Although they have often been found to be technically inefficient, cooperatives not only have survived in the wine industry but continue to play major roles in most European countries. Because the specific advantages of their “organizational architecture” (resource pooling and decentralization) seem to outweigh the disadvantages (vaguely defined property rights and high monitoring costs), this paper discusses organizational measures to improve the performance of cooperatives by addressing three different aspects of “organizational design” (managing entry and exit, motivating members, and investing in corporate culture). (JEL Classifications: D22, D23, L14, L21, L31)

This article examines the impact of organizational structure on risk taking across different lines of property insurance (fire, marine, vehicle and specialized property insurance) in Sweden from 1913 to 1939. Based on the theoretical arguments whereby the mutual organizational form has a competitive advantage in underwriting homogeneous but unknown risk distribution, while the stock organizational form is more likely to underwrite more volatile and heterogeneous risk categories, we conclude that organizational form has a significant impact on risk taking. Our empirical analysis shows that the risk taking, measured as incurred claims to anticipated losses, was on average lower among mutual insurers. When comparing across lines of insurance, the analysis shows that the mutual form was more successful in keeping down risks in fire and marine, while less so in vehicle and specialized property insurance. Stock companies mitigated the higher risk by ceding more premiums to reinsurers and by diversifying more across different lines of insurance.