Wouter Dessein

Authority and Communication in Organizations

This paper studies delegation as an alternative to communication. We show that a principal prefers to delegate control to a better informed agent rather than to communicate with this agent as long as the incentive conflict is not too large relative to the principals uncertainty about the environment. We further identify cases in which the principal optimally delegates control to an “intermediary”, and show that keeping a veto-right typically reduces the expected utility of the principal unless the incentive conflict is extreme. Copyright 2002, Wiley-Blackwell.

Network Competition in Nonlinear Pricing

Previous research, assuming linear pricing, has argued that telecommunications networks may use a high access charge as an instrument of collusion. I show that this conclusion is difficult to maintain when operators compete in nonlinear pricing: (i) As long as subscription demand is inelastic, profits can remain independent of the access charge, even when customers are heterogeneous and networks engage in second-degree price discrimination. (ii) When demand for subscriptions is elastic, networks may increase profits by agreeing on an access charge below marginal cost (relative to cost-based access pricing). Welfare is typically increased by setting the access charge above marginal cost.

Network competition with heterogeneous customers and calling patterns

Abstract The telecommunications industry is a fragmented market, characterized by a tremendous amount of customer heterogeneity. This paper shows how such customer heterogeneity dramatically affects nonlinear pricing strategies: (i) First, if there are unbalanced calling patterns between different customer types, networks make larger profits on the least attractive customers. In addition, the nature of the calling pattern substantially affects how networks discriminate implicitly between different customer types. (ii) Second, different customer types often perceive the substitutability of competing networks differently. The profit neutrality of the access charge, highlighted in the literature, is then shown to break down.

CENTRALIZATION VERSUS DECENTRALIZATION: AN APPLICATION TO PRICE SETTING BY A MULTI‐MARKET FIRM

This paper compares centralized and decentralized price setting by a firm that sells a single product in two markets, but is constrained to set one price (e.g., due to arbitrage). Each market is characterized by a different linear demand function, and demand conditions are privately observed by a local manager. This manager only cares about profits in his own market and, as a result, communicates his information strategically. Our main results link organizational design to market demand. First, if pricing is decentralized, it is always delegated to the manager who faces the flattest inverse demand function, regardless of the size of market demand. Second, even when pricing can be allocated to an unbiased headquarters, decentralization is optimal when markets differ sufficiently in how flat the inverse demand functions are. Finally, decentralization is more likely when, in expectations, local managers disagree more about prices. (JEL: D23, D83, L23) (c) 2008 by the European Economic Association.

Incomplete Contracts and Firm Boundaries: New Directions

The seminal work by Grossman and Hart (1986) made the study of firm boundaries susceptible to formal economic analysis, and illuminated an important role for markets in providing incentives. In this essay, I discuss some new directions that the literature has taken since. As a central challenge, I identify the need to provide a formal theory of the firm in which managerial direction and bureaucratic decision-making play a key role. Merging a number of existing incomplete contracting models, I propose two approaches with very different contracting assumptions. As in transaction cost economics, a central element in those theories is the presence of a central office who directs and coordinates the actions of subordinates. More novel, I highlight the superior ability of non-integrated firms to adapt to a changing environment.

When Does Adaptation Require Decentralization

We examine the relationship between the organization of a firm and its ability to adapt to changes in the environment. We show that even if lower-level managers have superior information about their local conditions, and incentive conflicts are negligible, a centralized organization can be better at adapting to changes in the environment than a decentralized one. We then show that this result reverses some of the standard intuitions about organizational structure. For instance, an increase in competition that makes adaptation more important can favor centralization over decentralization.

Managerial Style and Attention

Is firm behavior mainly driven by its environment or rather by the characteristics of its managers? We develop a cognitive theory of manager fixed effects, where the allocation of managerial attention determines firm behavior. We show that in complex environments, the endogenous allocation of attention exacerbates manager fixed effects. Small differences in managerial expertise then may result in dramatically different firm behavior, as managers devote scarce attention in a way which amplifies initial differences. In contrast, in less complex environments, the endogenous allocation of attention mitigates manager fixed effects. Firm owners prefer managers with task-specific expertise only in complex environments.

Organizations with Power-Hungry Agents

We analyze a model of hierarchies in organizations where neither decisions themselves nor the delegation of decisions are contractible, and where power-hungry agents derive a private benefit from making decisions. Two distinct agency problems arise and interact: Subordinates take more biased decisions (which favors adding more hierarchical layers), but uninformed superiors may fail to delegate (which favors removing layers). A designer may remove intermediate layers of the hierarchy (eliminate middle managers) or de-integrate an organization by removing top layers (eliminate top managers). We show that stronger preferences for power result in smaller, more de-integrated hierarchies. Our key insight is that hoarding of decision rights is especially severe at the top of the hierarchy.