Efficiency and Inefficiency in the Ranking in Competitions: the Case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest
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
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 25 (2001)
Issue (Month): 2 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://www.culturaleconomics.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10824/PS2|
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.:
- 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.
- FLÔRES, R. G. & GINSBURGH, Jr. and V. A., "undated".
"The Queen Elisabeth musical competition: how fair is the final ranking?,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
1196, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Claudia Goldin & Cecilia Rouse, 1997. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of 'Blind' Auditions on Female Musicians," Working Papers 755, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- Claudia Goldin & Cecilia Rouse, 1997. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," NBER Working Papers 5903, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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)