IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nwu/cmsems/1290.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Sandeep Baliga
  • Tomas Sjostrom

Abstract

A principal must decide whether or not to implement a project which originated with one of her employees. The employees have private information about the quality of the project. A successfully implemented project raises the inventor's chance of promotion, at his peer's expense, but a failed project may ruin the inventor's career. If the inventor is already ahead in his career, then he may be tempted to suppress his own ideas in order not to risk a big failure. If he is not ahead, then he is instead tempted to exaggerate the quality of his ideas in order to get ahead. The peer may either try to promote the inventor's bad ideas to see him fail, or to denigrate promising ideas to stop the inventor from getting ahead. Within the class of incentive compatible and renegotiation-proof mechanisms, self-assessment (without any peer reports) is optimal. Truthtelling can be guaranteed in different ways. For example, to avoid the exaggeration effect, the inventor can be promised some chance of promotion even if his project is cancelled, or he can be paid a relatively high wage when he is not promoted. We show how the optimal method depends on the parameters.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Sandeep Baliga & Tomas Sjostrom, 1999. "Optimal Design of Peer Review and Self-Assessment Schemes," Discussion Papers 1290, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:nwu:cmsems:1290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/papers/1290.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milgrom, Paul, 1987. "Adverse Selection Without Hidden Information," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt62t1w8hf, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Myerson, Roger B., 2002. "Comparison of Scoring Rules in Poisson Voting Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, pages 219-251.
    3. Lazear, Edward P, 1989. "Pay Equality and Industrial Politics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(3), pages 561-580, June.
    4. Itoh, Hideshi, 1991. "Incentives to Help in Multi-agent Situations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 611-636, May.
    5. Bengt Holmstrom, 1981. "Moral Hazard in Teams," Discussion Papers 471, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    6. Milgrom, Paul R, 1988. "Employment Contracts, Influence Activities, and Efficient Organization Design," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, pages 42-60.
    7. Calvo, Guillermo A & Wellisz, Stanislaw, 1979. "Hierarchy, Ability, and Income Distribution," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(5), pages 991-1010, October.
    8. Prendergast, Canice & Stole, Lars, 1996. "Impetuous Youngsters and Jaded Old-Timers: Acquiring a Reputation for Learning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1105-1134, December.
    9. Carmichael, H Lorne, 1988. "Incentives in Academics: Why Is There Tenure?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(3), pages 453-472, June.
    10. Steven D. Levitt, 1995. "Optimal Incentive Schemes When Only the Agents' "Best" Output Matters to the Principal," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, pages 744-760.
    11. Elhanan Helpman, 1997. "R&D and Productivity: The International Connection," NBER Working Papers 6101, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Julio J. Rotemberg & Garth Saloner, 1995. "Overt Interfunctional Conflict (and its Reduction Through Business Strategy)," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, pages 630-653.
    13. Bengt Holmström, 1999. "Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 169-182.
    14. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
    15. Steven D. Levitt & Christopher M. Snyder, 1997. "Is No. News Bad News? Information Transmission and the Role of "Early Warning" in the Principal-Agent Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, pages 641-661.
    16. Bengt Holmstrom, 1999. "Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective," NBER Working Papers 6875, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Bengt Holmstrom, 1982. "Moral Hazard in Teams," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 324-340, Autumn.
    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. Noriyuki Yanagawa, 2008. "Biased Motivation of Experts: Should They be Aggressive or Conservative?," CARF F-Series CARF-F-133, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    2. Jonathan Treussard, 2005. "Life-Cycle Consumption Plans and Portfolio Policies in a Heath-Jarrow-Morton Economy," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2005-033, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    3. Chatterjee Kalyan & Chowdhury Avantika, 2012. "Formation of Citation Networks by Rational Players and The Diffusion of Ideas," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, pages 1-38.
    4. Carrillo, Juan D., 2003. "Job assignments as a screening device," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, pages 881-905.
    5. Jim Engle-Warnick & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2006. "Who Gets The Last Word? An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of A Peer Review Process On The Expression Of Social Norms," Departmental Working Papers 2006-11, McGill University, Department of Economics.
    6. Marx, Leslie M. & Squintani, Francesco, 2009. "Individual accountability in teams," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 260-273, October.
    7. Tamada, Yasunari & Tsai, Tsung-Sheng, 2007. "Optimal organization in a sequential investment problem with the principal's cancellation option," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, pages 631-641.
    8. Johnson, Justin P., 2006. "Collaboration, peer review and open source software," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 477-497, November.
    9. Gromb, Denis & Martimort, David, 2007. "Collusion and the organization of delegated expertise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 271-299, November.
    10. Dilip Mookherjee, 2006. "Decentralization, Hierarchies, and Incentives: A Mechanism Design Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(2), pages 367-390, June.
    11. Tamada, Yasunari & Tsai, Tsung-Sheng, 2014. "Delegating the decision-making authority to terminate a sequential project," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 178-194.
    12. Andreas Roider, 2006. "Delegation of Authority as an Optimal (In)Complete Contract," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 162(3), pages 391-411, September.
    13. Andreas Roider, 2006. "Delegation of Authority as an Optimal (In)Complete Contract," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 162(3), pages 391-411, September.
    14. Noriyuki Yanagawa, 2008. "Biased Motivation of Experts: Should They be Aggressive or Conservative?," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-585, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.

    More about this item

    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:nwu:cmsems:1290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fran Walker). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cmnwuus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.