Forgiveness in Vertical Relationships: Incentive and Termination Effects
Two types of contractual solutions have been proposed for resolving incentive conflicts in vertical relationships: formal and relational (i.e., enforceable or not by third parties). Much is known about the optimal structure of formal contracts, but relatively little is known about the structure of r...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Organization science (Providence, R.I.) R.I.), 2014-11, Vol.25 (6), p.1807-1822 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1822 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1807 |
container_title | Organization science (Providence, R.I.) |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Vanneste, Bart S. Frank, Douglas H. |
description | Two types of contractual solutions have been proposed for resolving incentive conflicts in vertical relationships: formal and relational (i.e., enforceable or not by third parties). Much is known about the optimal structure of formal contracts, but relatively little is known about the structure of relational contracts. We study a core feature of the latter: the conditions leading to continuation of the relationship, whose prospect gives relational contracts their force. We build a formal model of a vertical relationship between two parties that endogenizes the choice of the minimum performance necessary for continuation as a function of the values of contractibles, noncontractibles, and outside options. The model highlights a basic trade-off between providing strong incentives for the present (incentive effect) and safeguarding relationships for the future (termination effect). The stable relationships that follow from a more forgiving contract are more important under certain conditions (when a lot of value is jointly created by exchange partners, i.e., high contractible value, high noncontractible value, or unattractive outside options); however, strong incentives from a less forgiving contract are more important under other conditions (when a formal contract is insufficient and a relational contract is most important, i.e., high noncontractible relative to contractible value). We discuss implications for the choice of governance of interorganizational relationships. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1287/orsc.2013.0861 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracgeneralonefile_A391513473</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A391513473</galeid><jstor_id>43663644</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A391513473</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c596t-807760d49151fd3a373ad0e5467e644952cc1271282d9c4999a647118f122ef03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1rFTEUhgdRsFa37oQBNy6ca75z466U1hYKglS3IWaSaS4zyTUnU_Dfm1ixtVyQLBKS57znI2_XvcZog8lWfkgZ7IYgTDdoK_CT7ghzIgbOOH9az4jJQSKqnncvAHYIIUa5OuouzlOewq2LDqAPsf_mcgnWzP0XN5sSUoSbsIeP_WW0LpYK9iaO_bXLS4i_3_sz750t8LJ75s0M7tWf_bj7en52fXoxXH3-dHl6cjVYrkQZtkhKgUamMMd-pIZKakbkOBPSCcYUJ9ZiImtDZFSWKaWMYBLjrceEOI_ocffuTnef04_VQdFLAOvm2USXVtBYUMEERUJW9O0jdJfWHGt1lSI1JakJ76nJzE6H6FPJxjZRfUJbmZRJWqnhADXVuWUzp-h8qNf_8JsDfF2jW4I9GPD-QcD3FUL7khAhTDcFJrMCHNS3OQFk5_U-h8Xknxoj3eygmx10s4NudqgBb-4CdlBS_kszKtrA2H2Drda8wP_0fgGcMbyS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1625462449</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Forgiveness in Vertical Relationships: Incentive and Termination Effects</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>INFORMS PubsOnLine</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Vanneste, Bart S. ; Frank, Douglas H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Vanneste, Bart S. ; Frank, Douglas H.</creatorcontrib><description>Two types of contractual solutions have been proposed for resolving incentive conflicts in vertical relationships: formal and relational (i.e., enforceable or not by third parties). Much is known about the optimal structure of formal contracts, but relatively little is known about the structure of relational contracts. We study a core feature of the latter: the conditions leading to continuation of the relationship, whose prospect gives relational contracts their force. We build a formal model of a vertical relationship between two parties that endogenizes the choice of the minimum performance necessary for continuation as a function of the values of contractibles, noncontractibles, and outside options. The model highlights a basic trade-off between providing strong incentives for the present (incentive effect) and safeguarding relationships for the future (termination effect). The stable relationships that follow from a more forgiving contract are more important under certain conditions (when a lot of value is jointly created by exchange partners, i.e., high contractible value, high noncontractible value, or unattractive outside options); however, strong incentives from a less forgiving contract are more important under other conditions (when a formal contract is insufficient and a relational contract is most important, i.e., high noncontractible relative to contractible value). We discuss implications for the choice of governance of interorganizational relationships.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1047-7039</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-5455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0861</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ORSCEZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Linthicum: INFORMS</publisher><subject>Alliances ; Analysis ; Business partnership ; Conflict ; Contract incentives ; Contracts ; Cooperation ; Effects ; Forgiveness ; formal contracts ; Governance ; Government relations ; Incentives ; Interorganizational relations ; Marginal benefits ; Marginal costs ; Mathematical constants ; Options contracts ; Parties-trade unions relationship ; relational contracts ; shadow of the future ; Studies ; Terminations ; Threshing ; Value ; Vendor supplier relations ; vertical relationships</subject><ispartof>Organization science (Providence, R.I.), 2014-11, Vol.25 (6), p.1807-1822</ispartof><rights>2014 INFORMS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences</rights><rights>Copyright Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences Nov/Dec 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c596t-807760d49151fd3a373ad0e5467e644952cc1271282d9c4999a647118f122ef03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c596t-807760d49151fd3a373ad0e5467e644952cc1271282d9c4999a647118f122ef03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/epdf/10.1287/orsc.2013.0861$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginforms$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/orsc.2013.0861$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginforms$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,3679,27901,27902,57992,58225,62589,62591</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vanneste, Bart S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frank, Douglas H.</creatorcontrib><title>Forgiveness in Vertical Relationships: Incentive and Termination Effects</title><title>Organization science (Providence, R.I.)</title><description>Two types of contractual solutions have been proposed for resolving incentive conflicts in vertical relationships: formal and relational (i.e., enforceable or not by third parties). Much is known about the optimal structure of formal contracts, but relatively little is known about the structure of relational contracts. We study a core feature of the latter: the conditions leading to continuation of the relationship, whose prospect gives relational contracts their force. We build a formal model of a vertical relationship between two parties that endogenizes the choice of the minimum performance necessary for continuation as a function of the values of contractibles, noncontractibles, and outside options. The model highlights a basic trade-off between providing strong incentives for the present (incentive effect) and safeguarding relationships for the future (termination effect). The stable relationships that follow from a more forgiving contract are more important under certain conditions (when a lot of value is jointly created by exchange partners, i.e., high contractible value, high noncontractible value, or unattractive outside options); however, strong incentives from a less forgiving contract are more important under other conditions (when a formal contract is insufficient and a relational contract is most important, i.e., high noncontractible relative to contractible value). We discuss implications for the choice of governance of interorganizational relationships.</description><subject>Alliances</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Business partnership</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Contract incentives</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Effects</subject><subject>Forgiveness</subject><subject>formal contracts</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Government relations</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Interorganizational relations</subject><subject>Marginal benefits</subject><subject>Marginal costs</subject><subject>Mathematical constants</subject><subject>Options contracts</subject><subject>Parties-trade unions relationship</subject><subject>relational contracts</subject><subject>shadow of the future</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Terminations</subject><subject>Threshing</subject><subject>Value</subject><subject>Vendor supplier relations</subject><subject>vertical relationships</subject><issn>1047-7039</issn><issn>1526-5455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1rFTEUhgdRsFa37oQBNy6ca75z466U1hYKglS3IWaSaS4zyTUnU_Dfm1ixtVyQLBKS57znI2_XvcZog8lWfkgZ7IYgTDdoK_CT7ghzIgbOOH9az4jJQSKqnncvAHYIIUa5OuouzlOewq2LDqAPsf_mcgnWzP0XN5sSUoSbsIeP_WW0LpYK9iaO_bXLS4i_3_sz750t8LJ75s0M7tWf_bj7en52fXoxXH3-dHl6cjVYrkQZtkhKgUamMMd-pIZKakbkOBPSCcYUJ9ZiImtDZFSWKaWMYBLjrceEOI_ocffuTnef04_VQdFLAOvm2USXVtBYUMEERUJW9O0jdJfWHGt1lSI1JakJ76nJzE6H6FPJxjZRfUJbmZRJWqnhADXVuWUzp-h8qNf_8JsDfF2jW4I9GPD-QcD3FUL7khAhTDcFJrMCHNS3OQFk5_U-h8Xknxoj3eygmx10s4NudqgBb-4CdlBS_kszKtrA2H2Drda8wP_0fgGcMbyS</recordid><startdate>20141101</startdate><enddate>20141101</enddate><creator>Vanneste, Bart S.</creator><creator>Frank, Douglas H.</creator><general>INFORMS</general><general>Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141101</creationdate><title>Forgiveness in Vertical Relationships: Incentive and Termination Effects</title><author>Vanneste, Bart S. ; Frank, Douglas H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c596t-807760d49151fd3a373ad0e5467e644952cc1271282d9c4999a647118f122ef03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Alliances</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Business partnership</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Contract incentives</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Effects</topic><topic>Forgiveness</topic><topic>formal contracts</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Government relations</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Interorganizational relations</topic><topic>Marginal benefits</topic><topic>Marginal costs</topic><topic>Mathematical constants</topic><topic>Options contracts</topic><topic>Parties-trade unions relationship</topic><topic>relational contracts</topic><topic>shadow of the future</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Terminations</topic><topic>Threshing</topic><topic>Value</topic><topic>Vendor supplier relations</topic><topic>vertical relationships</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vanneste, Bart S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frank, Douglas H.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Organization science (Providence, R.I.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vanneste, Bart S.</au><au>Frank, Douglas H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Forgiveness in Vertical Relationships: Incentive and Termination Effects</atitle><jtitle>Organization science (Providence, R.I.)</jtitle><date>2014-11-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1807</spage><epage>1822</epage><pages>1807-1822</pages><issn>1047-7039</issn><eissn>1526-5455</eissn><coden>ORSCEZ</coden><abstract>Two types of contractual solutions have been proposed for resolving incentive conflicts in vertical relationships: formal and relational (i.e., enforceable or not by third parties). Much is known about the optimal structure of formal contracts, but relatively little is known about the structure of relational contracts. We study a core feature of the latter: the conditions leading to continuation of the relationship, whose prospect gives relational contracts their force. We build a formal model of a vertical relationship between two parties that endogenizes the choice of the minimum performance necessary for continuation as a function of the values of contractibles, noncontractibles, and outside options. The model highlights a basic trade-off between providing strong incentives for the present (incentive effect) and safeguarding relationships for the future (termination effect). The stable relationships that follow from a more forgiving contract are more important under certain conditions (when a lot of value is jointly created by exchange partners, i.e., high contractible value, high noncontractible value, or unattractive outside options); however, strong incentives from a less forgiving contract are more important under other conditions (when a formal contract is insufficient and a relational contract is most important, i.e., high noncontractible relative to contractible value). We discuss implications for the choice of governance of interorganizational relationships.</abstract><cop>Linthicum</cop><pub>INFORMS</pub><doi>10.1287/orsc.2013.0861</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1047-7039 |
ispartof | Organization science (Providence, R.I.), 2014-11, Vol.25 (6), p.1807-1822 |
issn | 1047-7039 1526-5455 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_gale_infotracgeneralonefile_A391513473 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; INFORMS PubsOnLine; Education Source; Business Source Complete |
subjects | Alliances Analysis Business partnership Conflict Contract incentives Contracts Cooperation Effects Forgiveness formal contracts Governance Government relations Incentives Interorganizational relations Marginal benefits Marginal costs Mathematical constants Options contracts Parties-trade unions relationship relational contracts shadow of the future Studies Terminations Threshing Value Vendor supplier relations vertical relationships |
title | Forgiveness in Vertical Relationships: Incentive and Termination Effects |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T06%3A43%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Forgiveness%20in%20Vertical%20Relationships:%20Incentive%20and%20Termination%20Effects&rft.jtitle=Organization%20science%20(Providence,%20R.I.)&rft.au=Vanneste,%20Bart%20S.&rft.date=2014-11-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1807&rft.epage=1822&rft.pages=1807-1822&rft.issn=1047-7039&rft.eissn=1526-5455&rft.coden=ORSCEZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1287/orsc.2013.0861&rft_dat=%3Cgale_infor%3EA391513473%3C/gale_infor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1625462449&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A391513473&rft_jstor_id=43663644&rfr_iscdi=true |