This study uses agency theory to develop testable implications about three
provisions commonly observed in franchise contracts: (1) restrictions on pa
ssive ownership, (2) area development plans, and (3) mandatory advertising
expenditures. The primary hypothesis is that these provisions are most like
ly when there are significant externalities among the units within the fran
chise system. The evidence, based on a large sample of franchise contracts,
is generally consistent with this hypothesis. The evidence also suggests t
hat these incentive instruments are complements. In contrast to the theory,
most of the results do not support the hypothesis that the percentage of c
ompany-owned units is related to externalities within the system. Franchise
e risk aversion and/or wealth constraints appear more important. While the
study focuses on franchising, the results provide insights into related pro
visions in other contracts.