Campaign Advertising and Voter Welfare

This paper investigates the role of campaign advertising and the opportunity of legal restrictions on it. An electoral race is modeled as a signalling game with three classes of players: a continuum of voters, two candidates, and one interest group. The group has non-verifiable insider information on the candidates' valence and, on the basis of this information, offers a contribution to each candidate in exchange for a favorable policy position. Candidates spend the contributions they receive on non-directly informative advertising. This paper shows that: (1) A separating equilibrium exists in which the group contributes to a candidate only if the insider information about that candidate is positive; (2) Although voters are fully rational, a ban on campaign advertising can be welfare-improving; and (3) Split contributions may arise in equilibrium (and should be prohibited).Elections;campaign contributions;advertising;voter welfare;split contributions

Sequential Common Agency

In a common agency game a set of principals promises monetary transfers to an agent which depend on the action he will take. The agent then chooses the action, and is paid the corresponding transfers. Principals announce their transfers simultaneously. This game has many equilibria; Bernheim and Whinston ([1]) prove that the action chosen in the coalition-proof equilibrium is e±cient. The coalition-proof equilibria have an alternative characterization as truthful equilibria. The other equilibria may be inefficient. Here we study the sequential formulation of the common agency game: principals announce their transfers sequentially. We prove that the set of equilibria is different in many important ways. The outcome is efficient in all the equilibria. The truthful equilibria still exist, but are no longer coalition-proof. Focal equilibria are now a different type of equilibria, that we call thrifty. In thrifty equilibria of the sequential games, principals are better off (and the agent worse off) than in the truthful equilibria of the simultaneous common agency. These results suggest that the sequential game is more desirable institution, because it does not have ine±cient equilibrium outcomes; but it is less likely to emerge when agents have the power to design the institution.Common agency;sequential games;principal agent games;political influence

Common Agency and Computational Complexity: Theory and Experimental Evidence

In a common agency game, several principals try to influence the behavior of an agent. Common agency games typically have multiple equilibria. One class of equilibria, called truthful, has been identified by Bernheim and Whinston and has found widespread use in the political economy literature. In this paper we identify another class of equilibria, which we call natural. In a natural equilibrium, each principal offers a strictly positive contribution on at most one alternative. We show that a natural equilibrium always exists and that its computational complexity is much smaller than that of a truthful equilibrium. To compare the predictive power of the two concepts, we run an experiment on a common agency game for which the two equilibria predict a different equilibrium alternative. The results strongly reject the truthful equilibrium. The alternative predicted by the natural equilibrium is chosen in 65% of the matches, while the one predicted by the truthful equilibrium is chosen in less than 5% of the matches.lobbying;experimental economics;common agency;truthful equilibrium;natural equilibrium;computational complexity

Mutual Fund Tournament: Risk Taking Incentives Induced by Ranking Objectives

There is now extensive empirical evidence showing that fund managers have relative performance objectives and adapt their investment strategy in the last part of the calendar year to their performance in the early part of the year. However, emphasis was put on returns in excess of some exogenous benchmark return.In this paper, we investigate whether fund managers have ranking objectives (as in a tournament).First, in a two-period model, we analyze the game played by two risk-neutral fund managers with ranking objectives.We derive conditions on the set of possible strategies under which the aggregate amount of risk undertaken in the late period is larger than in the first period.In the second part of the paper, we provide evidence that (i) funds have risk incentives generated by ranking objectives, (ii) risk induced by ranking objectives is mainly idiosyncratic, and (iii) risk incentives generated by ranking objectives are stronger for funds ranked in the top decile after the first part of the year.investment trusts;financial management;financial risk;performance

Sequential Common Agency

In a common agency game a set of principals promises monetary transfers to an agent which depend on the action he will take. The agent then chooses the action, and is paid the corresponding transfers. Principals announce their transfers simultaneously. This game has many equilibria; Bernheim and Whinston ([1]) prove that the action chosen in the coalition-proof equilibrium is e±cient. The coalition-proof equilibria have an alternative characterization as truthful equilibria. The other equilibria may be inefficient. Here we study the sequential formulation of the common agency game: principals announce their transfers sequentially. We prove that the set of equilibria is different in many important ways. The outcome is efficient in all the equilibria. The truthful equilibria still exist, but are no longer coalition-proof. Focal equilibria are now a different type of equilibria, that we call thrifty. In thrifty equilibria of the sequential games, principals are better off (and the agent worse off) than in the truthful equilibria of the simultaneous common agency. These results suggest that the sequential game is more desirable institution, because it does not have ine±cient equilibrium outcomes; but it is less likely to emerge when agents have the power to design the institution