William H. Meckling

Specific and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure

This paper analyzes the relations between knowledge, control and organizational structure both in the market system as a whole and in private organizations. Limitations on the mental capacity of the human mind and the costs of producing and transferring knowledge means that knowledge relevant to all decisions can never be collected in the mind of a single individual or a small body of experts. This means that if the knowledge valuable to a particular decision is to be used in making that decision, there must be a system for partitioning out decision rights to individuals who already have the relevant knowledge and abilities or who can acquire or produce them at the lowest cost. Self interest on the part of individual decision-makers means a control system is required to motivate individuals with the decision rights and the relevant knowledge to use those decision rights appropriately. This control problem is solved in a capitalist economy by a system of alienable property rights.Alienable rights cannot generally solve the control problem in firms, and the assignment of decision rights in firms does not generally include the assignment of alienability. Indeed, this is one of the major distinctions between firms and markets. The inalienability of rights within an organization means control problems must be solved by alternative means. Organizations solve these problems by establishing what we define to be the Organizational Rules of the Game that provide:(1) a system for partitioning decision rights out to agents in the organization,(2) a performance measurement and evaluation system, and (3) a reward and punishment systemThe inherent inefficiency of organizational control systems as compared to alienability means firms cannot survive unless they provide other offsetting advantages such as economies of scale, scope or riskbearing.

Divisional Performance Measurement

Our purpose in this paper is to examine divisional performance measurement methods and related aspects of the rules of the game that govern the behavior of managers. Performance measurement is one of the critical factors that determine how individuals in an organization behave. It is one aspect of what we call the organizational rules of the game, which consist of (1) the performance measurement and evaluation system, (2) the reward and punishment system, and (3) the system for partitioning decision rights among individuals in an organization.Performance measurement includes the objective and subjective assessments of the performance of both individuals and subunits of an organization such as divisions or departments. Performance evaluation is the process of attaching value weights to various measures of performance to represent the importance of achievement on each dimension.The reward and punishment system relates the rewards granted to individuals to results measured by the performance measurement system. Rewards and punishments include nonmonetary factors such as honor, attention, and rank, as well as monetary factors such as salary changes and bonuses.We analyze the peculiar characteristics of common divisional performance measures associated with what are often called cost centers, revenue centers, profit centers, investment centers and EVA and expense centers. We analyze the counterproductive incentives induced by these various performance measures and the conditions under which each of them could be sensibly used in an organization.

Reflections on the Corporation as a Social Invention

The corporation as an organizational form is an enormously productive social invention. Partly because of its success it is under increasing attack from various quarters, often under the guise of protecting investors from self-interested managers. Some of these attacks are successful simply because the corporation is a poorly understood entity. This paper discusses what the corporation is, what it is not, and how certain misconceptions about the corporate form are fostered by its critics as part of their attack.

The Case for Restricting Access to Courts

This article examines unrecognized implications of various doctrines governing access to court. The analysis indicates that doctrines such as standing, res judicata and collateral estoppel have far reaching implications for the nature of adjudication and the basic structure of rights in society. A liberal standing doctrine causes Peremptory Adjudication, creates inalienable rights and erodes the common law doctrine against suing competitors. Inalienability of rights causes the Coase Theorem to fail and creates externalities. Furthermore, allowing suit over non-contractual pure value effects creates closed market monopolies. All these factors reduce efficiency and thereby reduce human welfare. In this sense the analysis (1) indicates the widespread enthusiasm for democratization of the courts is mistaken, and (2) provides the case for restricting access to the courts.

The Nuclear Family and Antagonism Towards Markets

Why do we so often find the press carrying glowing stories of the benefits derived from governmental programs such as urban renewal (often-times even when they are in the process of failing miserably)? In view of this, why are we so seldom treated to glowing reports by the press about how a housing developer, for example, has improved the standard of living of 5,000 families by planning and completing a new subdivision of 5,000 homes? - a feat made no less remarkable (as compared to urban renewal) through its accomplishment by voluntary exchange!Or to put the issue in its starkest form: Why is it that the public at large is so basically antagonistic towards markets in general? There exists in many, if not most people, a deep seated belief that man should not be motivated by monetary rewards. This belief is reflected in many cultural traditions, one of which is called the Golden Rule. We believe a major element in the determination of these attitudes is the structure of the family, in particular the way in which we raise children and the reflection of these values in religious dogma.