History’s view on the principal–agent relationship including history, context and change: evidence fromthree historical cases in the Southern Netherlands

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Sander Berghmans
{"title":"History’s view on the principal–agent relationship including history, context and change: evidence fromthree historical cases in the Southern Netherlands","authors":"Sander Berghmans","doi":"10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The principal–agent literature often draws criticism for its ahistorical, acontextual and static nature, particularly when theories such as the agency or the stewardship theory are being used. This is because the field of economics tends to develop universalistic models and theories, excluding history, context and change, which renders them unusable for practitioners whose behavior is (partially) guided by the complex and differing environments in which they find themselves. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to this criticism by investigating how (and if) history, context and change influence the principal–agent relationship.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Instead of using the typical economic methodologies to study the principal–agent relationship, this paper makes use of the methodologies of the field of history to investigate how history, context and change affect principal–agent relationships in three cases in the early modern Southern Netherlands (the Dukes of Arenberg, the Roosewalle farm and Abbot De Loose of the Abbey of Ename). This methodology is especially suited, as it results in historical narratives that incorporate all of these three elements.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The main finding is that the cases show how history, context and change clearly affect the principal–agent relationship. These aspects are intricately intertwined, as earlier choices and context can cause a change in the principal–agent relationship, this creates a new presence (with an altered history) and sometimes even a new context. This results in a highly dynamic relationship that can evolve in very short periods, mostly in a path-dependent manner.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>The paper advocates by example for a shift in principal–agent research, emphasizing the necessity of considering history, context and change. This study demonstrates that these factors greatly affect the nature of the principal–agent relationship. In doing so, it may provide practitioners with better insights, as real-world principal–agent relationships are indeed impacted by these three factors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>By using historical methods, this study shows for the first time how context, change and history indeed influence principal–agent relationships. The findings of this paper encourage the development of theories and theoretical frameworks that more closely resemble reality, rather than being universalistic.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The principal–agent literature often draws criticism for its ahistorical, acontextual and static nature, particularly when theories such as the agency or the stewardship theory are being used. This is because the field of economics tends to develop universalistic models and theories, excluding history, context and change, which renders them unusable for practitioners whose behavior is (partially) guided by the complex and differing environments in which they find themselves. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to this criticism by investigating how (and if) history, context and change influence the principal–agent relationship.

Design/methodology/approach

Instead of using the typical economic methodologies to study the principal–agent relationship, this paper makes use of the methodologies of the field of history to investigate how history, context and change affect principal–agent relationships in three cases in the early modern Southern Netherlands (the Dukes of Arenberg, the Roosewalle farm and Abbot De Loose of the Abbey of Ename). This methodology is especially suited, as it results in historical narratives that incorporate all of these three elements.

Findings

The main finding is that the cases show how history, context and change clearly affect the principal–agent relationship. These aspects are intricately intertwined, as earlier choices and context can cause a change in the principal–agent relationship, this creates a new presence (with an altered history) and sometimes even a new context. This results in a highly dynamic relationship that can evolve in very short periods, mostly in a path-dependent manner.

Research limitations/implications

The paper advocates by example for a shift in principal–agent research, emphasizing the necessity of considering history, context and change. This study demonstrates that these factors greatly affect the nature of the principal–agent relationship. In doing so, it may provide practitioners with better insights, as real-world principal–agent relationships are indeed impacted by these three factors.

Originality/value

By using historical methods, this study shows for the first time how context, change and history indeed influence principal–agent relationships. The findings of this paper encourage the development of theories and theoretical frameworks that more closely resemble reality, rather than being universalistic.

从历史角度看委托代理关系,包括历史、背景和变化:荷兰南部三个历史案例的证据
目的 委托代理文献常常因其非历史、非背景和静态的性质而受到批评,尤其是在使用代理或管理理论时。这是因为经济学领域倾向于发展普适性的模型和理论,将历史、背景和变化排除在外,这使得这些模型和理论无法为从业人员所用,因为他们的行为(部分)是由他们所处的复杂而不同的环境所引导的。本文的目的是通过研究历史、背景和变化如何(以及是否)影响委托代理关系,对这一批评做出贡献。设计/方法/途径本文没有使用典型的经济学方法来研究委托代理关系,而是利用历史领域的方法来研究历史、背景和变化如何影响现代早期南荷兰三个案例(阿伦贝格公爵、罗斯瓦勒农场和埃纳梅修道院院长德卢斯)中的委托代理关系。主要发现是,这些案例显示了历史、背景和变化如何明显地影响委托代理关系。这些方面错综复杂地交织在一起,因为早先的选择和背景会导致委托代理关系发生变化,从而产生新的存在(历史发生变化),有时甚至是新的背景。这就形成了一种高度动态的关系,这种关系可以在很短的时间内发生变化,而且大多是以路径依赖的方式发生变化。研究局限/启示本文通过实例倡导委托代理研究的转变,强调考虑历史、背景和变化的必要性。本研究表明,这些因素在很大程度上影响着委托代理关系的性质。原创性/价值通过使用历史方法,本研究首次展示了背景、变化和历史如何影响委托代理关系。本文的研究结果鼓励发展更贴近现实的理论和理论框架,而不是普适性的理论和框架。
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
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
×
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