Competing for talents
Two organizations compete for high quality agents from a fixed population of heterogeneous qualities by designing how to distribute their resources among members according to their quality ranking. The peer effect induces both organizations to spend the bulk of their resources on higher ranks in an attempt to attract top talents that benefit the rest of their membership. Equilibrium is asymmetric, with the organization with a lower average quality offering steeper increases in resources per rank. High quality agents are present in both organizations, while low quality agents receive no resources from either organization and are segregated by quality into the two organizations. A stronger peer effect increases the competition for high quality agents, resulting in both organizations concentrating their resources on fewer ranks with steeper increases in resources per rank, and yields a greater equilibrium difference in average quality between the two organizations.
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.:
- Andrew Postlewaite, .
"The Social Basis of Interdependent Preferences,"
Penn CARESS Working Papers
6bd000503382ae2f0b90d25e3, Penn Economics Department.
- Espen R. Moen & Asa Rosén, 2004.
"Does Poaching Distort Training?,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 1143-1162, October.
- Ettore Damiano & Hao Li & Wing Suen, 2004.
"First in Village or Second in Rome,"
tecipa-221, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
- Edward P. Lazear, 1999.
NBER Working Papers
7349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. " Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-28, Summer.
- Tranaes, Torben, 2001. "Raiding Opportunities and Unemployment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(4), pages 773-98, October.
- Bruce Sacerdote, 2001.
"Peer Effects With Random Assignment: Results For Dartmouth Roommates,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 116(2), pages 681-704, May.
- Bruce Sacerdote, 2000. "Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates," NBER Working Papers 7469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1998. "Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 33-62, March.
- Edward P. Lazear, 1984. "Raids and Offermatching," NBER Working Papers 1419, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dan Bernhardt & David Scoones, 1991.
"Promotion: Turnover and Preemptive Wage Offers,"
817, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Cole, Harold L & Mailath, George J & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1992. "Social Norms, Savings Behavior, and Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1092-1125, December.
- Summers, Anita A & Wolfe, Barbara L, 1977. "Do Schools Make a Difference?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(4), pages 639-52, September.
- de Bartolome, Charles A M, 1990. "Equilibrium and Inefficiency in a Community Model with Peer Group Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(1), pages 110-33, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:147:y:2012:i:6:p:2190-2219. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.