Search results

Investors implement projects based on idiosyncratic signal observations, without knowing how signals and returns are jointly distributed. The following heuristic is studied: investors collect information on previously implemented projects with the same signal realization, and invest if the associated mean return exceeds the cost. The corresponding steady states result in suboptimal investments, due to selection bias and the heterogeneity of signals across investors. When higher signals are associated with higher returns, investors are overoptimistic, resulting in overinvestment. Rational investors increase the overoptimism of sampling investors, thereby illustrating a negative externality imposed by rational investors. (JEL D82, G11, G31, L26, M13)

Successive welfare-maximizing governments must decide whether to implement an affirmative action policy. This affirmative action policy is purported to improve the performance distribution of a targeted group (minority or otherwise), although this improvement becomes trivial when the policy is implemented over a long period of time. Employers pay workers according to their expected productivity, but without (perfectly) observing whether they benefited from affirmative action or not. This has a depressing effect on the wages of non-beneficiaries (whether or not they belong to the targeted group), leading in turn to a feeling of injustice. We find that governments perpetually choose to implement an affirmative action policy, even though the overall feeling of injustice is worse than the purported beneficial effect on the performance of the targeted group (which becomes marginal over time). The explanation we propose is based on a novel moral hazard argument: Each government's actual policy decision is not (perfectly) observed by market participants and thus has no direct effect on wages. Governments therefore do not internalize the depressing effect of an affirmative action policy on wages when choosing to implement it. This outcome is in contrast with a first-best, welfare-maximizing policy plan, in which governments choose to end affirmative action after a certain number of periods, when the purported improvement in the performance distribution of the targeted group becomes small enough.

Successive governments must decide whether to implement an affirmative action policy aimed at improving the performance distribution of the next generation of a targeted group. Workers receive wages corresponding to their expected performance, suffer a feeling of injustice when getting less than their performance, and employers do not (perfectly) observe whether workers benefited from affirmative action. We find that welfare-maximizing governments choose to implement affirmative action perpetually, despite the resulting feeling of injustice that eventually dominates the purported beneficial effect on the performance of the targeted group. This is in contrast with the first-best that requires affirmative action to be temporary.

Successive welfare-maximizing governments must decide whether to implement an affirmative action policy. This affirmative action policy is purported to improve the performance distribution of a targeted group (minority or otherwise), although this improvement becomes trivial when the policy is implemented over a long period of time. Employers pay workers according to their expected productivity, but without (perfectly) observing whether they benefited from affirmative action or not. This has a depressing effect on the wages of non-beneficiaries (whether or not they belong to the targeted group), leading in turn to a feeling of injustice. We find that governments perpetually choose to implement an affirmative action policy, even though the overall feeling of injustice is worse than the purported beneficial effect on the performance of the targeted group (which becomes marginal over time). The explanation we propose is based on a novel moral hazard argument: Each government's actual policy decision is not (perfectly) observed by market participants and thus has no direct effect on wages. Governments therefore do not internalize the depressing effect of an affirmative action policy on wages when choosing to implement it. This outcome is in contrast with a first-best, welfare-maximizing policy plan, in which governments choose to end affirmative action after a certain number of periods, when the purported improvement in the performance distribution of the targeted group becomes small enough.

Successive welfare-maximizing governments must decide whether to implement an affirmative action policy. This affirmative action policy is purported to improve the performance distribution of a targeted group (minority or otherwise), although this improvement becomes trivial when the policy is implemented over a long period of time. Employers pay workers according to their expected productivity, but without (perfectly) observing whether they benefited from affirmative action or not. This has a depressing effect on the wages of non-beneficiaries (whether or not they belong to the targeted group), leading in turn to a feeling of injustice. We find that governments perpetually choose to implement an affirmative action policy, even though the overall feeling of injustice is worse than the purported beneficial effect on the performance of the targeted group (which becomes marginal over time). The explanation we propose is based on a novel moral hazard argument: Each government's actual policy decision is not (perfectly) observed by market participants and thus has no direct effect on wages. Governments therefore do not internalize the depressing effect of an affirmative action policy on wages when choosing to implement it. This outcome is in contrast with a first-best, welfare-maximizing policy plan, in which governments choose to end affirmative action after a certain number of periods, when the purported improvement in the performance distribution of the targeted group becomes small enough.

Successive welfare-maximizing governments must decide whether to implement an affirmative action policy. This affirmative action policy is purported to improve the performance distribution of a targeted group (minority or otherwise), although this improvement becomes trivial when the policy is implemented over a long period of time. Employers pay workers according to their expected productivity, but without (perfectly) observing whether they benefited from affirmative action or not. This has a depressing effect on the wages of non-beneficiaries (whether or not they belong to the targeted group), leading in turn to a feeling of injustice. We find that governments perpetually choose to implement an affirmative action policy, even though the overall feeling of injustice is worse than the purported beneficial effect on the performance of the targeted group (which becomes marginal over time). The explanation we propose is based on a novel moral hazard argument: Each government's actual policy decision is not (perfectly) observed by market participants and thus has no direct effect on wages. Governments therefore do not internalize the depressing effect of an affirmative action policy on wages when choosing to implement it. This outcome is in contrast with a first-best, welfare-maximizing policy plan, in which governments choose to end affirmative action after a certain number of periods, when the purported improvement in the performance distribution of the targeted group becomes small enough.

Successive welfare-maximizing governments must decide whether to implement an affirmative action policy. This affirmative action policy is purported to improve the performance distribution of a targeted group (minority or otherwise), although this improvement becomes trivial when the policy is implemented over a long period of time. Employers pay workers according to their expected productivity, but without (perfectly) observing whether they benefited from affirmative action or not. This has a depressing effect on the wages of non-beneficiaries (whether or not they belong to the targeted group), leading in turn to a feeling of injustice. We find that governments perpetually choose to implement an affirmative action policy, even though the overall feeling of injustice is worse than the purported beneficial effect on the performance of the targeted group (which becomes marginal over time). The explanation we propose is based on a novel moral hazard argument: Each government's actual policy decision is not (perfectly) observed by market participants and thus has no direct effect on wages. Governments therefore do not internalize the depressing effect of an affirmative action policy on wages when choosing to implement it. This outcome is in contrast with a first-best, welfare-maximizing policy plan, in which governments choose to end affirmative action after a certain number of periods, when the purported improvement in the performance distribution of the targeted group becomes small enough.

AbstractA memoryless agent can acquire arbitrarily many signals. After each signal observation, she either terminates and chooses an action, or she discards her observation and draws a new signal. By conditioning the probability of termination on the information collected, she controls the correlation between the payoff state and her terminal action. We provide an optimality condition for the emerging stochastic choice. The condition highlights the benefits of selective memory applied to the extracted signals. Implications—obtained in simple examples—include (i) confirmation bias, (ii) speed-accuracy complementarity, (iii) overweighting of rare events, and (iv) salience effect.

Set-asides programs consist in forbidding access to specific participants, and they are commonly used in procurement auctions. We show that when the set of potential participants is composed of an incumbent (who bids for sure if allowed to) and of entrants who show up endogenously (in such a way that their expected rents are fixed by outside options), then it is always beneficial for revenues to exclude the incumbent in the second-price auction. This exclusion principle is generalized to auction formats that favor the incumbent in the sense that he would always gets the good when he values it most. By contrast, set-asides need not be desirable if the incumbent's payoff is included into the seller's objective or in environments with multiple incumbents. Various applications are discussed.

Set-asides programs consist in forbidding access to specific participants, and they are commonly used in procurement auctions. We show that when the set of potential participants is composed of an incumbent (who bids for sure if allowed to) and of entrants who show up endogenously (in such a way that their expected rents are fixed by outside options), then it is always beneficial for revenues to exclude the incumbent in the second-price auction. This exclusion principle is generalized to auction formats that favor the incumbent in the sense that he would always gets the good when he values it most. By contrast, set-asides need not be desirable if the incumbent's payoff is included into the seller's objective or in environments with multiple incumbents. Various applications are discussed.

Set-asides programs consist in forbidding access to specific participants, and they are commonly used in procurement auctions. We show that when the set of potential participants is composed of an incumbent (who bids for sure if allowed to) and of entrants who show up endogenously (in such a way that their expected rents are fixed by outside options), then it is always beneficial for revenues to exclude the incumbent in the second-price auction. This exclusion principle is generalized to auction formats that favor the incumbent in the sense that he would always gets the good when he values it most. By contrast, set-asides need not be desirable if the incumbent's payoff is included into the seller's objective or in environments with multiple incumbents. Various applications are discussed.

Set-asides programs consist in forbidding access to specific participants, and they are commonly used in procurement auctions. We show that when the set of potential participants is composed of an incumbent (who bids for sure if allowed to) and of entrants who show up endogenously (in such a way that their expected rents are fixed by outside options), then it is always beneficial for revenues to exclude the incumbent in the second-price auction. This exclusion principle is generalized to auction formats that favor the incumbent in the sense that he would always gets the good when he values it most. By contrast, set-asides need not be desirable if the incumbent's payoff is included into the seller's objective or in environments with multiple incumbents. Various applications are discussed.