Erratum to “Negotiation and take it or leave it in common agency”: [Journal of Economic Theory 111 (2003) 88-109]

The no-externalities condition provided in the text is not sufficient for Theorems 3 and 4 when effort is not fully contractable. In the case where the principals cannot contract at all on agent's effort, the condition in the text requires that for any set of alternatives offered by the principal there is one that is at least as good as all other alternatives in the set for the agent no matter what the other principal does, no matter what effort the agent takes, and no matter what the agent's type. In fact, a stronger condition is required. For any set of alternatives offered by a principal, each of the choices within this set that is at least as good for the agent as any other choice within the set must remain so no matter what actions the other principals take, no matter what effort the agent takes, and no matter what the agent's type.     

Discretionary rewards as a feedback mechanism

This paper studies the use of discretionary rewards in a finitely repeated principal–agent relationship with moral hazard. The key aspect is that rewards have informational content. When the principal obtains a private subjective signal about the agent's performance, she may pay discretionary bonuses to provide credible feedback to the agent. In accordance with the often observed compression of ratings, we show that in equilibrium the principal communicates the agent's interim performance imperfectly, i.e., she does not fully differentiate good and bad performance. Furthermore, we show that small rewards can have a large impact on the agent's effort, provided that the principal's stake in the project is small.     

Optimal Contracting with Private Knowledge of Wealth and Ability

We examine the optimal design of contracts when an agent is privately informed about his wealth, his ability, and his effort supply. We find that the agent's wealth and ability act as perfect complements in determining the power of the incentive scheme under which he operates. Only if his ability and his wealth both increase can an agent be assured of operating under a more powerful scheme. Consequently, severe under-utilization of wealth and ability arise in equilibrium.     

Wealth Effects, Incentives, and Productivity

Comparative static effects of varying the wealth level of a risk-averse agent in a moral hazard setting with limited liability constraints are investigated. There are two principal opposing effects of increasing wealth: the incentive effect, which allows stronger punishments for poor performance, thereby encouraging higher effort; and the preference effect, which reduces the agent's effort incentives owing to income effects in the demand for leisure. It is shown that optimal effort levels are initially constant, subsequently increasing and eventually decreasing in wealth. Hence agents with intermediate wealth levels are the most productive.     

Renegotiation-proof contract in repeated agency

Renegotiation-proof contracts are studied in infinitely repeated principal–agent problem. Contracts satisfying a weaker notion of renegotiation-proofness always exist. The renegotiation-proof value function has a simple characterization: It is the principal's optimal value function when an appropriate lower bound is placed on the agent's expected utility. Sufficient conditions are provided for renegotiation-proof value function in finite horizon to converge to renegotiation-proof value function in infinite horizon as time goes to infinity.     

Optimal supervision with moral hazard

This paper adopts the principal–supervisor–agent hierarchy model pioneered by Tirole [Tirole, J., 1986. Hierarchies and bureaucracies: on the role of collusion in organizations. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 2, 181–214] to analyze the optimal architecture of supervision. We consider a principal who encounters a double moral hazard problem. In particular, we examine the endogenously determined supervisory effort and the possibility of untruthful revelation of supervisor's message. The degree of accuracy for this endogenously chosen information architecture hinges upon the supervisory technology, the supervisor's reservation utility and the agent's production technology. Besides, though the principal's welfare would be lowered when the possibility of untruthful revelation is taken into account, we find that his desired supervisory effort level may be enhanced instead.     

多层科层中的最优序贯授权与"一刀切"政策

沿袭Tirole(1986)的委托人-中间人-代理人科层结构,本文研究了当委托人不能直接管理代理人时的最优序贯授权问题。在该授权博弈中,委托人通过审慎设计中间人职权范围,影响其对代理人的授权行为,从而激励代理人更有效地提供和使用信息。我们发现,当下属之间利益偏差方向一致时,即中间人较委托人更愿意扩大代理人权限时,采用文献中常关注的"区间授权"(Holmstrom,1977)形式,委托人可以实现其直接向代理人授权时的最优结果。但是,如果下属间利益偏差方向相反,即中间人希望减小代理人权限时,"区间授权"将不再是最优。为了更好地影响控制中间人向代理人的次第授权行为,在最优序贯授权方案中委托人将移除部分中间选项。移除选项数目的多少取决于中间人的利益偏差程度。同授权与激励方面的文献不同,本文表明,即使在信息结构给定的条件下,移除中间项将作为科层中的控制工具,成为最优授权方案的一个特征。本文的发现从激励和授权角度对现行的一些法规执行实践中的"一刀切"政策(比如,"醉驾入刑"、大学招生录取等)提供了一些解释。     

多层科层中的最优序贯授权与"一刀切"政策

沿袭Tirole(1986)的委托人一中间人一代理人科层结构,本文研究了当委托人不能直接管理代理人时的最优序贯授权问题。在该授权博弈中,委托人通过审慎设计中间人职权范围,影响其对代理入的授权行为,从而激励代理人更有效地提供和使用信息。我们发现,当下属之间利益偏差方向一致时,即中间人较委托入更愿意扩大代理人权限时,采用文献中常关注的“区间授权”(Holm—strom,1977)形式,委托人可以实现其直接向代理人授权时的最优结果。但是,如果下属间利益偏差方向相反,即中间人希望减小代理人权限时,“区间授权”将不再是最优。为了更好地影响控制中间人向代理人的次第授权行为,在最优序贯授权方案中委托人将移除部分中间选项。移除选项数目的多少取决于中间人的利益偏差程度。同授权与激励方面的文献不同,本文表明,即使在信息结构给定的条件下,移除中间项将作为科层中的控制工具,成为最优授权方案的一个特征。本文的发现从激励和授权角度对现行的一些法规执行实践中的“一刀切”政策(比如,“醉驾入刑”、大学招生录取等)提供了一些解释。     

Incentives and performance in the presence of wealth effects and endogenous risk

Two of the most widely tested predictions of agency theory are that there exists a negative association between an agent's pay-performance sensitivity (PPS) and the risk of output, and that PPS enhances performance. Empirical evidence has been mixed. This paper proposes a new utility function and develops a model that introduces a “wealth effect” and also allows the agent to control the (idiosyncratic) risk of output. When risk is endogenous, the paper shows that the two predictions may not hold.     

On the bad reputation of reputational concerns

Can reputational concerns do any good? Economists have shown how they lead agents to ignore valuable information, to herd, and to become overly risk averse. We explore how they may be a social blessing. An agent may exert effort to become informed about the uncertain benefits of a project. A smart agent's efforts make him better informed; a dumb agent's efforts are to no avail. If an agent does not know his type, reputational concerns are socially beneficial. If an agent knows his type, reputational concerns may be socially beneficial. A dumb agent takes inefficient, unconventional decisions to mimic a smart agent. The latter exerts more effort in order not to be mistaken for a dumb. This holds whether or not project rejection is a safe haven for the dumb.     

On the optimality of privacy in sequential contracting

This paper studies the exchange of information between two principals who contract sequentially with the same agent, as in the case of a buyer who purchases from multiple sellers. We show that when (a) the upstream principal is not personally interested in the downstream level of trade, (b) the agent's valuations are positively correlated, and (c) preferences in the downstream relationship are separable, then it is optimal for the upstream principal to offer the agent full privacy. On the contrary, when any of these conditions is violated, there exist preferences for which disclosure is strictly optimal, even if the downstream principal does not pay for the information. We also examine the effects of disclosure on welfare and show that it does not necessarily reduce the agent's surplus in the two relationships and in some cases may even yield a Pareto improvement.     

Ex post participation constraint in a principal–agent model with adverse selection and moral hazard

This paper analyzes optimal contracting when an agent has private information before contracting and exerts hidden effort that stochastically affects the output. Additionally, the contract is constrained to satisfy the agentʼs ex post participation. We highlight three features of this model. First, the agent faces countervailing incentives. Second, the separation of types is never optimal. Third, the optimal constant bonus rewarding success is distorted downward below its efficient level.     

Efficient moral hazard

This paper presents an infinite-horizon, discounted dynamic programming model of the endogenous opportunity costs of an agent’s effort that is allocated among an endogenous number of principals. An agent allocates effort between evaluating new principals and attending to current principals. Since each principal’s return is not maximized by the agent’s optimal allocation, moral hazard occurs in equilibrium. However, since the agent maximizes the total expected value of all undertaken projects, the agent’s allocation of effort is efficient. If the agent chooses a single principal, then moral hazard does not occur and the allocation is efficient. These results are contrary to the inefficient moral hazard results in bilateral principal-agent (P-A) and common agency (C-A) models.     

Optimal Contracting of Separable Production Technologies

We analyze the class of agency problems with a risk-neutral principal and a risk-averse agent, in which hidden actions and hidden information (on the agent's efficiency) are jointly present. Technological assumptions such as monotonicity of likelihood are no longer sufficient for the optimal contract to be monotone in the sharing rule. We show that these regularity properties obtain for the rather wide class of production technologies that are separable in the agent's inputs. Together with ordinal properties such as monotone differences and affiliation of inputs, separability yields the monotonicity in efficiency of the agent's actions and indirect utility.     

Optimal Delegation

We analyse the design of decision rules by a principal who faces an informed but biased agent and who is unable to commit to contingent transfers. The contracting problem reduces to a delegation problem in which the principal commits to a set of decisions from which the agent chooses his preferred one. We characterize the optimal delegation set and perform comparative statics on the principal's willingness to delegate and the agent's discretion. We also provide conditions for interval delegation to be optimal and show that they are satisfied when the agent's preferences are sufficiently aligned. Finally, we apply our results to the regulation of a privately informed monopolist and to the design of legislatives rules.     

Multitask principal-agent problems: Optimal contracts, fragility, and effort misallocation

We analyze a tractable class of multitask principal-agent problems, such as the one faced by a firm with a manager overseeing several projects. We allow for tasks to be complements or substitutes. We avoid the problems associated with the first-order approach by directly characterizing the shape of the agent's indirect utility function, which exhibits a convex then concave shape in effort. We identify a new source of allocational inefficiency across tasks: excessive concentration, and its consequence, insufficient risk taking. Optimal incentive schemes in our environment are generally “fragile”: small changes in fundamentals can cause the agent's effort to collapse.     

The Economics of Clear Advice and Extreme Options

I study a principal–agent model in which the agent collects information and then chooses a verifiable action. I show that the principal can find it desirable to constrain the agent's action set even though there is no disagreement about the ranking of actions ex post . The elimination or penalization of „intermediate” actions, which are optimal when information is poor, improves incentives for information collection. I characterize optimal action sets when the agent is infinitely risk averse with respect to income shocks and optimal incentive schemes when the agent is risk neutral.     

Dynamic risk-sharing with two-sided moral hazard

A group of risk-averse agents repeatedly produce a perishable consumption good; individual outputs are observable but efforts are not. The contracting problem admits a recursive formulation, and the optimal value function is the fixed point of a contraction mapping. When the agents can be punished to the full extent in a single period, every continuation contract of an optimal contract is itself optimal; the marginal utility ratio between one agent and another is a submartingale. The results imply that it is in general important to restrict an agent whose moral hazard constraint is binding from saving through another agent within the risk-sharing group. Limited commitment and long-run implications of optimal contracting are also examined.     

Endogenous Verifiability and Optimality in Agency

This paper investigates the optimal contract design in a principal-agent model where verification of an agent's action is endogenously determined through strategic interactions between contracting parties. We derive a necessary and sufficient condition for the first best outcome to be implemented as an equilibrium. The equilibrium has the following features: (i) The action level that the agent chooses is not verified even if it is possible. (ii) Nevertheless, the first best can be attained by making a contract contingent on the unverified action. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: D20, K40.     

You Don't Always Get What You Pay For: Bonuses,Perceived Income and Effort

Abstract. Consider a principal–agent relationship in which more effort by the agent raises the likelihood of success. This paper provides conditions such that no success bonus induces the agent to exert more effort and the optimal contract is independent of success. Moreover, success bonuses may even reduce effort and thus the probability of success. The reason is that bonuses increase the perceived income of the agent and can hence reduce his willingness to exert effort. This perceived income effect has to be weighed against the incentive effect of the bonus. The tradeoff is determined by the marginal effect of effort on the success probability in relation to this probability itself (success hazard‐rate of effort). The paper also discusses practical implications of the finding.