Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:53:45.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Cooperatives Produce Great Wines, but the Majority Does Not: Complementary Institutional Mechanisms to Improve the Performance of an Indispensable Organizational Form*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2018

Bernd Frick
Bernd Frick*
Affiliation:
Management Department, University of Paderborn, Warburger Strasse 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany; e-mail: [email protected]; Department of Sport Economics and Sport Marketing, Schloss Seeburg University, Seeburgstrasse 8, 5201 Seekirchen/Salzburg, Austria; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although they have often been found to be technically inefficient, cooperatives not only have survived in the wine industry but continue to play major roles in most European countries. Because the specific advantages of their “organizational architecture” (resource pooling and decentralization) seem to outweigh the disadvantages (vaguely defined property rights and high monitoring costs), this paper discusses organizational measures to improve the performance of cooperatives by addressing three different aspects of “organizational design” (managing entry and exit, motivating members, and investing in corporate culture). (JEL Classifications: D22, D23, L14, L21, L31)

Keywords

adverse selectionfirm performancemoral hazardorganizational designorganizational form
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 386 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the organizers—Günter Schamel and Karl Storchmann—of the AAWE workshop “Economics of Organization and Integration in the Wine Sector” on June 26 and 27, 2017, at the Free University of Bolzano (Italy) for their hospitality and the participants as well as a referee for their constructive comments and suggestions that helped improve the paper. Errors and omissions are, of course, my own.

References

Albaek, S., and Schultz, C. (1998). On the relative advantage of cooperatives. Economics Letters, 59(3), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albanese, M., Navarra, C., and Tortia, E. C. (2015). Employer moral hazard and wage rigidity. The case of worker owned and investor owned firms. International Review of Law and Economics, 43, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backes-Gellner, U., and Pull, K. (2014). Tournament compensation systems, employee heterogeneity, and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 52(3), 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balafoutas, L., Dutcher, E. G., Lindner, F., and Ryvkin, D. (2017). The optimal allocation of prizes in tournaments of heterogeneous agents. Economic Inquiry, 55(1), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodreau, K. J., Lakhani, K. R., and Menietti, M. (2016). Performance responses to competition across skill levels in rank-order tournaments: Field evidence and implications for tournament design. Rand Journal of Economics, 47(1), 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgen, S. O. (2004). Rethinking incentive problems in cooperative organizations. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castriota, S., and Delmastro, M. (2012). Seller reputation: Individual, collective, and institutional factors. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, M. L. (1995). The future of US agricultural cooperatives: A neo-institutional approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5), 1153–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilger, A. (2005). In vino veritas: The effects of different management configurations in German viniculture. Journal of Wine Research, 20(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F., and Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. (2004). Does ownership matter? Empirical evidence from the German wine industry. Kyklos, 57(3), 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B., and Simmons, R. (2013). The impact of individual and collective reputation on wine prices: Empirical evidence from the Mosel Valley. Journal of Business Economics, 83(2), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, M. (1995). The future of Canadian agricultural cooperatives: A property rights approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5), 1144–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmstrom, B., and Milgrom, P. (1987). Aggregation and linearity in the provision of intertemporal incentives. Econometrica, 55(2), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, P., and Prüfer, J. (2016). Firms, nonprofits, and cooperatives: A theory of organizational choice. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87, 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., and Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review, 87(3), 291–313.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C., and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kale, J. R., Reis, E., and Venkateswaran, A. (2009). Rank-order tournaments and incentive alignment: The effect on firm performance. Journal of Finance, 64(3), 1479–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoeber, C. R. (1989). A real game of chicken: Contracts, tournaments, and the production of broilers. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 5(2), 271–292.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory. In Alt, J. E., and Shepsle, K. A. (eds.), Perspectives on positive political economy, 90–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazear, E. P., and Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P., and Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2–3), 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, J. (2001). Organizational principles for co-operative firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(3), 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C., and Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200.Google Scholar
Pennerstorfer, D., and Weiss, C. R. (2013). Product quality in the agri-food chain: Do cooperatives offer high-quality wine? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(1), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 7–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. (2010). Designing incentives in organizations. Journal of Institutional Economics, 6(1), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schamel, G. H. (2015). Can German wine cooperatives compete on quality? BIO Web of Conferences, 5, 03003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, D., and Konrad, A. M. (2017). Causality between high performance work systems and organizational performance. Journal of Management, 43(4), 973–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tirole, J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar