IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bal/journl/2256-074220184326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Main Contractor – Subcontractor Relations In The Framework Of Contract Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Iryna Nykyforchyn

    (Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ukraine)

  • Nataliia Suduk

    (Department of Economics, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ukraine)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to study optimal relationships between customer, main contractor, and subcontractor. We make the following assumptions: main contractor and subcontractor have types that specify expenses and outcomes for all actions that can be performed. The higher type has fewer expenses for the same action, and optimal action increases with type. Contractors announce their types but can cheat, i.e., not reveal true types. The action and the respective remuneration are specified by the higher authority accordingly to the type declared. Incentives are paid so distorting real type is disadvantageous both for main contractor and subcontractor. We consider these assumptions to be compatible with economic practice. Methodology. We apply methods of contract theory, probability theory, and variation calculus, appropriately modifying apparatus of classic basic incentive problem. Variety of types of (sub-)contractors available is described via probability distributions. Then expected values of profits for participants are calculated as integral functionals. Maximization of these functional results in implicit equations for optimal incentive functions. Results. A method for optimization of activity of all participants is developed. Its requirements are traditional and non-restrictive; hence the expected area of applications is wide enough. Optimal actions and incentive functions are found. Formulae for the influence of expected main contractor and subcontractor’s productivity and expenses on customers profit and payoffs are presented. Conclusions. It is shown that generally customer does not need to collect information about real subcontractor, relying on main contractor, but should take into account the actual situation in the respective branch. In the case when the customer is fully informed about this situation, contractor’s expected profit does not depend on subcontractor’s type (although it is only a mathematical expectation and a concrete result can vary).

Suggested Citation

  • Iryna Nykyforchyn & Nataliia Suduk, 2018. "Main Contractor – Subcontractor Relations In The Framework Of Contract Theory," Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Publishing house "Baltija Publishing", vol. 4(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:bal:journl:2256-0742:2018:4:3:26
    DOI: 10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-3-184-188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.baltijapublishing.lv/index.php/issue/article/view/441/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.baltijapublishing.lv/index.php/issue/article/view/441
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-3-184-188?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Bolton & Mathias Dewatripont, 2005. "Contract Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262025760, April.
    2. Nahum D. Melumad & Dilip Mookherjee & Stefan Reichelstein, 1995. "Hierarchical Decentralization of Incentive Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 654-672, Winter.
    3. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1983. "An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 7-45, January.
    4. Antonio Cabrales & Gary Charness, 2000. "Optimal contracts, adverse selection and social preferences: An experiment," Economics Working Papers 478, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2018. "Moral hazard: Base models and two extensions," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 16, pages 453-485, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun, 2012. "The Organization of Firms Across Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(4), pages 1663-1705.
    3. David Rietzke & Yu Chen, 2020. "Push or pull? Performance‐pay, incentives, and information," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(1), pages 301-317, March.
    4. Gürtler, Oliver, 2005. "On Delegation under Relational Contracts," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 32/2005, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    5. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Task-Specific Abilities in Multi-Task Agency Relations," MPRA Paper 2470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Antoine Faure-Grimaud & Jean-Jacques Laffont & David Martimort, 2000. "A Theory of Supervision with Endogenous Transaction Costs," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 1(2), pages 231-263, November.
    7. Escobar, Juan F. & Pulgar, Carlos, 2017. "Motivating with simple contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 192-214.
    8. Orman, Cuneyt, 2015. "Organization of innovation and capital markets," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 94-114.
    9. Paulo Fagandini, 2022. "Wealth and the principal–agent matching," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(2), pages 555-568, March.
    10. Nishant Dass & Vikram Nanda & Qinghai Wang, 2020. "Within‐syndicate conflicts, loan covenants, and syndicate formation," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 547-583, June.
    11. Charness, Gary & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Promises & Partnership," Research Papers in Economics 2003:3, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    12. Malcomson James M, 2009. "Principal and Expert Agent," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-36, May.
    13. Damien S Eldridge, 2007. "A Shirking Theory of Referrals," Working Papers 2007.05, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    14. Jia Xie, 2015. "Information, Risk Sharing and Incentives in Agency Problems," Staff Working Papers 15-7, Bank of Canada.
    15. Pierre Chaigneau, 2012. "On the Value of Improved Informativeness," Cahiers de recherche 1205, CIRPEE.
    16. Helmut Bester & Daniel Krähmer, 2008. "Delegation and incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 664-682, September.
    17. Groll, Thomas & Ellis, Christopher J., 2014. "A simple model of the commercial lobbying industry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 299-316.
    18. Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Lying about delegation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 29-40.
    19. Hector Chade, 2017. "Disentangling Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection," 2017 Meeting Papers 1537, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. Emma Hubert, 2020. "Continuous-time incentives in hierarchies," Papers 2007.10758, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contract theory; principal; agent; incentive compatibility; main contractor; subcontractor;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bal:journl:2256-0742:2018:4:3:26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anita Jankovska (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.