IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v14y2023i3p48-d1170125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Contest Design When Policing Damaging Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Scott M. Gilpatric

    (Haslam College of Business, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Ye Hong

    (Department of Economics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

Abstract

We consider the design of a contest in which the prize may motivate not only productive efforts, but also some damaging aggressive behavior by contestants. The organizer must choose prizes and an enforcement regime defined as a limit on how much aggressiveness will be tolerated and the probability of inspection. When the value of contestants’ output is low, it may be optimal to motivate much less effort than first best because the prize spread necessary to induce higher effort necessitates a high level of enforcement, which is not worth the cost. On the other hand, when the output value is sufficiently high, it becomes optimal to offer a high prize spread to motivate substantial but still below first-best effort, with costly enforcement then being employed to constrain damaging aggressive behavior. Additionally, a less accurate inspection technology is associated with a tighter limit on aggressive behavior, and “zero tolerance” can be optimal if the aggressive behavior has no value.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott M. Gilpatric & Ye Hong, 2023. "Optimal Contest Design When Policing Damaging Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:14:y:2023:i:3:p:48-:d:1170125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/3/48/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/3/48/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1992. "Monitoring vis-a-vis Investigation in Enforcement of Law," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 556-565, June.
    2. Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1994. "Marginal Deterrence in Enforcement of Law," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1039-1066, October.
    3. Scott M. Gilpatric, 2011. "Cheating In Contests," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(4), pages 1042-1053, October.
    4. Scott M. Gilpatric & Cristina M. Reiser, 2017. "Why Zero Tolerance Of Misconduct Is Undesirable In Contests," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 1145-1160, April.
    5. Konrad, Kai A., 2005. "Tournaments and Multiple Productive Inputs: The Case of Performance Enhancing Drugs," IZA Discussion Papers 1844, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Shavell, Steven, 1992. "A note on marginal deterrence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 345-355, September.
    7. Berentsen, Aleksander, 2002. "The economics of doping," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 109-127, March.
    8. Friedman, David & Sjostrom, William, 1993. "Hanged for a Sheep--The Economics of Marginal Deterrence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 345-366, June.
    9. Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
    10. Wilde, Louis L., 1992. "Criminal choice, nonmonetary sanctions and marginal deterrence: A normative analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 333-344, September.
    11. Kasim Music, 2020. "The Undesirable Consequences of Doping Regulations: Why Stricter Efforts Might Strengthen Doping Incentives," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 21(3), pages 281-303, April.
    12. Vijay Mohan & Bharat Hazari, 2016. "Cheating in Contests," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(7), pages 736-747, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laurent Franckx, 2004. "Marginal Deterrence Through Ambient Environmental Inspections," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 51(4), pages 507-527, September.
    2. Rosario Crino & Giovanni Immordino & Gülen Karakoç-Palminteri & Salvatore Piccolo, 2018. "Fighting Mobile Crime," CSEF Working Papers 504, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    3. Crinò, Rosario & Immordino, Giovanni & Piccolo, Salvatore, 2019. "Marginal deterrence at work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 586-612.
    4. Alexander Klein, 2000. "Jail or Fine - Let Them Choose," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0337, Econometric Society.
    5. Innes, Robert, 2004. "Enforcement costs, optimal sanctions, and the choice between ex-post liability and ex-ante regulation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 29-48, March.
    6. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 2009. "Public Enforcement of Law," Chapters, in: Nuno Garoupa (ed.), Criminal Law and Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Music, Kasim & Salzmann, Christian, 2020. "Why biased agencies could be the best monitors," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    8. Parikshit Ghosh, 2009. "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime or Taliban Justice? Optimal Penalties Without Commitment," Working papers 175, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    9. Thomas J. Miceli, 2018. "On proportionality of punishments and the economic theory of crime," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 303-314, December.
    10. Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
    11. Bac, Mehmet & Kanti Bag, Parimal, 2009. "Graduated penalty scheme," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 281-289, December.
    12. C. Detotto & B. Mccannon & M. Vannini, 2013. "A Note on Marginal Deterrence: Evidence," Working Paper CRENoS 201310, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    13. Scott M. Gilpatric & Cristina M. Reiser, 2017. "Why Zero Tolerance Of Misconduct Is Undesirable In Contests," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 1145-1160, April.
    14. Eide, Erling & Rubin, Paul H. & Shepherd, Joanna M., 2006. "Economics of Crime," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 205-279, December.
    15. Curry Philip A. & Mongrain Steeve, 2009. "Deterrence in Rank-Order Tournaments," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 723-740, December.
    16. Rosario Crinó & Giovanni Immordino & Salvatore Piccolo, 2021. "Criminal mobility, fugitives, and extradition rules," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(1), pages 69-104, February.
    17. Friehe, Tim & Miceli, Thomas J., 2014. "Marginal deterrence when offenders act sequentially," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 523-525.
    18. Detotto, Claudio & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Evidence of marginal deterrence: Kidnapping and murder in Italy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 63-67.
    19. Marcello Basili & Filippo Belloc, 2018. "Italian “Homicide Road Law”: Evidence of a Puzzle?," Department of Economics University of Siena 781, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    20. Wolfgang Maennig & Viktoria C. E. Schumann, 2022. "Prevention Effect of News Shocks in Anti-Doping Policies," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(4), pages 431-459, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:14:y:2023:i:3:p:48-:d:1170125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.