Employee Crime, Monitoring, and the Efficiency Wage Hypothesis
|
NBER Working Paper No. 2356 (Also Reprint No. r1309)
Issued in November 1989
NBER Program(s): LS
This paper offers some observations on employee crime, economic theories of crime, limits on bonding, and the efficiency wage hypothesis. We demonstrate that the simplest economic theories of crime predict that profit-maximizing firms should follow strategies of minimal monitoring and large penalties for employee crime. Finding overwhelming empirical evidence that firms expend considerable resources trying to detect employee malfeasance and do not impose extremely large penalties, we investigate a number of possible reasons why the simple model's predictions fail. It turns out that plausible explanations for firms large outlays on monitoring of employees also justify the payment of premium wages in some circumstances. There is no legitimate a priori argument that firms should not pay efficiency wages once it is recognized that they expend significant resources on monitoring.
Published:
- Inter-American Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 321-357, (Spring 1989).
,
- "Employee Crime and the Monitoring Puzzle." From Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 331-347, (July 1989).
This paper is available as PDF (175 K) or DjVu (145 K) (Download viewer) or via email.
Machine-readable bibliographic record -
MARC,
RIS,
BibTeX
|
|
|
About
Support
The research activities of the NBER are funded by grants from federal research agencies, by private foundations, and by generous donations from our corporate associates and from private individuals. The NBER is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. For information on supporting the NBER, please contact:
Mr. Denis Healy, Director of Development
NBER
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-5398
ph: 617-868-3900
email: dhealy@nber.org
Close