IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bgu/wpaper/2101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dynamic Screening

Author

Listed:
  • David Lagziel

    (BGU)

  • Ehud Lehrer

    (Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

We study dynamic screening problems where elements are subjected to noisy evaluations and, in every stage, some of the elements are rejected while the remaining ones are independently re-evaluated in subsequent stages. We prove that, ceteris paribus, the quality of a dynamic screening process is not monotonic in the number of stages. Specifically, we examine the accepted elements' values and show that adding a single stage to a screening process may produce inferior results, in terms of stochastic dominance, whereas increasing the number of stages substantially leads to a first-best outcome.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • David Lagziel & Ehud Lehrer, 2021. "Dynamic Screening," Working Papers 2101, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bgu:wpaper:2101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/humsos/Econ/Workingpapers/2101.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gershkov, Alex & Szentes, Balázs, 2009. "Optimal voting schemes with costly information acquisition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 36-68, January.
    2. Eddie Dekel & Michele Piccione, 2000. "Sequential Voting Procedures in Symmetric Binary Elections," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 34-55, February.
    3. John K.-H. Quah & Bruno Strulovici, 2009. "Comparative Statics, Informativeness, and the Interval Dominance Order," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(6), pages 1949-1992, November.
    4. Bauke Visser & Otto H. Swank, 2007. "On Committees of Experts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(1), pages 337-372.
    5. Athey, Susan & Levin, Jonathan, 2018. "The value of information in monotone decision problems," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 101-116.
    6. Ottaviani, Marco & Sorensen, Peter, 2001. "Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 393-421, September.
    7. Glazer, Jacob & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1998. "Motives and Implementation: On the Design of Mechanisms to Elicit Opinions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 157-173, April.
    8. Daniel Berend & Luba Sapir, 2005. "Monotonicity in Condorcet Jury Theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 83-92, August.
    9. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Jacob Paroush, 2000. "A nonasymptotic Condorcet jury theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(2), pages 189-199.
    10. Sushil Bikhchandani & David Hirshleifer & Omer Tamuz & Ivo Welch, 2021. "Information Cascades and Social Learning," Papers 2105.11044, arXiv.org.
    11. Chambers, Christopher P. & Healy, Paul J., 2011. "Reversals of signal-posterior monotonicity for any bounded prior," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 178-180, May.
    12. Levy, Gilat, 2004. "Anti-herding and strategic consultation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 503-525, June.
    13. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    14. Paul R. Milgrom, 1981. "Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 380-391, Autumn.
    15. Juan-JosÈ Ganuza & JosÈ S. Penalva, 2010. "Signal Orderings Based on Dispersion and the Supply of Private Information in Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1007-1030, May.
    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. Hahn, Volker, 2011. "Sequential aggregation of verifiable information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1447-1454.
    2. Chen, Chia-Hui & Ishida, Junichiro, 2015. "Careerist experts and political incorrectness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-18.
    3. Bernard Caillaud & Jean Tirole, 2007. "Consensus Building: How to Persuade a Group," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1877-1900, December.
    4. Liu, Yaozhou Franklin & Sanyal, Amal, 2012. "When second opinions hurt: A model of expert advice under career concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    5. Paolo Balduzzi, 2005. "Optimal use of scarce information: When partisan voters are socially useful," Working Papers 87, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2005.
    6. Hahn, Volker, 2017. "Committee design with endogenous participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 388-408.
    7. Maria Flavia Ambrosanio & Paolo Balduzzi & Massimo Bordignon, 2015. "Who should review public spending?," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(1), pages 109-127.
    8. Ottaviani, Marco & Sorensen, Peter, 2001. "Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 393-421, September.
    9. Athey, Susan & Levin, Jonathan, 2018. "The value of information in monotone decision problems," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 101-116.
    10. Dessein, Wouter, 2007. "Why a Group Needs a Leader: Decision-making and Debate in Committees," CEPR Discussion Papers 6168, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Liu, Shuo, 2019. "Voting with public information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 694-719.
    12. Hummel, Patrick & Holden, Richard, 2014. "Optimal primaries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 64-75.
    13. Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2010. "Persuasion by Cheap Talk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2361-2382, December.
      • Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2006. "Persuasion by Cheap Talk," Working Papers 2006-10, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, revised Oct 2009.
    14. Melissa Newham & Rune Midjord, 2018. "Herd Behavior in FDA Committees: A Structural Approach," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1744, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2008. "Thought and Behavior Contagion in Capital Markets," MPRA Paper 9164, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Shi, Xianwen, 2012. "Optimal auctions with information acquisition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 666-686.
    17. Ding, Huihui & Pivato, Marcus, 2021. "Deliberation and epistemic democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 138-167.
    18. Daniel Gibbs, 2023. "Individual accountability, collective decision-making," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 524-552, December.
    19. Steve Alpern & Bo Chen, 2020. "Optimizing Voting Order on Sequential Juries: A Median Voter Theorem and Beyond," Papers 2006.14045, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    20. Steve Alpern & Bo Chen, 2022. "Optimizing voting order on sequential juries: a median voter theorem and beyond," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(3), pages 527-565, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    dynamic screening; prefect screening; threshold strategies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D49 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Other
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:bgu:wpaper:2101. 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: Aamer Abu-Qarn (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edbguil.html .

    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.