IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/italej/v4y2018i2d10.1007_s40797-017-0068-9.html

Does Random Selection of Selectors Improve the Quality of Selected Candidates? An Investigation in the Italian Academia

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele Checchi

    (FBK-IRVAPP, IZA, University of Milan)

  • Silvia Poli

    (FBK-IRVAPP)

  • Enrico Rettore

    (FBK-IRVAPP, IZA, University of Trento)

Abstract

We study a reform which occurred in Italy in 2008 in the formation of selection committees for qualifying as a university professor. Prior to the reform, members of the selection committees were elected by their peers, whereas after the reform they have been randomly drawn. This policy was intended to increase the equality of opportunities for candidates via a reduction in the role played by private connections to selectors. Results show that the reform was ineffective in reducing the probability contribution of being an insider, but attenuated the impact of being connected to a selector. The impact of the scientific quality of candidates on the outcome of competitions has been minimal both before and after the reform. We also find that candidates have internalised the changed environment and adapted their application strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniele Checchi & Silvia Poli & Enrico Rettore, 2018. "Does Random Selection of Selectors Improve the Quality of Selected Candidates? An Investigation in the Italian Academia," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(2), pages 211-247, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:italej:v:4:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40797-017-0068-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40797-017-0068-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40797-017-0068-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40797-017-0068-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruben Durante & Giovanna Labartino & Roberto Perotti, 2011. "Academic Dynasties: Decentralization and Familism in the Italian Academia," NBER Working Papers 17572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Checchi, Daniele & De Fraja, Gianni & Verzillo, Stefano, 2014. "Publish or Perish? Incentives and Careers in Italian Academia," IZA Discussion Papers 8345, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Maria De Paola & Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2015. "Gender Differences In Attitudes Towards Competition: Evidence From The Italian Scientific Qualification," Working Papers 201505, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    4. Goodall, Amanda H. & Osterloh, Margit, 2015. "Women Have to Enter the Leadership Race to Win: Using Random Selection to Increase the Supply of Women into Senior Positions," IZA Discussion Papers 9331, IZA Network @ LISER.
    5. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    6. Maria De Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2015. "Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82(325), pages 162-188, January.
    7. Olivier Godechot, 2016. "The Chance of Influence: A Natural Experiment on the Role of Social Capital in Faculty Recruitment," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/37ufknmfv39, Sciences Po.
    8. Bruno S. Frey & Lasse Steiner, 2014. "Random Selection in Politics, Science and Society: Applications and Institutional Embeddedness," CREMA Working Paper Series 2014-09, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Natalia Zinovyeva & Manuel Bagues, 2015. "The Role of Connections in Academic Promotions," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 264-292, April.
    10. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "Connections in scientific committees and applicants’ self-selection: Evidence from a natural randomized experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 81-97.
    11. Stefano Allesina, 2011. "Measuring Nepotism through Shared Last Names: The Case of Italian Academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-6, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filandri, Marianna & Pasqua, Silvia, 2019. "Gender discrimination in academic careers in Italy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201921, University of Turin.

    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. Daniele Checchi & Silvia De Poli & Enrico Rettore, 2017. "Does random selection of commissioners improve the quality of selected candidates? An investigation in the Italian academia," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2017-01, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    2. Bao, Zhengyang & Huang, Difang, 2024. "Gender-specific favoritism in science," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 94-109.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Francesco Rosati, 2016. "Gender bias in academic recruitment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 119-141, January.
    4. Maria De Paola & Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2018. "Are Men Given Priority for Top Jobs? Investigating the Glass Ceiling in Italian Academia," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 475-503.
    5. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    6. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2019. "Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences (Updated March 2020)," Working Papers 1918, Banco de España, revised Mar 2020.
    7. Qianshuo Liu & David Pérez-Castrillo & Inés Macho-Stadler & Albert Banal-Estañol, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    9. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Francesco Rosati, 2014. "Career advancement and scientific performance in universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 891-907, February.
    12. Pierre Deschamps, 2024. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: A Boon or a Bane for Women?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7486-7505, November.
    13. Maria De Paola & Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2017. "Gender differences in the propensity to apply for promotion: evidence from the Italian Scientific Qualification," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 986-1009.
    14. Laura Cruz-Castro & Clara Casado & Luis Sanz-Menéndez, 2025. "Merit, competition and gender: scientific promotion in public research organisations," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7bucmgmilh9ul9ogmiku5legh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Bukstein, Daniel & Gandelman, Néstor, 2019. "Glass ceilings in research: Evidence from a national program in Uruguay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1550-1563.
    17. Daniele Checchi & Simona Cicognani & Nevena Kulic, 2019. "Gender Quotas or Girls’ Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 33(3), pages 462-482, June.
    18. Bertoni, Marco & Brunello, Giorgio & Checchi, Daniele & Rocco, Lorenzo, 2021. "Where do I stand? Assessing researchers’ beliefs about their productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 61-80.
    19. Bransch, Felix & Kvasnicka, Michael, 2022. "Male Gatekeepers: Gender Bias in the Publishing Process?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 714-732.
    20. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Post-Print hal-03393117, HAL.
    21. Filandri, Marianna & Pasqua, Silvia & Priori, Eleonora, 2023. "Breaking through the glass ceiling. Simulating policies to close the gender gap in the Italian academia," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • J45 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Public Sector Labor Markets

    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:spr:italej:v:4:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40797-017-0068-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.