Location of Repository

Control rights in complex partnerships\ud

By Marco Francesconi and Abhinay Muthoo

Abstract

This paper develops a theory of the allocation of authority between two players who are in a “complex” partnership, that is, a partnership which produces impure public goods. We show that the optimal allocation depends on technological factors, the parties’ valuations of the goods produced, and the degree of impurity of these goods. When the degree of impurity is large, control rights should be given to the main investor, irrespective of preference considerations. There are some situations in which this allocation is optimal even if the degree of impurity is very low as long as one party’s investment is more important than the other party’s. If the parties’ investments are of similar importance and the degree of impurity is large, shared authority is optimal with a greater share going to the low-valuation party. If the importance of the parties’ investments is similar but the degree of impurity is neither large nor small, the low-valuation party should receive sole authority. We analyze two important extensions, one in which side payments are infeasible and the other in which parties can make repeated investments. We check for robustness of our results in several dimensions, such as allowing for multiple parties or for joint authority, apply our results to interpret a number of complex partnerships, including those involving schools and child custody

Topics: HB, HD
Publisher: University of Warwick. Dept. of Economics
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:3526

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1951). A Formal Theory of the Employment Relationship.” Econometrica, doi
  2. (2002). A Theory of Firm Scope.” Unpublished Paper,
  3. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. doi
  4. (2003). Arts in
  5. (1979). Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce.” Yale Law Journal, doi
  6. (1999). Bargaining Theory with Applications. Cambridge: doi
  7. (1984). Child Custody and Divorce: The Law in Social Context. London: Croom Helm,
  8. (1975). Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions doi
  9. Children as Collective Goods and Divorce Settlements.” doi
  10. (2001). Costly Bargaining and Renegotiation.” Econometrica, doi
  11. (1997). Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody. doi
  12. (1998). Does Asset Ownership Really Motivate Managers? The Property-Rights Theory of the Firm with Alternating Offers Bargaining.” doi
  13. DynamicRelationalContractswithConsumption Constraints.” KERP Research Papers No. 2007/16, Keele University,
  14. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. doi
  15. (2006). erˆ ome. “’Build It or Not’: Normative and Positive Theories
  16. (2005). Externalities, Communication and the Allocation of Decision Rights.” Unpublished Paper, doi
  17. (1995). Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure. doi
  18. Formal and Real Authority.” doi
  19. Government versus Private Ownership of Public Goods.” doi
  20. (2004). Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability,” Unpublished Paper, London School of Economics, doi
  21. (2003). Here to Help: NGOs Combating Poverty doi
  22. Hospital Ownership and Public Medical Spending.” doi
  23. Not-for-Profit Entrepreneurs.” doi
  24. (1988). On The Theory of Infinitely Repeated Games with Discounting.” Econometrica, doi
  25. (1998). Power in a Theory of the Firm.” doi
  26. Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of doi
  27. (2006). Public-Private Partnerships and Schooling Outcomes across Countries.” CESifo Working Papers:
  28. Randomized Evaluations of Educational Programs in Developing Countries: doi
  29. (2003). Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India.” Unpublished Paper, doi
  30. (2008). Reputation and Ownership of doi
  31. Reputation and the Allocation of doi
  32. (2004). Royalty Sharing and Technology Licensing in doi
  33. School Performance and Choice: The Chilean Experience.” doi
  34. (1989). Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality. Cambridge: doi
  35. (1986). The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of doi
  36. (2003). The Private Finance Initiative (PFI).” doi
  37. (1974). The Problem of Social Cost.” doi
  38. The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons.” doi
  39. To Bundle or Not to Bundle.” doi
  40. (1965). Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, doi
  41. (2000). Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? doi
  42. Who Owns the doi
  43. (2002). World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets. doi
  44. (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work For Poor People. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.