Skip Navigation



Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Advance Access published online on September 12, 2007
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, doi:10.1093/jleo/ewm035
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/1/184    most recent
ewm035v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levy, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Commitment, Exchange Autonomy, and the Boundary of the Hierarchical Firm

Nadav Levy*

University at Albany, State University of New York

* University at Albany, State University of New York. Email: nadav{at}albany.edu.

In this article, I present a theory of the boundary of the firm that accounts for some important characteristics of real-world multidivisional firms: operative decisions are in the hands of middle managers who are rewarded based on the performance of their units, managers' decisions are subject to approval and intervention by the top management of the firm, and managers are better informed regarding the affairs of their divisions. In this setup, the integration of an intermediate input supplier and its buyer as separate divisions within a single firm is desirable, as long as the choice of trading partners can be credibly delegated to the divisions' managers. I show that this is satisfied not only under the assumption of full commitment by the general office of the firm but also, remarkably, if it has no commitment power whatsoever. An explanation of the boundary of the firm emerges only if the general office retains some limited commitment power. I show that the general office mandates internal trades in more instances than would have been optimal with full commitment, adversely affecting the levels of investment undertaken by the divisions' managers. In such cases, it can be optimal to have the trade conducted between nonintegrated parties.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.