As its title suggests, the purpose of
Hansmann's book is, fundamentally, the investigation of the forms of
ownership that are prevalent in different sectors of the economy.
Using a perspective that leverages tools from both economics and
political science (he understands the governance of firms to be
subject to similar political dynamics that public choice theory
dissects in government), Hansmann starts off by offering a general
theory of ownership that relies on two key factors.
First, he argues that "all other
things held equal, costs will be minimized [for a firm] if ownership
is assigned to the class of patrons for whom the problems of market
contracting--that is, the costs of market imperfections--are most
severe."1
Thus, if the cost of contracting with workers is higher than the cost
of contracting with suppliers, customers, etc., in a particular
economic sector, then his theory would predict that employee
ownership would be the dominant form of ownership.
However, the story is further
complicated by a second major factor: the cost of governance. The
more diverse the interests of a patron group, the higher the costs of
politically mediating those differences through the structure of the
firm. As a result, the optimal form of ownership in an industry is,
according to Hansmann's theory, "that which minimizes the sum of
all of the costs of a firm's transactions. That is, it minimizes the
sum of (1) the costs of market contracting for those classes of
patrons that are not owners and (2) the costs of ownership for the
class of patrons who own the firm."2
The Ownership of Enterprise
then goes on to apply the theory to a number of diverse sectors,
including worker co-ops, agricultural co-ops, condominiums, private
clubs, non-profits, insurance, and even traditional corporations
(which Hansmann intriguingly argues are actually a special case of
capital supplier co-ops). In each case, he uses a fairly deep
historical perspective to look at how changes in the relative costs
of contracting and governance for different groups have influenced
the dominant ownership structures over time, and the resulting
insights are fascinating and compelling.
While
Hansmann uncovers dynamics throughout the whole book that are of
great interest to credit union people, his chapter on banking is, for
obvious reasons, particularly relevant. Since the book was published
in 1996, credit unions themselves get a relatively brief mention,
since they'd yet to attain their present stature as the dominant form
of cooperative banking in America. However, his discussion of the
developmental dynamics of other forms, such as mutual banks and
mutual savings and loans, touches on a number of issues that are very
relevant to both the study of credit union history as well as to the
contemporary movement. While it would be beyond the scope of this
review to unpack all of the insights of that chapter, two stood out
enough to warrant particular mention.
The
first is a confirmation of the hunch that I'd developed (and
[statistically demonstrated] to be at play in the most recent
financial crisis) that cooperatively owned banks are safer than their
investor-owned counterparts. Digging into statistics going back to
the 1920s, Hansmann finds that the failure rates of cooperative banks
were indeed far lower than those of corporate banks. From 1921-1928,
the failure rate of the former varied between 0.04% and 0.22%, while
the latter's rate hovered between 1.24% and 3.65%. The statistics
from the Great Depression are even more pronounced; in 1933, 27.7% of
investor-owned banks failed, while only 0.8% of mutual savings and
loans and 0.01% of mutual savings banks closed their doors.3
The reason for this, Hansmann explains, is that "the managers of
investor owned-firms are much more willing to speculate with their
depositors' funds than are the managers of customer-owned and
non-profit firms."4
The
second point relates to a question raised by the first: if commercial
banks are less safe for consumers than cooperatives, why have the
former come to dominate the contemporary financial sector? Hansmann's
theory suggests that a factor must have reduced the costs of
contracting between depositors and their banks, and he posits a
likely culprit: government regulation. As he puts it, "Effective
regulation has permitted investor-owned banks to bond themselves not
to exploit their customers unduly, while leaving those firms free to
take advantage to [sic] their superior access to capital."5
Thus, according to his model, bank regulation acts as an effective
subsidy to investor-owned banks by reducing one of the key
competitive advantages of credit unions and other co-op financial
services providers.
As
good theory is an essential component of historical work, Hansmann's
book is an essential read for anyone with interest in the history of
the credit union movement. Indeed, I wish someone had put a copy of
The Ownership of Enterprise in
my hands when I started grad school; the lens that it offers would
have saved me the great deal of time and work it took to come to
rough approximations of many of the ideas that the book presents
lucidly and succinctly.
Furthermore,
I also strongly recommend it to folks working with contemporary
credit unions. The book's intellectual framework offers numerous
insights that are very applicable to the modern movement, whether one
is considering its stance toward government regulation or the impact
of falling information costs on governance costs. Though more than
fifteen years old, the ideas in The Ownership of Enterprise
continue to be validated by recent events, and the more credit union
people come to understand its logic, the stronger our movement will
be. Get your hands on a copy, pronto!
Notes
121.
222.
3256.
4263.
5264.
A reason not mentioned for the domination of corporate banks over cooperative banks is marketing. Billions are spent to shape the public's mind, bury public mention or discussion of cooperative banks or credit unions and 'train' people to patronize only mainstream banking establishments. Ironically, one of the predictors any consumer can use to determine whether they are likely to be getting a good product or service is whether they are being inundated by advertising. Money spent on massive TV, radio & print advertising is money taken from the portion of budgets that would be better spent on wages, benefits and quality materials.
ReplyDelete