Skip to main content
Log in

Dissolving (in)effective partnerships

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies the problem of partnership dissolution in the context of asymmetric information. Past work shows that the initial share allocation, interdependence of partners’ valuations, and asymmetric control all affect the possibility of efficient dissolution. In this paper, I show, in a novel class of “cooperative” partnerships characterized by ex ante interdependence of valuations, that effectiveness is significantly more important than the initial share allocation. Intuitively, as the effectiveness of cooperation between partners (and thus partnership value) increases, the gains from dissolving decrease but the informational rents remain constant, so efficient dissolution is more difficult to achieve. For sufficiently high effectiveness, efficient dissolution is impossible for any initial share allocation. For sufficiently low effectiveness, however, efficient dissolution is possible for all initial share allocations. The possibility of efficient bargaining depends on the initial share allocation only for moderately effective partnerships.

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

Access this article

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brooks R, Landeo C, Spier K (2010) Trigger happy or gun shy? Dissolving common-value partnerships with Texas shootouts. RAND J Econ 41: 649–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien H-K (2007) Incentive efficient mechanisms for partnership dissolution (manuscript)

  • Cramton P, Gibbons R, Klemperer P (1987) Dissolving a partnership efficiently. Econometrica 55: 615–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont C, Gérard-Varet L-A (1979) Incentives and incomplete information. J Public Econ 11: 25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Frutos MA, Kittsteiner T (2008) Efficient partnership dissolution under buy/sell clauses. RAND J Econ 39: 184–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Engers M, McManus B (2007) Charity auctions. Int Econ Rev 48: 953–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englebrecht-Wiggans R (1994) Auctions with price-proportional benefits to bidders. Games Econ Behav 6: 339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell J, Scotchmer S (1988) Partnerships. Q J Econ 103: 279–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieseler K, Kittsteiner T, Moldovanu B (2003) Partnerships, lemons and efficient trade. J Econ Theory 113: 223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goeree J, Maasland E, Onderstal S, Turner JL (2005) How (not) to raise money. J Political Econ 113: 897–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauswald R, Hege U (2003) Ownership and control in joint ventures: theory and evidence. Discussion Paper 4056. CEPR, Washington, DC

  • Holmström B (1982) Moral hazard in teams. Bell J Econ 13: 324–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehiel P, Pauzner A (2006) Partnership dissolution with interdependent values. RAND J Econ 37: 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittsteiner T (2003) Partnerships and double auctions with interdependent valuations. Games Econ Behav 44:54–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna V, Perry M (2000) Efficient mechanism design (mimeo)

  • Legros P, Matthews SA (1993) Efficient and nearly-efficient partnerships. Rev Econ Stud 60(3): 599–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengwiler Y, Wolfstetter E (2005) On some auction rules for amicable divorce in equal shares partnerships. In: Beschorner T, Eger T (eds) Das Ethische in der konomie. Festschrift fr Hans Nutzinger, Metropolis Verlag, pp 199–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin S, Tadelis J (2005) Profit-sharing and the role of professional partnerships. Q J Econ 120: 131–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Wolfstetter E (2010) Partnership dissolution, complementarity, and investment incentives. Oxf Econ Pap 62: 529–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makowski L, Mezzetti C (1994) Bayesian and weakly robust first best mechanisms: characterizations. J Econ Theory 64: 500–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matouschek N (2004) Ex post inefficiencies in a property rights theory of the firm. J Law Econ Organ 20: 125–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee RP (1992) Amicable divorce. J Econ Theory 56: 266–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moldovanu B (2002) How to dissolve a partnership. J Inst Theor Econ 158: 66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myerson RB, Satterthwaite M (1983) Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. J Econ Theory 29: 265–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ornelas E, Turner JL (2007) Efficient dissolution of partnerships and the structure of control. Games Econ Behav 60: 187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal I, Whinston M (2011) A simple status quo that assures participation (with application to efficient bargaining). Theor Econ 6: 109–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh R (1998) Takeover bids with toeholds: The case of the owner’s curse. Rev Financ Stud 11: 679–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner JL (2011) Dissolving (in)effective partnerships. Working paper, Sep 2011

  • Williams SR (1999) A characterization of efficient, Bayesian incentive compatible mechanisms. Econ Theory 14: 155–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John L. Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, J.L. Dissolving (in)effective partnerships. Soc Choice Welf 41, 321–335 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-012-0690-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-012-0690-2

Keywords

Navigation