Oliver E. Williamson

The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach

The transaction cost approach to the study of economic organization regards the transaction as the basic unit of analysis and holds that an understanding of transaction cost economizing is central to the study of organizations. Applications of this approach require that transactions be dimensionalized and that alternative governance structures be described. Economizing is accomplished by assigning transactions to governance structures in a discriminating way. The approach applies both to the determination of efficient boundaries, as between firms and markets, and to the organization of internal transactions, including the design of employment relations. The approach is compared and contrasted with selected parts of the organization theory literature.

Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives

Business strategy is a complex subject and is usefully examined from several perspectives. This paper applies the lenses of governance and competence to the study of strategy. Both the governance and the competence perspectives have had the benefit of distinguished antecedents. They have also had to deal with tautological reputations. I begin with the governance perspective, with emphasis on the six key moves through which it has been operationalized. I then examine the competence perspective in these same six respects. Governance challenges the competence perspective to apply itself more assiduously to operationalization, including the need to choose and give definition to one or more units of analysis (of which the ‘routine’ is a promising candidate). The research challenges posed by competence to which governance can and should respond include dynamic transaction costs, learning, and the need to push beyond generic governance to address strategy issues faced by particular firms (with their distinctive strengths and disabilities). A lively research future for these two perspectives, individually and in combination, is projected.Copyright

Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size

There is a great deal of evidence that almost all organizational structures tend to produce false images in the decision-maker, and that the larger and more authoritarian the organization, the better the chance that its top decision-makers will be operating in purely imaginary worlds. This perhaps is the most fundamental reason for supposing that there are ultimately diminishing returns to scale.

Transaction Cost Economics: How it Works; Where it is Headed

This paper begins with a sketch of the New Institutional Economics, with special emphasis on the ‘institutional environment’ (North and others) and the ‘institutions of governance’ (Coase and others). Thereafter the paper mainly emphasizes the applications of transaction cost economics to the study of governance, the object being to effect an economizing alignment between transactions, which differ in their attributes, and governance structures (firms, markets, hybrids, bureaus), which differ in their cost and competence. I raise a series of issues – phenomena of interest, describing human agents, describing firms, purposes served, scaling up – to which any would-be theory of the firm should be expected to speak and indicate how transaction cost economics responds to each. I thereafter describe the mechanisms through which transaction cost economics is implemented and develop some of the core conceptual supports out of which it works. Applications to public bureaus, strategic management, and intractable transactions are sketched.

The nature of the firm : origins, evolution, and development

In 1937, Ronald H. Coase published The Nature of the Firm, a ground-breaking paper which raised fundamental questions about the concept of the firm in economic theory. In this volume, leading business economists commemorate Coases classic article and consider its relevance to economic theory today. The book includes a reprint of The Nature of the Firm, together will three lectures by Coase from 1987, which provide an account of the origins and development of his thought. The new paperback includes the first publication of the lecture which Coase delivered on winning the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1991.

Transaction Cost Economics

The study of the governance of economic organization has become a lively and diverse field of research over the last four decades. This chapter describes the fundamental ideas of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) as these evolved in the 1970s to offer a methodology through which to analyze how the governance of economic organization has economizing consequences.

Asset specificity and economic organization

Abstract This paper examines the optimization problem of firm and market organization in which both production cost and transaction cost differences are expressed as a function of asset specificity. In general, markets enjoy advantages by aggregating the demands of many buyers, thereby realizing economies of scale or scope. Such production cost savings need to be assessed in relation to the transaction cost advantages that internal organization sometimes enjoys over markets in adapting to changed circumstances. As it turns out, both production cost economies and the transaction cost differences between firm and market organization vary systematically with the characteristics of the investments. This paper employs a unified framework to assess the choice of organization form. The condition of asset specificity is featured.

The Economics of Governance

The economics of governance is an effort to implement the “study of good order and workable arrangements,” where good order includes both spontaneous order in the market, which is a venerated tradition in economics (Adam Smith, 1776; Friedrich Hayek, 1945; Kenneth A. Arrow and Gerard Debreu, 1954), and intentional order, of a “conscious, deliberate, purposeful” kind (Chester Irving Barnard, 1938 p. 9). Also, I interpret workable arrangements to mean feasible modes of organization, all of which are flawed in comparison with a hypothetical ideal (Avinash Dixit, 1996 pp. 4–9). The object is to work out the efficiency logic for managing transactions by alternative modes of governance—principally spot markets, various long-term contracts (hybrids), and hierarchies. Interest among social scientists, economists included, in the study and practice of good order and workable arrangements has been steadily growing. In contrast with the orthodox lens of choice (prices and output, supply and demand), the economics of governance is a lens of contract construction, broadly in the spirit of James Buchanan’s (2001 p. 29) observation that “mutuality of advantage from voluntary exchange ... is the most fundamental of all understandings in economics.” The economics of governance, as herein described, is principally an exercise in bilateral private ordering, by which I mean that the immediate parties to an exchange are actively involved in the provision of good order and workable arrangements. To be sure, the need for private ordering varies with the rules of the game as provided by the state. Distinctions between lawlessness where the state provides limited or unreliable protection for property and contract (Dixit, 2004) and lawfulness, where the state undertakes to protect property and enforce contracts in a principled way, are pertinent. The first of these applies mainly to primitive and transition economies. The second is commonly associated with Western democracies. Recourse to private ordering under conditions of lawlessness is altogether understandable: given the absence of state support, the * Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1900. The paper has benefited from workshop presentations at the University of California–Berkeley, the University of Valencia, INSEAD (Fountainebleau), and the 2004 annual conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics. An abbreviated version was also given as the Horst Claus Recktenwald Lecture at Nuremburg on 4 November 2004. Comments and suggestions from Fred Balderston, Ernesto Dalbo, Avinash Dixit, Robert Gibbons, Witold Henisz, Ian Larkin, Steven Tadelis, and Dean Williamson are especially acknowledged. 1 Lon Fuller’s (1954 p. 477) definition of “eunomics” as “the science, theory, or study of good order and workable arrangements” is very much in the spirit of what I refer to as governance. 2 One of the immediate ramifications of insistently comparing feasible alternatives, all of which are flawed, is that the purported inefficiencies that are ascribed to failures to achieve “first best” optimality are not dispositive, but invite the query “As compared with what?” I return to this issue in Section IV. 3 Excluding “corporate governance,” the numbers of articles that used the word “governance” during the period 1998–2000 as compared with the period 1977–1979 in selected economics, business/management, sociology/organization, and political science journals were 60 vs. 1, 76 vs. 4, 79 vs. 18, and 60 vs. 25, where the journals surveyed were: the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Rand Journal of Economics, and Journal of Economic Perspectives in economics; Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, Academy of Management Journal, and Academy of Management Review in business/management; Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, and Annual Review of Sociology in sociology/organization; and American Political Science Review, Political Science Quarterly, Journal of Politics, and Political Research Quarterly in political science. Combining these four categories, articles using the word governance increased from 48 to 275 over this 20-year interval. Dixit (2004 pp. 149–50) reports that the number of web pages that turn up under the search for “governance” is huge.

The Theory of the Firm as Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract

The propositions that organization matters and that it is susceptible to analysis were long greeted by skepticism by economists. One reason why this message took a long time to register is that it is much easier to say that organization matters than it is to show how and why. The prevalence of the science of choice approach to economics has also been an obstacle. As developed herein, the lessons of organization theory for economics are both different and more consequential when examined through the lens of contract. This paper examines economic organization from a science of contract perspective, with special emphasis on the theory of the firm.

Organization theory : from Chester Barnard to the present and beyond

This collection of papers is edited by renowned business thinker Oliver Williamson, who is currently Transamerica Professor of Corporate Strategy at the School of Business Administration at Berkeley. The fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Chester I. Barnards remarkable and still influential book, The Functions of the Executive, was celebrated with a seminar series at the University of California, Berkeley in the Spring of 1988. Eight of those lectures are published here. The contributors include organization specialists and sociologists (Barbara Levitt and James March; W. Richard Scott; Glenn Carroll; Jeffrey Pfeffer), an anthropologist, a political scientist, and two economists (Mary Douglas; Terry Moe; Oliver Hart; Oliver Williamson). An important contribution to organization theory, this volume reports on recent progress in this field, and projects a productive research future.