Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sharing Ownership via Employee Stock Ownership

  • Chapter
Ownership and Governance of Enterprises

Part of the book series: Studies in Development Economics and Policy ((SDEP))

Abstract

There is considerable focus at the moment on equity ownership. According to an article in The Economist, 1 in 2001 over 50 per cent of the adult population in the United States owned equity. This was a 100 per cent increase since the time of the market correction in 1987. Equity ownership is not only a growing phenomenon in the United States but is also occurring worldwide. More than 50 per cent of Australians and 20 per cent of Germans own shares, and equity ownership is growing in virtually every major Western country.2 Equity ownership, in the form of stocks or property, plant and equipment, has always been an important element of the wealth of upper-income people in Western societies. However the recent rise of equity ownership has occurred in the context of four major developments. First, equity markets have grown as a way of raising funds and have prospered as a result of general business expansion, the rise of world capital markets and the wide diffusion of information technology in financial markets.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchian, A. A. and H. Demsetz (1972) ‘Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization’, American Economic Review, 62 (December): 777–95.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Applebaum, E. and P. Berg (2000) ‘High-Performance Work Systems: The Historical Context’, in M. M. Blair and T. A. Kochan (eds), The New Relationship: Human Capital in the American Corporation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, L. and D. Neumark (1993) ‘Lump-Sum Payments and Profit-Sharing Plans in the Union Sector of the United States Economy’, Economic Journal, 103: 602–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben-Ner, A. and D. Jones (1995) ‘Employee Participation, Ownership, and Productivity: A Theoretical Framework’, Industrial Relations, 34, 4: 532–53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blair, M., D. Kruse and J. Blasi (2000) ‘Is Employee Ownership an Unstable Form? Or a Stabilizing Force?’, in M. M. Blair and T. A. Kochan (eds), The New Relationship: Human Capital in the American Corporation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blasi, J. R., M. Conte and D. Kruse (1996) ‘Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance Among Public Corporations’, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 50, 1: 60–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. — M. Kroumova and D. Kruse (1997) Kremlin Capitalism: Privatizing the Russian Economy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. and D. Kruse (1991) The New Owners: The Mass Emergence of Employee Ownership in Public Companies and What it Means to American Business, New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  9. BLS (2000) ‘Pilot Survey on the Incidence of Stock Options in Private Industry in 1999’, press release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, USDL 00–290.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bonin, J. P., D. Jones and L. Putterman (1993) ‘Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Producer Cooperatives: Will the Twain Ever Meet?’, Journal of Economic Literature, 31: 1290–320.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brickley, J. A. and K. T. Hevert (1991) ‘Direct Employee Stock Ownership: An Empirical Investigation’, Financial Management, Summer: 70–84.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Core, J. and W. Guay (2000) ‘Stock options plans for non-executive employees’, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Craig, B. (1995) ‘Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution: 121–60.

    Google Scholar 

  14. — and J. Pencavel (1992) ‘The Behavior of Worker Cooperatives: The Plywood Companies of the Pacific Northwest’, American Economic Review, 82: 1083–105.

    Google Scholar 

  15. del Boca, A. and E. Cupaiuolo (1998) ‘Why Do Firms Introduce Financial Participation? Evidence from a Sample of Small and Medium Italian Manufacturing Companies’, Economic Analysis: Journal of Enterprise and Participation, 1, 3: 221–38.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Drago, R. and G. K. Turnbull (1988) ‘Individual vs. Group Piece Rates Under Team Technologies’, Journal of Japanese and International Economics, 2: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Estrin, S. and D. C. Jones (1992) ‘The Viability of Employee-Owned Firms: Evidence from France’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 2: 323–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fernie, S. and D. Metcalf (1995) ‘Participation, Contingent Pay, Representation and Workplace Performance: Evidence from Great Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 3: 279–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Florkowski, G. (1990) ‘Profit Sharing and Public Policy: Insights for the United States’, Industrial Relations, 30, 1: 96–115.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Freeman, R. and A. Dube (2000) ‘Shared Compensation and Decision-making in the U.S. Job Market’, draft paper, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University (Department of Economics) and NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  21. and J. Rogers (1999) WhatWorkersWant, New York and Ithaca: Cornell University Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grunberg, L., S. Moore and E. Greenberg (1996) ‘The Relationship of Employee Ownership and Participation to Workplace Safety’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 17, 2: 221–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hansmann, H. (1996) The Ownership of Enterprise, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hewitt Associates (1997) Non-executive Stock Option Survey Report, 1997: Variable Compensation Measurement Database, Lincolnshire, IL: Hewitt Associates, VCM Points Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jones, D. C. (1979) ‘US Producer Cooperatives: The Record to Date’, Industrial Relations, 8: 343–56.

    Google Scholar 

  26. ‘The Productivity Effects of Employee Ownership Within Command Economies: Evidence from Poland’, Managerial and Decision Economics, 14: 475–85.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kandel, E. and E. Lazear (1992) ‘Peer pressure and partnerships’, Journal of Political Economy, 100, 4: 801–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kardas, P., A. L. Scharf and J. Keogh (1998) ‘Wealth and Income Consequences of Employee Ownership: A Comparative Study from Washington State’, draft paper, Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Keef, S. P. (1998) ‘The Causal Association between Employee Share Ownership and Attitudes: A Study Based on the Long Framework’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 1: 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kroumova, M. K., J. C. Sesil, D. L. Kruse and J. R. Blasi (2002) ‘Broad-based Stock Options — A Union Non-Union Comparison’, in D. Lewin and B. E. Kaufman (eds), Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, vol. 11, New York: JAI Press: 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kruse, D. (1984) Employee Ownership and Employee Attitudes: Two Case Studies, Norwood, PA: Norwood Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  32. (1993) Profit Sharing: Does It Make A Difference?, Kalamazoo: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Google Scholar 

  33. —(1996) ‘Why Do Firms Adopt Profit-Sharing and Employee Ownership Plans?’, British Journal oflndusMal Relations, 34, 4: 515–38.

    Google Scholar 

  34. (1998) ‘Profit Sharing and the Demand for Low-Skill Workers’, in R. Freeman and P. Gottschalk (eds), Generating Jobs: Increasing the Demand for Low-Skill Workers, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  35. (2002) ‘Research Evidence on the Prevalence and Effects of Employee Ownership’, Journal of Employee Ownership Law and Finance, 14, 4: 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  36. and J. Blasi (1997) ‘Employee Ownership, Employee Attitudes, and Firm Performance: A Review of the Evidence’, in D. Lewin, D. J. B. Mitchell and

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. A. Zaidi (eds), The Human Resources Management Handbook, Part 1, Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. and (1999) ‘Public Opinion Polls on Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing’, Journal of Employee Ownership Law and Finance, 11, 3 (Summer).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lawler, E. E. with S. A. Mohrman and G. E. Ledford Jr. (1998) Strategies for High Performance Organizations — The CEO Report. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lazear, E. P. (1986) ‘Salaries and Piece Rates’, Journal of Business, 59: 405–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. —(1995) Personnel Economics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lebow, D., L. Sheiner, L. Slifman and M. Starr-McCluer (1998) Recent Trends in Compensation Practices, Washington, DC: US Federal Reserve Board, 15 July.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Levine, D. I. and L. D. Tyson (1990) Participation, Productivity and the Firm’s Environment’, in A. S. Blinder (ed.), Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  44. McNabb, R. and K. Whitfield (1998) ‘The Impact of Financial Participation and Employee Involvement on Financial Performance’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 45, 2: 171–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1992) Economics, Organization, and Management, London: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nalbantian, H. R. (ed.) (1987) Incentives, Cooperation, and Risk Sharing, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  47. National Center for Employee Ownership [NCEO] (1998) CurrentPractices in Stock Option Plan Design, Oakland, CA: National Center for Employee Ownership. Second edition 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  48. (2002) ‘Largest Study Yet Shows ESOPs Improve Performance and Employee Benefits’, at http://www.nceo.org/library/esop_perf.html.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ohkusa, Y. and F. Ohtake (1997) ‘The Productivity Effects of Information Sharing, Profit Sharing, and ESOPs’, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 11, 3: 385–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Patibandla, M. and P. Chandra (1998) ‘Organizational Practices and Employee Performance: The Case of the Canadian Primary Textile Industry’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37, 4: 431–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pearl Meyer (1998) The Equity Stake — 1998: Study of Management Equity Participation in the Top 200 Corporations, New York: Pearl Meyer & Partners.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pencavel, J. (2001) Worker Participation: Lessons from the Worker Co-ops of the Pacific Northwest, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pendleton, A., N. Wilson and M. Wright (1998) ‘The Perception and Effects of Share Ownership: Empirical Evidence from Employee Buy-outs’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 1: 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Putterman, L. and G. Skillman (1988) ‘The Incentive Effects of Monitoring Under Alternative Compensation Schemes’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 6, 1: 109–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Quarrey, M. and C. Rosen (1993) Employee Ownership and CorporatePerformance. Oakland, CA: National Center for Employee Ownership.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Scharf, A. and C. Mackin (2000) Census of Massachusetts Companies with Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Boston: Commonwealth Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sesil, J., M. K. Kroumova, J. R. Blasi and D. L. Kruse (2002) ‘Broad-Based Stock Option in U.S. New Economy Firms’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40, 2: 273–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. M. Kroumova, D. Kruse and J. Blasi (2000) ‘Broad-Based Employee Stock Options in the U.S.: Company Performance and Characteristics’, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, CD-ROM, G1-G5, Toronto (August).

    Google Scholar 

  59. D. L. Kmse and J. R. Blasi (2001) ‘Sharing Ownership via Employee Stock’, WIDER Discussion Paper no. 2001/25, Helsinki: UNU/WIDER.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Smith, S., B.-C. Cin and M. Vodopivec (1997) ‘Privatization Incidence, Ownership Forms, and Firm Performance: Evidence from Slovenia’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 25, 2: 158–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tseo, G. (1996) ‘Chinese Economic Restructuring: Enterprise Development through Employee Ownership’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 17, 2: 243–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. US DOL (2002) ‘Abstract of 1998 Form 5500 Annual Reports’, Private Pension Plan Bulletin, 11 (Winter), Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, US Department of Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Uvalic, M. and D. Vaughan-Whitehead (eds) (1997) Privatisation Surprises in Transition Economies: Employee Ownership in Central and Eastern Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wagner, J. A. (1994) ‘Participation’s Effects on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research Evidence’, Academy of Management Review, 19, 2: 312–30.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Watson Wyatt Worldwide (1998) Stock Option Overhang: Shareholder Boon or Shareholder Burden?, Bethesda, MD: Watson Wyatt Worldwide.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Weeden, R. and E. Carberry (2000) Current Practices in Stock Option Plan Design, Oakland, CA: NCEO.

    Google Scholar 

  67. and S. Rodrick (1998) Current Practices in Stock Option Plan Design, Oakland, CA: NCEO.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Weiss, A. (1987) ‘Incentives and Worker Behavior’, in H. Nalbantian (ed.), Incentives, Cooperation, and Risk Sharing, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Winther, G. and R. Marens (1997) ‘Participatory Democracy May Go A Long Way: Comparative Growth Performance of Employee Ownership Firms in New York and Washington States’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 18, 3: 393–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Weitzman, M. L. and D. L. Kmse (1990) ‘Profit Sharing and Productivity’, in A. S. Blinder (ed.), Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. James C. Sesil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas L. Kruse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph R. Blasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK

    Laixiang Sun

  2. International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Laixiang Sun

  3. Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Laixiang Sun

Copyright information

© 2003 United Nations University

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sesil, J.C., Kruse, D.L., Blasi, J.R. (2003). Sharing Ownership via Employee Stock Ownership. In: Sun, L. (eds) Ownership and Governance of Enterprises. Studies in Development Economics and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403943903_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation