IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0345083.html

Design, comparison and selection of two competition incentive mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Dahai Li
  • Huan Wang
  • Jingcheng Ye

Abstract

When facing multiple agent teams, principals often implement competitive mechanisms to mitigate moral hazard. These mechanisms can be categorized as either result-oriented or process-oriented, depending on their operational focus. This paper analyzes the optimal incentive contracts offered by principals to agents under these two competitive modes. Furthermore, to mitigate potential conflicts arising from these mechanisms, the matching of agents with varying abilities is also considered. Our analysis reveals that both competitive modes can effectively incentivize agent effort. However, excessive result-oriented competition can be detrimental to the principal’s benefits, suggesting that its intensity should be carefully calibrated. Moreover, when forming agent pairs, a “strong-weak” pairing is preferable to a “strong-strong” pairing, which, in turn, is preferable to a “weak-weak” pairing. Finally, this paper discusses the scope of application for each competition-incentive system. These findings provide a foundation for effectively utilizing competitive mechanisms to enhance the principal’s returns.

Suggested Citation

  • Dahai Li & Huan Wang & Jingcheng Ye, 2026. "Design, comparison and selection of two competition incentive mechanisms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-21, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0345083
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0345083
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0345083&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0345083?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0345083. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.