IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v38y2009i6p908-915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why reputation is not always beneficial: Tolerance and opportunism in business networks

Author

Listed:
  • Abraham, Martin

Abstract

Many researchers in economics as well as sociology have stressed the important role of business networks for cooperation, trust, and performance. This claim is based on solid theoretical arguments as well as empirical findings. However, neither theory nor the selective empirical results support the view that networks are always beneficial for economic transactions. This paper begins with an observation that for the purchase of IT products, network embeddedness leads to even more problems for the customer. In order to explain this effect, possible reasons for this phenomenon are discussed using theory as well as empirics. The most promising explanation for this special case is the effect of uncertainty and incomplete information ex post. In order to reduce this uncertainty, the buyer forms beliefs on the basis of the opinions existing in a shared network or group. However, if the network members have the same problem of uncertainty, suppliers have an incentive to reduce their performance because such behavior will not be detected and sanctioned. An analysis of the customer's tolerance to a supplier's behavior in business transactions yields support for this argument. Even if problems in a transaction are kept constant, customers give suppliers more reputational credit if they share a common network.

Suggested Citation

  • Abraham, Martin, 2009. "Why reputation is not always beneficial: Tolerance and opportunism in business networks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 908-915, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:6:p:908-915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4WC115B-1/2/4d41bbefac46cb28b80cfe17fede7d06
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John McMillan & Christopher Woodruff, 1999. "Interfirm Relationships and Informal Credit in Vietnam," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(4), pages 1285-1320.
    2. Thomas Gautschi, 2000. "History Effects In Social Dilemma Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(2), pages 131-162, May.
    3. Engelmann, Dirk & Fischbacher, Urs, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 399-407, November.
    4. Gerrit Rooks & Werner Raub & Frits Tazelaar, 2006. "Ex Post Problems in Buyer–Supplier Transactions: Effects of Transaction Characteristics, Social Embeddedness, and Contractual Governance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 10(3), pages 239-276, September.
    5. Rees, Ray, 1985. "The Theory of Principal and Agent: Part 2," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 75-95, May.
    6. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:4:p:373-90 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Rees, Ray, 1985. "The Theory of Principal and Agent: Part 1," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 3-26, January.
    8. Nicholas Economides, 1997. "The Economics of Networks," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 1(0), December.
    9. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    10. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    11. Altavilla, Carlo & Luini, Luigi & Sbriglia, Patrizia, 2006. "Social learning in market games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 632-652, December.
    12. Csorba, Gergely, 2008. "Screening contracts in the presence of positive network effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 213-226, January.
    13. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    14. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    15. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 2000. "Pricing a Network Good To Deter Entry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 373-390, December.
    16. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. Theo Offerman & Jan Potters & Joep Sonnemans, 2002. "Imitation and Belief Learning in an Oligopoly Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 973-997.
    18. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2000. "Does information about competitors' actions increase or decrease competition in experimental oligopoly markets?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 39-57, January.
    19. Scott Shane & Daniel Cable, 2002. "Network Ties, Reputation, and the Financing of New Ventures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 364-381, March.
    20. Seinen, Ingrid & Schram, Arthur, 2006. "Social status and group norms: Indirect reciprocity in a repeated helping experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 581-602, April.
    21. Bruno S. Frey & Iris Bohnet, 1999. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 335-339, March.
    22. Franklin Allen, 1984. "Reputation and Product Quality," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 311-327, Autumn.
    23. Bearden, William O & Etzel, Michael J, 1982. "Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(2), pages 183-194, September.
    24. Heide, Jan B. & Stump, Rodney L., 1995. "Performance implications of buyer-supplier relationships in industrial markets : A transaction cost explanation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 57-66, January.
    25. Ronald S. Burt & Marc Knez, 1995. "Kinds of Third-Party Effects on Trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 7(3), pages 255-292, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lokhman Hakim BIN OSMAN, 2015. "Network Communication Model: Propensity Of Network Inter-Connectivity Based On Types Of Network Relations," Management and Marketing Journal, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 0(2), pages 274-294, November.
    2. Zhao, Danyang & Wang, Longwei & Gu, Flora F., 2021. "Reconsidering network embeddedness: Effects on different forms of opportunism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 12-24.

    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. Song, Fei & Zhong, Chen-Bo, 2015. "You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-111.
    2. Charness, Gary & Du, Ninghua & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness reputations in an investment game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 361-375, June.
    3. Pinghan Liang & Juanjuan Meng, 2023. "Paying it forward: an experimental study on social connections and indirect reciprocity," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(2), pages 387-417, June.
    4. Danz, David & Engelmann, Dirk & Kübler, Dorothea, 2022. "Do legal standards affect ethical concerns of consumers?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucia Tamburino, 2008. "The Evolution of Trust in Non-Simultaneous Exchange Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(1), pages 85-113, February.
    6. Servátka, Maros, 2010. "Does generosity generate generosity? An experimental study of reputation effects in a dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 11-17, January.
    7. Cassandra R. Chambers & Wayne E. Baker, 2020. "Robust Systems of Cooperation in the Presence of Rankings: How Displaying Prosocial Contributions Can Offset the Disruptive Effects of Performance Rankings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 287-307, March.
    8. Stanca, Luca, 2009. "Measuring indirect reciprocity: Whose back do we scratch?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 190-202, April.
    9. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2008-008 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Husiatyński, Maciej, 2021. "Three essays on individual behavior and new technologies," Other publications TiSEM 1a7d7036-3d54-4a7b-a425-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Berger, Ulrich & Grüne, Ansgar, 2016. "On the stability of cooperation under indirect reciprocity with first-order information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 19-33.
    12. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Greiff, Matthias & Paetzel, Fabian, 2016. "Second-order beliefs in reputation systems with endogenous evaluations – an experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 32-43.
    14. Menusch Khadjavi, 2017. "Indirect Reciprocity and Charitable Giving— Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3708-3717, November.
    15. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2022. "Gossip: Perspective Taking to Establish Cooperation," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1086-1100, December.
    16. Alejandro T. Moreno-Okuno & Alejandro Mosiño, 2017. "A theory of sequential group reciprocity," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 26(1), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Tim Kraft & León Valdés & Yanchong Zheng, 2018. "Supply Chain Visibility and Social Responsibility: Investigating Consumers’ Behaviors and Motives," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 617-636, October.
    18. Shaohua He & Lei Liu & Qi Liu & Shaoling Fu, 2024. "Creating social value through operational supply chain transparency," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2333-2351, May.
    19. Luca Stanca, 2011. "Social science and neuroscience: how can they inform each other?," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 58(3), pages 243-256, September.
    20. Liang, Pinghan & Meng, Juanjuan, 2016. "Favor transmission and social image concern: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 14-21.
    21. Hopp, Daniel & Süß, Karolin, 2024. "How altruistic is indirect reciprocity? — Evidence from gift-exchange games in the lab," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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:eee:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:6:p:908-915. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.