Skip to main content
Log in

The role of budgeting in eliminating tacit collusion

  • Published:
Review of Accounting Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While accounting textbooks emphasize the roles of budgeting in controlling and coordinating agents' activities, the principal-agent literature has focused primarily on the control aspect. Recent papers have studied the coordination aspect of budgeting in settings in which the agents are technologically dependent (sequential or joint production is considered). In this article, we develop a role for budgeting in coordination, despite the agents being technologically independent (individual production is considered). In our model, the principal uses relative performance evaluation to extract information rents from the agents. However, the use of relative performance evaluation results in a multiple equilibria (tacit collusion) problem. The value of budgeting procedures is derived from their ability to coordinate the agents to arrive at the right equilibrium.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AbreuD., and H.Matsushima. (1992). “Virtual Implementation in Iteratively Undominated Strategies: Complete Information”.Econometrica 60, 993–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • AryaA., and J.Glover. (1995). “A Simple Forecasting Mechanism for Moral Hazard Settings”,Journal of Economic Theory 66, 507–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • AryaA., J.Glover, and R.Young. (1995). “Virtual Implementation in Separable Bayesian Environments Using Simple Mechanisms”.Games and Economic Behavior 9, 127–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • BaimanS., and H.Evans. (1983). “Pre-decision Information and Participative Management Control Systems”.Journal of Accounting Research 21, 371–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S., and D. Green. (1962). “Budgeting and Employee Behavior”.Journal of Business, 392–402.

  • BernheimB. (1984). “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior”.Econometrica 52, 1007–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • ChristensenJ. (1982). “The Determination of Performance Standards and Participation”.Journal of Accounting Research 20, 589–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., and Y. Ijiri. (1974). “A Framework for Developing the Objectives of Financial Statements”. In J. J. Cramer, Jr. and G. H. Sorter (eds.),Objectives of Financial Statements 2. AICPA.

  • DemskiJ., and D.Sappington. (1984). “Optimal Incentive Contracts with Multiple Agents”,Journal of Economic Theory 33, 152–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, P., and J. Hughes. (1995). “Mutual Monitoring and Best Agency Contracts”. Working paper, Duke University.

  • FudenbergD., and J.Tirole. (1993).Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GibbardA. (1973). “Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result”.Econometrica 41, 587–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • GloverJ. (1994). “A Simpler Mechanism That Stops Agents from Cheating”Journal of Economic Theory 62, 221–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • HofstedeG. (1968).The Game of Budget and Control. New York: Barnes and Noble.

    Google Scholar 

  • HorngrenC., G.Foster, and S.Datar. (1994).Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • IjiriY. (1975).Theory of Accounting Measurement. Sarasota: American Accounting Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • JacksonM. (1991). “Bayesian Implementation”.Econometrica 59, 461–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • JacksonM. (1992). “Implementation in Undominated Strategies: A Look at Bounded Mechanisms”.Review of Economic Studies 59, 757–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • JacksonM., T.Palfrey, and S.Srivastava. (1994). “Undominated Nash Implementation in Bounded Mechanisms”.Games and Economic Behavior 6, 474–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • JordanJ., and G.Harris. (1920).Cost Accounting. New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • KanodiaC. (1993). “Participative Budgets as Coordination and Motivational Devices”.Journal of Accounting Research 31, 172–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • KrepsD. (1990).A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaC., J.Moore, and S.Turnbull. (1988). “Stopping Agents from Cheating”.Journal of Economic Theory 46, 355–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • MageeR. (1986).Advanced Managerial Accounting. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaherM., and E.Deakin. (1994).Cost Accounting. Boston: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskin, E. (1977). “Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality”. Working paper, Massachusettes Institute of Technology.

  • MelumadN., and S.Reichelstein. (1989). “Value of Communication in Agencies”.Journal of Economic Theory 47, 334–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • MookherjeeD., and S.Reichelstein. (1990). “Implementation via Augmented Revelation Mechanisms”.Review of Economic Studies 57, 453–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • MookherjeeD., and S.Reichelstein. (1992). “Dominant Strategy Implementation of Bayesian Incentive Compatible Allocation Rules”.Journal of Economic Theory 56, 378–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mookherjee, D., and S. Reichelstein. (1994). “Budgeting and Hierarchical Control”. Working paper, University of California at Berkeley.

  • MooreJ. (1992). “Implementation, Contracts, and Renegotiation in Environments with Complete Information”. In J. J.Laffont (ed.),Advances in Economic Theory: Sixth World Congress 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MyersonR. (1979). “Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem”.Econometrica 47, 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • PalfreyT., and S.Srivastava. (1989). “Implementation with Incomplete Information in Exchange Economies”.Econometrica 57, 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • PalfreyT., and S.Srivastava. (1991). “Nash Implementation Using Undominated Strategies”.Econometrica 59, 479–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • PalfreyT., and S.Srivastava. (1993).Bayesian Implementation. Chur: Harwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • PearceD. (1984). “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection”.Econometrica 52, 1029–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • PennoM. (1984). “Asymmetry of Pre-decision Information and Managerial Accounting”.Journal of Accounting Research 22, 177–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • PostlewaiteA., and D.Schmeidler. (1986). “Implementation in Differential Information Economies”.Journal of Economic Theory 39, 14–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • RajanM. (1992). “Cost Allocation in Multiagent Setting”.The Accounting Review 67, 527–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • SandersT. (1934).Cost Accounting for Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • SatterthwaiteM. (1975). “Strategy-Proofness and Arrow's Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions”.Journal of Economic Theory 10, 187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • SeltenR. (1975). “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Form Games”.International Journal of Game Theory 4, 25–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • SjöströmT. (1994). “Implementation in Undominated Nash Equilibria Without Integer Games”.Games and Economic Behavior 6, 502–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • StedryA. (1960).Budget Control and Cost-Behavior. Chicago: Markham.

    Google Scholar 

  • VatterW. (1950).Managerial Accounting. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arya, A., Glover, J. The role of budgeting in eliminating tacit collusion. Rev Acc Stud 1, 191–205 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00555371

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00555371

Keywords

Navigation