Project screening with tiered evaluation
We study a Bayesian game of two-sided incomplete information in which an agent, who owns a project of unknown quality, considers proposing it to an evaluator, who has the choice of whether or not to accept it. There exist two distinct tiers of evaluation that differ in the benefits they deliver to the agent upon acceptance of a project. The agent has to select the tier to which the project is submitted for review. Making a proposal incurs a cost on the agent in the form of a submission cost. We examine the effect of changes in the payoff parameters at the two tiers of evaluation on the efficiency of the equilibrium outcome. We show that changes in these parameters that are aimed at increasing the level of self-screening exerted by the agent do not necessarily have beneficial effects either on the quality of projects submitted for review or on the quality of projects that are implemented. From a methodological viewpoint, our paper proposes a novel method of performing comparative statics in games whose equilibria are defined by a system of equations with no closed-form solution.
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.:
- Emmanuel Farhi & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, .
"Fear of Rejection? Tiered Certification and Transparency,"
78856, Harvard University OpenScholar.
- Emmanuel Farhi & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2013. "Fear of rejection? Tiered certification and transparency," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(4), pages 610-631, December.
- Emmanuel Farhi & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2008. "Fear of Rejection? Tiered Certification and Transparency," NBER Working Papers 14457, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
- Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-46, July-Aug..
- David Gill & Daniel Sgroi, 2011.
"The Optimal Choice of Pre-Launch Reviewer,"
Economics Series Working Papers
562, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Gill, David & Sgroi, Daniel, 2010. "The optimal choice of pre-launch reviewer," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 1017, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
- Andrei Barbos, 2014.
"Imperfect evaluation in project screening,"
Journal of Economics,
Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 31-46, May.
- repec:oup:restud:v:78:y:2011:i:2:p:762-794 is not listed on IDEAS
- Ralph Boleslavsky & Christopher Cotton, 2011.
"Learning More by Doing Less,"
2011-6, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
- Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2006. "A Model of Forum Shopping," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1091-1113, September.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2007.
"The Slowdown In First-Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?,"
Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, 01.
- Azar, Ofer H., 2002. "The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial?," MPRA Paper 4478, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Derek Leslie, 2005. "Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 407-413, March.
- Christopher Cotton, 2013. "Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 501-09, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:66:y:2013:i:3:p:293-306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.