竞赛中的最优奖励:一个拍卖分析框架

本文在全支付(all-pay)拍卖的框架下,研究了一类非对称竞赛活动的最优奖励问题。我们假设竞赛组织者未知参赛者的成本信息,进而可供选择的奖励方式有两种,其一是固定奖励额;其二是线性奖励,最终奖励额由参赛者的投资内生决定。我们证明:如果投资不能完全披露成本信息,固定奖励优于线性奖励;如果投资完全披露成本信息,线性奖励可能优于固定奖励,同时我们得出了实现投资完全披露信息的一个必要条件。我们的结论不依赖于参赛者的对称性假设,不依赖于参赛者具体的成本分布函数形式,也不依赖于竞赛组织者试图最大化参赛者最大努力或最大化所有参赛者努力总和。     

Entry into winner-take-all and proportional-prize contests: An experimental study

This experiment compares the performance of two contest designs: a standard winner-take-all tournament with a single fixed prize, and a novel proportional-payment design in which that same prize is divided among contestants by their share of total achievement. We find that proportional prizes elicit more entry and more total achievement than the winner-take-all tournament. The proportional-prize contest performs better by limiting the degree to which heterogeneity among contestants discourages weaker entrants, without altering the performance of stronger entrants. These findings could inform the design of contests for technological and other improvements, which are widely used by governments and philanthropic donors to elicit more effort on targeted economic and technological development activities.     

Allocation of Prizes in Contests with Size Effects

We examine the allocation of prizes in contests in which the number of contenders affects the prizes and costs. We assume that there are two groups of contenders. The government allocates a prize to the two groups, and the contenders in each group respectively compete for the prize. Examining the prize allocation in such contests, we obtain the following results. The aggregate effort increases in the prize share of the larger group. In contests with size effects through costs, the aggregate resource expended in the contests and the aggregate payoffs are independent of group size distribution if the prize is allocated in proportion to group size. The integration of contests with size effects through prizes can yield higher aggregate effort and payoffs than the decentralized contests.     

A general equilibrium model of statistical discrimination

We study a general equilibrium model with endogenous human capital formation in which ex ante identical groups may be treated asymmetrically in equilibrium. The interaction between an informational externality and general equilibrium effects creates incentives for groups to specialize. Discrimination may arise even if the corresponding model with a single group has a unique equilibrium. The dominant group gains from discrimination, rationalizing why a majority may be reluctant to eliminate discrimination. The model is also consistent with “reverse discrimination” as a remedy against discrimination since it may be necessary to decrease the welfare of the dominant group to achieve parity.     

Multi-activity contests

In many contests, players can influence their chances of winning through multiple activities or “arms”. We develop a model of multi-armed contests and axiomatize its contest success function. We then analyze the outcomes of the multi-armed contest and the effects of allowing or restricting arms. Restricting an arm increases total effort directed to other arms if and only if restricting the arm balances the contest. Restricting an arm tends to reduce rent dissipation because it reduces the discriminatory power of the contest. But it also tends to increase rent dissipation if it balances the contest. Less rent is dissipated if an arm is restricted as long as no player is excessively stronger than the other with that arm. If players are sufficiently symmetric in an arm, both players are better off if that arm is restricted. Nevertheless, players cannot agree to restrict the arm if their costs of using the arm are sufficiently low.     

Contest architecture

A contest architecture specifies how the contestants are split among several sub-contests whose winners compete against each other (while other players are eliminated). We compare the performance of such dynamic schemes to that of static winner-take-all contests from the point of view of a designer who maximizes either the expected total effort or the expected highest effort. For the case of a linear cost of effort, our main results are: (1) If the designer maximizes expected total effort, the optimal architecture is a single grand static contest. (2) If the designer maximizes the expected highest effort, and if there are sufficiently many competitors, it is optimal to split the competitors in two divisions, and to have a final among the two divisional winners. Finally, if the effort cost functions are convex, the designer may benefit by splitting the contestants into several sub-contests, or by awarding prizes to all finalists.     

Asymmetric technologies in contests

I consider a contest between two risk-neutral players over a common-value prize, in which one player has a linear cost-of-effort function and the other a strictly convex cost-of-effort function f. I show that if the value of the prize is above (below) a certain threshold level, then the equilibrium aggregate effort in this contest is larger (smaller) than in a contest in which both players are characterized by the strictly convex cost-of-effort function f, and smaller (larger) than in a contest in which both players are characterized by a linear cost-of-effort function. Therefore, in contrast to the general result in the literature, asymmetry in contests can increase competition.     

Choquet Rationality

Consider a decision problem under uncertainty for a decision maker with known (utility) payoffs over prizes. We say that an act is Choquet (Shafer, Bernoulli) rational if for some capacity (belief function, probability) over the set of states, it maximizes her “expected” utility. We show that an act may be Choquet rational without being Bernoulli rational, but it is Choquet rational if and only if it is Shafer rational. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D81.     

Uncertain contest success function

In this article, contestants play with a certain probability in Contest A and with the complementary probability in Contest B. This situation is called contest uncertainty. In both contests, effort is additively distorted by a contest noise parameter which affects the sensitivity of the contest success function (CSF). In Contest A (B), this parameter is linearly added to (subtracted from) effort. We analyze the interaction of contest uncertainty and contest noise on contestant behavior and profit. For symmetric contestants, contest noise has an ambiguous effect on effort and profit. We show that more contest uncertainty can imply greater effort. Furthermore, an introduction of an infinitesimal degree of contest uncertainty can have a large impact on effort and profit. Based on the analysis, this article presents the contest organizer's incentive to manipulate the degree of uncertainty in the contest. For profit or effort maximization, the contest organizer should always eliminate any uncertainty. If contestants are asymmetric, more contest noise increases effort as well as competitive balance if both Contests A and B have the same probability of occurrence.     

Bribe-proof rules in the division problem

The division problem consists of allocating an amount of a perfectly divisible good among a group of n agents with single-peaked preferences. A rule maps preference profiles into n shares of the amount to be allocated. A rule is bribe-proof if no group of agents can compensate one of its subgroups to misrepresent their preferences and, after an appropriate redistribution of their shares, each obtains a weakly preferred share and all agents in the misrepresenting subgroup obtain a strictly preferred share. We characterize all bribe-proof rules as the class of Pareto efficient, strategy-proof, and weakly replacement monotonic rules. This class is larger than the set of sequential allotment rules identified in Barberà et al. [Barberà, S., Jackson, M., Neme, A., 1997. Strategy-proof allotment rules. Games Econ. Behav. 18, 1–21].     

Communication in intergroup conflicts

Numerous studies suggest that communication may be a universal means to mitigate collective action problems. In this study, we challenge this view and show that the communication structure crucially determines whether communication mitigates or intensifies rent-seeking for pure public goods. We observe the effect of different communication structures in the context of a finitely repeated intergroup contest and demonstrate that conflict expenditures are significantly higher if communication is restricted to one's own group as compared to a situation with no communication. However, expenditures are significantly lower if open communication within one's own group and between rivaling groups is allowed. We show that under open communication intergroup conflicts are avoided by groups taking turns in winning the contest. Our results do not only qualify the role of communication for collective action but may also provide insights on how to mitigate the destructive nature of intergroup conflict and group rent-seeking.     

Experimental tests of Tullock’s contest with and without winner refunds

We examined experimentally the two-agent, complete-information Tullock’s contest, with and without refund for the winner. We find that the average bids in the refund group are higher than the average bids in the group without a refund, consistent with the theory. However, the auctioneer does not increase his profit if he changes the design of the contest by reimbursing the winner’s cost of effort. We also find underbidding for the low-valuation players and overbidding for the high-valuation player in a contest with a refund. Some players chose the corner solution of staying out of the game by biding zero.     

The lifeboat problem

We study an all-pay contest with multiple identical prizes (“lifeboat seats”). Prizes are partitioned into subsets of prizes (“lifeboats”). Players play a two-stage game. First, each player chooses an element of the partition (“a lifeboat”). Then each player competes for a prize in the subset chosen (“a seat”). We characterize and compare the subgame perfect equilibria in which all players employ pure strategies or all players play identical mixed strategies in the first stage. The partitioning of prizes can lead to coordination failure when players employ nondegenerate mixed strategies. In these equilibria some rents are sheltered and rent dissipation is reduced.     

Prizes for basic research: Human capital,economic might and the shadow of history

We study the distribution of basic scientific research across countries and time, and explain the process that resulted in the United States becoming the undisputed leader in basic research. Our study is based on the records of scientific awards, and on the data of global economic trends. We investigate the degree to which scale/threshold effects account for the number of prizes won. We constructed a stylized model, predicting a non-linear relationship with lagged relative GDP as an important explanatory variable of a country’s share of prizes. Our empirical research findings find support for these predictions and the presence of a “winner-takes-all” effect.      

Round‐Robin Tournaments with a Dominant Player

We analyze the subgame perfect equilibrium of the round‐robin tournament with one strong (dominant) and two weak players, and we compare this tournament and the one‐stage contest with respect to the players' expected payoffs, expected total effort, and their probabilities of winning. We find that if the contest designer's goal is to maximize the players' expected total effort, then – if the asymmetry between the players is relatively low – the one‐stage contest should be used. However, if the asymmetry is relatively high, then the round‐robin tournament should be used.     

Momentum and betting market perceptions of momentum in college football

Past research has demonstrated that bettors believe positive momentum carries over from contest to contest. This article examines whether there is any empirical support for this belief by testing for the presence of across-contest momentum effects in college football. We characterize momentum in multiple fashions and after controlling for between-team heterogeneity find no evidence that systematic relationships exist between the degree of momentum a team enters a contest with and the outcome of that contest. From a wagering market perspective, this indicates that there is no statistically significant advantage to betting on teams perceived to possess positive momentum. Our results also suggest that the combination of the opening betting line set by odds makers and the subsequent market movement of that line does not systematically overreact to teams on streaks.     

Understanding perpetual R&D races

This paper presents an experimental study of dynamic indefinite horizon R&D races with uncertainty and multiple prizes. The theoretical predictions are highly sensitive: small parameter changes determine if we should expect technological competition, and if so whether it is sustained, or if the market converges into one with entrenched leadership and lower aggregate R&D. The subjects’ strategies are far less sensitive. In most of the treatments, the R&D races tend to converge to entrenched leadership. We propose and apply a quantal response extension of Markov perfection that is qualitatively and largely quantitatively consistent with the experimental observations.     

Belief in the opponentsʼ future rationality

For dynamic games we consider the idea that a player, at every stage of the game, will always believe that his opponents will choose rationally in the future. This is the basis for the concept of common belief in future rationality, which we formalize within an epistemic model. We present an iterative procedure, backward dominance, that proceeds by eliminating strategies from the game, based on strict dominance arguments. We show that the backward dominance procedure selects precisely those strategies that can rationally be chosen under common belief in future rationality if we would not impose (common belief in) Bayesian updating.     

Quantity-cum-quality contests

Quality and quantity are very common features of production processes. People care about these two features and they tend to be connected. I consider a contest in which the quantity and quality of output are rewarded. The output in the quality contest plays a dual role. It counts in the quality contest but it is also converted into quantity-equivalent output to obtain total output in the quantity contest. This latter feature implies that the two contests are interlinked. I find that when the unit cost of producing quality is sufficiently high, then treating quality and quantity as the same has a disincentive effect on the production of quality. In contrast, when the unit cost of producing quality is sufficiently low, treating quality and quantity as the same has no disincentive effect on the production of quality. I also find an equilibrium in which no one exerts effort in the quantity contest. When there is a binding budget constraint on effort, I find that effort in the quantity contest is smaller relative to the unconstrained case but effort in the quality contest may remain unchanged.     

The Important Thing Is Not (Always) Winning but Taking Part: Funding Public Goods with Contests

This paper considers a public good game with heterogeneous endowments and incomplete information affected by extreme free riding. I overcome this problem through the implementation of a deterministic contest in which several prizes may be awarded. I identify a monotone equilibrium, in which the contribution is strictly increasing in the endowment. I prove that it is optimal for the social planner to set the last prize equal to zero, but otherwise total expected contribution is invariant to the prize structure. Finally, I show that private provision via a contest Pareto‐dominates public provision and is higher than the total contribution raised through a lottery.