Contests where there is variation in the marginal productivity of effort

Summary. We provide a characterization of participants' behavior in a contest or tournament where the marginal productivity of effort varies across contestants and individual productivity is private information. We then consider the optimal design of such a contest.We first analyze contestant behavior for the usual type of contest, where the highest output wins. Abilities need not be independently distributed. We demonstrate that there is a unique symmetric equilibrium output function, that output is increasing in ability, and that marginal effort is increasing in ability, while effort decreases when the cost of effort increases.Next we consider the case where the highest output need not win, with independently distributed abilities. We analyze the contest designer's decisions in choosing contest rules optimal from her perspective. We show that the output produced, probability of winning, and contest designer's expected revenue are generally increasing in contestants' ability. We examine the relationship between the marginal cost of producing output and marginal utility per dollar of the net award for winning.

[1]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[2]  Steven A. Matthews On the Implementability of Reduced Form Auctions , 1984 .

[3]  Edward P. Lazear,et al.  Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts , 1979 .

[4]  Nancy L. Stokey,et al.  A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts , 1983, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Economic Contests: Comparative Reward Schemes , 1984, Journal of Labor Economics.

[6]  Charles A. Holt A Theory of Signalling Auctions , 1979 .

[7]  E. Lazear,et al.  Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  Wolfgang Leininger,et al.  Asymmetric All-Pay Auctions with Incomplete Information: The Two-Player Case , 1996 .

[9]  J. Morgan,et al.  An Analysis of the War of Attrition and the All-Pay Auction , 1997 .

[10]  A. Dixit Strategic Behavior in Contests: Reply , 1999 .

[11]  S. Skaperdas,et al.  Risk Aversion in Contests , 1995 .

[12]  Jacob K. Goeree,et al.  Rent Seeking with Bounded Rationality: An Analysis of the All‐Pay Auction , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  Economic Contests with Incomplete Information and Optimal Contest Design , 1988 .

[14]  J. Riley,et al.  Asymmetric equilibria in the war of attrition , 1985 .

[15]  Witold Hurewicz,et al.  Lectures on Ordinary Differential Equations , 1959 .

[16]  E. Maskin,et al.  The Implementation of Social Choice Rules: Some General Results on Incentive Compatibility , 1979 .

[17]  Michael R. Baye,et al.  Rigging the Lobbying Process: An Application of the All-Pay Auction , 1993 .

[18]  E. Maskin,et al.  Optimal Auctions with Risk Averse Buyers , 1984 .

[19]  Michael R. Baye,et al.  The all-pay auction with complete information , 1990 .

[20]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  Moral Hazard in Teams , 1982 .

[21]  A. Dasgupta,et al.  Designing an optimal contest , 1998 .

[22]  Curtis R. Taylor Digging for golden carrots: an analysis of research tournaments , 1995 .

[23]  Dilip Mookherjee Optimal Incentive Schemes with Many Agents , 1984 .

[24]  E. Amann,et al.  Expected revenue of all-pay and first-price sealed-bid auctions with affiliated signals , 1995 .