IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper



  • Marco Ottaviani


The paper develops a foundational model of the decentralized allocation of subsidies through competitive grantmaking. Casting the problem in a simple supply and demand framework, we characterize the equilibrium acceptance standard and applications. The equilibrium success rate (grants over applications) decreases in the budget, consistent with some recent evidence, if and only if the distribution of types has decreasing hazard rate. In all stable equilibria resulting when funds are allocated across fields proportionally to applications—as well as under apportionment rules in a general class characterized in the paper—an increase in noise in the evaluation in a field perversely raises applications in that field and reduces applications in all the other fields. We characterize how the design of allocation rules can be modified to improve welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Ottaviani, 2020. "Grantmaking," Working Papers 672, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
  • Handle: RePEc:igi:igierp:672

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S Graff Zivin & Danielle Li & Bhaven N Sampat, 2019. "Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 117-152.
    3. George A. Akerlof, 2020. "Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(2), pages 405-418, June.
    4. Weinstein, Milton & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1973. "Critical ratios and efficient allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 147-157, April.
    5. Kevin Gross & Carl T Bergstrom, 2019. "Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. C. S. Peirce, 1967. "Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 643-648, August.
    7. Cullen, Julie Berry & Long, Mark C. & Reback, Randall, 2013. "Jockeying for position: Strategic high school choice under Texas' top ten percent plan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 32-48.
    8. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    9. Christopher Cotton, 2013. "Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 501-509, February.
    10. Curtis R. Taylor & Huseyin Yildirim, 2011. "Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(2), pages 762-794.
    11. O'Keeffe, Mary & Viscusi, W Kip & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1984. "Economic Contests: Comparative Reward Schemes," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 27-56, January.
    12. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    13. Ted von Hippel & Courtney von Hippel, 2015. "To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-8, March.
    14. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    16. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Raphael Boleslavsky & Bruce Carlin & Christopher Cotton, 2021. "A Model of Challenge Funds: How Funding Availability and Selection Rigor Affect Project Quality," Working Paper 1470, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    2. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Benjamin F. Jones & Lawrence H. Summers, 2020. "A Calculation of the Social Returns to Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 13-59, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Jacqueline N. Lane & Misha Teplitskiy & Gary Gray & Hardeep Ranu & Michael Menietti & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2022. "Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4478-4495, June.
    9. Howell, Sabrina T. & Rathje, Jason & Van Reenen, John & Wong, Jun, 2021. "Opening up Military Innovation: Causal Effects of 'Bottom-up' Reforms to U.S. Defense Research," IZA Discussion Papers 14297, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Van Reenen, John & Howell, Sabrina T. & Rathje, Jason & Wong, Jun, 2021. "Opening up military innovation: causal effects of reforms to US defense research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Jin, Xin, 2014. "The Signaling Role of Note Being Promoted: Theory and Evidence," MPRA Paper 58484, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Waldman, Michael, 2013. "Classic promotion tournaments versus market-based tournaments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 198-210.
    13. Pietro Santoleri & Andrea Mina & Alberto Di Minin & Irene Martelli, 2020. "The causal effects of R&D grants: evidence from a regression discontinuity," LEM Papers Series 2020/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Pierre Fleckinger & Matthieu Glachant & Gabrielle Moineville, 2017. "Incentives for Quality in Friendly and Hostile Informational Environments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 242-274, February.
    15. Laurent Franckx & Isabelle Brose, 2004. "A theoretical framework for incentives in the public sector," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8.
    16. Dato, Simon & Grunewald, Andreas & Kräkel, Matthias & Müller, Daniel, 2016. "Asymmetric employer information, promotions, and the wage policy of firms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 273-300.
    17. Andrei Barbos, 2014. "Imperfect evaluation in project screening," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 31-46, May.
    18. Edward P. Lazear, 1995. "Personnel Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121883, December.
    19. Michael Geruso & Timothy J. Layton & Grace McCormack & Mark Shepard, 2023. "The Two-Margin Problem in Insurance Markets," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 237-257, March.
    20. Matthias Kräkel, 2014. "Optimal seedings in elimination tournaments revisited," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 2(1), pages 77-91, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • H81 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Governmental Loans; Loan Guarantees; Credits; Grants; Bailouts

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:igi:igierp:672. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.