Moral Hazard, Contracts and Social Preferences: A Survey

  • Florian Englmaier
Part of the International Economic Association Series book series (IEA)


This chapter provides a non-technical survey of recent contributions to the emerging field of behavioural contract theory that try to incorporate social preferences into the analysis of optimal contracts in situations of moral hazard. The presence of these social preferences is confirmed by numerous studies. Taking them into account when analysing optimal contracts generates important new insights, and might help us gain a better understanding of real-world contracts and organizational structures.


Social Preference Optimal Contract Participation Constraint Team Production Moral Hazard Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akerlof, G.A. (1982) ‘Labour Contracts as a Partial Gift Exchange’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 97(4) , pp. 543–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G.A. and J.L. Yellen (1988) ‘Fairness and Unemployment’, American Economic Review, vol. 78(2), pp. 44–9.Google Scholar
  3. Bardhan, P. (1984) Land, Labour and Rural Poverty (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  4. Bardhan, P. and A. Rudra (1980) ‘Terms and Conditions of Sharecropping Contracts: An Analysis of Village Survey Data in India’, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 16(3), pp. 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartling, B. and F. von Siemens (2004a) ‘Efficiency in Team Production with Inequity Averse Agents’, Working Paper, University of Munich.Google Scholar
  6. Bartling, B. and F. von Siemens (2004b) ‘Inequity Aversion and Moral Hazard with Multiple Agents’, Working Paper, University of Munich.Google Scholar
  7. Bewley, T.F. (1999) Why Wages Don’t Fall During a Recession (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Bolton, G.E. and A. Ockenfels (2000) ‘ERC — A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition’, American Economic Review, vol. 90(1), pp. 166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, J.C. and D. Friedman (2002) ‘A Tractable Model of Reciprocity and Fairness’, Working Paper, Learning and Experimental Economics Projects of Santa Cruz (LEEPS).Google Scholar
  10. Demougin, D. and C. Fluet (2003) ‘Inequity Aversion in Tournaments’, Cahiers de recherche no. 0322, Centre Interuniversitaire sur le Risque, les Politiques Economiques et l’Emploi.Google Scholar
  11. Dufwenberg, M. and G. Kirchsteiger (2004) ‘A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity’, Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 47(2), pp. 268–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dur, R. and A. Glazer (2002) ‘Optimal Incentive Contracts When Workers Envy Their Bosses’, Discussion Paper, Tinbergen Institute no. 04–046/1.Google Scholar
  13. Englmaier, F. and A. Wambach (2002) ‘Contracts and Inequity Aversion’, Economic Studies & Ifo Institute for Economic Research Working Paper no. 809, Munich.Google Scholar
  14. Englmaier, F. and A. Wambach (2004) ‘Contracts and Inequity Aversion’, Working Paper, University of Munich.Google Scholar
  15. Falk, A. and U. Fischbacher (1998) ‘A Theory of Reciprocity’, Institut für Empirische Wirtschaftsforschung, Working Paper no. 6, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
  16. Fehr, E. and A. Falk (2002) ‘Psychological Foundations of Incentives’, European Economic Review, vol. 46, pp. 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fehr, E. and S. Gächter (2000) ‘Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments’, American Economic Review, vol. 90, pp. 980–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fehr, E., S. Gächter and G. Kirchsteiger (1997) ‘Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence’, Econometrica, vol. 65, pp. 833–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fehr, E., G. Kirchsteiger and A. Riedl (1993) ‘Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108, pp. 437–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehr, E. and B. Rockenbach (2002) ‘Detrimental Effects of Sanctions on Human Altruism’, Nature, vol. 422, pp. 137–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehr, E. and K.M. Schmidt (1999) ‘A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 114(3), pp. 817–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fehr, E. and K.M. Schmidt (2003) ‘Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity — Evidence and Economic Applications’, in M. Dewatripont et al. (eds), Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Eighth World Congress of the Econometric Society, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 208–57.Google Scholar
  23. Gächter, S. and E. Fehr (2002) ‘Fairness in the Labour Market? — A Survey of Experimental Results’, in F. Bolle and M. Lehmann-Waffenschmidt (eds), Surveys in Experimental Economics. Bargaining, Cooperation and Election Stock Markets (Heidelberg: Physica Verlag), pp. 95–132.Google Scholar
  24. Gneezy, U. and A. Rustichini (2000) ‘Pay Enough or Don’t Pay At All’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 115(2), pp. 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grund, C. and D. Sliwka (2005) ‘Envy and Compassion in Tournaments’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, vol. 14, pp. 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmström, B. (1979) ‘Moral Hazard and Observability’, Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 10, pp. 74–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huck, S., D. Kübler and J. Weibull (2003) ‘Social Norms and Economic Incentives in Firms’, Working Paper, University College London.Google Scholar
  28. Huck, S. and P. Rey Biel (2003) ‘Inequity Aversion and the Timing of Team Production’, Working Paper, University College London.Google Scholar
  29. Itoh, H. (2004) ‘Moral Hazard and Other-Regarding Preferences’, Japanese Economic Review, vol. 55, pp. 18–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kandel, E. and E.P. Lazear (1992) ‘Peer Pressure and Partnerships’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 100(4), pp. 801–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazear, E.P. and S. Rosen (1981) ‘Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labour Contracts’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 89(5), pp. 841–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Masclet, D. (2002) ‘Peer Pressure in Work Teams: The Effects of Inequity Aversion’, GATE Working Paper, no. 02–15, University of Lyons.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, B. and T. Pfeiffer (2004) ‘Prinzipien der Anreizgestaltung bei Risikoaversion und sozialen Präferenzen’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, no. 10, pp. 1047–61.Google Scholar
  34. Oyer, P. and S. Schaefer (2003) ‘Why Do Some Firms Give Stock Options to All Employees?: An Empirical Examination of Alternative Theories’, Stanford Business School Research Paper, no. 1772R.Google Scholar
  35. Rabin, M. (1993) ‘Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics’, American Economic Review, vol. 83(5), pp. 1281–302.Google Scholar
  36. Rasmusen, E. (1987) ‘Moral Hazard in Risk-Averse Teams’, RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 18(3), pp. 428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rey Biel, P. (2003) ‘Inequity Aversion and Team Incentives’, Working Paper, University College London.Google Scholar
  38. Rob, R. and P. Zemsky (2002) ‘Social Capital, Corporate Culture, and Incentive Intensity’, RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 33(2), pp. 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rotemberg, J. (1994) ‘I Iuman Relations in the Workplace’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 102(4), pp. 684–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thaler, R.H. (1989) ‘Anomalies: Interindustry Wage Differentials’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 3(2), pp. 181–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Economic Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Englmaier
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations