horizon problem.” Hence it is important to see that the first is not a problem under ordinary assumptions and that the second is a solved problem.Practical implicationsThe perverse supply response problem can be reproduced in a conventional firm under similar assumptions, and the horizon problem is real problem for social or common ownership firms but is solved in the Mondragon-type worker cooperatives by the system of ICAs. This has been known and published since the early 1980s, but conventional economists ignore the solution and still cite it as an inherent structure problem of a democratic firm.Originality/valueIt has not been previously shown in the LMF literature that the perverse supply response can be reproduced in a conventional corporation under similar assumptions since the maximand for the conventional firm is not total market value but that value per current shareholder. The solution to the horizon problem using ICAs has long been “known” but never acknowledged in the conventional literature as if it was a necessary feature of workplace democracy. The idea of a membership market is analyzed and criticized.
关于民主企业中一些所谓的“问题”和所谓的“解决方案”
本文将讨论困扰Ward-Domar-Vanek劳动管理企业(LMF)模型文献的两个问题,即反常供给响应问题和视界问题。本文还讨论了视界问题的解决方案和所谓的会员制市场的“解决方案”。这是一篇概念性的论文,所以它分析了这两个问题,并展示了如何解决它们。它还表明,一个所谓的“解决方案”(会员市场)是如何建立在对民主企业权利结构的几个概念性错误的基础上的。反常供给反应是基于这样一种假设:一个民主企业的成员可以无缘无故地驱逐一些成员,而这将使其余成员受益。研究表明,在相同的假设下,在传统企业中,同样的反常行为在概念上和历史上都会发生。内部资本账户(ICAs)体系解决了地平线问题,这一体系已被独立地发明了至少四次。研究局限/影响传统经济学家常常对民主企业的想法不以为是:“起初,这似乎是个好主意,但不幸的是,它受到了结构性问题的困扰,比如不正常的供应反应和地平线问题。”因此,重要的是要看到,在通常的假设下,第一个问题不是问题,而第二个问题是一个已经解决的问题。在类似的假设下,传统企业中也可以再现反常的供给响应问题,而视界问题是社会或公有制企业的真实问题,但在蒙德拉贡型工人合作社中通过ICAs系统得到了解决。这个问题早在20世纪80年代初就已为人所知并发表,但传统经济学家忽视了这个解决方案,仍然将其视为民主企业的内在结构问题。原创性/价值以前在LMF文献中没有显示,在类似的假设下,传统公司可以复制反常的供应反应,因为传统公司的最大值不是总市场价值,而是当前股东的价值。长期以来,人们一直“知道”利用ICAs解决视界问题,但在传统文献中从未承认,好像这是工作场所民主的必要特征。对会员制市场的概念进行了分析和批判。
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
CiteScore
1.20
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信