Co-governance Based on Abilities and Relations
The institutional arrangement of farmer cooperatives in the coastal areas of east China is characterized by a distinct shareholding from the very beginning. After describing some basic facts of institutional arrangement of farmer cooperatives in Zhejiang, the paper puts forward a framework from perspectives such as institutions, norms, trust and commitment for studying the residual control rights of cooperatives. The authors not only point out that the governance structures of farmer cooperatives in the coastal areas of China are the co-governance structure based on the abilities and relations, but also analyze the unique roles of abilities and relations in constructing the governance structure of farmer cooperative in China.
MAKEING AMONG HETEROGENEOUS MEMBERS : A STUDY ON ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY UNDER THE CENTRALIZED STRUCTURE OF CHINESE FARMER PROFESSIONAL COOPERATIVES
Farmer cooperatives are playing an increasingly crucial role in the current reform of the agricultural sector in China. Two features of these organizations have stood out amidst the undergoing, rapid development. One is the highly concentrated decision-making structure, while the other being the high level of member heterogeneity in terms of production capacity and ownership portion. Current literature has few quantitative models for analyzing the effects of governance centralization and member heterogeneity on cooperative economic efficiency. This article focuses on evaluating the efficiency of decisions made under different voting structures when members are highly heterogeneous. We use a net income model for a two-stage investment decision. We find that members with a larger ownership in a Chinese cooperative tend to have better aligned interest with the organization and can make more efficient decisions relative to those with less ownership. When heterogeneity among members is high, a more centralized decision making structure can lead to higher economic efficiency. Additionally, because the optimal level of centralization is determined by the redistribution policy of cooperative profits and properties of member heterogeneity, different cooperatives would accordingly have different optimal degrees of centralization.
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.