Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-nqqt6 Total loading time: 0.506 Render date: 2022-07-06T12:58:14.343Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Uncertainty, judgment, and the theory of the firm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2014

NIKLAS L. HALLBERG*
Affiliation:
The Institute of Economic Research, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Abstract:

The effects of a truly uncertain future are more far-reaching than what has traditionally been assumed in transaction cost economics (TCE). Uncertain governance choices require that agents exercise judgment in the absence of other means of estimating the payoffs associated with complex combinations of transaction attributes, contractual contingencies, and governance structures. Judgments are made on an experimental basis to incrementally improve actors’ heterogeneous cognitive representations of the contractual landscape. I argue that uncertain governance choices are subject to specific decision-biases that interact with the potentially corrective function of current organization and asymmetries in actors’ access to decision-supporting systems. These asymmetries may affect the contracting parties’ preferences over differential governance structures. Specifically, by overestimating individual unbiased rationality and disregarding how access to decision-supporting systems may affect governance choice, TCE runs the risk of underestimating the degree of vertical integration in actual firms.

Type
A forum on the judgment-based approach to entrepreneurship
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. (1985), ‘The Sales Person as Outside Agent or Employee: A Transaction Cost Analysis’, Marketing Science, 4: 234254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. and Schmittlein, D. C. (1984), ‘Integration of the Sales force: An Empirical Examination’, Rand Journal of Economics, 15: 385395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyres, N. S. (1996), ‘Evidence on the Role of Firm Capabilities in Vertical Integration Decisions’, Strategic Management Journal, 17: 129150.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyres, N. S. (2011), ‘Using Organizational Economics to Study Organizational Capability Development and Strategy’, Organization Science, 22: 11381143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyres, N. S., Bercovitz, J., and Mayer, K. J. (2007), ‘Complementarity and Evolution of Contractual Provisions: An Empirical Study of IT Services Contracts’, Organization Science, 18: 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyres, N. S., Felin, T., Foss, N. J., and Zenger, T. (2012), ‘Organizational Economics of Capability and Heterogeneity’, Organization Science, 23: 12131226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyres, N. and Liebeskind, J. P. (1999), ‘Contractual Commitments, Bargaining Power, and Governance Inseparability: Incorporating History into Transaction Cost Theory’, Academy of Management Review, 24: 4963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyres, N. and Mayer, K. J. (2007), ‘Contract Design as a Firm Capability: An Integration of Learning and Transaction Cost Perspectives’, Academy of Management Review, 32: 10601077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1974), ‘General Economic Equilibrium: Purpose, Analytic Techniques, Collective Choice’, The American Economic Review, 64: 253272.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1985), ‘The Economics of Agency’, in Pratt, J. W. and Zeckhauser, R. J. (eds.), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 3751.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. and Debreu, G. (1954), ‘Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy’, Econometrica, 22: 265290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, C. I. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boudreaux, D. J. and Holcombe, R. G. (1989), ‘The Coasian and Knightian Theories of the Firm’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 10: 147154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. and Loewenstein, G. (2004), ‘Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, Future’, in Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (eds.), Advances in Behavioral Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 351.Google Scholar
Capen, E. C., Clapp, R. V., and Campbell, W. M. (1971), ‘Competitive Bidding in High-Risk Situations’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 23: 641653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B. (1999), ‘The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations’, Southern Economic Journal, 65: 823838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B. (2001), ‘Probability Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hülsman and Block’, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 4: 6986.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and Hodgson, G. M. (2006), ‘The Impact of Empirical Tests of Transaction Cost Economics on the Debate on the Nature of the Firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 27: 461476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, R. (1996), ‘Deconstructing Nuffield: The Evolution of Managerial Culture in the British Motor Industry’, Economic History Review, 49: 561583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1937), ‘The Nature of the Firm’, Economica, New Series, 4: 386405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coursey, D. L., Hovis, J. L., and Schulze, W. D. (1987), ‘The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102: 679690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963), ‘A Behavioral Theory of the Firm’, 2nd edition, 1992, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Debreu, G. (1959), ‘Theory of Value’, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dow, G. K. (1987), ‘The Function of Authority in Transaction Cost Economics’, Journal of Economic Behavior and organization, 8: 1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, S. P. (2000), ‘Fundamental Uncertainty and the Firm in the Long Run’, Review of Political Economy, 12: 419433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, D. and Kagel, J. H. (1996), ‘Bidding in Common Value Auctions: How the Commercial Construction Industry Corrects for the Winner's Curse’, Management Science, 42: 14631475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, P. (1984), The Corporate Imagination: How Big Companies Make Mistakes, Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Earl, P. E. (1996), ‘Shackle, Entrepreneurship and the Theory of the Firm’, in Pressman, S. (ed.), Interactions in Political Economy: Malvern Ten Years After, London: Routledge, pp. 4360.Google Scholar
Earl, P. E. and Kay, N. M. (1985), ‘How Economists can Accept Shackle's Critique of Economic Doctrines without Arguing themselves Out of their Jobs’, Journal of Economic Studies, 12: 3448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). ‘Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review’, Academy of Management Review, 14: 5774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, K. and Foss, N. J. (2000), ‘Theoretical Isolation in Contract Theory: Suppressing Margins and Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 7: 313339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, K. and Foss, N. J. (2005), ‘Resources and Transaction Costs: How Property Rights Economics Furthers the Resource-Based View’, Strategic Management Journal, 26: 541553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, K., Foss, N. J., and Klein, P. G. (2007), ‘Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization’, Organization Studies, 28: 18931912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, K., Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., and Klein, S. K. (2007), ‘The Entrepreneurial Organization of Heterogeneous Capital’, Journal of Management Studies, 44: 11661186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J. (1993), ‘More on Knight and the Theory of the Firm’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 14: 269276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J. (1997), ‘Incomplete Contracts and Economic Organization: Brian Loasby and the Theory of the Firm’, DRUID Working Paper No. 97–11.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J. (2001), ‘Bounded Rationality in the Economics of Organization: Present Use and (Some) Future Possibilities’, Journal of Management and Governance, 5: 401425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J. (2003), ‘Bounded Rationality in the Economics of Organization: “Much Cited and Little Used”’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 24: 245264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J. and Hallberg, N. L. (2014), ‘How Symmetrical Assumptions Advance Strategic Management Research’, Strategic Management Journal, 35: 903913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J. and Klein, P. G. (2012), Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furubotn, E. G. (2001), ‘The New Institutional Economics and the Theory of the Firm’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45: 133153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furubotn, E. G. and Pejovich, S. (1972), ‘Property Rights and Economic Theory: A Survey of Recent Literature’, Journal of Economic Literature, 10: 11371162.Google Scholar
Furubotn, E. and Richter, R. (1997). Institutions and Economic Theory. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). ‘How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases”’, European Review of Social Psychology, 2: 83115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Hoffrage, U. (1995), ‘How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning without Instruction: Frequency Formats’, Psychological Review, 102: 684704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (2001), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, Massachusetts, USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, D. G. and Gigerenzer, G. (2002), ‘Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic’, Psychological Review, 109: 7590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossman, S. J. and Hart, O. D. (1983), ‘An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem’, Econometrica, 51: 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, S. J. and Hart, O. D. (1986), ‘The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration’, The Journal of Political Economy, 94: 691719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J. D. and Kysar, D. A. (1999), ‘Taking Behaviorism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation’, New York University Law Review, 74: 630749.Google Scholar
Hart, O. and Moore, J. (1990), ‘Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm’, The Journal of Political Economy, 98: 11191158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1945), ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, The American Economic Review, 35: 519530.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1988), The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltzik, M. (2011), ‘Kodak's Long Fade to Black’, Los Angeles Times, December 4.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2004), ‘Opportunism is not the Only Reason Why Firms Exist: Why An Explanatory Emphasis on Opportunism May Mislead Management Strategy’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13: 401418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2011), ‘The Eclipse of the Uncertainty Concept in Mainstream Economics’, Journal of Economic Issues, XLV: 159175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2013), ‘Understanding Organizational Evolution: Towards a Research Agenda Using Generalized Darwinism’, Organization Studies, 34: 973992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmström, B. (1979), ‘Moral Hazard and Observability’, Bell Journal of Economics, 10: 7491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976), ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003), ‘A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality’, American Psychologist, 58: 697720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. (1990), ‘Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem’, Journal of Political Economy, 98: 13251348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. (1991), ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss a version, and Status Quo Bias’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 193206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Lovallo, D. (1993), ‘Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking’, Management Science, 39: 1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, N. (2000), ‘Searching the Firm: The Role of Decision in the Economics of Organizations’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9: 683707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., and Alchian, A. A. (1978), ‘Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process’, Journal of Law and Economics, 21: 297326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J. L. and Sinden, J. A. (1984), ‘Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99: 507521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knez, P., Smith, V. L., and Williams, A. W. (1985), ‘Individual Rationality, Market Rationality, and Value Estimation’, American Economic Review, 75: 397402.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Re-print, (2002). Washington, D.C.: Beard Books.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. M. (1996), ‘Market and Hierarchies and (Mathematical) Economic Theory’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 5: 561595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. (1976), ‘From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society’, Journal of Economic Literature, 14: 5462.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. (1982), ‘Subjective Probability and Subjective Economics’, Economic Research Reports, C. V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. (1984), ‘Internal Organization in a Dynamic Context: Some Theoretical Considerations’, in Jussawalla, M. and Ebenfield, H. (eds.), Communication and Information Economics: New Perspectives, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 2349.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. (1988), ‘Economic Change and the Boundaries of the Firm’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 144: 635657.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. (1992), ‘Transaction-Costs Economics in Real Time’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 1: 99127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, R. N. and Foss, N. J. (1999), ‘Capabilities and Governance: The Rebirth of Production in the Theory of the Firm’, Kyklos, 52: 201218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, R. N. and Robertson, P. L. (1995), Firms, Markets, and Economic Change: A Dynamic Theory of Business Institutions, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988), ‘Organizational Learning’, Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loasby, B. (1976), Choice, Complexity and Ignorance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loasby, B. (1999), Knowledge, Institutions and Evolution in Economics, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loasby, B. J. (2007), ‘A Cognitive Perspective on Entrepreneurship and the Firm’, Journal of Management Studies, 44: 10781106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. (2004), ‘Theoretical Isolation and Explanatory Progress: Transaction Cost Economics and the Dynamics of Dispute’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28: 319346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, E. and Tirole, J. (1999), ‘Unforeseen Contingencies and Incomplete Contracts’, Review of Economic Studies, 66: 83114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, K. J. and Argyres, N. S. (2004), ‘Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry’, Organization Science, 15: 394410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. J. (1992), Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mises, L. (1949), Human Action, Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, G. P. Jr. and Rizzo, M. J. (1985), The Economics of Time and Ignorance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998), ‘A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address’, American Political Science Review, 92: 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. and Staw, B. M. (1993), ‘Organizational Escalation and Exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Plant’, Academy of Management Journal, 36: 701732.Google Scholar
Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1988), ‘Status Quo Bias in Decision Making’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1: 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sent, E. (2004), ‘Behavioral Conomics: How Psychology Made Its (Limited) Way Back into Economics’, History of Political Economy, 36: 735760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackle, G. L. S. (1961), Decision Order and Time in Human Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1945), Administrative Behavior, 4th edition, 1997, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1991), ‘Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology’, Journal of Political Economy, 99: 877897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2003), ‘Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics’, American Economic Review, 93: 465508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2008), Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. (2000), ‘Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?’, Behavioral Brain Sciences, 23: 645726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staw, B. M. (1981), ‘The Escalation of Commitment to a Course of Action’, Academy of Management Review, 6: 577587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarko, V. (2013), ‘Can Probability Theory Deal with Entrepreneurship?’, The Review of Austrian Economics, 26: 329345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (1986), ‘Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy, Research Policy, 15: 285305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1988), Anomalies: ‘The Winner's Curse’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2: 191202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tirole, J. (1999), ‘Incomplete Contracts: Where do We Stand?’, Econometrica, 67: 741781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), ‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science, 185: 11241131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981), ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice’, Science, 211: 453458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986), ‘Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions’, Journal of Business, 59: 251278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Collage Edition, 1983. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
18
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Uncertainty, judgment, and the theory of the firm
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Uncertainty, judgment, and the theory of the firm
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Uncertainty, judgment, and the theory of the firm
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *