Let the Experts Decide? Asymmetric Information, Abstention, and Coordination in Standing Committees

We examine abstention when voters in standing committees are asymmetrically informed and there are multiple pure strategy equilibria-swing voter's curse (SVC) equilibria where voters with low quality information abstain and equilibria when all participants vote their information. When the asymmetry in information quality is large, we find that voting groups largely coordinate on the SVC equilibrium which is also Pareto Optimal. However, we find that when the asymmetry in information quality is not large and the Pareto Optimal equilibrium is for all to participate, significant numbers of voters with low quality information abstain. Furthermore, we find that information asymmetry induces voters with low quality information to coordinate on a non-equilibrium outcome. This suggests that coordination on "letting the experts" decide is a likely voting norm that sometimes validates SVC equilibrium predictions but other times does not.

Ignorance Is Bliss: Matching in Auctions with an Uninformed Seller

In many auctions, matching between the bidder and seller raises the value of the contract for both parties. However, information about the quality of the match may be incomplete. We consider the case in which each bidder observes the quality of his match with the seller but the seller does not observe the quality of his matches with the bidders. Our objective is to determine whether it is in the seller's interest to observe the matches before selecting the winner. It is shown that the seller’s value for the information may be negative: the seller’s knowledge of the matches generates an asymmetry across bidders which depresses bids. The more matching matters, the greater the penalty associated with observing the matches.Asymmetries, Auctions, Auction Theory, Bidding, Information Revelation, Matching, Signaling

Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter?

We analyze how a larger presence of female evaluators affects committee decision-making using information on 100,000 applications to associate and full professorships in Italy and Spain. These applications were assessed by 8,000 randomly selected evaluators. A larger number of women in evaluation committees does not increase either the quantity or the quality of female candidates who qualify. Information from individual voting reports suggests that female evaluators are not significantly more favorable toward female candidates. At the same time, male evaluators become less favorable toward female candidates as soon as a female evaluator joins the committee

Does information on quality affect patients’ choice of health care provider?

A condition for patient choice in health care to promote quality is that patients act in accordance with information about quality and change to better care providers. In this paper I examine the relation between quality information and patient choice of care provider in the primary care of the county Scania in Sweden. As a natural experiment I use a quality-related award given to the best health care center in Scania. The award can be understood as an exogenous information shock. To estimate the effect from the award I reproduce the counterfactual situation with no information shock by using the synthetic control method. The results show that there is no significant effect from the information shock on the number of listed patients for the award-winning care provider. Therefore improved availability of information on quality seems to have limited effect on patients’ choice of care provider. This suggests that the information-mechanism in the quasi-markets for primary care is not functioning properly, which implies that the incentives for care providers to improve quality are weak

Irrationality or efficiency of macroeconomic survey forecasts? Implications from the anchoring bias test

We analyze the quality of macroeconomic survey forecasts. Recent findings indicate that they are anchoring biased. This irrationality would challenge the results of a wide range of empirical studies, e.g., in asset pricing, volatility clustering or market liquidity, which rely on survey data to capture market participants' expectations. We contribute to the existing literature in two ways. First, we show that the cognitive bias is a statistical artifact. Despite highly significant anchoring coefficients a bias adjustment does not improve forecasts' quality. To explain this counterintuitive result we take a closer look at macroeconomic analysts' information processing abilities. We find that analysts benefit from the use of an extensive information set, neglected in the anchoring bias test. Exactly this information advantage drives the misleading anchoring bias test results. Second, we find that the superior information aggregation capabilities enable analysts to easily outperform sophisticated timeseries forecasts and therefore survey forecasts should clearly be favored. --macroeconomic announcements,efficiency of forecasts,anchoring bias,rationality of analysts

The Miracle of Peer Review and Development in Science: An Agent-Based Model

It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is no risk in submitting low-quality work by authors. As a result, scientists face a social dilemma: if everyone acts according to his or her own self-interest, low scientific quality is produced. Still, in practice, reviewers as well as authors invest high effort in reviews and submissions. We examine how the increased relevance of public good benefits (journal impact factor), the editorial policy of handling incoming reviews, and the acceptance decisions that take into account reputational information can help the evolution of high-quality contributions from authors. High effort from the side of reviewers is problematic even if authors cooperate: reviewers are still best off by producing low-quality reviews, which does not hinder scientific development, just adds random noise and unnecessary costs to it. We show with agent-based simulations that tacit agreements between authors that are based on reciprocity might decrease these costs, but does not result in superior scientific quality. Our study underlines why certain self-emerged current practices, such as the increased importance of journal metrics, the reputation-based selection of reviewers, and the reputation bias in acceptance work efficiently for scientific development. Our results find no answers, however, how the system of peer review with impartial and thorough evaluations could be sustainable jointly with rapid scientific development.Comment: Submitted to Scientometric

Who Should Pay for Certification?

Who does, and who should initiate costly certification by a third party under asymmetric quality information, the buyer or the seller? Our answer - the seller - follows from a nontrivial analysis revealing a clear intuition. Buyer-induced certification acts as an inspection device, seller-induced certification as a signalling device. Seller-induced certification maximizes the certifier’s profit and social welfare. This suggests the general principle that certification is, and should be induced by the better informed party. The results are reflected in a case study from the automotive industry, but apply also to other markets - in particular the financial market.asymmetric information, certification, information acquisition, inspection, lemons, middlemen, signaling

How to Promote Quality Perception in Wine Markets: Brand Advertising or Geographic Indication?

In the context of the wine industry, we investigate producers' choice between geographic indications and brand advertising to convey information to consumers. Producers also decide whether or not to select an effort level for improving the quality of their products. We show that if this effort is selected, a producer will prefer to rely on brand advertising for promoting its products and set up its own reputation. Despite the sharing of the promotion cost, a geographic indication does not sufficiently reward the effort for improving quality. Finally, the selection of both instruments by producers is examined.Marketing,

BANKS, GROWTH AND GEOGRAPHY

This paper presents a general equilibrium endogenous growth model, in which financial intermediaries evaluate the quality of projects, mobilize savings to finance the most promising ones and diversify risk. Information technology available to banks is linked to geographic proximity. This evaluation capacity increases the proportion of high-return projects being financed, and thereby accelerates economic growth. This positive effect does not depend on the degree of individuals´ risk aversion.

Who Should Pay for Certification?

Who does, and who should initiate costly certification by a third party under asymmetric quality information, the buyer or the seller? Our answer — the seller — follows from a non–trivial analysis revealing a clear intuition. Buyer–induced certification acts as an inspection device, whence seller–induced certification acts as a signalling device. Seller–induced certification maximizes the certifier’s profit and social welfare. This suggests the general principle that certification is, and should be induced by the better informed party. The results are reflected in a case study from the automotive industry, but apply also to other markets – in particular the financial market