Effort and Performance in Public-Policy Contests



winning probability of a contestant in equilibrium is positively (negatively) related to
his rival’s effort, his strategic substitution effect is positive (negative). Following
Bulow, Geanakoplos and Klemprer (1985), in such a case we say that a contestant’s
effort is a strategic complement (substitute) to his rival’s effort. When the cross-
partial derivative of the contest success function is equal to zero the contestants’
efforts are independent. Note that, by (2), in our setting the strategic substitution
effects are asymmetric; if a player’s effort is a strategic complement to his opponent’s
effort, then his opponent’s effort is a strategic substitute to his effort.

In the symmetric case where, xH and xL, PrH (xL,xH) = 1 - PrH (xH ,xL), there

exists a pure strategy Nash equilibrium, such that x*Hx *L and, in equilibrium,

Sign (


2PrH

xHxL


) = Sign (


x*H -x *L ) > 0 , which implies that


2PrL
xLxH


< 0 . Hence,


by Corollary 1.1,

Corollary 1.2: If, xH and xL, PrH (xL,xH) = 1 - PrH (xH ,xL), then

**

xH      ∂xL

------> 0, -----

nH       ∂nL


∂ x * H
nL


> 0 and


d0 .


nH


This second corollary generalizes the result obtained by Nti (1999) where Pri is
assumed to take the particular symmetric logit form, as in Tullock (1980),
r
xi

Pri(xi, xj)=—r------, I = L, H. In this special case of symmetric lobbying abilities

xi r + x r
ij

of the contestants, the HB player can be referred to as the favored player and the LB
player can be referred to as the underdog, see Dixit (1987). Corollary 1.2 establishes
that effort of the favored player increases with both his own stake (valuation of the
contested prize) and with the stake (prize) valuation) of the underdog. Effort of the
underdog increases with his stake (prize valuation), but decreases with the stake (prize
valuation) of the favored player.

Another more general asymmetric form of the logit contest success function is:

PrH =----σh(xH )----, where σ > 0, h(0) 0 and h(xi) is increasing in x i 10, see

σh(xH)+h(xL)

10


In this special case we keep the assumption that a contestant’s marginal winning probability is

13



More intriguing information

1. Poverty transition through targeted programme: the case of Bangladesh Poultry Model
2. The name is absent
3. Can we design a market for competitive health insurance? CHERE Discussion Paper No 53
4. The name is absent
5. Expectation Formation and Endogenous Fluctuations in Aggregate Demand
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Multi-Agent System Interaction in Integrated SCM
9. The name is absent
10. Critical Race Theory and Education: Racism and antiracism in educational theory and praxis David Gillborn*
11. The name is absent
12. Lending to Agribusinesses in Zambia
13. BILL 187 - THE AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT: A SPECIAL REPORT
14. The name is absent
15. Strategic monetary policy in a monetary union with non-atomistic wage setters
16. The name is absent
17. Retirement and the Poverty of the Elderly in Portugal
18. Intertemporal Risk Management Decisions of Farmers under Preference, Market, and Policy Dynamics
19. Pass-through of external shocks along the pricing chain: A panel estimation approach for the euro area
20. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES