IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v48y2015i1p189-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational form and output quality

Author

Listed:
  • Mati Dubrovinsky
  • Ralph A. Winter

Abstract

This paper re‐examines the relationship between a firm's organizational form, not‐for‐profit versus for‐profit, and its output quality. The Arrow‐Hansmann theory of hidden action on the part of providers predicts higher quality for not‐for‐profit suppliers. This prediction has a puzzling lack of support in the empirical literature. We propose a theory that resolves the empirical puzzle and generates additional testable implications. The theory starts with the traditional assumptions of hidden action and supplier altruism. It then incorporates two additional features of real‐world markets: hidden information on supplier ability to provide high quality and a variation across buyers in the degree of informational asymmetry. The central prediction of the theory is that quality has a higher variance across for‐profits than across not‐for‐profits. Preliminary evidence from the US market for hospital care is consistent with this prediction. Forme organisationnelle et qualité de l'extrant. Ce texte réexamine la relation entre la forme organisationnelle de la firme (à but lucratif versus à but non lucratif) et la qualité de son extrant. La théorie Arrow‐Hansmann de l'action cachée de la part des fournisseurs prédit une qualité plus grande pour l'extrant des offreurs sans but lucratif. Cette conjecture a rec¸u un manque déconcertant de support dans la littérature empirique. Les auteurs proposent une théorie qui à la fois résout l'énigme et engendre des implications qu'on peut mettre à l'épreuve. La théorie part des postulats traditionnels d'action cachée et d'altruisme de l'offreur. On incorpore deux éléments supplémentaires des marchés dans le monde réel : d'une part, l'information cachée à propos de la capacité de l'offreur à fournir un extrant de haute qualité, et, d'autre part, une variation dans l'éventail des acheteurs du degré d'asymétrie informationnelle. La prédiction centrale de la théorie est que la variation de la qualité est plus grande pour les firmes à but lucratif que pour les firmes à but non lucratif. Des résultats préliminaires pour les marchés américains de soins hospitaliers supportent cette conjecture.

Suggested Citation

  • Mati Dubrovinsky & Ralph A. Winter, 2015. "Organizational form and output quality," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 189-206, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:48:y:2015:i:1:p:189-206
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12129
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12129?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shen, Yu-Chu, 2002. "The effect of hospital ownership choice on patient outcomes after treatment for acute myocardial infarction," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 901-922, September.
    2. Canice Prendergast, 2007. "The Motivation and Bias of Bureaucrats," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 180-196, March.
    3. Timothy Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2005. "Competition and Incentives with Motivated Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 616-636, June.
    4. Gary Biglaiser & Ching-to Albert Ma, 2007. "Moonlighting: public service and private practice," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 1113-1133, December.
    5. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert, 2010. "Managerial talent, motivation, and self-selection into public management," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 654-660, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau & Stephen H. Linder, 2003. "Two Decades of Research Comparing For‐Profit and Nonprofit Health Provider Performance in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(2), pages 219-241, June.
    8. Jill R. Horwitz & Austin Nichols, 2007. "What Do Nonprofits Maximize? Nonprofit Hospital Service Provision and Market Ownership Mix," NBER Working Papers 13246, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Steven Salop & Joseph Stiglitz, 1977. "Bargains and Ripoffs: A Model of Monopolistically Competitive Price Dispersion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(3), pages 493-510.
    10. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Nyborg, Karine, 2010. "Selfish bakers, caring nurses? A model of work motivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 377-394, September.
    11. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    12. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    13. Hirth, Richard A., 1999. "Consumer information and competition between nonprofit and for-profit nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 219-240, April.
    14. Jones, Andrew M. & Wildman, John, 2008. "Health, income and relative deprivation: Evidence from the BHPS," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 308-324, March.
    15. David Easley & Maureen O'Hara, 1983. "The Economic Role of the Nonprofit Firm," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 531-538, Autumn.
    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. De Chiara, Alessandro & Manna, Ester, 2022. "Firms' ownership, employees’ altruism, and product market competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Hirofumi Fukuyama, 2017. "Policies increasing the number of disaster medical volunteers with a sense of mission," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 125-132.
    3. Barigozzi, Francesca & Burani, Nadia, 2016. "Competition and screening with motivated health professionals," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 358-371.
    4. Dur Robert & Zoutenbier Robin, 2015. "Intrinsic Motivations of Public Sector Employees: Evidence for Germany," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 343-366, August.
    5. Jacobsen, Karin J. & Eika, Kari H. & Helland, Leif & Lind, Jo Thori & Nyborg, Karine, 2011. "Are nurses more altruistic than real estate brokers?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 818-831.
    6. Stijn VAN PUYVELDE & Marc JEGERS, 2016. "Heterogeneity and self-selection into nonprofit management," CIRIEC Working Papers 1603, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    7. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur, 2008. "Incentives and Workers' Motivation in the Public Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 171-191, January.
    8. Dora Gicheva, 2022. "Altruism and Burnout: Long Hours in the Teaching Profession," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(2), pages 427-457, March.
    9. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Carol Propper & Sarah Smith, 2011. "Management Practices: Are Not For Profits Different?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-094/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Makris, Miltiadis, 2009. "Incentives for motivated agents under an administrative constraint," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 428-440, August.
    11. Madanmohan Ghosh & Carlo Perroni & John Whalley, 1999. "The Value of MFN Treatment to Developing Countries," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9916, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    12. Simona Grassi & Ching-to Albert Ma, 2016. "Information acquisition, referral, and organization," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 935-960, November.
    13. Fahad Khalil & Doyoung Kim & Jacques Lawarrée, 2013. "Contracts offered by bureaucrats," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(4), pages 686-711, December.
    14. Barigozzi, Francesca & Burani, Nadia, 2013. "Intrinsic Motivation in the Labor Market: Not Too Much, Thank You," AICCON Working Papers 124-2013, Associazione Italiana per la Cultura della Cooperazione e del Non Profit.
    15. Jean-Etienne de Bettignies & David T. Robinson, 2018. "When Is Social Responsibility Socially Desirable?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(4), pages 1023-1072.
    16. Barigozzi, Francesca & Raggi, Davide, 2013. "The Lemons Problem in a Labor Market with Intrinsic Motivation," AICCON Working Papers 123-2013, Associazione Italiana per la Cultura della Cooperazione e del Non Profit.
    17. Robert Dur & Robin Zoutenbier, 2011. "Working for a Good Cause," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-168/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 23 Apr 2013.
    18. Dur, Robert & van Lent, Max, 2018. "Serving the public interest in several ways: Theory and empirics," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 13-24.
    19. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Nyborg, Karine, 2010. "Selfish bakers, caring nurses? A model of work motivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 377-394, September.
    20. Jones, Daniel B. & Propper, Carol & Smith, Sarah, 2017. "Wolves in sheep’s clothing: Is non-profit status used to signal quality?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 108-120.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out

    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:wly:canjec:v:48:y:2015:i:1:p:189-206. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.