Oliver E. Williamson delivered his Prize Lecture on 8 December 2009 at Aula Magna, Stockholm University. He was introduced by Professor Bertil Holmlund, Chairman of the Economic Sciences Prize Committee.

[We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared with U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.]

ABSTRACT Implicit employment contracts are a common way to motivate firm productivity but also require that employees trust management to be fair when allocating postproduction firm resources between employees and owners. We use an experiment to study the problem of motivating firm productivity, which depends on levels of owner investment and employee productive effort, when managers have an incentive to favor the owner's interests over those of the employee. Drawing on research in psychology and behavioral economics, we argue that reputation concerns can more effectively promote firm productivity when manager compensation is relatively insensitive to how much the owner is allocated after production occurs. Consistent with our predictions, we find that reputation concerns lead to greater firm productivity and higher payoffs for all firm members, but only when manager pay is relatively insensitive to the owner's ex post allocation. In addition to offering testable empirical implications, our theory and results are important because they can help explain why executive compensation is, in practice, surprisingly insensitive to owner returns.

ABSTRACT: Performance-based compensation contracts can affect productivity both by motivating effort and by attracting workers whose abilities align best with the offered contracts. Using an experiment in which participants design “rebus puzzles,” this study tests whether the incremental benefits of contract self-selection extend to a multi-dimensional performance environment in which participants choose between a contract that rewards both quantity and creativity versus a contract that rewards quantity only. Findings indicate that participants who choose a creativity-weighted pay scheme perceive themselves to have greater creative potential than those who choose a quantity-only scheme. This perceived creativity advantage manifests itself in the superior initial creativity ratings of such participants’ productive output. However, in the aggregate, participants paid only for quantity eventually surpass the creativity-weighted productivity scores of participants paid for creativity-weighted productivity, whether compensation contracts are self-selected or randomly assigned. Thus, the implications of contract selection on creativity-weighted productivity hinge on the importance of the initial advantage enjoyed by participants who self-select a creativity-weighted contract.

We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared with U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.

ABSTRACT: To curb opportunism in financial reporting, researchers and regulators have proposed that firms be required to report reconciliations of prior year estimates. We provide experimental evidence that such disclosures are not sufficient for nonprofessional investors to identify firms that are opportunistic in their estimates. We also offer evidence suggesting that the value of these disclosures can be enhanced when nonprofessional investors seek out information about the estimate accuracy of other firms in the industry (i.e., consensus information). Our study provides insights about these disclosures and the mechanisms that enhance their effectiveness. Our findings have broad implications for standard-setters and future research designed to assist in identifying opportunistic management behavior.