Secrecy and distance structurally prevent principals from monitoring agents.

Evidence

Fourth, even if they are able to specify the responsibilities of agents, many principals are unable to monitor the performance of contractual commitments. Decedents cannot evaluate whether the executors of their estate truly complied with the stipulations of their wills. Secrecy, as well as the physical, temporal, and social distance inherent in many agency relations precludes principals’ surveillance of agent behavior. … And lack of expertise further limits the ability of principals to evaluate what they are able to observe. Principals who lack the specialized knowledge of their agents and are excluded from the sites of agency action are therefore unable to articulate or enforce the norms that should govern agent behavior. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 50

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in Raskolnikov: the ‘sites of agency action’ exclusion evokes how the murder is unwitnessed precisely because Raskolnikov operates where no surrogate can observe, forcing the third-party witness (Porfiry/Sonya) to emerge outside the act itself. — connects to: Geographic distance from information sources drives reliance on agents — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 23; Trust is structurally vulnerable because agents can exploit principals’ ignorance and distance. — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 35; Bureaucratic practices hinder effective management of information secrecy. (+6 more)

Related

• Trust is structurally vulnerable because agents can exploit principals’ ignorance and distance. (similarity 0.86)
• Geographic distance from information sources drives reliance on agents (similarity 0.81)
• The same factors enabling agency relationships create the opportunity for agent abuse. (similarity 0.80)
• Agency relationships multiply because scale creates access barriers to information and property. (similarity 0.80)
• Impersonal trust emerges where principals lose direct power to regulate agents. (similarity 0.80)
• Impersonal trust persists despite agency tensions and varies greatly across conditions. (similarity 0.79)
• Trust is structurally precarious because agents control symbolic wealth at a distance from principals. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Impersonal trust emerges where principals lose direct power to regulate agents. #expands (0.85) — Shapiro, Susan P., The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, 51
• Impersonal trust emerges where face-to-face control mechanisms are unavailable #expands (0.85)
• Bureaucratic practices hinder effective management of information secrecy. #expands (0.82)