Williamson 2002 the Theory of the Firm as Governance Stru

Topics: Contract, Economics, Transaction cost Pages: 37 (11630 words) Published: December 6, 2010
The Theory of the Firm as Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract

Oliver E. Williamson

Oliver E. Williamson is Edgar F. Kaiser Professor of Business Administration, Professor of Economics, and Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, California. His email address is . The helpful advice of Timothy Taylor and Michael Waldman for revising this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.

January 2002

2 The propositions that organization matters and is susceptible to analysis were long greeted by skepticism by economists. To be sure, there were conspicuous exceptions: Alfred Marshall in Industry and Trade (1932), Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), Friedrich Hayek (1945) on knowledge. Both institutional economists (Thorstein Veblen (1904), John R. Commons (1934), and Ronald Coase (1937)) and organization theorists (Robert Michels (1915), Chester Barnard (1938), Herbert Simon (1947), James March (March and Simon, 1958) and Richard Scott (1992)) also made the case that organization deserves greater prominence. One reason why this message took a long time to register is that it is much easier to say that organization matters than it is to show how and why.1 The prevalence of the science of choice approach to economics has also been an obstacle. As developed herein, the lessons of organization theory for economics are both different and more consequential when examined through the lens of contract. This paper examines economic organization from a science of contract perspective, with special emphasis on the theory of the firm.

The Sciences of Choice and Contract Economics throughout the 20th century has been developed predominantly as a science of choice. As Lionel Robbins famously put it in his book, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science (1932, p. 16), “Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Choice has been developed in two parallel constructions: the theory of consumer behavior, in which consumers maximize utility, and the theory of the firm as a production function, in which firms maximize profit. Economists who work out of such setups emphasize how quantities are influenced by

3 changes in relative prices and available resources, a project which became the “dominant paradigm” for economics throughout the twentieth century (Reder, 1999, p. 48). But the science of choice is not the only lens for studying complex economic phenomena, nor is it always the most instructive lens. The other main approach is what James Buchanan (1964a, b, 1975) refers to as the science of contract. Indeed, Buchanan (1975, p. 225) avers that economics as a discipline went “wrong” in its preoccupation with the science of choice and the optimization apparatus associated therewith. Wrong or not, the parallel development of a science of contract was neglected. As perceived by Buchanan (1987, p. 296), the principal needs for a science of contract were to the field of public finance and took the form of public ordering: “Politics is a structure of complex exchange among individuals, a structure within which persons seek to secure collectively their own privately defined objectives that cannot be efficiently secured through simple market exchanges.” Thinking contractually in the public ordering domain leads into a focus on the rules of the game. Issues of a constitutional economics kind are posed (Buchanan and Tullock, 1962; Brennan and Buchanan, 1985). Whatever the rules of the game, the lens of contract is also usefully brought to bear on the play of the game. This latter is what I refer to as private ordering, which entails efforts by the immediate parties to a transaction to align incentives and craft governance structures that are better attuned to their exchange needs. The object of such self-help efforts is to better realize the “mutuality of advantage from voluntary exchange…[that...


References: Akerlof, George A. 1970. "The Market for 'Lemons ': Qualitative Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (August): 488-500.
Alchian, A. and H. Demsetz. (1972). "Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization." American Economic Review. 62 (December): 777-95.
Arrow, K. (1999). "Forward." in Firms, Markets and Hierarchies: The Transaction Cost Economics Perspective. G. Carroll and D. Teece (ed.). New York University Press: vii-viii.
Asanuma, B. (1992). "Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships and the Concept of Relation-Specific Skill." Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. 3(1): 1-30.
Asanuma, B. (1989). "Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships in Japan and the Concept of Relationship-Specific Skills." Journal of Japanese and International Economies 3(1): 1-30.
Aumann, R. (1985). "What Is Game Theory Trying To Accomplish?" In K. Arrow and S. Hankapohja, eds. Frontiers of Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 28-78.
Bajari, P. and S. Tadelis (2001). “Incentives Versus Transaction Costs: A Theory of Procurement Contracts.” Rand Journal of Economics 32(Autumn): 387-407
Barnard, C
Baron, J. N. and D. M. Kreps (1999). Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers. New York: John Wiley.
Becker, Gary. 1962. "Investment in Human Capital: Effects on Earnings," Journal of Political Economy, 70 (October): 9-49.
Buchanan, J. M. (1964a). “What Should Economists Do?” Southern Economic Journal 30(January): 312-22.
Buchanan, J. M. (1964b). "Is Economics the Science of Choice?" in E. Streissler, ed. Roads to Freedom: Essays in Honor of F. A. Hayek. London: 47-64.
Buchanan, J. M. (1975). “A Contractarian Paradigm for Applying Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 65(May): 225-30.
Buchanan, J. M (1987). "The Constitution of Economic Policy" American Economic Review. 77(June): 243-250.
Buchanan, J. M. (2001). “Game Theory, Mathematics, and Economics”. Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(March): 27-32.
Buchanan, J. M. and G. Tullock (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Coase, R. H. (1937). “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4(November): 386-405.
Coase, R. H. (1972). "Industrial Organization: A Proposal for Research." in Policy Issues and Research Opportunities in Industrial Organization. V. R. Fuchs (ed.) New York, National Bureau of Economic Research: 59-73.
Coase, R. H. (1992). "The Institutional Structure of Production." American Economic Review 82 (September): 713-19.
Commons, J. R. (1932). “The Problem of Correlating Law, Economics and Ethics.” Wisconsin Law Review 8: 3-26.
Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional Economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Crocker, K. and S. Masten. (1996). "Regulation and Administered Contracts Revisited: Lessons from Transaction-Cost Economics for Public Utility Regulation." Journal of Regulatory Economics 8: 5-39.
David, P. (1985). “CLIO in the Economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review 75(May): 332-337.
Demsetz, H. (1968). “Why Regulate Utilities?” Journal of Law and Economics 11(April): 55-66.
Demsetz, H. (1983). “The Structure of Ownership and the Theory of the Firm.” Journal of Law and Economics 26(2): 275-90.
Easterbrook, F. and D. Fischel (1986). "Close Corporations and Agency Costs." Stanford Law Review 38 (January): 271-301.
Fama, E. F. and M. C. Jensen. (1983). "Separation of Ownership and Control." Journal of Law and Economics 26(June): 301-26.
Fudenberg, D. and B. Holmstrom and P. Milgrom. (1990). "Short-Term Contracts and LongTerm Agency Relationships." Journal of Economic Theory 51 (June): 1-31.
Galanter, M. (1981). “Justice in Many Rooms and Courts, Private Ordering and Indigenous Law.” Journal of Legal Pluralism 19: 1-47.
Grossman, Sanford J. and O. Hart (1985) “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration.” Journal of Political Economy, 94(August): 691-719.
Hardin, G. (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243-1248.
Hart, O. (1995). Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hart, O. and J. Moore (1990). "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm." Journal of Political Economy, 98 (December): 1119-1158.
Hayek, F. (1945). “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review 35(September): 519-530.
Holmstrom, B. and J. Tirole. (1989). "The Theory of the Firm." in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization. New York: North Holland, pp. 61-133.
Holmstrom, B. and J. Roberts. (1998). "The Boundaries of the Firm Revisited." Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(Fall): 73-94. Joskow, P. L. (2000). "Transaction Cost Economics and Competition Policy." unpublished manuscript
Klein, B
Klein, B., R. A. Crawford, and A. A. Alchian. (1978). "Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process" Journal of Law and Economics, 21 (October): 297326.
Kreps, D. M. (1999). "Markets and Hierarchies and (Mathematical) Economic Theory." in G. Carroll and D. Teece, eds., Firms, Markets, and Hierarchies. New York: Oxford University Press, 121-155..
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • The Theory Of The Firm As Governance Structure From Choice To Contract Essay
  • Theory of Firm Essay
  • Notes on the Theory of the Firm Essay
  • AGENCY THEORY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Essay
  • Essay on Theories of Corporate Governance
  • Essay on Managerial Theories of the Firm
  • The Impact of Corporate Governance on Firm Performance in Mauritius Essay
  • Principles of Corporate Finance: Goals and Governance of the Firm Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free