IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2609.19771.html

Anonymous Accountability

Author

Listed:
  • Georgy Lukyanov
  • Muslim Salakhov

Abstract

We ask how an expert panel should disclose auditable conflicts of interest when reports are named and experts care about their reputations for ability. Before sealed binary assessments are filed, an auditor commits to disclosing no orientation information, each named expert's orientation, or only the number of experts oriented in each direction; disclosure occurs after reports are locked. Holding reporting behaviour fixed, composition disclosure and individual attribution are exactly Blackwell-equivalent for learning the state at every finite panel size. Conditional on named reports remaining public, composition is minimal among state-lossless disclosures of orientations: every lossless public message must make the composition recoverable together with the reports. Incentives nevertheless differ sharply. In the large-panel limit near pooling, the local career returns to following evidence against one's orientation under attribution, secrecy, and composition disclosure stand in the ratio 1:4:5. On an open set of parameters, the two extreme regimes have only pooling within symmetric cutoff strategies, while composition disclosure admits a tremble-robust informative equilibrium. Near the lower boundary of this region, a sequence of composition equilibria is sparse---the evidence-following rate is of order 1/N---yet induces a nondegenerate state experiment. Anonymous disclosure can therefore preserve the information available under attribution while creating stronger incentives to produce it.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgy Lukyanov & Muslim Salakhov, 2026. "Anonymous Accountability," Papers 2609.19771, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2609.19771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.19771
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sylvain Bourjade & Bruno Jullien, 2011. "The roles of reputation and transparency on the behavior of biased experts," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 575-594, September.
    2. Gilat Levy, 2007. "Decision Making in Committees: Transparency, Reputation, and Voting Rules," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 150-168, March.
    3. Georgy Lukyanov, 2025. "Designing Silence: Peer Feedback under Reputational Concerns," Papers 2509.01264, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    4. Hanzhe Li, 2025. "Transparency and Policymaking with Endogenous Information Provision," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 56(1), pages 91-105, March.
    5. Balmaceda, Felipe, 2021. "Private vs. public communication: Difference of opinion and reputational concerns," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Rajiv Sethi & Muhamet Yildiz, 2016. "Communication With Unknown Perspectives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 2029-2069, November.
    7. Bauke Visser & Otto H. Swank, 2007. "On Committees of Experts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(1), pages 337-372.
    8. Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
    9. Sethi, Rajiv & Yildiz, Muhamet, 2026. "Culture and communication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    10. Li, Ming & Madarász, Kristóf, 2008. "When mandatory disclosure hurts: Expert advice and conflicting interests," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 47-74, March.
    11. Andrea Mattozzi & Marcos Y Nakaguma, 2023. "Public Versus Secret Voting in Committees," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 907-940.
    12. Name-Correa, Alvaro J. & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2019. "Social pressure, transparency, and voting in committees," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    13. Claudio Mezzetti, 2025. "Manipulative Disclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 56(2), pages 184-193, June.
    14. Andrea Prat, 2005. "The Wrong Kind of Transparency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 862-877, June.
    15. Hans Gersbach & Volker Hahn, 2012. "Information acquisition and transparency in committees," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(2), pages 427-453, May.
    16. Sebastian Fehrler & Niall Hughes, 2018. "How Transparency Kills Information Aggregation: Theory and Experiment," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 181-209, February.
    17. Bhattacharya, Sourav & Goltsman, Maria & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2018. "On the optimality of diverse expert panels in persuasion games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 345-363.
    18. Doron Levit & Anton Tsoy, 2022. "A Theory of One-Size-Fits-All Recommendations," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 318-347, November.
    19. Vijay Krishna & John Morgan, 2001. "A Model of Expertise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 747-775.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Apel, Mikael & Blix Grimaldi, Marianna & Ahrenberg, Lars & Jönsson, Arne, 2026. "The effect of increased transparency on an individualistic monetary policy committee," Working Paper Series 463, Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden).
    2. Daniel Gibbs, 2023. "Individual accountability, collective decision-making," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 524-552, December.
    3. Sebastian Fehrler & Moritz Janas, 2021. "Delegation to a Group," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3714-3743, June.
    4. Debrah Meloso & Salvatore Nunnari & Marco Ottaviani, 2023. "Looking into Crystal Balls: A Laboratory Experiment on Reputational Cheap Talk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(9), pages 5112-5127, September.
    5. Balmaceda, Felipe, 2021. "Private vs. public communication: Difference of opinion and reputational concerns," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Riboni, Alessandro & Ruge-Murcia, Francisco, 2019. "Mind-changes at the FOMC," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Andina-Díaz, Ascensión & García-Martínez, José A., 2023. "Reputation and perverse transparency under two concerns," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    8. Rieder, Kilian, 2022. "Monetary policy decision-making by committee: Why, when and how it can work," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Catonini, Emiliano & Kurbatov, Andrey & Stepanov, Sergey, 2024. "Independent versus collective expertise," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 340-356.
    10. Andina-Díaz, Ascensión & García-Martínez, José A., 2025. "Garbling an evaluation to retain an advantage," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    11. Keiichi Morimoto, 2021. "Information Use and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Swank, Otto H. & Visser, Bauke, 2023. "Committees as active audiences: Reputation concerns and information acquisition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    13. De Moragas, Antoni-Italo, 2022. "Disclosing decision makers’ private interests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    14. Bandyopadhyay, Siddhartha & Deb, Moumita & Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2024. "The Swing Voter’s Curse Revisited: Transparency’s Impact on Committee Voting," Working Papers 0744, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    15. Cloléry, Héloïse, 2023. "Legislators in the crossfire: Strategic non-voting and the effect of transparency," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Liu, Yaozhou Franklin & Sanyal, Amal, 2012. "When second opinions hurt: A model of expert advice under career concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    17. Breitmoser, Yves & Valasek, Justin, 2017. "A rationale for unanimity in committees," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2017-308, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. Sebastian Fehrler & Niall Hughes, 2018. "How Transparency Kills Information Aggregation: Theory and Experiment," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 181-209, February.
    19. Klein, Nicolas & Mylovanov, Tymofiy, 2017. "Will truth out?—An advisor’s quest to appear competent," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 112-121.
    20. Hahn, Volker, 2017. "Committee design with endogenous participation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 388-408.

    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:arx:papers:2609.19771. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.