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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Organization science (Providence, R.I.) R.I.), 2014-11, Vol.25 (6), p.1807-1822
Hauptverfasser: Vanneste, Bart S., Frank, Douglas H.
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