IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp10844.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Checchi, Daniele

    (University of Milan)

  • De Poli, Silvia

    (FBK-IRVAPP)

  • Rettore, Enrico

    (University of Padova)

Abstract

We study a reform occurred in Italy in 2008 in the formation of selection committees for qualifying as university professor. Prior to the reform members of the selection committees were elected by their peers, after the reform they have been randomly drawn. This policy was intended to increase the equality of opportunities of candidates via a reduction of the role played by connections to commissioners. 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 commissioner without significantly raising the impact of scientific quality of candidates on the outcome of competitions. We also find that candidates internalised the changed environment and adapted their strategy of application.

Suggested Citation

  • Checchi, Daniele & De Poli, Silvia & Rettore, Enrico, 2017. "Does Random Selection of Commissioners Improve the Quality of Selected Candidates? An Investigation in the Italian Academia," IZA Discussion Papers 10844, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp10844
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp10844.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Checchi & Gianni De Fraja & Stefano Verzillo, 2014. "Publish or Perish? Incentives and Careers in Italian Academia," CEIS Research Paper 323, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 07 Aug 2014.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Godechot, Olivier, 2014. "The chance of influence: A natural experiment on the role of social capital in academic hiring," MaxPo Discussion Paper Series 14/1, Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo).
    5. 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.
    6. Perotti, Roberto & Labartino, Giovanna, 2011. "Academic Dynasties: Decentralization and Familism in the Italian Academia," CEPR Discussion Papers 8645, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2014. "Do gender quotas pass the test ? Evidence from academic evaluations in Italy," LEM Papers Series 2014/14, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/37ufknmfv39tppkbjb4dmidnqe is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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)

    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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Bao, Zhengyang & Huang, Difang, 2024. "Gender-specific favoritism in science," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 94-109.
    5. D. Checchi & S. Cicognani & N. Kulic, 2015. "Gender quotas or girls networks? Towards an understanding of recruitment in the research profession in Italy," Working Papers wp1047, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Paul Heidhues & Botond KH{o}szegi & Philipp Strack, 2019. "Overconfidence and Prejudice," Papers 1909.08497, arXiv.org.
    10. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    11. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo, 2016. "Field Experiments on Discrimination," NBER Working Papers 22014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Working Papers hal-03393117, HAL.
    14. 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.
    15. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Francesco Rosati, 2016. "The north–south divide in the Italian higher education system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2093-2117, December.
    16. 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.
    17. repec:cte:idrepe:id-12-02 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger, 2015. "A flexible bibliometric approach for the assessment of professorial appointments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1699-1719, December.
    19. Ricardo Estrada, 2019. "Rules versus Discretion in Public Service: Teacher Hiring in Mexico," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 545-579.
    20. Daniele Checchi & Gianni De Fraja & Stefano Verzillo, 2014. "Publish or Perish: An Analysis of the Academic Job Market in Italy," Discussion Papers 14/04, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    negotiation; incentives; university recruitment; formal procedures;
    All these 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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp10844. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.