首位晋升与末位淘汰机制的实验比较

本文采用实验经济学中的比较制度实验方法,对首位晋升制和末位淘汰制两种团队激励机制进行了比较。首先,在构建了基本模型的基础上,我们推导出了与首位晋升制和末位淘汰制效率对比相关的三个重要命题;其次,围绕这三个命题,我们又提出了三个实验假设并设计了三组比较制度实验;最后,实验结果表明,团队个体的风险选择行为和能力分布特征等因素对于两种机制的优劣比较具有重要的影响。该研究结论对于团队成员的激励设计具有重要的指导意义。     

上市公司利润导向与成长能力导向目标的激励机制——基于多任务委托代理模型的研究

本文在分析上市公司利润导向与成长能力导向目标的特征及相互关系的基础上,基于Holmstrom和Milgrom(1991)的多任务委托代理模型,构建了上市公司利润导向与成长能力导向目标的激励机制模型,并探讨了代理人在两个目标上的努力程度和代理能力水平对委托代理效果的影响.研究表明:(1)在信息对称条件下,委托人对两个目标的激励因子均为零,即采取固定工资报酬形式,代理人在两个目标上的努力程度和代理能力水平受其行为的自影响系数和交互影响系数的影响.(2)在信息非对称条件下,委托人对两个目标的激励因子不仅受代理人行为的自影响系数和交互影响系数的影响,而且还与两个目标的可衡量程度有关,此时代理人在两个目标上的努力程度和代理能力水平不仅受其行为的自影响系数和交互影响系数的影响,而且还与两个目标的激励因子有关.基于模型结论,本文还提出了提升我国上市公司成长能力的政策建议.     

行为人具有涉他偏好的锦标激励研究

行为经济学和心理博弈论研究认为行为人具有涉他偏好,关注自身收益的同时也会关注其他人的收益状况,在此基础上已建立了包含嫉妒和自豪等心理因素的效用模型。本文将涉他偏好理论模型引入锦标激励研究中。研究结果显示,涉他偏好对代理人产生更高的事前激励作用,在加剧代理人间竞争的同时还改变了代理人的期望收益及委托人的利润实现,从而对锦标赛制的最优工资结构和业绩评价精度产生影响。在锦标赛制设计时考虑涉他偏好,能够更好地预测行为人的行为规律,可据此制定更加行之有效的锦标激励机制。     

扶弱抑强:组织中的资源配置歧视

文章基于锦标赛模型分析了组织中扶弱抑强的歧视性资源配置现象.模型表明,若互相竞争的代理人能力不对称,则扶弱抑强的歧视性资源配置政策将降低刺激代理人努力的竞赛奖金(即激励成本),因而有利于委托人.模型还表明,强者与弱者的能力差距必须在一定范围内,委托人才能通过竞赛激励合约得到好处;并且委托人倾向在代理人能力相差不大时减少代理人生产风险,而在代理人能力相差悬殊时选择增加代理人生产风险,即通过操纵代理人的"运气"来促进代理人的竞争.文章分析也有助于思考广泛存在的各种扶弱抑强的社会现象.     

不公平对待对努力水平的影响——基于三阶段锦标模型的研究

行为经济学研究认为,人们在自利偏好之外还存在公平偏好,不公平对待将导致额外效用;而心理学实验又表明,不公平对待会使人们产生相对剥夺感并增加努力成本。基于公平偏好理论及相对剥夺观点,构建了三阶段晋升锦标模型,研究不公平对待对代理人努力水平的影响。结果表明,代理人的努力水平选择取决于对未来的预期,并且工资差距、努力成本、嫉妒和自豪心理以及监管精度都会影响代理人的努力水平。这一结论有利于预测代理人的行为规律,为建立最优激励机制提供更符合现实情况的理论依据。     

企业团队中拆台行为的博弈分析

文章在建立了基于相对业绩比较的企业团队激励机制模型,由于团队内部相互拆台可能发生,于是在此基础上建立有拆台行为的激励模型。拆台会导致努力水平降低,团队产出减少。为了防止拆台行为的发生,进一步引入基本目标要求建立了减弱拆台行为团队分析模型。分析得到在团队组织中,引入基本目标后,员工的拆台倾向将减弱。同时如果员工满足的最低目标不超过最优产出时,其努力水平将减少。     

地方政府激励制度的比较分析

我国中央政府对地方政府进行激励主要采取两种模式:官员晋升锦标赛制和财政分成制。本文基于一个中央和地方政府进行序贯博弈的模型来研究两种激励模式的激励效果并对社会福利进行比较。当中国区域之间禀赋和发展水平差异较大以及各种外来冲击对产出的影响较大时,晋升锦标赛制不仅会遏制中国地区间的合作,而且与财政分成制相比,其引致的努力水平更低,无论从最大化中央政府效用的角度,还是从最大化社会福利的角度,晋升锦标赛制都次于财政分成制。     

多关系条件下多代理人行为分析与激励机制设计

针对多个代理人之间存在多种关系———竞争、合作和中立的情况,建立了信息对称和信息非对称条件下的多代理人行为选择模型,通过模型求解与模拟计算分析多关系条件下多代理人的行为选择和委托人的最优选择或激励机制。结果表明:信息对称条件下,员工薪酬与员工间的竞争程度无关,但合作关系更能激励员工努力工作;信息非对称条件下,员工间关系影响其薪酬和企业利润,合作关系下的企业总收益比其他关系下的企业收益高,员工间的合作关系会影响并提高处于其他关系下员工的努力程度。最后提出:企业面对多员工管理问题时应尽量构建合作的工作环境,以减小员工工作努力程度的不确定性、实现利益最大化。     

风险态度、劳动契约选择与当事人决策行为——基于比较制度实验的研究

劳方和资方的议价能力决定了劳动契约的属性,而劳资双方的风险态度则是影响各自议价能力的重要因素。本文利用比较制度实验的方法,分析不同风险态度的委托人在面对信任契约、奖励契约和惩罚契约时的选择倾向,不同风险态度的代理人实际努力水平的差异,以及风险态度对双方收益的影响。研究结果表明:除对信任契约和奖励契约下的委托人行为没有显著影响外,风险态度对委托人的契约选择行为、代理人的实际努力水平以及他们的总收益都存在着显著的影响。这一研究结论为劳动契约设计的激励相容提供了行为基础。     

公有制经济中的委托人—代理人关系:理论分析和政策含义

<正> 本文的目的是分析公有制经济中的委托人—代理人关系及其监督和激励机制。我们首先将公有经济描述为初始委托人(共同所有者)与最终代理人(企业内部人员)之间的双重等级结构,然后分析“正宗”公有经济中公有化程度(初始委托人的数量)和公有经济规模(公有企业的数量)对初始委托人的监督积极性和最终代理人的工作努力水平的效应。我们的分析得到的一个基本命题是,初始委托人的监督积极性和最终代理人的工作努力水平随公有化程度的提高     

Sabotage in Tournaments with Heterogeneous Contestants: Empirical Evidence from the Soccer Pitch

In this paper, we address the problem of sabotage in tournaments with heterogeneous contestants. In a first step, we develop a formal model, which yields the prediction that favorites exert higher productive effort, while underdogs are more tempted to engage in destructive actions (sabotage). This is because favorites have a higher return on productive effort and both types of effort are substitutes. In a second step, we use data from German professional soccer to test this prediction. In line with the model, we find that favorite teams win more tackles in a fair way, while underdog teams commit more fouls.     

On the Incentive Effects of Sample Size in Monitoring Agents – A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis

When agents compete for a bonus and their productivity in each of several possible occasions depends stochastically on (constant) effort, the number of times this is checked to assign the bonus affects the level of uncertainty in the selection process. Uncertainty, in turn, is expected to increase the effort made by competing agents (Cowen and Glazer, 1996; Dubey and Haimanko, 2003; Dubey and Wu, 2001). Theoretical predictions are derived and experimental evidence is collected for two competing agents, with the bonus awarded to that agent who outperforms the other. Sampling occasions (1 or 3), cost of production (high or low), cost symmetry (asymmetric or symmetric), and piece‐rate reward are manipulated factorially to test the robustness of the effects of uncertainty. For control, a single‐agent case is included. Results indicate that, for tournaments, greater uncertainty does indeed lead to greater than expected effort and lower average variable costs.     

Collusion and biased tournaments

Tournaments are vulnerable to collusion. This paper finds that biased tournaments can be more effective at preventing collusion than unbiased ones. When agents can collude to exert low effort, introducing some bias into tournaments generates opposite effects on favored and disfavored agents׳ respective incentives to exert high effort and provides strong incentives for the favored agent to deviate from collusion. Introducing an adequate degree of bias reduces the principal׳s incentive cost for preventing collusion; however, granting excessive bias instead increases the incentive cost. We show that the optimal level of bias can be endogenously determined.     

Tournaments with Prize‐setting Agents*

In some tournaments, it is the contestants themselves who determine reward allocation. Union members bargain over wage distribution, and some firms allow self‐managed teams to freely determine internal resource allocation, incentive structure, and division of labor. We analyze, and test experimentally, a tournament where heterogeneous agents determine the spread between winner prize and loser prize. We investigate the relationship between prize spread, uncertainty, heterogeneity, and effort. We find that a large prize spread is associated with a low degree of uncertainty and a high degree of heterogeneity, and that heterogeneity triggers effort. By and large, our real‐effort experiment supports the theoretical predictions.     

On the Competition of Asymmetric Agents

Abstract. Rank-order tournaments are usually implemented in organizations to provide incentives for eliciting employees' effort and/or to identify the agent with the higher ability, for example in promotion tournaments. We close a gap in the literature by experimentally analyzing a ceteris paribus variation of the prize spread – being the major design feature of tournaments – in a symmetric and an asymmetric setting. We find that effort significantly increases with the prize spread as predicted by standard theory. However, only for sufficiently large prize spreads weak players competing against strong players strain themselves all the more and sorting of agents is feasible.     

Rank-order tournaments and selection

Rank-order tournaments are often presented as devices for aligning incentives in a principal-agent setting. In most of this literature agents are expected to be identical so that the principal is indifferent ex ante as to who wins the contest, implying that the selection properties of the tournament can be ignored. In this paper we consider a tournament which is not necessarily symmetric, and in which agent type is private information. The principal cares about who wins, but the basic tournament will not achieve perfect selection; the lower-type agent may sometimes win. In a two-player tournament we present a simple reward system in which the winner's reward depends upon which (if any) of two “test standards” is passed; conditions are presented under which this system allows the principal to choose the best agent. This system can be extended in a simple manner to rank types in ann-player tournament. We suggest that the theory can be applied to internal labor markets and research contests.     

Participation incentives in rank order tournaments with endogenous entry

Rank order tournaments, in which the payment to an agent is based upon relative observed performance, are a commonly used compensation scheme. In practice, agents often compete in some (but not all) events in a set of tournaments. The present study considers two mutually exclusive tournaments, in which agents themselves decide which event to enter. An agent bases this decision upon the combination of three distinct effects: a prize effect, a winning probability effect, and an effort cost effect. The precise impact of each of these effects is analyzed. Of particular interest is the possibility that a field of higher quality may be attracted to the event with smaller prizes.      

Moral hazard and legal services contracts

We examine legal services contracts characterized by a contingency fee and an hours reporting requirement in a moral hazard setting. We find that hours reporting requirements in contingency contracts can reduce the rent needed to induce high attorney effort under moral hazard. Under certain conditions, the ability to set hours above the first-best level leads a client to choose a contract inducing high effort when she otherwise would not. The important condition of this result is, however, that hours must be contractible. We apply our model to the 2010 Florida “sunshine” law that requires hours reporting by private attorneys employed on a contingency fee basis by the attorney general. We find the sunshine laws of Florida and other states may, in addition to providing more transparency in government contracting, increase the public benefit from an attorney general’s employment of private attorneys.     

Tournaments of Weakly Heterogeneous Players

We consider three prominent tournament formats—contests, binary elimination tournaments, and round-robin tournaments—in the case when players are heterogeneous in their abilities but the heterogeneity is, in a well-defined sense, weak. Using linear approximation, we characterize equilibrium strategies and payoffs in the three tournament games and compare them to the benchmark symmetric case of identical players. We describe small deviations from the symmetric equilibria by elasticities of a player's equilibrium effort with respect to her own ability and the abilities of her rivals. Our results only require general symmetry and smoothness assumptions but not specific functional forms for the probabilities of winning in tournaments. We show that, in equilibrium: (i) a player's effort and payoff depend on her rivals' abilities in a model-independent way, either through the average ability of the field (for static games), or through the properly discounted average ability of the field (for dynamic elimination tournaments); (ii) players respond stronger to changes in their own relative abilities than to changes in their rivals' relative abilities; (iii) aggregate effort (dissipated rent) does not change compared to the benchmark case; (iv) it is not possible to manipulate aggregate effort through seeding in binary elimination tournaments, although optimal seeding schemes for other purposes can be identified; and (v) balanced seeding and a uniform distribution of relative abilities cancel out the dependence of a player's effort on her rivals' abilities in binary elimination tournaments.