Rethinking the contract‐failure theory

Abstract The contract‐failure theory posits that the nonprofit form can be an indicator of high product quality because the nondistribution constraint reduces the nonprofit manager's financial benefits from cheating. This would give nonprofits an advantage over for‐profit firms when consumers cannot determine product quality and thus explains nonprofits' existence. This article finds that nonprofits are not generally more trustworthy. It is methodologically wrong to compare the nonprofit and for‐profit managers' personal benefits from cheating to one another. Instead, both nonprofit and for‐profit managers will act to maximize their respective utility, seeking either higher income and/or more leisure. Since providing low‐quality products leads to both less effort and a lower cost, both nonprofits and for‐profit firms will cheat. Further, providers cannot overcharge because there are no informational asymmetries about product price. The market price in contract failure situations will drop, forcing both nonprofits and for‐profit firms to offer only the lowest quality product. Shifting to nonprofit purposes requires nonprofits to allocate part of their resources through giving, which makes some of their transactions trustworthy. However, consumers usually cannot identify trustworthy transactions. Adopting the nonprofit form will not make an untrustworthy provider trustworthy; and trustworthy providers are also not necessarily more likely than untrustworthy ones to take that form because it costs untrustworthy‐inefficient providers even less to do so. The nonprofit form thus cannot be an effective signal of high quality. Even if nonprofits were more trustworthy, this cannot explain why nonprofits exist. It is the supply side, which only partly overlaps the contract failure situations, that drives the nonprofit sector. The existence of other informational‐asymmetries‐relieving mechanisms also reduces consumers' demand for the nonprofit form. In debunking the contract‐failure theory, this article will be useful for scholars examining nonprofits' behavior and the justification for the nonprofit sector.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Business Law Journal
Published
2026-01-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.70009
Primary Topic
Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rethinking the contract‐failure theory

Yumiao Wang
American Business Law Journal
Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
article

Rethinking the contract‐failure theory

Yumiao Wang
article en

Abstract

Abstract The contract‐failure theory posits that the nonprofit form can be an indicator of high product quality because the nondistribution constraint reduces the nonprofit manager's financial benefits from cheating. This would give nonprofits an advantage over for‐profit firms when consumers cannot determine product quality and thus explains nonprofits' existence. This article finds that nonprofits are not generally more trustworthy. It is methodologically wrong to compare the nonprofit and for‐profit managers' personal benefits from cheating to one another. Instead, both nonprofit and for‐profit managers will act to maximize their respective utility, seeking either higher income and/or more leisure. Since providing low‐quality products leads to both less effort and a lower cost, both nonprofits and for‐profit firms will cheat. Further, providers cannot overcharge because there are no informational asymmetries about product price. The market price in contract failure situations will drop, forcing both nonprofits and for‐profit firms to offer only the lowest quality product. Shifting to nonprofit purposes requires nonprofits to allocate part of their resources through giving, which makes some of their transactions trustworthy. However, consumers usually cannot identify trustworthy transactions. Adopting the nonprofit form will not make an untrustworthy provider trustworthy; and trustworthy providers are also not necessarily more likely than untrustworthy ones to take that form because it costs untrustworthy‐inefficient providers even less to do so. The nonprofit form thus cannot be an effective signal of high quality. Even if nonprofits were more trustworthy, this cannot explain why nonprofits exist. It is the supply side, which only partly overlaps the contract failure situations, that drives the nonprofit sector. The existence of other informational‐asymmetries‐relieving mechanisms also reduces consumers' demand for the nonprofit form. In debunking the contract‐failure theory, this article will be useful for scholars examining nonprofits' behavior and the justification for the nonprofit sector.

American Business Law JournalVol. 63(1)
University of Virginia (US)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.