The first major experimental comparison of approval voting with regular plurality voting occurred in the 1985 annual election of The Institute of Management Sciences (TIMS). In approval voting a person votes for (approves of) as many candidates as desired, the winner being the candidate with the most votes. By permitting more votes than the number of positions to be filled, approval voting collects more information from the voter than does plurality voting. This can make a difference, for example, when three candidates compete for a single office. In such situations two candidates with wide but similar appeal sometimes split a majority constituency so that, under plurality voting, a minority candidate is elected. By contrast, approval voting is likely to identify the candidate who is most broadly acceptable to the electorate as a whole. In the TIMS experiment society members received an experimental approval ballot along with their official plurality ballot. Two contests involved three candidates running for a single office and a third, five candidates for two positions. Surprisingly, in two of the three contests, approval voting would have produced different winners and neither of the changes was of the type usually emphasized in the approval voting literature. The experiment demonstrated the practicality of approval voting and showed that it can elect a set of candidates different from that which plurality voting would. Direct comparison of ballots makes it possible to determine why the experimental switches occurred. It is shown that in each reversal the approval winner had broader support in the electorate than the plurality winner. The experiment also provided empirical data on how voters distribute approvals across candidates and indicated that, in this case, their behavior was roughly, but not exactly, consistent with theoretical analyses of voting efficacy.

This paper examines the familiar argument that takeover pressure can be damaging because i t leads managers to sacrifice long-term interests in order to boost c urrent profits. If stockholders are imperfectly informed, temporarily low earnings may cause the stock to become undervalued, increasing t he likelihood of a takeover at an unfavorable price; hence the manage rial concern with current bottom line. The magnitude of the problem d epends on a variety of factors, including the attitudes and beliefs o f shareholders, the extent to which corporate raiders have inside inf ormation, and the degree to which managers are concerned with retaini ng control of their firms. Copyright 1988 by University of Chicago Press.

I examine three composite analyst forecast of earnings per share as proxies for expected earnings. The most current forecast weakly dominates the mean and median forecasts in accuracy. This is evidence that forecast dates are more relevant for determining accuracy than individual error. Consistent with previous research, I find analysts more accurate than time-series models. However prior knowledge of forecast errors from a quarterly autoregressive model predicts excess stock returns better than prior knowledge of analysts' errors. This is inconsistent with previous research, and is anomalous given analysts' greater accuracy.

This report presents the results of a formal study of the corporate venture capital community in the United States, and is based upon responses to a questionnaire completed by 52 corporate venture capitalists (CVCs). The central question addressed in this study involves which approach to corporate venture capital is most likely to produce successful results. This question was addressed via cluster analysis which segregated the CVC community into two broad classes—“pilots,” which are marked by substantial organizational independence and “copilots,” which are highly dependent on corporate management with respect to venture funding and decision authority. Pilots achieve equal or higher levels of performance, and are plagued by far fewer obstacles, than their highly dependent counterparts. The results suggest the following: 1. The corporate venture fund should be established as an independent entity and should have access to a committed, separate pool of funds. This will enable CVCs to respond aggressively to, and manage, investment opportunities with minimal corporate interference. Such an independent entity will defuse justifiable concerns on the part of entrepreneurs related to such interference. 2. The fund should be managed by skilled venture professionals who may be drawn from the independent venture community or the small but growing pool of experienced CVCs. Corporate executives may comprise a part of the management team. 3. If the corporate venture fund hopes to attract top quality managers, it must be prepared to offer compensation and authority commensurate with their skill level. In short, corporate venture capitalists should be treated like independent venture capitalists. By organizing the fund as an independent entity, the political problem associated with establishing compensation levels above those of the corporation can be minimized. 4. All CVCs should establish a primary focus on the realization of financial objectives (i.e., return on investment). Strategic benefit objectives are not necessarily ill advised so long as they do not interfere with sound financial decision making. When they do, the corporate venture capital process is likely to become less effective. For instance, a corporate venture fund should only confine itself to investing in a few industries if there are sufficient high-grade investment opportunities within those industries to ensure adequate deal flow. The venture fund should not be pressured. Investments that appear exciting from a corporate perspective, for technological or marketing reasons, but are not financially attractive may well drain resources rather than produce opportunities. 5. Venture proposals failing on financial criteria might be referred to other parts of the corporation with the purpose of exploring an alternate relationship (e.g., a development contract or joint venture). If this is appealing to the corporation, a mechanism such as a corporate liaison or reporting system might be established to facilitate the flow of information. 6. A corporation should be willing to make a complete commitment of talent and capital if it establishes its own corporate venture fund. The corporation should then be willing to accept a limited role. If the corporation is unable to accept a limited role with respect to its own fund, it may be best for it to participate as an investor in a traditional fund, where such limitations will be enforced. However, this latter approach may significantly dilute or eliminate potential for strategic benefits.

ABSTRACT A thorough understanding of internal incentive structures is critical to developing a viable theory of the firm, since these incentives determine to a large extent how individuals inside an organization behave. Many common features of organizational incentive systems are not easily explained by traditional economic theory—including egalitarian pay systems in which compensation is largely independent of performance, the overwhelming use of promotion‐based incentive systems, the absence of up‐front fees for jobs and effective bonding contracts, and the general reluctance of employers to fire, penalize, or give poor performance evaluations to employees. Typical explanations for these practices offered by behaviorists and practitioners are distinctly uneconomic—focusing on notions such as fairness, equity, morale, trust, social responsibility, and culture. The challenge to economists is to provide viable economic explanations for these practices or to integrate these alternative notions into the traditional economic model.