The efficient provision of public goods through non-distortionary tax contests

We use a simple balanced budget contest to collect taxes on a private good in order to ?nance a pure public good. We show that-with an appropriately chosen structure of winning probabilities-this contest can provide the public good efficiently and without distorting private consumption. We provide extensions to multiple public goods and private taxation sources, asymmetric preferences, and show the mechanism’s robustness across these settings

The Attack-and-Defense Group Contests: Best-shot versus Weakest-link

This study analyzes a group contest in which one group (defenders) follows a weakest-link whereas the other group (attackers) follows a best-shot impact function. We fully characterize the Nash and coalition-proof equilibria and show that with symmetric valuation the coalition-proof equilibrium is unique up to the permutation of the identity of the active player in the attacker group. With asymmetric valuation it is always an equilibrium for one of the highest valuation players to be active; it may also be the case that the highest valuation players in the attacker group free-ride completely on a group-member with a lower valuation. However, in any equilibrium, only one player in the attacker group is active, whereas all the players in the defender group are active and exert the same effort. We also characterize the Nash and coalition-proof equilibria for the case in which one group follows either a best-shot or a weakest-link but the other group follows an additive impact function

Prize Sharing in Collective Contests

The characteristics of endogenously determined sharing rules and the group-size paradox are studied in a model of group contest with the following features: (i) The prize has mixed private-public good characteristics. (ii) Groups can differ in marginal cost of effort and their membership size. (iii) In each group the members decide how much effort to put without observing the sharing rules of the other groups. It is shown that endogenous determination of group sharing rules completely eliminates the group-size paradox, i.e. a larger group always attains a higher winning probability than a smaller group, unless the prize is purely private. In addition, an interesting pattern of equilibrium group sharing rules is revealed: the group attaining the lower winning probability is the one choosing the rule giving higher incentives to the members.collective contest, mixed public-good prize, endogenous sharing rules, the group-size paradox

Procurement in infrastructure : what does theory tell us ?

Infrastructure has particular challenges in public procurement, because it is highly complex and customized and often requires economic, political and social considerations from a long time horizon. To deliver public infrastructure services to citizens or taxpayers, there are a series of decisions that governments have to make. The paper provides a minimum package of important economic theories that could guide governments to wise decision-making at each stage. Theory suggests that in general it would be a good option to contract out infrastructure to the private sector under high-powered incentive mechanisms, such as fixed-price contracts. However, this holds under certain conditions. Theory also shows that ownership should be aligned with the ultimate responsibility for or objective of infrastructure provision. Public and private ownership have different advantages and can deal with different problems. It is also shown that it would be a better option to integrate more than one public task (for example, investment and operation) into the same ownership, whether public or private, if they exhibit positive externalities.Public Sector Economics&Finance,Debt Markets,Infrastructure Economics,Contract Law,Transport Economics Policy&Planning

The welfare state and privatization

The “Great Capitalist Restoration” (Stanfield and Stanfield, 1996) from the 1970s/80s onward is predicated upon powerful convictions centring on economic efficiency and development, and the freedom and dignity of the individual. Indeed, so powerful are these convictions that they exude the aura of conventional wisdom. The welfare state has been, and continues to be, a prominent locus for these arguments. Yet there is some ambiguity concerning the nature of the ‘welfare state’ and what is meant by ‘privatization’. It is beyond the parameters of this chapter to furnish a comprehensive account of the complexities of this contested terrain, but nonetheless, some attempt will be made in furnishing definitions that act as entry points to the principal focus of the discussion. This relates to an aspect of the second claim noted above: dignity. Neo-liberalism embeds dignity in a particular conceptualisation of individual freedom. In this literature, as Sen (1993) observed, freedom- achievements are associated with welfare-achievements. For example, Wiseman (1991) contests that if “welfare” is identified with the “existence of caring feelings” then the market is revealed as not only the conduit to greater welfare and individual freedom, but also care and dignity. Of necessity the paper is general in nature as it endeavours to address important conceptual issues. The following section considers the analytical terrain by briefly reviewing some definitional issues. Thereafter the rationale for ‘privatization’ and recent trends in associated approaches are noted, with a contrasting social economics perspective advanced. Social economists also stress the importance of human dignity within the social provisioning process that is the economy. This has led Wisman (2003: 442) to observe that the scope of social economics encapsulates as its primary task the analysis of the requisites of “the good and just society”. Hence, in contrast to much of the underlying economic rationale for the “Great Capitalist Restoration”, or neo-liberalism, there is an explicit recognition that the Humean fault line between the positive and normative is more illusory than real. In setting out to investigate parameters of Wisman’s “good and just society” explicit recognition of human needs (O’Boyle, 2005) and the contours of “living standards” (Figart, 2007) are both necessary if not sufficient. Drawing from this literature this chapter argues that the patterns of welfare state reform, primarily through some form of privatization, are not as persuasively related to the enhancement of human dignity as its advocates suggest

Reducing Efficiency through Communication in Competitive Coordination Games

Costless pre-play communication has been found to effectively facilitate coordination and enhance efficiency by increasing individual payoffs in games with Pareto-ranked equilibria. We report an experiment in which two groups compete in a weakest-link contest by expending costly efforts. Allowing group members to communicate before choosing efforts leads to more aggressive competition and greater coordination, but also results in substantially lower payoffs than a control treatment without communication. Our experiment thus provides evidence that communication can reduce efficiency in competitive coordination games. This contrasts sharply with experimental findings from public goods and other coordination games, where communication enhances efficiency and often leads to socially optimal outcomes.Contest; Between-group Competition; Within-group Competition; Cooperation; Coordination; Free-riding; Experiments

Tendering Universal Service Obligations in Liberalized Network Industries

In the past decades, several countries have introduced reverse auctions for allocating universal service or public mission subsidies in various industries. Examples include urban transport, air transport and telecommunications. Recently, such mechanisms have also been envisioned in liberalized postal markets. Issuing an invitation to tender for obligations in otherwise liberalized markets significantly differs from auctioning off a monopolistic provision of services or goods (competition for the market), as is e.g. the case with spectrum auctions in the telecommunications sector. We discuss the rationale for introducing such a regulatory regime as well as conceptual and practical issues concerning its implementation. It turns out that designing an efficient tender for universal service subsidies in liberalized markets is considerably more difficult than tendering e.g. a monopoly franchise. A first reason is that the cost assessment is more complex in the former case as future competitive market outcomes have to be anticipated; in the case with franchise bidding, at least the number of competitors is given by the tender itself. Hence, revenue effects caused by competitors are easier to calculate. Second, the threat of a winner’s moral hazard requires more detailed ex ante regulations. These raise the social cost of universal service provision. Compared to direct designation of universal services with ex post compensation, tendering causes a series of fundamental concerns and trade-offs that make the application of auctions less attractive than in other sectors.Procurement, Tendering, Reverse Auctions, Universal Service Obligation, Liberalization, Network Industries

Self-enforcing Norms and the Efficient Non-cooperative Organization of Clans

We study how norms can solve distributional conflict inside a clan and the efficient coordination of collective action in a conflict with an external enemy.We characterize a fully non-cooperative equilibrium in a finite game in which a self-enforcing norm coordinates the members on efficient collective action and on a peaceful distribution of the returns of collective action.Free-riding, defence, collective action, distributional conflict, war, norms

Rank-order competition in the voluntary provision of impure public goods

Publicly provided goods often create differential payoffs due to timely or spatial distances of group members. We design and test a provision mechanism which utilizes rank competition to mitigate free-riding in impure public goods. In our Rank-Order Voluntary Contribution Mechanism (Rank-Order-VCM) group members compete via observable contributions for a larger share of the public good; high contributors receive preferential access (a larger share), while low contributors receive restricted access (a lower share). In a laboratory experiment Rank-Order-VCM elicits median contributions equal to the full endowment throughout the finitely played games with constant groups. In the control treatment, with randomly assigned ranks, the contributions are significantly lower and decline over time. We thus provide evidence of rank competition, in situations where discriminatory access to public goods is possible, being efficiency enhancing