IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ratioi/0306.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Municipally owned enterprises: Nested principal-agent relations and conditions for accountability

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Market-inspired reforms have been particularly pronounced in Swedish local government. Noteably, municipally owned enterprises (MOEs) have rapidly grown in numbers. Principal-agent theory leads us to suspect that the massive introduction of MOEs may have worsened conditions for accountability. To study this, we have employed social network analysis, mapping networks for 223 MOEs in 11 strategically chosen municipalities, covering a total of 723 politicians. The analysis shows substantial overlaps between principals (representatives of the owners) and agents (the boards of the MOEs), quantified using network modularity. Corporatization of public services therefore implies worrisome entanglings between the politicians who are set to steer, govern and oversee MOEs on the one hand, and the board members of MOEs on the other. The increasing numbers of MOEs, we argue, may hence have adverse effects on accountability in important and growing parts of the local economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Bergh, Andreas & Erlingsson, Gissur & Gustafsson, Anders & Wittberg, Emanuel, 2018. "Municipally owned enterprises: Nested principal-agent relations and conditions for accountability," Ratio Working Papers 306, The Ratio Institute, revised 18 Oct 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ratioi:0306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.se/publikationer/working-paper-no-306-municipally-owned-enterprises-as-danger-zones-for-corruption/
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaoul, Jean & Stafford, Anne & Stapleton, Pamela, 2012. "Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 213-229.
    2. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2004. "The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Claudio Ferraz & Frederico Finan, 2011. "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1274-1311, June.
    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. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    2. Sang Cheol Lee & Mooweon Rhee & Jongchul Yoon, 2018. "Foreign Monitoring and Audit Quality: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Shaikh, Ibrahim A. & O'Brien, Jonathan Paul & Peters, Lois, 2018. "Inside directors and the underinvestment of financial slack towards R&D-intensity in high-technology firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 192-201.
    4. Tarek Roshdy Gebba & Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged, 2016. "Corporate Governance of UAE Financial Institutions: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7.
    5. Asmund Rygh & Gabriel R. G. Benito, 2018. "Capital Structure of Foreign Direct Investments: A Transaction Cost Analysis," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 389-411, June.
    6. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    7. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    8. Adi Masli & Matthew G. Sherwood & Rajendra P. Srivastava, 2018. "Attributes and Structure of an Effective Board of Directors: A Theoretical Investigation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 485-523, December.
    9. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2012. "The Shareholder–Manager Relationship and Its Impact on the Likelihood of Firm Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 495-507, July.
    10. Etienne Redor & Magnus Blomkvist, 2021. "Do all inside and affiliated directors hold the same value for shareholders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 882-895.
    11. J. David Cummins & Mary A. Weiss & Hongmin Zi, 1998. "Organizational Form and Efficiency: An Analysis of Stock and Mutual Property-Liability Insurers," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-02, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    12. Sergio Destefanis & Vania Sena, 2007. "Patterns of corporate governance and technical efficiency in Italian manufacturing," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 27-40.
    13. David Hillier & Patrick McColgan, 2008. "An analysis of majority owner‐managed companies in the UK," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(4), pages 603-623, December.
    14. Martin Kyere & Marcel Ausloos, 2021. "Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 1871-1885, April.
    15. Al-Najjar, Basil & Salama, Aly, 2022. "Mind the gap: Are female directors and executives more sensitive to the environment in high-tech us firms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Mohamed Ali Khaldi, 2016. "Mesure opérationnelle de la valeur partenariale et sa répartition," Post-Print hal-01900615, HAL.
    17. Brogi, Marina & Lagasio, Valentina, 2022. "Better safe than sorry. Bank corporate governance, risk-taking, and performance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    18. Tleubayev, Alisher & Bobojonov, Ihtiyor & Gagalyuk, Taras & Glauben, Thomas, 2020. "Board gender diversity and firm performance: evidence from the Russian agri-food industry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(1).
    19. Birgitte Grøgaard & Asmund Rygh & Gabriel R. G. Benito, 2019. "Bringing corporate governance into internalization theory: State ownership and foreign entry strategies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(8), pages 1310-1337, October.
    20. Ionela Munteanu & Adriana Grigorescu & Elena Condrea & Elena Pelinescu, 2020. "Convergent Insights for Sustainable Development and Ethical Cohesion: An Empirical Study on Corporate Governance in Romanian Public Entities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Networks; Accountability; Transparency; Corruption; Publicly Owned Enterprises; Hybrid Organizations; Local Government; New Public Management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:ratioi:0306. 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: Martin Korpi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ratiose.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.