IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/spacre/v19y2016i1p132-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relación de agencia y monopolio. El caso del tabaco en España (1887-1986)

Author

Listed:
  • Chamorro, Eva
  • Cámara, Macario

Abstract

Los análisis históricos contables permiten evidenciar, bajo el marco de la teoría de la agencia, los conflictos de intereses que se producen en una organización. Nuestro objetivo, con un estudio longitudinal, basado en fuentes primarias, es comprobar cómo se regula una relación de agencia a través de contratos formales, y el papel que asume la contabilidad. El caso en el que nos basamos, y que puede ser una importante contribución en ese sentido, es el del arrendamiento del monopolio estatal del tabaco a una empresa privada, desde el inicio de la gestión (1887) hasta que empieza a desaparecer esta actividad monopolística (1986). Nuestros hallazgos ponen de manifiesto que los contratos establecidos permiten un gran control del principal sobre el agente y que no se cumplen todas las condiciones que deben darse para considerarlos «un buen acuerdo contractual». Por otro lado, la contabilidad aparece como un instrumento clave para el control del Estado sobre las empresas arrendatarias. Nuestra principal conclusión es que el agente es quien asume mayor riesgo en el arrendamiento, y el principal mantiene un comportamiento oportunista durante todo el periodo, lo que contradice los planteamientos más generalizados de la teoría y permite relajar sus asunciones iniciales.

Suggested Citation

  • Chamorro, Eva & Cámara, Macario, 2016. "Relación de agencia y monopolio. El caso del tabaco en España (1887-1986)," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 132-141.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:spacre:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:132-141
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsar.2015.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1138489115000229
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rcsar.2015.03.002?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. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    2. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    3. Penno, M, 1985. "Informational Issues In The Financial-Reporting Process," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 240-255.
    4. Baiman, Stanley, 1990. "Agency research in managerial accounting: A second look," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 341-371.
    5. Hunt, Herbert III & Hogler, Raymond L., 1990. "Agency theory as ideology: A comparative analysis based on critical legal theory and radical accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 437-454.
    6. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    7. Wright, Peter & Mukherji, Ananda & Kroll, Mark J., 2001. "A reexamination of agency theory assumptions: extensions and extrapolations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 413-429.
    8. Carlos, Ann M, 1992. "Principal-Agent Problems in Early Trading Companies: A Tale of Two Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 140-145, May.
    9. Macario Camara & Eva Chamorro & Alonso Moreno, 2009. "Stakeholder Reporting: The Spanish Tobacco Monopoly (1887-1986)," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 697-717.
    10. Watts, Ross L & Zimmerman, Jerold L, 1983. "Agency Problems, Auditing, and the Theory of the Firm: Some Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 613-633, October.
    11. Carlos, Ann M & Nicholas, Stephen, 1993. "Managing the Manager: An Application of the Principal Agent Model to the Hudson's Bay Company," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 243-256, April.
    12. Tinker, Tony & Neimark, Marilyn, 1987. "The role of annual reports in gender and class contradictions at general motors: 1917-1976," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 71-88, January.
    13. Salvador Carmona & Kari Lukka, 2010. "Anthony G. Hopwood, 1944-2010," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 395-398.
    14. Moore, John H, 1981. "Agency Costs, Technological Change, and Soviet Central Planning," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 189-214, October.
    15. Fama, Eugene F, 1980. "Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(2), pages 288-307, April.
    16. Carlos Ann M., 1994. "Bonding and the Agency Problem: Evidence from the Royal African Company, 1672-1691," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 313-335, July.
    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. Brahmadev Panda & N. M. Leepsa, 2017. "Agency theory: Review of Theory and Evidence on Problems and Perspectives," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 10(1), pages 74-95, June.
    2. Ghulam Abid & Binish Khan & Zeeshan Rafiq & Alia Ahmed, 2014. "Theoretical Perspectives of Corporate Governance," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 3(4), pages 166-175, December.
    3. Evans, Lewis T & Quigley, Neil C, 1995. "Shareholder Liability Regimes, Principal-Agent Relationships, and Banking Industry Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 497-520, October.
    4. James J. Chrisman & Kristen Madison & Taewoo Kim, 2021. "A Dynamic Framework of Noneconomic Goals and Inter-Family Agency Complexities in Multi-Family Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(4), pages 906-930, July.
    5. Barkema, H.G., 1989. "An empirical test of Holmstroem's principal-agent model that takes tax and signally hypotheses explicitly into account," Research Memorandum FEW 405, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, February.
    7. Xing, Jieli & Zhang, Yongjie & Xiong, Xiong, 2023. "Social capital, independent director connectedness, and stock price crash risk," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 786-804.
    8. Ginglinger, Edith & Megginson, William & Waxin, Timothée, 2011. "Employee ownership, board representation, and corporate financial policies," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 868-887, September.
    9. Alexander Brink, 2010. "Enlightened Corporate Governance: Specific Investments by Employees as Legitimation for Residual Claims," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 641-651, June.
    10. Sareh Pouryousefi & Jeff Frooman, 2019. "The Consumer Scam: An Agency-Theoretic Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Hong, Yun & Yao, Youfu, 2024. "Can comment letters impact excess perks? Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Dietl Helmut M & Duschl Tobias & Lang Markus, 2011. "Executive Pay Regulation: What Regulators, Shareholders, and Managers Can Learn from Major Sports Leagues," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1-32, August.
    13. Hearn, Bruce, 2014. "Institutional impact on the expropriation of private benefits of control in North Africa," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-23.
    14. Sunny Sun & Xia Zhao & Haibin Yang, 2010. "Executive compensation in Asia: A critical review and outlook," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 775-802, December.
    15. Christian Brück & Jonas Ludwig & Anja Schwering, 2018. "The use of value-based management in family firms," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 383-416, February.
    16. Dequech, David, 2006. "The new institutional economics and the theory of behaviour under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 109-131, January.
    17. Yeongjoon Yoon & Sukanya Sengupta, 2019. "The effect of employee share ownership on employee commitment and turnover: comparing the cases in Britain and South Korea and the role of the economy," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5-6), pages 486-516, November.
    18. Charles Piot, 2000. "Relations D'Agence, Opportunites De Croissance Et Notoriete De L'Auditeur Externe : Une Etude Empirique Du Marche Français," Post-Print halshs-00587501, HAL.
    19. Mollah, Sabur & Skully, Michael & Liljeblom, Eva, 2021. "Strong Boards and Risk-taking in Islamic Banks," Review of Corporate Finance, now publishers, vol. 1(1-2), pages 135-180, April.
    20. Christian Pieter Hoffmann & Peggy Simcic Brønn & Christian Fieseler, 2016. "A Good Reputation: Protection against Shareholder Activism," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(1), pages 35-46, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agencia; Tabaco; Monopolio estatal; Historia de la contabilidad; Información cualitativa; Análisis longitudinal; Agency; Tobacco; State monopoly; Accounting history; Qualitative information; Longitudinal analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    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:eee:spacre:v:19:y:2016:i:1:p:132-141. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    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.