Contract Renegotiation and Organizational Design

This paper studies the implications of non-commitment for organizational design. An organizational form must trade-off between the coordination benefits associated with the centralization of information and its associated costs in terms of renegotiation. This analysis makes precise what these benefits and costs are. First, I characterize renegotiation-proof allocations for organizational forms that differ in the amount of decentralization that they support. Second, I compare these different organizational forms. The analysis shows that a complete decentralization of decision-making is always weakly dominated by more centralized structures when information is dispersed in the organization. Decision-making should always be in the hand of the player with the most important or relevant information. Ce papier étudie les implications pour la structure organisationnelle des problèmes de non-engagement. Une structure organisationnelle adéquate permet l'arbitrage entre les bénéfices et les coûts associés à la centralisation de la prise de décision. Parmi les bénéfices, on retrouve une meilleure coordination des informations des membres de l'organisation; parmi les coûts, on retrouve les inefficacités reliées aux difficultés d'engagement et à la renégociation. L'analyse démontre qu'une décentralisation complète est toujours faiblement dominée par une structure plus centralisée. Finalement, la prise de décision doit être conférée aux agents ayant l'information la plus cruciale pour la performance de l'organisation.Asymmetric information; Contract renegotiation; Organizational form; Decentralization, Information assymétrique ; Renégociation de contrats ; Structure organisationnelle ; Décentralisation

Organizational Design of R&D activities

This paper addresses the question of whether R&D should be carried out by an independent research unit or be produced in-house by the firm marketing the innovation. We define two organizational structures. In an integrated structure, the firm that markets the innovation also carries out and finances research leading to the innovation. In an independent structure, the firm that markets the innovation buys it from an independent research unit which is financed externally. We compare the two structures under the assumption that the research unit has some private information about the real cost of developing the new product. When development costs are negatively correlated with revenues from the innovation, the integrated structure dominates. The independent structure dominates in the opposite case.

Using Ex Ante Payments in Self-Enforcing Risk-Sharing Contracts

In this paper we analyze a long-term risk-sharing contract between two risk-averse agents facing self-enforcing constraints. We enlarge the contracting space to allow for an ex ante transfer (at the beginning of the period) before the state of nature is realized. We analyze the trade-off between the self-enforcing constraints of the two agents by characterizing the optimal ex ante and ex post transfer payments. We show that optimal ex ante payments are non-stationary. They optimally depend on the surplus from the relationship each agent expects. The size of the ex ante payment an agent makes is inversely related to its expected surplus from the relationship. The introduction of ex ante payments generates interesting dynamic properties. In a two-state example with i.i.d. shocks, the dynamics of the optimal contract exhibit experience rating even though there is no private information or learning taking place. Ce papier analyse les propriétés dynamiques d'un contrat de partage de risque entre deux agents riscophobes qui font face à des contraintes de faillite. L'espace des contrats est élargi pour permettre aux agents d'effectuer un transfert au début de chacune des périodes avant la réalisation de l'incertitude. Ces paiements ex ante ne sont pas stationnaires. Ils dépendent du surplus que chaque agent attend de la relation. Ce paiement est inversement proportionnel à ce surplus. Dans un environnement i.i.d. à deux états de la nature, les propriétés dynamiques de la consommation de chacun des agents démontrent un lissage qui ressemble à de la tarification a posteriori.Risk sharing; Dynamic relationship; Self enforcing contracts, Partage de risque ; Relation dynamique ; Contrats auto-exécutoires

Disclosure of Information in Regulatory Proceedings

This paper examines how different rules for presentation of evidence affect verdicts in regulatory hearings and the welfare and efficiency properties these procedures exhibit. The hearing is modeled as a game of imperfect information in which the respondent is privately informed about validity of his case. The respondent may present evidence to support his case. The commission observes whether the respondent presents evidence, and the nature of the evidence presented to update its beliefs about the validity of the case. Based on these beliefs and the standard of proof for conviction, the commission decides whether the respondent's application should be accepted or rejected. The sequential equilibria of this game are examined for their implications regarding (i) the desirability of making disclosure of evidence mandatory rather than voluntary, (ii) the burden of proof undertaken by the respondent to prove his case, and (iii) the impact of information accuracy and disclosure costs on the outcome of the hearing and the welfare of the respondents. Ce papier étudie comment différentes règles pour la production de preuves peuvent influencer la prise de décision d'une agence de réglementation ainsi que les propriétés de bien-être de ces règles. Une firme réglementée possède une information privée quant à la validité de sa requête et peut produire des éléments de preuve pour la soutenir. Une agence de réglementation observe la preuve présentée par la firme et se forme alors une opinion sur la validité de la requête. Les équilibres de ce jeu sont caractérisés et les points suivants sont étudiés : (i) la production de certains éléments doit-elle être obligatoire ou volontaire ? (ii) quelles sont les conséquences du fardeau de la preuve que la firme doit supporter ? (iii) quel est l'impact de la précision de la preuve et des coûts associés à sa produciton sur la décision de l'agence et le bien-être de la firme ?Regulation; Imperfect information; Disclosure of evidence, Réglementation ; Information imparfaite ; Production de preuves

Information et marchés financiers : une revue de littérature

Cette revue de littérature étudie les problèmes d’information dans les marchés financiers. La première section établit un modèle de base qui étudie les effets des asymétries d’information sur le comportement des agents économiques et sur la nature de l’équilibre des marchés financiers. Dans la deuxième section, divers mécanismes incitatifs pouvant éliminer partiellement ou complètement les problèmes d’information sont ajoutés au modèle de base. Finalement, le rôle stratégique de la structure financière est étudiée dans la dernière section

Incentives, Informational Economies of Scale, and Benchmarking

In this paper, we analyze the problem of providing incentives when there are more than one project. A principal has access to two (possibly correlated) projects which are managed by a single agent. Before undertaking a project, the agent-manager can spend some resources to investigate its quality, namely its probability of success. Only projects with a high probability of success are profitable, and therefore should be invested in. There are two classes of strategies. First, the manager may investigate only one project to save on investigation costs, but still use the acquired information to make an investment decision on the noninvestigated project. Second, the manager could investigate both projects, and make the investment decision based on the acquired information on each project. Comparing these two strategies, it would seem that the more correlated are the projects, the better it is to investigate only one project and use the acquired information to learn about the other project. And, when correlation is low, both projects should be investigated. There is, however, a third strategy that the principal could use. He could hire two agents, each managing one project. By making each agent's compensation dependent on the outcome of the project of the other agent, the principal creates some form of competition between them. When projects are highly correlated, endogenous competition provides incentives but duplicate investigation costs, while having one manager investigating only one project exploits informational economies of scale by economizing on investigation costs, but does not always yield the best investment decision since information on the noninvestigated project is not perfect. We assume that the investigation decision is private to the manager (moral hazard), as well as the information obtained doing so (adverse selection). We then show that the optimal structure depends, among other things, on the degree of correlation between the returns of the two projects. In general, delegating to one manager and investigating both projects is optimal when the projects are weakly correlated; delegating to two managers is optimal for intermediate values of the correlation coefficient, while delegating to one manager and investigating only one project may be optimal when projects are strongly correlated, depending on parameter values. We show that, for some parameter values, it may never be optimal to delegate to one manager and investigate only one project, and this even when projects are perfectly correlated. Endogenous competition is then optimal as it minimizes the cost of providing incentives to the managers, even though investigation costs are duplicated. In that case, delegating to two managers becomes optimal for intermediate and high values of the correlation coefficient.

Effects of the Fiscal Treatment of Tax Losses on the Efficiency of Markets and the Incidence of Mergers

Nous passons en revue dans cette étude les principales questions touchant la transférabilité des pertes fiscales en cas de changement de contrôle d'une entreprise. L'opportunité d'autoriser ou non le transfert des pertes fiscales dépend de l'efficacité du marché des prises de contrôle. Si les prises de contrôle accroissant l'efficacité sont trop peu nombreuses, il convient de les - subventionner - . Si, au contraire, les prises de contrôles sont trop nombreuses (sous l'angle de l'efficacité), il convient de les taxer sous une forme quelconque. Dans un cas comme dans l'autre, le régime de transférabilité des pertes fiscales peut servir à atteindre l'objectif visé. Trois aspects sont abordés ici : (1) l'opportunité d'autoriser le transfert des pertes fiscales en cas de changement de contrôle d'une entreprise; (2) l'opportunité d'autoriser ce transfert uniquement lorsque le type d'activité reste le même; (3) l'opportunité d'autoriser l'utilisation des pertes au même rythme qu'avant la fusion. Ces questions seront analysées dans le contexte du contrôle exercé par les directions d'entreprise, de la concurrence sur le marché des produits, des décisions de financement, ainsi que des décisions d'investissement et de la prise de risque.This paper surveys the major issues regarding the transferability of tax losses upon a change of control. Whether tax losses should be transferable or not depends on whether the market for corporate control is efficient or not. If there are too few efficiency-enhancing takeovers, then takeovers should be - subsidized - . If, on the contrary, there are too many takeovers (from an efficiency point of view), then takeovers should somehow be taxed. In either case, the transferability of tax losses may be an instrument for doing so. Three aspects are considered: (1) whether tax losses should be transferred upon a change of control or not, (2) whether the transfer should be restricted to the same line of business or not, and (3) whether losses should be used at the same speed at which they were (to be) used pre-merger or not. These issues are then discussed in the context of managerial control, product market competition, financing decisions, and investment decisions and risk-taking

Can the Theory of Incentives Explain Decentralization?

This survey presents within a single model three theories of decentralization of decision-making within organizations based on private information and incentives. Renegotiation, collusion, and limits on communication are three sufficient conditions for decentralization to be optimal. Cet article présente dans un cadre unifié un survol de trois théories de la décentralisation de la prise de décision dans les organisations. Ces théories reposent sur la présence d'information privée et des incitations qui en découlent. La renégociation, la collusion et les limites à la communication représentent trois conditions suffisantes pouvant expliquer l'optimalité de la décentralisation.Organizational design, private information, decentralization, Design organisationnel, information privée, décentralisation