IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2402.15890.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimality of weighted contracts for multi-agent contract design with a budget

Author

Listed:
  • Sumit Goel
  • Wade Hann-Caruthers

Abstract

We study a contract design problem between a principal and multiple agents. Each agent participates in an independent task with binary outcomes (success or failure), in which it may exert costly effort towards improving its probability of success, and the principal has a fixed budget which it can use to provide outcome-dependent rewards to the agents. Crucially, we assume the principal cares only about maximizing the agents' probabilities of success, not how much of the budget it expends. We first show that a contract is optimal for some objective if and only if it is a successful-get-everything contract. An immediate consequence of this result is that piece-rate contracts and bonus-pool contracts are never optimal in this setting. We then show that for any objective, there is an optimal priority-based weighted contract, which assigns positive weights and priority levels to the agents, and splits the budget among the highest-priority successful agents, with each such agent receiving a fraction of the budget proportional to her weight. This result provides a significant reduction in the dimensionality of the principal's optimal contract design problem and gives an interpretable and easily implementable optimal contract. Finally, we discuss an application of our results to the design of optimal contracts with two agents and quadratic costs. In this context, we find that the optimal contract assigns a higher weight to the agent whose success it values more, irrespective of the heterogeneity in the agents' cost parameters. This suggests that the structure of the optimal contract depends primarily on the bias in the principal's objective and is, to some extent, robust to the heterogeneity in the agents' cost functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sumit Goel & Wade Hann-Caruthers, 2024. "Optimality of weighted contracts for multi-agent contract design with a budget," Papers 2402.15890, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2402.15890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.15890
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Jerry R & Stokey, Nancy L, 1983. "A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(3), pages 349-364, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anja Schöttner & Veikko Thiele, 2010. "Promotion Tournaments and Individual Performance Pay," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 699-731, September.
    2. Matthias Kräkel, 2002. "U-Type versus J-Type Tournaments," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(4), pages 614-637, December.
    3. Basak, Suleyman & Makarov, Dmitry, 2012. "Difference in interim performance and risk taking with short-sale constraints," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 377-392.
    4. Xin Qu & Majella Percy & Fang Hu & Jenny Stewart, 2022. "Can CEO equity‐based compensation limit investment‐related agency problems?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2579-2614, June.
    5. Christine Harbring & Bernd Irlenbusch, 2005. "Incentives in Tournaments with Endogenous Prize Selection," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(4), pages 636-663, December.
    6. Ola Kvaløy & Trond E. Olsen, 2006. "Team Incentives in Relational Employment Contracts," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 139-170, January.
    7. Romuald Élie & Emma Hubert & Thibaut Mastrolia & Dylan Possamaï, 2021. "Mean–field moral hazard for optimal energy demand response management," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 399-473, January.
    8. Edward P. Lazear, 1995. "Personnel Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121883, December.
    9. Gershkov, Alex & Perry, Motty, 2009. "Tournaments with midterm reviews," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 162-190, May.
    10. Moldovanu, Benny & Sela, Aner, 2006. "Contest architecture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 70-96, January.
    11. Eguchi, Kyota, 2004. "Trainers' dilemma of choosing between training and promotion," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 765-783, December.
    12. Brian L. Goff & Robert D. Tollison, 1999. "The Market Provision of Addiction Control Services," Public Finance Review, , vol. 27(2), pages 115-137, March.
    13. Kamijo, Yoshio, 2016. "Rewards versus punishments in additive, weakest-link, and best-shot contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 17-30.
    14. Ewerhart, Christian, 2016. "An envelope approach to tournament design," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Moisson, Paul-Henri, 2024. "Meritocracy and Inequality," TSE Working Papers 24-1518, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Apr 2024.
    16. Pradeep Dubey & Siddhartha Sahi, 2016. "Optimal Prizes," Department of Economics Working Papers 16-03, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    17. Benno Torgler & Sascha L. Schmidt & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The Power of Positional Concerns: A Panel Analysis," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-19, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    18. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Verbeke, Willem, 2014. "Dynamic incentive effects of relative performance pay: A field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-13.
    19. Soiliou Namoro, 2008. "The Impact of Organizer Market Structure on Participant Entry Behavior in a Multi-Tournament Environment," Working Paper 373, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Nov 2008.
    20. Matthias Kräkel, 2006. "Splitting Leagues," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 21-48, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2402.15890. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.