Organizational economics and the food processing industry
01 Jan 2004-
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the two prevalent organizational theories, Transaction Cost Economics and Agency Theory, through a study of the food processing industry and make predictions from each theory regarding the aspects of capital structure and firm expansion.
Abstract: OF THESIS ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS AND THE FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY The food processing industry is dominated by large corporations. These firms play a critical role in forming the derived demand faced by agricultural producers, but little is understood about how these companies make strategic choices. Organizational economics provides a framework for exploring the firm’s decision process. However, several theories exist in this discipline, operating in fundamentally different ways. This paper examines the two prevalent organizational theories, Transaction Cost Economics and Agency Theory, through a study of the food processing industry. This sector is thoroughly analyzed in order to make predictions from each theory regarding the aspects of capital structure and firm expansion. With accounting data for a sample of food processing firms, these predictions are then tested empirically using an ICAPM model in a cross-section of expected stock returns. Our results indicate that Agency Theory is the relevant organizational model for food manufacturers, making it the appropriate tool for evaluating the actions of these firms in agricultural markets.
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: If you are one of the people love reading as a manner, you can find golden parachute as your reading material and help you to overcome something to better.
Abstract: In wondering the things that you should do, reading can be a new choice of you in making new things. It's always said that reading will always help you to overcome something to better. Yeah, golden parachute is one that we always offer. Even we share again and again about the books, what's your conception? If you are one of the people love reading as a manner, you can find golden parachute as your reading material.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compare the economic organization of agriculture in the United States and the European Union and highlight the interaction between the institutional environment and the arrangements established to govern agricultural transactions.
Abstract: This paper outlines a research program comparing the economic organization of agriculture in the United States and European Union. Both have highly developed agricultural sectors but their organizational arrangements vary widely. Comparative analysis not only provides a broad set of firms and industries to compare, but also highlights the interaction between the institutional environment and the arrangements established to govern agricultural transactions. We first assess the common trend toward consolidation and vertical integration, turning next to the economic organization of formal and informal networks. While history and path dependence explain some of the variety among U.S. and European practices, other local conditions are important as well. We conclude by assessing the policy implications of recent changes in economic organization.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors draw on recent progress in the theory of property rights, agency, and finance to develop a theory of ownership structure for the firm, which casts new light on and has implications for a variety of issues in the professional and popular literature.
Abstract: In this paper we draw on recent progress in the theory of (1) property rights, (2) agency, and (3) finance to develop a theory of ownership structure for the firm.1 In addition to tying together elements of the theory of each of these three areas, our analysis casts new light on and has implications for a variety of issues in the professional and popular literature, such as the definition of the firm, the “separation of ownership and control,” the “social responsibility” of business, the definition of a “corporate objective function,” the determination of an optimal capital structure, the specification of the content of credit agreements, the theory of organizations, and the supply side of the completeness-of-markets problem.
TL;DR: In this paper, it is shown that a definition of a firm may be obtained which is not only realistic in that it corresponds to what is meant by a firm in the real world, but is tractable by two of the most powerful instruments of economic analysis developed by Marshall, the idea of the margin and that of substitution.
Abstract: Economic theory has suffered in the past from a failure to state clearly its assumptions. Economists in building up a theory have often omitted to examine the foundations on which it was erected. This examination is, however, essential not only to prevent the misunderstanding and needless controversy which arise from a lack of knowledge of the assumptions on which a theory is based, but also because of the extreme importance for economics of good judgement in choosing between rival sets of assumptions. For instance, it is suggested that the use of the word “firm” in economics may be different from the use of the term by the “plain man.”1 Since there is apparently a trend in economic theory towards starting analysis with the individual firm and not with the industry,2 it is all the more necessary not only that a clear definition of the word “firm” should be given but that its difference from a firm in the “real world,” if it exists, should be made clear. Mrs. Robinson has said that “the two questions to be asked of a set of assumptions in economics are: Are they tractable? and: Do they correspond with the real world?”3 Though, as Mrs. Robinson points out, “more often one set will be manageable and the other realistic,” yet there may well be branches of theory where assumptions may be both manageable and realistic. It is hoped to show in the following paper that a definition of a firm may be obtained which is not only realistic in that it corresponds to what is meant by a firm in the real world, but is tractable by two of the most powerful instruments of economic analysis developed by Marshall, the idea of the margin and that of substitution, together giving the idea of substitution at the margin.
TL;DR: Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work Author(s): Eugene Fama Source: The Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association New York, N.Y. December, 28-30, 1969 (May, 1970), pp. 383-417 as mentioned in this paper
Abstract: Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work Author(s): Eugene F. Fama Source: The Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association New York, N.Y. December, 28-30, 1969 (May, 1970), pp. 383-417 Published by: Blackwell Publishing for the American Finance Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2325486 Accessed: 30/03/2010 21:28
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a body of positive microeconomic theory dealing with conditions of risk, which can be used to predict the behavior of capital marcets under certain conditions.
Abstract: One of the problems which has plagued thouse attempting to predict the behavior of capital marcets is the absence of a body of positive of microeconomic theory dealing with conditions of risk/ Althuogh many usefull insights can be obtaine from the traditional model of investment under conditions of certainty, the pervasive influense of risk in finansial transactions has forced those working in this area to adobt models of price behavior which are little more than assertions. A typical classroom explanation of the determinationof capital asset prices, for example, usually begins with a carefull and relatively rigorous description of the process through which individuals preferences and phisical relationship to determine an equilibrium pure interest rate. This is generally followed by the assertion that somehow a market risk-premium is also determined, with the prices of asset adjusting accordingly to account for differences of their risk.
TL;DR: In this paper, Bhandari et al. found that the relationship between market/3 and average return is flat, even when 3 is the only explanatory variable, and when the tests allow for variation in 3 that is unrelated to size.
Abstract: Two easily measured variables, size and book-to-market equity, combine to capture the cross-sectional variation in average stock returns associated with market 3, size, leverage, book-to-market equity, and earnings-price ratios. Moreover, when the tests allow for variation in 3 that is unrelated to size, the relation between market /3 and average return is flat, even when 3 is the only explanatory variable. THE ASSET-PRICING MODEL OF Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Black (1972) has long shaped the way academics and practitioners think about average returns and risk. The central prediction of the model is that the market portfolio of invested wealth is mean-variance efficient in the sense of Markowitz (1959). The efficiency of the market portfolio implies that (a) expected returns on securities are a positive linear function of their market O3s (the slope in the regression of a security's return on the market's return), and (b) market O3s suffice to describe the cross-section of expected returns. There are several empirical contradictions of the Sharpe-Lintner-Black (SLB) model. The most prominent is the size effect of Banz (1981). He finds that market equity, ME (a stock's price times shares outstanding), adds to the explanation of the cross-section of average returns provided by market Os. Average returns on small (low ME) stocks are too high given their f estimates, and average returns on large stocks are too low. Another contradiction of the SLB model is the positive relation between leverage and average return documented by Bhandari (1988). It is plausible that leverage is associated with risk and expected return, but in the SLB model, leverage risk should be captured by market S. Bhandari finds, howev er, that leverage helps explain the cross-section of average stock returns in tests that include size (ME) as well as A. Stattman (1980) and Rosenberg, Reid, and Lanstein (1985) find that average returns on U.S. stocks are positively related to the ratio of a firm's book value of common equity, BE, to its market value, ME. Chan, Hamao, and Lakonishok (1991) find that book-to-market equity, BE/ME, also has a strong role in explaining the cross-section of average returns on Japanese stocks.
Related Papers (5)
29 Jan 2016
29 Jan 2016
29 Jan 2016