IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijsepp/v36y2009i1-2p81-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managerial nonpecuniary preferences in the market failure theories of nonprofit organisation

Author

Listed:
  • Vladislav Valentinov

Abstract

Purpose - Managerial nonpecuniary preferences have been emphasised by the behavioural theories of nonprofit organisation but only weakly related to this organisation's market failure theories. The present paper aims to fill this gap by examining the ways in which the market failure‐addressing capacity of nonprofit firms requires recourse to managerial nonpecuniary preferences. Design/methodology/approach - The paper proceeds by examining the ways in which the market failure theories of nonprofit organisation conceptualise this organisation's market failure‐addressing mechanism. Findings - It is shown that the market failure theories of nonprofit organisation can be logically complete only if they include an explanation of managerial motivation consisting in the gratification of nonpecuniary preferences. Practical/implications - Nonprofit firms are thereby shown to address market failures in a way different from that of for‐profit firms. Specifically, whereas for‐profit firms address market failures based on their advantages over market organisation in processing information and aligning incentives, nonprofit firms make the production of goods and services that are undersupplied due to market failures the object of nonprofit managers' nonpecuniary preferences. Originality/value - The economic theory of nonprofit organisation has been traditionally marked by a dichotomy of the market failure theories and behavioural theories, only the latter of which recognised the role of managerial nonpecuniary preferences. By demonstrating that these preferences are crucial to the former theories as well, this paper integrates these two theorising strands and thus deepens the theoretical understanding of the nonprofit sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladislav Valentinov, 2009. "Managerial nonpecuniary preferences in the market failure theories of nonprofit organisation," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 36(1/2), pages 81-92, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:36:y:2009:i:1/2:p:81-92
    DOI: 10.1108/03068290910921208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290910921208/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290910921208/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/03068290910921208?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
    ---><---

    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. 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. Williamson, Oliver E, 1971. "The Vertical Integration of Production: Market Failure Considerations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(2), pages 112-123, May.
    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. Valentinov, Vladislav & Vaceková, Gabriela, 2015. "Sustainability of Rural Nonprofit Organizations: Czech Republic and Beyond," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(8), pages 9890-9906.
    2. Ermanno C. Tortia & Florence Degavre & Simone Poledrini, 2020. "Why are social enterprises good candidates for social innovation? Looking for personal and institutional drivers of innovation," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(3), pages 459-477, September.
    3. Vladislav Valentinov & Gabriela Vaceková, 2015. "Sustainability of Rural Nonprofit Organizations: Czech Republic and Beyond," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Roland Azibo Balgah & Vladislav Valentinov & Gertrud Buchenrieder, 2010. "Non‐profit extension in rural Cameroon: a study of demand and supply determinants," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 37(5), pages 391-399, April.
    5. repec:prg:jnlpep:v:preprint:id:671:p:1-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Patrick Gianfaldoni, 2019. "Social Business Economy versus Social Political Economy: The Social Firm in perspective [Économie sociale d'entreprise versus Économie sociale politique : La firme sociale en perspective]," Post-Print hal-03262366, HAL.
    7. Balgah Roland Azibo & Emmanuel Yenshu Vubo & Innocent Ndoh Mbue & Jude Ndzifon Kimengsi, 2015. "Rural development NGOs and service delivery to the very poor: An empirical analysis of a training center in rural Cameroon," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(4), pages 103-115, April.
    8. Balgah Roland, Azibo & Emmanuel Yenshu, Vubo & Innocent Ndoh, Mbue & Jude Ndzifon, Kimengsi, 2015. "Rural development NGOs and service delivery to the very poor: An empirical analysis of a training center in rural Cameroon," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society (AESS), vol. 5(04), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Patrick Gianfaldoni, 2019. "Économie sociale d'entreprise versus Économie sociale politique : Un cheminement théorique," Post-Print hal-03555831, HAL.
    10. Jindřich Špička & Markéta Arltová & Petr Boukal, 2019. "Selected Socioeconomic Determinants of the Size of the Nonprofit Sector Serving Households in the OECD Countries," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2019(3), pages 276-295.

    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. Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta, 2010. "Editors’ Introduction," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. & Kaptein, S.P. & van Oosterhout, J., 2007. "Contracts to Communities: A Processual Model of Organizational Virtue," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-023-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2016. "Oliver Hart and Bengt Holmström: Contract Theory," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2016-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2009. "Managerial nonpecuniary preferences in the market failure theories of nonprofit organisation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 36(1/2), pages 81-92.
    5. Manuel González & Benito Arruñada & Alberto Fernández, 1997. "La decisión de subcontratar: el caso de las empresas constructoras," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 21(3), pages 501-521, September.
    6. Kaouthar Lajili & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2006. "Revisiting agency and transaction costs theory predictions on vertical financial ownership and contracting: electronic integration as an organizational form choice," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(7), pages 573-586.
    7. John Finch & Nicola Dinnei, 2001. "Capturing Knightian Advantages of Large Business Organisations Through Group Decision-making Processes," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 379-403.
    8. Lucas, David S. & Fuller, Caleb S. & Piano, Ennio E., 2018. "Rooking the state," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 12-20.
    9. Aristotelis Boukouras, 2015. "Separation of Ownership and Control: Delegation as a Commitment Device," Discussion Papers in Economics 15/02, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    10. Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, 2007. "Vertical Integration and Firm Boundaries: The Evidence," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 629-685, September.
    11. Williamson, Oliver E., 2007. "Transaction Cost Economics: An Introduction," Economics Discussion Papers 2007-3, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Argandoña, Antonio, 2010. "From action theory to the theory of the firm," IESE Research Papers D/855, IESE Business School.
    13. Steven G. Medema, 2020. "The Coase Theorem at Sixty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1045-1128, December.
    14. Leshui He, 2010. "The Ownership of the Firm under A Property Rights Approach," Working papers 2010-23, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    15. Richard N. Langlois & Nicolai J. Foss, 1999. "Capabilities and Governance: The Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 201-218, May.
    16. Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein, 2010. "Critiques of Transaction Cost Economics: An Overview," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Jain, Amit, 2011. "Connaissance, ressources, concurrence et les frontières de l'entreprise," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/6403 edited by Thiétart, Raymond-Alain.
    18. repec:dau:papers:123456789/331 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Philip Mellizo & Jeffrey Carpenter & Peter Hans Matthews, 2017. "Ceding control: an experimental analysis of participatory management," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 62-74, July.
    20. Claude Ménard, 2018. "Organization and governance in the agrifood sector: How can we capture their variety?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 142-160, December.
    21. Christian Cordes & Peter J. Richerson & Richard McElreath & Pontus Strimling, 2006. "How Does Opportunistic Behavior Influence Firm Size?," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2006-18, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.

    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:eme:ijsepp:v:36:y:2009:i:1/2:p:81-92. 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: Emerald Support (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.