IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/wc2000/0964.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Franchising as a Nexus of Incentive Devices for Production Involving Brand Name

Author

Listed:
  • Chongen Bai

    (University of Hong Kong)

  • Zhigang Tao

    (University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Franchising involves a variety of contractual and ownership arrangements within a single company. In recent years, a great deal of effort has been made to understand this increasingly popular organization (Lafontaine, 1992, 1993, and Lafontaine and Slade, 1997). There are at least two stylized facts that have posed challenges to the existing theories of the firm. One is the co-existence of company-owned and franchised units, and the other is that franchisees make substantial amount of investment highly specific to their franchise companies. We set out to explain both puzzles based on the importance of the brand name in franchising (Kaufmann and Lafontaine, 1994). The effort to develop and maintain the brand name changes over time and is difficult to verify (Hadfield, 1990), which has two implications. One is that agents who run franchise units need to be given appropriate incentives for the brand-name-maintenance effort. The other is that franchising contracts are incomplete. For incentive purposes, it is optimal to divide the agents into two groups. Those in the first group (managers of company owned units) receive a salary and focus on brand maintenance. Those in the second group (franchisees) receive a share of the revenue in their own unit and focus mainly on unit specific sales effort (Bai and Tao, 2000). However, the franchisees should also be subject to a minimum service standard that is crucial for brand name maintenance. The high-powered incentive for the franchisees to increase sales revenue implies that they have a strong tendency to divert effort from meeting the minimum standard. To discourage the franchisees from doing so, they should be subject to severe penalty when found violating the standard. We show that, to serve this purpose, it is optimal to have the franchisees make investment highly specific to their franchise companies. Specifically, the investment by the franchisee to buy physical assets (buildings, equipment, etc.) can be viewed as a performance bond for the minimum standard. If the franchisor controls the assets when the franchisee leaves the company, then the franchisor has an incentive to opportunistically accuse the franchisee of violating the standard and fire the franchisee, getting all the profits arising from the assets. If the franchisee controls the assets, such opportunistic behavior of the franchisor will not occur. Furthermore, if the assets are relationship specific so that their value is very low when detached from the brand name, then the franchisee will have strong incentive not to violate the minimum standard, fearing of being deprived the right to use the brand name in the event of violation. Overall, the plural forms of contractual and control right arrangements in franchising serve as a nexus of incentive devices for production involving brand-name-maintenance effort in an incomplete contract framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Chongen Bai & Zhigang Tao, 2000. "Franchising as a Nexus of Incentive Devices for Production Involving Brand Name," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0964, Econometric Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:0964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/0964.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Bentley MacLeod, 1997. "Complexity, Contract and the Employment Relationship," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 342., Boston College Department of Economics.
    2. MacLeod, W Bentley & Malcomson, James M, 1993. "Investments, Holdup, and the Form of Market Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(4), pages 811-837, September.
    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. Mark E Schweitzer, 2007. "Wage flexibility in Britain: some micro and macro evidence," Bank of England working papers 331, Bank of England.
    2. Patrick Francois & Joanne Roberts, 2003. "Contracting Productivity Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(1), pages 59-85.
    3. Fabien Postel-Vinay & Jean-Marc Robin, 2004. "To Match or Not to Match? Optimal Wage Policy With Endogenous Worker Search Intensity," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 7(2), pages 297-330, April.
    4. Göller, Daniel & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2014. "Breach remedies inducing hybrid investments," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 26-38.
    5. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/6ggbvnr6munghes9od0s108ro is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Alan Schwartz, 2004. "The Law and Economics of Costly Contracting," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 2-31, April.
    7. Leonardo Felli & Kevin Roberts, 2016. "Does Competition Solve the Hold-up Problem?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(329), pages 172-200, January.
    8. Caballero, Ricardo J., 1999. "Aggregate investment," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 12, pages 813-862, Elsevier.
    9. Martin Gaynor, 1994. "Issues in the Industrial Organization of the Market for Physician Services," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 211-255, March.
    10. VILHUBERT, Lars, 1999. "Wage Flexibility and Contract Structure in Germany," Cahiers de recherche 9905, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    11. Pissarides, Christopher & Mortensen, Dale T., 2001. "Taxes, Subsidies and Equilibrium Labour Market Outcomes," CEPR Discussion Papers 2989, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. L'Haridon, Olivier & Malherbet, Franck, 2009. "Employment protection reform in search economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 255-273, April.
    13. Simon Jäger & Benjamin Schoefer & Samuel Young & Josef Zweimüller, 2020. "Wages and the Value of Nonemployment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(4), pages 1905-1963.
    14. Anke S. Kessler & Christoph Lülfesmann, 2006. "The Theory of Human Capital Revisited: on the Interaction of General and Specific Investments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 903-923, October.
    15. Thomas Bauer & Holger Bonin & Lorenz Goette & Uwe Sunde, 2007. "Real and Nominal Wage Rigidities and the Rate of Inflation: Evidence from West German Micro Data," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(524), pages 508-529, November.
    16. Pierre-Andre Chiappori & Bernard Salanie & Julie Valentin, 1999. "Early Starters versus Late Beginners," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(4), pages 731-760, August.
    17. Steinar Holden, 2001. "Does Price Stability Exacerbate Labour Market Rigidities in the EMU?," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 403-418, December.
    18. Rosch, Stephanie D & Zhang, Cathy & Preckel, Paul & Ortega, David L., 2015. "Do Search Frictions Compound Problems of Relational Contracting?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205779, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. McLaren, John, 1999. "Supplier relations and the market context: A theory of handshakes," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 121-138, June.
    20. Fella Giulio, 2012. "Matching, Wage Rigidities and Efficient Severance Pay," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-35, December.
    21. Agamirova, Maria (Агамирова, Мария) & Dzagurova, Natalia (Дзагурова, Наталия), 2014. "Incentives for cooperative-specific investments from court decisions to the theoretical analysis [Стимулы Для Осуществления Кооперативных Специфических Инвестиций: От Судебных Решений К Теоретическ," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 4, pages 79-97.

    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:ecm:wc2000:0964. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.