The New Economics of Organization
Abstract
Over the last ten years or so, an important approach to the study of organizations has emerged within economics. It is perhaps best characterized by three elements: a contractual perspective on organizational relationships, a theoretical focus on hierarchical control, and formal analysis via principal-agent models. This paper provides political scientists with an overview of the new economics of organization and explores its implications for the study of public bureaucracy. So far, positive political theory has not contributed much to our understanding of public bureaucracy. In part this is due to the unsympathetic treatment that rational modeling and most other modes of quantitative analysis have long received from students of public administration. The other side of the coin, however, is that positive theorists have not made much of an effort to develop theories of bureaucracy. Their concerns have centered around two basic mechanisms of social choice, voting and markets, and they have devoted little systematic attention to a third mechanism that is clearly important for understanding how societies and other aggregates make collective decisions. This third and relatively unexplored mechanism is hierarchy. Movement toward a positive theory of hierarchies would fill a serious gap in the social choice literature, while at the same time making a theoretical contribution that strikes to the essence of public bureaucracy, indeed of all organizations. In fact, significant steps toward a positive theory of hierarchies have very recently been taken-but by economists, not political scientists. In small numbers, of course, economists made contributions to the study of public bureaucracy some time ago with the pioneering works of Downs (1967), Tullock (1965), and Niskanen (1971). But this wave of theoretical work is different. It is already a large, complex body of literature that is the focus of innovation and excitement among a growing number of economists, and it reflects an unusual degree of theoretical coherence and cumulative effort. Work in this tradition tends to receive orientation from a distinctive economic approach to the analysis of organizations, an approach perhaps best characterized by three elements: a contractual perspective on organizational relationships, a focus on hierarchical control, and formal analysis via principal-agent models. This approach has emerged from recent attempts to move beyond the neoclassical theory of the firm, which assumes away all organizational considerations, to a theory of economic organizations that can explain why firms, corporations, and other enterprises behave as they do. Propo
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Both corrective mechanisms (competition and learning) are even less applicable in political institutions than in private markets.
“Moreover, both these corrective mech anisms are even less applicable when one shifts from Williamson's focus on firms in private markets to the world of political institutions (Moe 1984(Moe , 1990)).”
From Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics (2000) · cites this paper as Moe 1984
Cites
Coase, R. H. (1937) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x · Cited by 23,972 · see citing works
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics
Pierson, P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586011 · Cited by 8,094 · see citing works
Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007) · World Politics · doi:10.1017/s0043887100020852 · Cited by 2,410 · see citing works
Kitschelt, H., Hawkins, K. A., Luna, J. P., Rosas, G., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750311 · Cited by 559 · see citing works
Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift
Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muu024 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships
Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., & Stapleton, P. (2012) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.12.006 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Dougherty, K. J., & Natow, R. S. (2020) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00491-4 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Measuring the effectiveness of an alternative education collaboration: Newark, New Jersey
Genao, S. (2014) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-01-2013-0011 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moe, T. M.
- Corresponding author
- Moe, Terry M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1984-11
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 739
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1981314212
- Cited by
- 1,974
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 66
- FWCI
- 34.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Keywords
- state bureaucracy, hierarchy, principal-agent model, hierarchical control, organizational theory, social choice, positive political theory, theory of the firm, neoclassical economics, group decision making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review