Entry regulations and optimal prize allocation in parallel contests

In parallel contests, the contest organizer controls the entry of heterogeneous contestants by regulating access to the contests and determining the prize allocation across contests. The organizer can prevent a contestant from entering more than one contest. I show that the organizer allows entry to multiple contests and uniquely sets identical prizes across contests to maximize aggregate effort in all contests. Independent of the entry regulation, I find no sorting effects. Thus, a contest with a relatively high prize does not necessarily attract contestants with higher abilities. Furthermore, I discover interesting spillover effects of prizes between contests in the case of restricted entry regulations. For instance, the individual (aggregate) effort increases (decreases) in a contest if the prize in another contest increases. The endogeneity of contestants’ participation drives many of these results.

Optimal prize allocations in group contests

We characterize the optimal prize allocation, namely the allocation that maximizes a group’s effectiveness, in a model of contests. The model has the following features: (i) it allows for heterogeneity between and within groups; (ii) it classifies contests as “easy” and “hard” depending on whether the marginal costs are concave or convex. Thus, we show that in an “easy” contest the optimal prize allocation assigns the entire prize to one group member, the most skilled one. Conversely, all group members receive a positive share of the prize when the contest is “hard” and players have unbounded above marginal productivities. If the contest is “hard” and the marginal productivities are bounded above, then only the most skilled group members are certain of receiving a positive share of the prize for any distribution of abilities. Finally, we study the effects of a change in the distribution of abilities within a group. Our analysis shows that if the contest is either “easy” or a particular subset of “hard”, then the more the heterogeneity within a group, the higher its probability of winning the prize.

Contests: Theory and Topics

Competitive situations resembling contests are ubiquitous in modern economic landscape. In a contest, economic agents expend costly effort to vie for limited prizes, and they are rewarded for “getting ahead” of their opponents instead of their absolute performance metrics. Many social, economic, and business phenomena exemplify such competitive schemes, ranging from college admissions, political campaigns, advertising, and organizational hierarchies, to warfare. The economics literature has long recognized contest/tournament as a convenient and efficient incentive scheme to remedy the moral hazard problem, especially when the production process is subject to random perturbation or the measurement of input/output is imprecise or costly. An enormous amount of scholarly effort has been devoted to developing tractable theoretical models, unveiling the fundamentals of the strategic interactions that underlie such competitions, and exploring the optimal design of contest rules. This voluminous literature has enriched basic contest/tournament models by introducing different variations to the modeling, such as dynamic structure, incomplete and asymmetric information, multi-battle confrontations, sorting and entry, endogenous prize allocation, competitions in groups, contestants with alternative risk attitude, among other things.

Contingent Prize Allocation and Pivotal Voting

Parties can elitcit widespread electoral support by making the distribution of prizes or rewards to groups of voters contingent upon electoral support. In addition to altering which party wins, a voter's choice also influences the distribution of prizes. This latter factor, referred to in this article as prize pivotalness, tends to be the dominant influence in vote choice. The desire to win prizes can induce voters to coalesce into a highly supportive group, even if they dislike the party's policies. Characterizing voting equilibria in this framework explains the rationale for the support of patronage parties, variance in voter turnout and the endogenous political polarization of groups in both established and new democracies.