Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Efficiency and Inefficiency in the Ranking in Competitions: the Case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest

Contents:

Author Info

  • Herbert Glejser
  • Bruno Heyndels
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The Queen Elisabeth Contest is one of the most prestigious competitions in classical music. For both the artists who participate and for the public, it is important that the ranking of the finalists be affected as little as possible by exogenous factors relating to the organisation of the competition. Still, it is impossible to control for all contingencies. Thus, the ranking can be expected to deviate from that obtained in a hypothetical full-information assessment process. As such, the ranking may be unfair to the candidates and inefficient in providing information to the consumer. Deviations from the full-information ideal may result from self-selection of candidates, from positive information at the margin, and from differences in circumstances. Analysing data on all piano and violin versions of the Contest over the period 1956–1999, we find strong evidence of biases in the rankingprocess. Confirming previous research, we find that musicians who perform later in the final week or later on a given day in this week (on average) obtain a better classification. Further, in the piano competitions women obtain lower rankings and, prior to 1990, finalists from the Soviet Union obtained higherrankings than average. The jury appreciates innovation in the sense that musicians who perform a more recently composed concerto obtain a higher rank. Finally – especiallyfor violin – the candidate's decision to perform a popular concerto leadsto a lower ranking. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1007659804416
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Cultural Economics.

    Volume (Year): 25 (2001)
    Issue (Month): 2 (May)
    Pages: 109-129

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:25:y:2001:i:2:p:109-129

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100284

    Related research

    Keywords: classical music; contests; expert information;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. repec:fth:prinin:376 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    3. Victor Ginsburgh & Renato Flores Galvao, 1996. "The Queen Elisabeth Musical Competition: how fair is the final ranking," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/1713, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Throsby, David, 1994. "The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-29, March.
    5. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
    6. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Stefan D. Haigner & Stefan Jenewein & Hans-Christian Müller & Florian Wakolbinger, 2010. "The first shall be last: Serial position effects in the case contestants evaluate each other," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(4), pages 3170-3176.
    2. Schweizer, T.S., 2002. "Managing interactions between technological and stylistic innovation in the media industries, insights from the introduction of ebook technology in the publishing industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-16-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus Uni.
    3. Bruine de Bruin, Wandi & Keren, Gideon, 2003. "Order effects in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 91-101.
    4. Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Does the John Bates Clark Medal Boost Subsequent Productivity and Citation Success?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4419, CESifo Group Munich.
    5. Haan, Marco & Dijkstra, Gerhard & Dijkstra, Peter, 2003. "Expert judgment versus public opinion - evidence from the Eurovision Song Contest," Research Report 03F12, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    6. Pierre-Guillaume Méon & Ariane Szafarz, 2011. "The Modern Corporation as a Safe Haven for Taste-Based Discrimination: An Agency Model of Hiring Decisions," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/88635, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Page, Lionel & Page, Katie, 2010. "Last shall be first: A field study of biases in sequential performance evaluation on the Idol series," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 186-198, February.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jculte:v:25:y:2001:i:2:p:109-129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.