IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jfinqa/v17y1982i03p341-361_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agency Theory and Stochastic Dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Hughes, John S.

Abstract

Recently, agency theory has become popular as a means of explaining the structure of contracts between various classes of economic agents. Oftentimes the contracts of interest represent sharing rules for the payoffs that result from some production activity. In the usual two-party model of the contracting problem, one party designated the principal delegates authority for decisions affecting production to another party designated the agent. Typically, the assumptions made about the consequences of the agent's actions are that they are associated with effort on the part of the agent for which the agent (but not the principal) has disutility, and that greater effort will result in higher payoffs from production in every state of nature. Moral hazard is then introduced by assuming that the principal is unable to observe the agent's effort, or to infer what effort the agent applied through an ex post observation of the payoff that results.

Suggested Citation

  • Hughes, John S., 1982. "Agency Theory and Stochastic Dominance," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 341-361, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:17:y:1982:i:03:p:341-361_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022109000010346/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Danielsson, Jon & Jorgensen, Bjorn N. & de Vries, Casper G., 2002. "Incentives for effective risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1407-1425, July.
    2. Pierre Jinghong Liang & Lin Nan, 2014. "Endogenous Precision of Performance Measures and Limited Managerial Attention," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 693-727, December.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jfinqa:v:17:y:1982:i:03:p:341-361_01. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jfq .

    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.