This setting lets you change the way you view articles. You can choose to have articles open in a dialog window, a new tab, or directly in the same window.
Open in Dialog
Open in New Tab
Open in same window
Open in New Tab
Open in same window

Journal of Economic Literature: Vol. 44 No. 2 (June 2006)
JEL Volume. 44, Issue 2 |
Previous ArticleNext Article
Sign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter Subscription Information
(Institutional Administrator Access)
JEL Forthcoming Articles
JEL Indexes (Members Only)
Full-text Article
Previous ArticleNext Article
Expand
Quick Tools:
Print Article Summary Email Link to this Article Export CitationSign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter Subscription Information
(Institutional Administrator Access)
Explore:
JEL Forthcoming Articles
JEL Indexes (Members Only)Decentralization, Hierarchies, and Incentives: A Mechanism Design Perspective
Article Citation
Mookherjee, Dilip. 2006. "Decentralization, Hierarchies, and Incentives: A Mechanism Design Perspective."
Journal of Economic Literature,
44(2): 367-390.
DOI: 10.1257/jel.44.2.367
DOI: 10.1257/jel.44.2.367
Abstract
Separation of ownership from management, multidivisional firm organizations, delegation
of production decisions to worker teams, delegation of pricing and advertising decisions to
retail franchisers, reliance on intermediaries in trade or finance, and distribution of regulatory
authority across different agencies represent examples of organizations that delegate
and distribute decision-making authority instead of centralizing it. This paper reviews literature
on costs and benefits of delegated decision making in hierarchical organizations or
contracting networks with regard to problems of incentives and coordination. It starts by
describing incentive and coordination costs of delegation in simple canonical examples of
hierarchies where both information and incentives of different decisionmakers differ. One
class of models pertain to contexts where the classical Revelation Principle applies, i.e.,
where costs of contractual complexity, information processing, or communication are
absent, agents do not collude, and the mechanism designer can commit to the mechanism.
Delegation may conceivably entail a loss of control and coordination arising from the divergence
of information and incentives. Sufficient and necessary conditions for this loss to be
mitigated entirely include risk neutrality, top-down contracting, and monitoring of transfers
or production assignments between subordinates. The next class of models introduces
communication costs that restrict the performance of centralized arrangements relative to
delegation owing to a resulting loss of flexibility, which has to be traded off against possible
control losses of delegation. Finally, consequences of collusion among agents is discussed,
which typically enlarge the range of circumstances under which delegation can attain optimal
second-best outcomes. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relevance of this
theoretical literature to recently emerging empirical studies of industrial organizations
where delegated decision making plays an important role: adoption of innovative human
resource management practices, new information technologies and retail franchising.
Article Full-Text Access
Full-text Article
Authors
Mookherjee, Dilip
JEL Classifications
D23: Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
L12: Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
M12: Personnel Management; executive compensation
M54: Personnel Economics: Labor Management
L12: Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
M12: Personnel Management; executive compensation
M54: Personnel Economics: Labor Management

