Abstract
A principal must decide whether or not to implement a project that originated with one of her employees. Several employees have 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 ruins the inventor's career. An employee who has a relatively good reputation (and therefore is happy with the status quo) must be encouraged to promote new ideas. An employee who has a relatively bad reputation (and therefore wants to change the status quo) must be prevented from exaggerating the quality of new ideas. We study incentive-compatible and renegotiation-proof mechanisms, and we find that self-assessment (without any peer reports) is optimal.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 27-51 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Journal | RAND Journal of Economics |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2001 |
| Externally published | Yes |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Economics and Econometrics
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Optimal design of peer review and self-assessment schemes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver