Información del artículo
Resumen
La teoría de la agencia postula que para que una organización pueda desarrollar su actividad y alcanzar sus objetivos eficientemente, requiere de una arquitectura organizativa equilibrada. Las entidades sin fines de lucro (ENL) están sometidas a estos mismos requerimientos en su organización interna aunque la evaluación de su eficiencia se muestra como una tarea de gran complejidad. El objetivo básico del presente trabajo es valorar la relación entre el equilibrio de la arquitectura organizativa y la eficiencia, mostrando, al mismo tiempo, que el análisis envolvente de datos (DEA) es un método especialmente indicado para medir la eficiencia de las ENL teniendo en cuenta sus particularidades en términos de objetivos, composición y funcionamiento. Con este propósito, se ha utilizado una muestra de 37 ENL dedicadas a la cooperación internacional al desarrollo, que se han analizado con datos obtenidos a partir de entrevistas personales en profundidad durante el año 2003. Tal como la teoría pronostica, los resultados muestran que las organizaciones no gubernamentales para el desarrollo (ONGD) en las que existe un equilibrio entre sus niveles de delegación, sistemas de incentivos y medidas de evaluación del rendimiento son las más eficientes.
Palabras clave:
arquitectura organizativa
eficiencia
entidades sin fines de lucro
ONGD
Abstract
Agency theory postulates that an organization needs to achieve a balance in its organizational architecture, to develop its activities and to attain its objectives effectively. The non-profit organizations have the same requirements in their internal organization, although measurement of their efficiency is a very complex task. This paper has a twofold objective: first, to evaluate the relationship between a balanced organizational architecture and the level of efficiency and, secondly, to show that the DEA methodology is an adequate tool for measuring the efficiency of non-profit organizations. We estimate this relationship with a sample of non-governmental organizations involved in the international cooperation sector (NGO). The information was collected by means of personal interviews in 2003. The results show that NGOs with a more balanced organizational architecture have higher levels of efficiency.
Key words:
organizational architecture
efficiency
nonprofit organizations
NGDO
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Referencias bibliográficas
[Abernethy et al., 2001]
Abernethy, M.A.; Bouwens, J. y Van Lent, L. (2001), «Decentralization, interdependencies and performance measurement system design: Sequences and priorities». Center For Economic Research (Tilburg University), Discussion Paper 2001-28, abril.
[Abernethy et al., 2004]
M.A. Abernethy, J. Bouwens, L. Van Lent.
Determinants of control system design in divisionalized firms.
The Accounting Review, vol. 79 (2004), pp. 545-570
[Abernethy and Vagnoni, 2004]
M.A. Abernethy, E. Vagnoni.
Power, organization design and managerial behaviour.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol 29 (2004), pp. 207-225
[Álvarez et al., 2002]
L.I. Álvarez, R. Vázquez, M.L. Santos.
El papel del marketing en la satisfacción de los consumidores de las organizaciones privadas no lucrativas.
Estudios sobre Consumo,, (2002), pp. 61-74
[Andrés Alonso et al., 2006]
P. Andrés Alonso, N. Martín Cruz, M.E. Romero Merino.
The governance of nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence from nongovernamental development organizations in Spain.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 35 (2006), pp. 588-604
[Baber et al., 2001]
W.R. Baber, A.A. Roberts, G. Visvanathan.
Charitable organizations’ strategies and program-spending ratios.
Accounting Horizons, vol. 15 (2001), pp. 329-343
[Ballestero and Cohen, 2004]
E. Ballestero, D. Cohen.
Metodología multicriterio en las decisiones empresariales.
Dirección y Organización, vol. 19 (2004), pp. 5-11
[Banker and Datar, 1989]
R.D. Banker, S.M. Datar.
Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation.
Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 27 (1989), pp. 21-39
[Ben-Ner, 1994]
A. Ben-Ner.
Who benefits from the non-profit sector? Reforming law and public policy towards non-profit organisations.
Yale Law Journal, vol. 104 (1994), pp. 731-762
[Ben-Ner and Gui, 2002]
A. Ben-Ner, B. Gui.
The theory of nonprofit organizations revisited.
Advances in theories of the nonprofit sector,,
[Bloom and Milkovich, 1998]
M. Bloom, G.T. Milkovich.
Relationships among risk, incentive pay, and organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41 (1998), pp. 283-297
[Bouwens and Van Lent, 2005]
Bouwens, J. y Van Lent, L. (2005), Assessing the performance of profit center managers Tilburg University, Working Paper.
[Brickley et al., 1995]
J. Brickley, C. Smith, J. Zimmerman.
The economics of organizational architecture.
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, vol. 8 (1995), pp. 19-31
[Brickley et al., 2004]
J. Brickley, C. Smith, J. Zimmerman.
Organizational architecture: A managerial economics approach.
3.ª ed, Irwin/Mc- Graw-Hill, (2004),
[Bushman et al., 2000]
R. Bushman, R. Indjejikian, M. Penno.
Private pre-decision information, performance measure congruity and the value of delegation.
Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 17 (2000), pp. 561-587
[Callen, 1994]
J.L. Callen.
Money donations, volunteering and organizational efficiency.
The Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol 5 (1994), pp. 215-228
[Carroll et al., 2005]
T. Carroll, P. Hughes, W. Luksetich.
Managers of nonprofit organizations are rewarded for performance.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 16 (2005), pp. 19-41
[Charnes et al., 1978]
A. Charnes, W. Cooper, E. Rhodes.
Measuring the efficiency of decisions making units.
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 2 (1978), pp. 429-444
[Charnes et al., 1994]
Data envelopment analysis. Theory, methodology and applications,,
[Christie et al., 2003]
A. Christie, M. Joye, R. Watts.
Decentralization of the firm: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Corporate Finance, vol. 9 (2003), pp. 3-36
[Cravens et al., 1993]
D.W. Cravens, T.N. Ingram, R.W. Laforge, C.E. Young.
Behaviorbased and outcome-based salesforce control systems.
Journal of Marketing, vol. 57 (1993), pp. 47-59
[Defourny, 1997]
J. Defourny.
Las vías de la economía social, del sector no mercantil y de los servicios de proximidad.
CIRIEC-España, vol. 26 (1997), pp. 19-41
[Delaney and Huselid, 1996]
J.T. Delaney, M.A. Huselid.
The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39 (1996), pp. 949-969
[Fama and Jensen, 1983a]
E.F. Fama, M.C. Jensen.
Separation of ownership and control.
Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26 (1983), pp. 301-325
[Fama and Jensen, 1983b]
E.F. Fama, M.C. Jensen.
Agency problems and residual claims.
Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26 (1983), pp. 327-349
[Fama and Jensen, 1985]
E.F. Fama, M.C. Jensen.
Organizational forms and investment decisions.
Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 14 (1985), pp. 101-119
[Farrell, 1957]
M.J. Farrell.
The measurement of productive efficiency.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 120 (1957), pp. 253-290
[Farrell and Fieldhouse, 1962]
M.J. Farrell, M. Fieldhouse.
Estimating efficient production functions under increasing returns to scale.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 125 (1962), pp. 252-267
[Feltham and Xie, 1994]
G.A. Feltham, J. Xie.
Performance measure congruity and diversity in multitask principal/agent relations.
The Accounting Review, vol. 69 (1994), pp. 429-453
[Forbes, 1998]
D.P. Forbes.
Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 27 (1998), pp. 183-202
[Foss and Laursen, 2005]
N.J. Foss, K. Laursen.
Performance pay, delegation and multitasking under uncertainty and innovativeness: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol 58 (2005), pp. 246-276
[Frey, 1993]
B.S. Frey.
Motivation as a limit to pricing.
Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 14 (1993), pp. 635-664
[Gerhart and Milkovich, 1990]
B. Gerhart, G.T. Milkovich.
Organizational differences in managerial compensation and financial performance.
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33 (1990), pp. 663-691
[Glaeser, 2003]
E.L. Glaeser.
Introduction.
The governance of not-forprofit organizations,, pp. 1-44
[Greenlee and Brown, 1999]
J.S. Greenlee, K.L. Brown.
The impact of accounting information on contributions to charitable organizations.
Research in Accounting Regulation, vol. 13 (1999), pp. 111-125
[Gupta and Govindarajan, 1986]
A.K. Gupta, V. Govindarajan.
Resource sharing among SBUs: Strategic antecedents and administrative implications.
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 29 (1986), pp. 695-714
[Hansmann, 1980]
H.B. Hansmann.
The role of nonprofit enterprise.
Yale Law Journal, vol. 89 (1980), pp. 835-901
[Hayek, 1945]
F.A. Hayek.
The use of scientific knowledge in society.
American Economic Review, vol. 35 (1945), pp. 519-530
[Herman and Renz, 1999]
R.D. Herman, D.O. Renz.
Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 28 (1999), pp. 107-125
[Hoefer, 2000]
R. Hoefer.
Accountability in action?. Program evaluation in nonprofit human service agencies.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 11 (2000), pp. 167-177
[Holmstrom, 1979]
B. Holmstrom.
Moral hazard and observability.
Bell Journal of Econonomics, vol. 10 (1979), pp. 74-91
[Holmstrom, 1982]
B. Holmstrom.
Moral hazard in teams.
Bell Journal of Econonomics, vol. 13 (1982), pp. 324-340
[Hyndman, 1991]
N. Hyndman.
Contributions to charities.A comparison of their information needs and the perceptions of such by the providers of information.
Financial Accountability and Management, vol. 7 (1991), pp. 69-82
[Indjejikian and Nanda, 2002]
R. Indjejikian, D. Nanda.
Executive target bonuses and what they imply about performance standards.
The Accounting Review, vol. 77 (2002), pp. 793-819
[Ittner and Larcker, 2002]
C.D. Ittner, D.F. Larcker.
Determinants of performance measure choices. in worker incentive plans.
Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 20 (2002), pp. 58-90
[Jackson and Holland, 1998]
D.K. Jackson, T.P. Holland.
Measuring the effectiveness of nonprofit boards.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 27 (1998), pp. 159-182
[Jensen and Meckling, 1992]
M.C. Jensen, W.H. Meckling.
Specific and general knowledge and organizational structure.
Contract Economics, pp. 251-274
[Kanter and Summers, 1987]
R.M. Kanter, D.V. Summers.
Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple constituency approach.
The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook,,
[Khumawala and Gordon, 1997]
S.B. Khumawala, T.P. Gordon.
Bridging the credibility of GAAP: Individual donors and the new accounting standards for nonprofit organizations.
Accounting Horizons, vol. 11 (1997), pp. 45-68
[Kirby, 1987]
A. Kirby.
Discussion of centralization versus delegation and the value of communication.
Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 25 (1987), pp. 19-21
[Melumad and Reichesltein, 1987]
N. Melumad, S. Reichesltein.
Centralization versus delegation and the value of communication.
Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 25 (1987), pp. 1-18
[Milgrom and Roberts, 1992]
P. Milgrom, J. Roberts.
Economics, Organization and Management.
Prentice-Hall, (1992),
[Moers, 2006]
F. Moers.
Performance measure properties and delegation.
The Accounting Review, vol. 81 (2006), pp. 897-924
[Murray and Tassie, 1994]
V. Murray, B. Tassie.
Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations.
The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management,,
[Nagar, 1999]
Nagar, V. (1999), Organizational design choices in retail banking, The Rodney L. White Center for Financial Reseach, Working paper, núm. 09.
[Nagar, 2002]
V. Nagar.
Delegation and incentive compensation.
The Accounting Review, vol. 77 (2002), pp. 379-395
[Núñez Martín and Garrido López, 2002]
A. Núñez Martín, M. Garrido López.
El Tercer Sector español en la encrucijada: entre la creación de valores y la gestión profesional.
Revista de la Fundación Luis Vives, (2002), pp. 24-28
[O’Connor et al., 2006]
N.G. O’Connor, J. Deng, Y. Luo.
Political constraints, organization design and performance measurement in China's state-owned enterprises.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 31 (2006), pp. 157-177
[Parsons, 2003]
L.M. Parsons.
Is accounting information from nonprofit organizations useful to donors?. A review of charitable giving and value-relevance.
Journal of Accounting Literature, vol. 22 (2003), pp. 104-129
[Porter and Kramer, 1999]
M.E. Porter, M.R. Kramer.
Philanthropy's new agenda: creating value.
Harvard Business Review, (1999), pp. 121-130
[Posnett and Sandler, 1989]
J. Posnett, T. Sandler.
Demand for charity donations in private non-profit markets. The case of the UK.
Journal of Public Economics, vol. 40 (1989), pp. 187-200
[Prendergast, 2000]
C. Prendergast.
What trade-off of risk and incentives?.
American Economic Review, vol. 90 (2000), pp. 421-425
[Ritchie and Koldinsky, 2003]
W.J. Ritchie, R.W. Koldinsky.
Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement. An evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 13 (2003), pp. 367-381
[Roberts et al., 2003]
Roberts, A.A.; Smith, P. y Taranto, K. (2003), Marginal spending and efficiency in charities», Presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Denver CO.
[Rojas, 2000]
R.R. Rojas.
A review of models for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit organizations».
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 11 (2000), pp. 97-104
[Sajardo, 1996]
A. Sajardo.
Análisis económico del sector no lucrativo.
Tirant Lo Blanch, (1996),
[Sanders, 2001]
W.G. Sanders.
Incentive alignment, CEO pay level, and firm performance: A case of Heads I win, tails you lose?.
Human Resource Management, vol 40 (2001), pp. 159-170
[Scott and Tiessen, 1999]
T.W. Scott, P. Tiessen.
Performance measurement and managerial teams.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 24 (1999), pp. 263-285
[Seiford, 1990]
L.M. Seiford.
Models, extensions, and applications of data envelopment analysis: A selected reference set.
Computers Environment and Urban Systems, vol 14 (1990), pp. 171-175
[Seiford, 1994]
L.M. Seiford.
A bibliography of data envelopment analysis.
Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications,, pp. 437-469
[Seiford, 1996]
L.M. Seiford.
Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995).
The Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 7 (1996), pp. 99-137
[Seiford, 1997]
L.M. Seiford.
A bibliography for data envelopment analysis (1978–1996).
Annals of Operations Research, vol. 73 (1997), pp. 393-438
[Stone et al., 1999]
M.M. Stone, B. Bigelow, W. Crittenden.
Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations.
Administration and Society, vol. 31 (1999), pp. 378-423
[Tinkelman, 1998]
D. Tinkelman.
Differences in sensitivity of financial statement users to joint cost allocations: The case of nonprofit organizations.
Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, vol. 13 (1998), pp. 377-393
[Trussel and Parsons, 2004]
Trussel, J.M. y Parsons, L.M. (2004), Financial reporting factors affecting donations to charitable not-fot-profit organizations, American Accounting Association, Mid- Atlantic Region Meeting Paper.
[Tuckman and Chang, 1998]
H.P. Tuckman, C.F. Chang.
How pervasive are abuses in fundraising among nonprofits?.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 9 (1998), pp. 211-221
[Weisbrod, 1977]
B.A. Weisbrod.
The voluntary nonprofit sector.
Lexington Books, (1977),
[Weisbrod and Domínguez, 1986]
B.A. Weisbrod, N.D. Domínguez.
Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: Can fundraising expenditures help overcome free-rider behavior?.
Journal of Public Economics, vol. 30 (1986), pp. 83-96
[Widener et al., 2008]
S.K. Widener, M.B. Shackell, E.A. Demers.
The juxtaposition of social surveillance controls with traditional organizational design components.
Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 25 (2008), pp. 605-638
[Williamson, 1975]
O.E. Williamson.
Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
The Free Press, (1975),
Los autores agradecen los comentarios y sugerencias realizados por los evaluadores anónimos que, sin lugar a dudas, contribuyeron a mejorar el presente trabajo.
Copyright © 2009. ACEDE
