Acquisition through innovation tournaments in high-tech industries: a comparative perspective

Acquisition of innovative firms is a widely observed phenomenon in high-tech industries. On the basis of distinct advantages of large and small firms, in this paper, we build a tournament model with possible acquisition activity of large firms to derive hypotheses on interdependencies between acquisition frequency and post-acquisition success rates. We find empirical support for our hypotheses that (1) acquisitions increase overall innovation output and (2) that the number of acquisitions is higher in industries with larger heterogeneity between established firms and young start-ups. However, our third hypothesis derived from the formal model that innovation success following from acquisitions varies across industries is only partially confirmed.     

Regulatory performance of audit tournaments and compliance observability

This paper examines the effectiveness of traditional regulatory schemes and newly emerging social information schemes for achieving compliance. Our experiment focuses on two stochastic audit schemes for enforcing regulatory compliance. In the Random Audit mechanism firms are randomly chosen for inspection. In the Tournament Audit mechanism the probability of inspection increases with the degree of estimated underreporting. To study the effects of social information, the experiment varies the observability of identity, output, and compliance decisions. Optimal output is theoretically independent of the auditing scheme, but equilibrium reporting is higher under the Tournament mechanism than Random auditing. Experimental findings are broadly consistent with the theoretical predictions for reporting, but deviate modestly for output. In particular, we find that average output is lower and reporting is higher in the Tournament treatment compared to the Random Audit treatment. At the individual level, a majority of participants misreported in most periods. Social observability does not affect output or reporting significantly in either of the audit treatments.     

Are 18 Holes Enough for Tiger Woods?

This article addresses the selection problem in promotion tournaments. I consider a situation with heterogeneous employees and ask whether an employer might be interested in repeating a promotion tournament. On the one hand, this yields a reduction in uncertainty over the employees’ abilities. On the other hand, there are costs if a workplace stays vacant.     

The nature and units of social selection

On the basis of the technical definition of selection developed by George Price (1995), we describe two forms of selection that commonly occur at the social level, subset selection and generative selection. Both forms of selection are abstract and general, and therefore also incomplete; both leave aside the question of explaining the selection criterion and why entities possess stable traits. However, an important difference between the two kinds of selection is that generative selection can accommodate an explanation of how new variation is created, while subset selection cannot. An evolutionary process involving repeated cycles of generative selection can, in principle, continue indefinitely because imperfect replication generates new variation along the way, whereas subset selection reduces variation and eventually grinds to a halt. Even if the two kinds of selection are very different, they share a number of features. First, neither subset selection nor generative selection implies improvement: neither kind of selection necessarily leads to efficiency or implies systematic outcomes. Second, both subset selection and generative selection can lead to extremely rapid effects in a social population. Third, in the social domain, both generative selection and subset selection involve choice and preference in some way: neither form of selection necessarily excludes intentionality. In concluding the article, we single out a challenge for future research in identifying the role of various units of culture in selection processes and the multiple levels at which social selection processes take place.     

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.     

Reputation for quality and adverse selection

We analyze a dynamic market with a seller who can make a one-time investment that affects the returns of tradable assets. The potential buyers of the assets cannot observe the seller׳s investment prior to the trade or verify it in any way after the trade. The market faces two types of inefficiency: the ex-ante inefficiency, i.e., the seller׳s moral hazard problem, and the ex-post inefficiency, i.e., inefficient ex-post allocations due to the adverse selection problem. We analyze how the observability of information by future buyers, through which the seller builds a reputation, affects the two types of inefficiency as well as the interplay between them.     

Honesty in tournaments

We apply the die rolling experiment of Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi (2013) to a two-player tournament incentive scheme. Our treatments vary the prize spread. The data highlights that honesty is more pronounced when the prize spread is small.     

Fairness and desert in tournaments

We model the behavior of agents who care about receiving what they feel they deserve in a two-player rank-order tournament. Perceived entitlements are sensitive to how hard an agent has worked relative to her rival, and agents are loss averse around their meritocratically determined endogenous reference points. In a fair tournament sufficiently large desert concerns drive identical agents to push their effort levels apart in order to end up closer to their reference points on average. In an unfair tournament, where one agent is advantaged, the equilibrium is symmetric in the absence of desert, but asymmetric in the presence of desert. We find that desert concerns can undermine the standard conclusion that competition for a fixed supply of status is socially wasteful and explain why, when the distribution of output noise is fat-tailed, an employer might use a rank-order incentive scheme.     

Waiting times and equilibrium selection

Summary. This paper shows how graphs can be used to calculate waiting times in models of equilibrium selection. It also shows how reducing the state space can simplify the calculations of both waiting times and selected equilibria. The results are applied to potential games and games with strategic complementarities.Received: 31 December 2002, Revised: 25 October 2003, JEL Classification Numbers: C72, C73.Alan Beggs: I am grateful to an anonymous referee for helpful comments.     

代理人能力分布不均情形下首位晋升制与末位淘汰制的比较研究

在基于相对业绩比较的锦标赛激励机制中,首位晋升制与末位淘汰制是两种常见的竞赛激励机制。在代理人能力分布不均情形下,将代理人之间的拆台行为引入传统的锦标赛模型,可以研究代理人能力分布不同时首位晋升制与末位淘汰制下代理人的行为以及对委托人收益的影响。通过数理模型推导可获得以下结论:第一,首位晋升制下代理人的努力水平和拆台水平均比较高,委托人采用首位晋升制更有利,能力分布对委托人最优选择不产生影响。第二,低能力代理人占多数时,高能力代理人努力水平过高,受到的拆台也更多,高能力代理人占多数时,低能力代理人努力水平更高受到的拆台更多,能力分布对代理人的行为产生影响。     

Collusion in homogeneous and heterogeneous tournaments

In tournaments, only the relative performance of agents is important. Therefore, the agents have an incentive to collude by jointly deviating to low effort levels. Previous papers on collusion have proposed to make the tournament asymmetric to prevent agents from colluding. However, by allowing side payments between the agents and focusing on implicit enforcement of collusion, the current study demonstrates that this is not true. Often, the principal prefers to hire homogeneous agents to make collusions less stable.     

Why multilevel selection matters

In spite of its checkered intellectual history, and in spite of the myriad proposals of alternative models that claim both to account for the range of human behavior and to dispense with the need for selection above the organism level, a multilevel selection framework allowing for biological as well as cultural group selection remains the only coherent means of accounting for the persistence and spread of behavioral inclinations which, at least upon first appearance at low frequency, would have been biologically altruistic. This argument is advanced on three tracks: through a review of experimental and observational evidence inconsistent with a narrow version of rational choice theory, through a critique of models or explanations purporting to account for prosocial behavior through other means, and via elaboration of the mechanisms, plausibility, and intellectual history of biological group selection.      

Collusion and group lending with adverse selection

In an environment with correlated returns, this paper characterizes optimal lending contracts when the bank faces adverse selection and borrowers have limited liability. Group lending contracts are shown to be dominated by revelation mechanisms which do not use the ex post observability of the partners' performances. However, when collusion between borrowers under complete information is allowed, group lending contracts are optimal in the class of simple revelation mechanisms (which elicit only the borrower's own private information) and remain useful with extended revelation mechanisms.     

When outcome heterogeneously matters for selection: a generalized selection correction estimator

The classical Heckman (1976, 1979) selection correction estimator (heckit) is misspecified and inconsistent, if an interaction of the outcome variable with an explanatory variable matters for selection. To address this specification problem, a full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator and a simple two-step estimator are developed. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations illustrate that the bias of the ordinary heckit estimator is removed by these generalized estimation procedures. Along with OLS and ordinary heckit, we apply these estimators to data from a randomized trial that evaluates the effectiveness of financial incentives for reducing obesity. Estimation results indicate that the choice of the estimation procedure clearly matters.     

Modeling model selection in model pluralism

ABSTRACT

In his recent book, Rodrik [(2015). Economics rules. Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference. Oxford University Press] proposes an account of model pluralism according to which multiple models of the same target are acceptable as long as one model is more useful for one purpose and another is more useful for another purpose. How, then, is the right model for the purpose selected? Rodrik roughly outlines a selection procedure, which we formalize to enhance understanding of his account of model pluralism and to advance the critical discussion.     

The origin of utility: Sexual selection and conspicuous consumption

This paper proposes an explanation for the universal human desire for increasing consumption and the associated propensity to trade survival opportunity off conspicuous consumption. I argue that this desire was moulded in evolutionary times by a mechanism known to biologists as sexual selection, whereby an observable trait – conspicuous consumption in this case – is used by members of one sex to signal their unobservable characteristics valuable to members of the opposite sex. It then shows that the standard economics problem of utility maximisation is formally equivalent to the standard biology problem of the maximisation of individual fitness, the ability to pass genes to future generations, and thus establishes a rigorous theoretical foundation for including conspicuous consumption in the utility function.     

Stability and equilibrium selection in a link formation game

In this paper we study a static link formation game under consent that has multiple Nash equilibria. In the literature, the use of coalitional refinements has been the standard approach to select among equilibria. Alternatively, based on the Global Games theory, a non cooperative equilibrium selection approach is proposed, so as to select those Nash equilibria that are robust to the introduction of incomplete information. Interestingly, the equilibrium selected is unique and it is in conflict with those predicted by the commonly used coalitional refinements. Furthermore, a conflict is found between stability and efficiency even when no such conflict exists with the coalitional refinements. We are especially grateful to Deborah Minehart, Roger Lagunoff, Daniel Vincent, Peter Cramton, Luca Anderlini, Axel Anderson, Felipe Zurita, Francis Bloch, Colin Stewart, the editor and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments that contributed to improve the paper. We also thank participants at the EEA-ESEM, Stockholm 2003, the IUSC conference, Columbia University 2003, and the Workshop on Global Games, SUNY, Stony Brook, 2007.     

Minimal stable sets in tournaments

We propose a systematic methodology for defining tournament solutions as extensions of maximality. The central concepts of this methodology are maximal qualified subsets and minimal stable sets. We thus obtain an infinite hierarchy of tournament solutions, encompassing the top cycle, the uncovered set, the Banks set, the minimal covering set, and the tournament equilibrium set. Moreover, the hierarchy includes a new tournament solution, the minimal extending set, which is conjectured to refine both the minimal covering set and the Banks set.     

Insurance contracts with imprecise probabilities and adverse selection

Summary. This article deals with optimal insurance contracts in the framework of imprecise probabilities and adverse selection. Agents differ not only in the objective risk they face but also in the perception of risk. In monopoly, a range of configurations that VNM preferences preclude appears: a pooling contract may be optimal, incomplete coverage may be offered to high risks, low risks may be better covered.Received: 1 November 2001, Revised: 15 April 2003, JEL Classification Numbers: D81, D82, G22.Useful suggestions by Emmanuelle Auriol, Bernard Bensaïd, Michéle Cohen, Isaac Meilijson and the anonymous referee are acknowledged. Correspondence to: M. Jeleva