The principal-agent theory focuses on designing incentive mechanisms to solve the problem of moral hazard under the condition of asymmetric information. However, there are some limitations in the current studies of principal-agent problem. On the one hand, although much effort has been made to apply principal-agent theory to specific relation structure, most of previous studies mainly focus on single principal-agent relations. On the consideration of some participants have double identity of principal and agent in reality, the multiple principal-agent relations is more truthful than classic principal-agent theory. On the other hand, the previous theories are developed under the assumption of relational economic man. With the developing of behavioral economics, a growing number of scholars believe that people's behavior is bounded rational rather than purely rational. The theory of process fairness preference considered that process fairness preference is an important factor affecting human behavior, which provides a theory basis for the view of bounded rational.Beware of two disadvantages of the traditional principal-agent theory, this paper make a rewarding approach to classic theory through constructing chain-like multi principal-agent relations with incorporates fairness preference. Which has extended the traditional principal-agent theory research.In the third part of this paper, taking the double principal-agent for example, the agent in the first stage of principal-agent model is the principal of the second stage principal-agent model, thus there is a modification on principal-agent structure. Through considering the double principal-agent that pure principal, intermediary and pure agent are entirely rational, it has found that, under the condition of entirely rational, the optimal level of effort of intermediary and pure agent is positively related to the optimal revenue sharing ratio. In each stage principal-agent model, when the principal gives the agent more incentive the agent will try harder to work, but the degree of risk aversion of the agent will make the incentive effect weak. Therefore managers of enterprises could take good use of the method of increasing revenue sharing ratio to fully arouse the work enthusiasm of the employees. However, the greater the degree of risk aversion of the agent, the result of through increasing revenue sharing ratio coefficient to motivate agent is less obvious, so the employees who have a smaller degree of risk aversion are good employees.In the fourth part, this paper constructs a chain-like double principal-agent model through inducing process fairness preference. After calculation, we've got more profitable conclusion that the agent is friendly to the principal if the agent's effort is greater than the half of his biggest effort level, and the principal is friendly to the agent if the fixed income which the principal gives the agent is greater than half of the maximum. At the same time, the more fixed income, the more effort agent will give. On the one hand, it has well explained the Rabin's thought of “give a plum in return for a peach” and “an eye for an eye”, on the other hand, it also shows us the reason that employees have better performance and professional ethic in some companies which have good welfare policy.In the fifth part, through numerical simulation, this paper has found that it has an equilibrium which make every participant has more revenue. In conclusion, optimal incentive contract under the entirely rational can be improved, and process fairness preference can increase the income of all the players.The analysis in this paper can also be applied to design an incentive mechanism for enterprises, financial institution, and government budget problem as well as profit distribution for up and down stream of supply chain. Therefor it would have significant practice in real economic.
ZHAO Chen-yuan, PU Yong-jian, PAN Lin-wei
. The Incentive Mechanism of Chain-like Multiple Principal-Agent Model——A Comparative Study Based on Entirely Rational and Process Fairness Preference Model[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017
, 25(6)
: 121
-131
.
DOI: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2017.06.013
[1] Sappington D E M. Incentives in principal-agent relationships[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives,1991,5(2):45-66.
[2] 刘有贵,蒋年云. 委托代理理论述评[J]. 学术界,2006(1):69-78.
[3] Spence M,Zeckhauser R. Insurance,information and individual action[J]. The American Economic Review,1971,61(2):55-73.
[4] Ross S. The economic theory of agency: The principal's problem[J]. The American Economic Review,1973,63(2):134-139.
[5] Holmstrom B. Moral hazard and observability[J]. Bell Journal of Economics,1979,10(1):74-91.
[6] Sappington D. Limited liability contracts between principal and agent[J]. Journal of Economic Theory,1983,29(1):1-21.
[7] Nalebuff B J,Stiglitz J E. Prizes and incentives:Towards a general theory of compensation[J]. Bell Journal of Economic,1983,14(1):21-43.
[8] Bernheim B D,Whinston M D. Common marketing agency as a device for facilitating collusion[J]. The Rand Journal of Economics,1985,16(2):269-281.
[9] Bernheim B D,Whinston M D. Common Agency[J].Econometrica,1986,54(4):923-942.
[10] Holmstrom B,Milgrom P. Multi-task principal-agent analyses incentives contracts asset ownership and job design[J]. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,1991,7:24-52.
[11] 冯根福. 双重委托代理理论:上市公司治理的另一种分析框架—兼论进一步完善中国上市公司治理的新思路[J]. 经济研究,2004,(12):16-25.
[12] 陈富良,王光新. 政府规制中的多重委托代理与道德风险[J]. 财贸经济,2004,12:35-39.
[13] 李翀,刘思峰,方志耕,等. 多级供应链系统成本分析随即网络模型及算法研究[J]. 中国管理科学,2013,21(4):105-111.
[14] 周勤. 转型时期公用产品定价中的多重委托-代理关系研究[J]. 管理世界,2004,(2):43-49.
[15] 蒋海,朱滔,李东辉. 监管、多重代理与商业银行治理的最优激励契约设计[J]. 经济研究,2010,(4):40-53.
[16] Henrich J,Boyd R, Bowles S,et al. In search of homo economicus:Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies[J]. The American Economic Review,2001,91(2):73-78.
[16] Clark A E,Masclet D,Villeval M. Effort and comparison income:Experimental and survey evidence[J]. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,2010,63(3):407-425.
[17] Nicholas A. Fairness as a constraint on reciprocity:Playing simultaneously as dictator and trustee[J]. the Journal of Socio-Economics,2012,41(2):211-221.
[18] Fehr E,Schmidt KM. A Theory of fairness,competition and cooperation[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(3):817-868.
[19] Fehr E,Goette L,Zehnder C. A behavioral account of the labor market:The role of fairness concerns[J]. Annual Revew of Eonemics,2009,1:355-384.
[20] 李训,曹国华. 基于公平偏好理论的激励机制研究[J]. 管理工程学报,2008,22(2):107-111.
[21] 袁茂,雷勇,蒲勇健. 基于公平偏好理论的激励机制与代理成本分析[J]. 管理工程学报,2011,25(2):82-86.
[22] 傅强,朱浩. 基于公平偏好理论的激励机制研究:兼顾横向公平偏好和纵向公平偏好[J]. 管理工程学报,2014,28(3):190-195.
[23] 晏艳阳,金鹏. 公平偏好下的多任务目标与国企高管薪酬激励[J]. 中国管理科学,2014,22(7):82-93.
[24] 魏光兴,林强,覃燕红. 同时考虑风险规避和公平偏好的双渠道供应链定价决策[J]. 重庆理工大学学报(社会科学),2016,30(12):50-58.
[25] Rabin M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics[J]. The American Economics Review,1993,83(5):1291-1302.
[26] 蒲勇健. 建立在行为经济学理论基础上的委托-代理模型:物质效用与动机公平的替代[J]. 经济学(季刊),2007,7(1):297-318.
[27] 王辉,侯文华. 引入供应商的公平偏好的供应链激励契约设计[J]. 物流技术,2010,17(9):44-48.
[28] 丁川. 基于完全理性和公平偏好的营销渠道委托代理模型比较研究[J]. 管理工程学报,2014,(1):185-194.
[29] 张维迎. 博弈论与信息经济学[M]. 上海:上海三联书店,1996.
[30] 蒲勇健. 植入"公平博弈"的委托-代理模型——来自行为经济学的一个贡献[J]. 当代财经,2007,(3):5-11.
[31] Corbett C J, Zhou Deming, Tang C S. Designing supply contracts: Contract type and information asymmetry[J]. Management Science, 2004, 50(4):550-559.