Vekâlet Teorisinde Fırsatçılık Kavramı ve Oyun Teorisi Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Vekâlet Teorisi ve Oyun Teorisinde ifade edildiği şekilde, finansal etkileşim içerisinde bulunan taraflar arasındaki asimetrik bilgi; avantajlı tarafın, bu avantajı kullanarak çıkar mücadelesi vermesine ve bunun sonucunda fırsatçı eğilimlerde bulunmasına sebep olmaktadır. Vekâlet teorisinin temel varsayımlarından olan ve sınırlı rasyonellik ilkesi çerçevesinde içsel bir değişken olarak görülen fırsatçılık kavramı, bireysel çıkarların sözleşmenin karşı tarafı aleyhinde gözetilerek ve genellikle sözleşmede bulunan boşlukları kullanarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu durum asil-vekil arasında bir güven ve belirsizlik sorununa yol açmakta; bunun yanı sıra görevi kötüye kullanma, dolandırıcılık gibi hileli davranışlar neticesinde piyasa mekanizmasını etkileyebilmektedir. Bu çalışmada fırsatçılık kavramı, temel mikro iktisadi analiz yöntemlerinden vekâlet teorisi ve oyun teorisi perspektifinde incelenmiş; yapılan ilişkilendirmeler doğrultusunda öneriler sunulmuştur. Yapılan çalışma ile vekâlet fırsatçılığının oyun teorisi çerçevesinde açıklanabildiği görülmüştür. Literatürde henüz bu iki teoriyi birlikte inceleyen bir ölçek bulunmamaktadır. Ancak çeşitli sektörlerde ortaya çıkan vekâlet fırsatçılığı sorunlarının oyun teorisi ile çözümlenebileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Analiz araçları ve modelleme alt yapısı ile oyun teorisinin farklı senaryoların olası sonuçlarını karşılaştırarak optimal stratejileri belirleme fırsatı tanıması, vekalet fırsatçılığı perspektifinden yönetici ve stratejistleri önemli derecede öngörü sağlayabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asimetrik Bilgi
• Fırsatçılık
• Vekâlet Teorisi
• Oyun Teorisi

The Relationship Between The Concept of Opportunism in Agency Theory And Game Theory

Abstract

As expressed in Agency Theory and Game Theory, the asymmetric information between the parties in financial interaction causes the advantageous party to enter into a struggle for interest by using this advantage and as a result, show opportunistic tendencies. The concept of opportunism, which is one of the basic assumptions of the agency theory and seen as an internal variable within the framework of the limited rationality principle, emerges by putting individual interests forward against the counterparty of the contract and generally using the gaps in the contract. This situation causes a problem of trust and uncertainty between the principal and the agent, as well as adversely affecting the market mechanism as a result of fraudulent behaviors such as professional misconduct and fraud. In this study, the concept of opportunism is examined from the perspective of agency theory and game theory, which are among the basic microeconomic analysis methods; and suggestions are made in line with the established associations. With the study, it has been seen that agency opportunism can be explained within the framework of game theory. There is no scale in the literature that examines these two theories together yet. However, it has been concluded that the problems of proxy opportunism that arise in various sectors can be solved with game theory. Due to analysis tools and modeling infrastructure of game theory provides the opportunity to determine the optimal strategies by comparing the possible outcomes of different scenarios, it will be be able to provide significant insight to managers and strategists from the perspective of agency opportunism.

Keywords

• Asymmetric Information
• Opportunism
• Agency Theory
• Game Theory

Kaynakça

1. ABDEL-RAOUF, Osama, ELSISY, Mohamed A. ve KELASH, Eslam Fathy Saber (2020), “Survey of Game Theory Applications in Electrical Power Micro-Grid Systems”, International Journal of Computer Applications, S.177(37), ss.25-34.
2. AKERLOF, George A. (1970), “The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Unvertainty and the Market Mechanism”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, S.84(3), ss.488-500.
3. ATAMAN, Göksel (2009), İşletme Yönetimi, Türkmen Kitabevi, İstanbul, 3. Baskı.
4. BABACAN, Muazzez ve ERİŞ, Engin Deniz (2006), “Pazarlamada Vekâlet Teorisi ve Kavramsal Bir Model Geliştirme”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, S.24(1), ss.89-110.
5. BAKER, Rose M. (2019), “The Agency of the Principal–Agent Relationship: An Opportunity for HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, S.21(3), ss.303-318.
6. BHUIYAN, Bellal Ahmed (2016), “An Overview of Game Theory and Some Applications”, Philosophy and Progress, S.59(1-2), ss.111-128.
7. BONAU, Sarah (2017), “A Case for Behavioural Game Theory”, Journal of Game Theory, S.6(1), ss.7-14.
8. COLMAN, Andrew M. (2016), Game Theory And Experimental Games: The Study Of Strategic Interaction, Elsevier Publisher, Amsterdam.

9. DEMİRCİ, Esranur ve PALANCI, Osman (2019), “Ulusal Yazında Oyun Teorisi Üzerine Genişletilmiş Bir Literatür Taraması”, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, S.11(29), ss.530-549.
10. DENİZ, Ünal ve AKBAŞLI, Sait (2018), “Oyun Teorisi Bağlamında Eğitim Örgütlerinde Karar Verme”, Eğitim Yönetimi Araştırmaları (Ed. C. T. Uğurlu, K. Beycioğlu, S. Koşar, H. Kahraman, F. K. Şermin), Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Yayını, Sivas, ss.238-245.
11. DONALDSON, Lex (1990), “The Ethereal Hand: Organisational Economics and Management Theory”, Academy of Management Review, S.15(3), ss.369-381.
12. DU MOUTIER, Michel Lyonnet (2010), “Financing the Eiffel Tower: Project Finance and Agency Theory”, Journal of Applied Finance, S.1, ss.127-142.
13. EISENHARDT, Kathleen M. (1988), “Agency and Institutional Theory Explanations: The Case of Retail Sales Compensation”, The Academy of Management Journal, S.31(3), ss.488-544.
14. EISENHARDT, Kathleen M. (1989), “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review”, Academy of Management Review, S.14(1), ss.57-74.
15. EKİNCİ, Bilge Timuçin (2017), “Asil-Vekil Arasındaki Kayırmacılığın Vekâlet Maliyetleri İle İlişkisi”, Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, S.6(2), ss.73-96.
16. ELİBOL, Mehmet (2017), “Oyun Teorisi ve Toplu Pazarlık Stratejileri”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Tekirdağ.
17. ERREN, Thomas C., SHAW, David M. ve MORFELD, Peter (2016), “Analyzing The Publish-or-Perish Paradigm With Game Theory: The Prisoner’s Dilemma And A Possible Escape”, Sci Eng Ethics, S.22(5), ss.1431-1446.
18. GASSENHEIMER, Jule B., BAUCUS, David B. ve BAUCUS, Melissa (1996), “Cooperative Arrengements among Entrepreneurs: An Analysis of Opportunism and Communication in Franchise Structures”, Journal of Business Research, S.36(1), ss.67-79.
19. GAUR, Sanjaya S., BATHULA, Hanoku ve SINGH, Deeksha (2015), “Ownership Concentration, Board Characteristics and Firm performance”, Management Decision, S.53(5), ss.911-931.
20. GEORGIOU, Harris V. (2015), “Elements of Game Theory-Part I: Foundations, Acts And Mechanisms”, arXiv, ss.1-37.
21. GHOSHAL, Sumantra (2005), “Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, S.4(1), ss.75-91.
22. GROENENDIJK, Nico (1997), “A Principal-Agent Model of Corruption”, Crime, Law and Social Change, S.27(3/4), ss.207-229.
23. HAMILTON, Robert D. ve KASHLAK, Roger J. (1999), “National Influences on Multinational Corporation Control System Selection”, Management International Review, S.39(2), ss.167-189.
24. HANNES, Sharon (2007), “Reverse Monitoring: On the Hidden Role of Employee Stock-Based Compensation”, Michigan Law Review, S.105(7), ss.1421-1451.
25. HOŞ, Safa (2020), “Rekabetçi Önceliklere Göre Tedarikçi Değerlendirmede Oyun Teorisi Yaklaşımı”, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Çorum.
26. ISLAM, Muhammed Z., ISLAM, Mohammed N., BHATTACHARJEE S. ve ISLAM, A. (2010), “Agency Problem And The Role of Audit Commitee: Imlications For Corporate Sector in Bangladeh”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, S.2(3), ss.177-188.
27. JENSEN, Michael, C. ve MECKLING, William H. (1976), “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, S.3(4), ss.305-360.
28. JENSEN, Michael C. ve SMİTH, Clifford (2000), “Stockholders, Managers and Creditor Interests: Applications of Agency Theory”, A Theory of the Firm: Governance, Residual Claims and Organizational Form (Ed. E. Altman, M. Subrahmanyam), Harvard University Press, ss.95-131.
29. JI, Ang ve LEVİNSON, David (2020), “A Review of Game Theory Models of Lane Changing”, Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, S.16(3), ss.1628-1647.
30. KURLAND, Nancy B. (1995), “Ethics, Incentives, and Conflicts of Interest: A Practical Solution”, Journal of Business Ethics, S.14(16), ss.465-475.
31. LIANG, Xiannuan ve XIAO, Yang (2013), “Game Theory for Network Security”, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, S.15(1), ss.472-486.
32. MAHER, Maria ve ANDERSSON, Thomas (2000), “Corporate Governance: Effects on Firm Performance and Economic Growth”, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, LSN: Corporate Governance International (Topic), ss.1-41.
33. McCOLGAN, Patrick (2001), Agency Theory and Corporate Governance: A Review of the Literature from A UK Perspective, University of Starthclyde, Department of Accounting and Finance Working Paper, United Kingdom.
34. MESJASZ, Czeslaw (2008), “Ekonomik Güvenlik”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi (Çev. Yelda Demirağ), S.5(18), ss.125-150.
35. MIRRLEES, James A. (1999), “The Theory of Moral Hazard and Unobservable Behaviour: Part I”, The Review of Economic Studies, S.66(1), ss.3-21.
36. NEZARAT, Amin ve DASTGHAIBYFARD, Gholam Hossein (2015), “Efficient Nash Equilibrium Resource Allocation Based on Game Theory Mechanism in Cloud Computing by Using Auction”, Plos One, S.10(10), ss.1-29.
37. OSNABRUGGE, Mark Van (2000), “A Comparison of Business Angel and Venture Capitalist Investment Procedures: An Agency Theory-Based Analysis”, Venture Capital, S.2(2), ss.91-109.
38. PIRAVEENAN, Mahendra (2019), “Applications of Game Theory in Project Management: A Structured Review and Analysis”, Mathematics, S.7(9), ss.1-31.
39. POURYOUSEFI, Sareh ve FROOMAN, Jeff (2017), “The Problem of Unilateralism in Agency Theory: Towards A Bilateral Formulation”, Business Ethics Quarterly, S.27(2), ss.163-182.
40. ROSANAS, Josep M. (2008), “Beyond Economic Criteria: A Humanistic Approach to Organizational Survival”, Journal of Business Ethics, S.78, ss.447-462.
41. ROSS, Stephen A. (1973), “The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem”, The American Economic Review, S.63(2), ss.134-139.
42. SEYİDOĞLU, Halil (2006), İktisat Biliminin Temelleri, Güzem Can Yayınları, İstanbul.
43. SHAPIRO, Susan P. (2005), “Agency Theory”, Annual Review Sociology, S.31(1), ss.263-284.
44. SHARMA, Anurag (1997), “Professional as Agent: Knowledge Assymetry in Agency Exchange”, The Academy of Management Review, S.22(3), ss.758-798.
45. SOHRABI, Mohammad K. ve AZGOMI, Hossein (2020), “A Survey on The Combined Use of Optimization Methods And Game Theory”, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, S.27(1), ss.59-80.
46. STEWART, Alexander J. ve PLOTKIN, Joshua B. (2012), “Extortion And Cooperation in The Prisoner’s Dilemma”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, S.109(26), ss.10134-10135.
47. TELATAR, Funda (2004), İktisat Politikası, İmaj Yayınları, Ankara.
48. TENG, Jimmy (2013), Is Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium a Subset of Nash Equilibrium, American University of Ras Al Khaimah Publisher, Ras al Khaimah.
49. TURABOĞLU, Tuncay (2004), “Vekalet- Temsil- Problem ve Maliyetler”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, S.15(51), ss.109-124.
50. WOO, Carolyn Y., WILLARD, Gary E. ve DEALLENBACH, Urs S. (1992), “Spin-Off Performance: A Case of Overstated Expenctations?”, Strategic Management Journal, S.13, ss.433-447.
51. YALÇINTAŞ, Murat (2015), “Ekonomik Karar Almada Adalet ve Oyun Teorisi”, Maliye Finans Yazıları, S.29(103), ss.247-274.
52. ZHANG, He, SU, Yuelong, PENG, Lihui ve YAO, Danya (2010), “A Review of Game Theory Applications in Transportation Analysis”, International Conference on Computer and Information Application, IEEE Publisher, Tianjin – CHINA, ss.152-157.