IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/smppub/v7y2018i1p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Allocation Contests for Publicly Provided Goods

Author

Listed:
  • Arijit Sen

Abstract

In many countries, the government provides goods and services that are rival in consumption—essential commodities, such as water, public transportation and basic health care, and merit goods like professional education and tertiary health care. For such goods, the government has to specify allocation rules under which citizens can access them. Affluent citizens often have the incentive and the ability to influence public allocation rules by engaging in allocation contests. This article presents simple models of allocation contests for a divisible essential commodity and an indivisible merit good, and studies contest equilibria and their implications for social outcomes. Given allocation contests over public provision, falling public supply of an essential commodity can have magnified negative impact on social welfare, and raising the reservation quota of a publicly provided merit good for a set of disadvantaged citizens might effectively lower their access to the good. JEL: C72, D61, H42

Suggested Citation

  • Arijit Sen, 2018. "On Allocation Contests for Publicly Provided Goods," South Asian Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance, , vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:smppub:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-16
    DOI: 10.1177/2277978718760445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2277978718760445
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2277978718760445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neil Vousden & Ngo Van Long, 2008. "Risk-averse rent seeking with shared rents," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 293-307, Springer.
    2. Jia, Hao & Skaperdas, Stergios & Vaidya, Samarth, 2013. "Contest functions: Theoretical foundations and issues in estimation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 211-222.
    3. Michele Piccione & Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Equilibrium in the Jungle," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(522), pages 883-896, July.
    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. Grossmann, Martin, 2014. "Uncertain contest success function," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 134-148.
    2. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    3. Jung, Hanjoon Michael, 2009. "Spatial pillage game," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 701-707, December.
    4. Franke, Jörg & Leininger, Wolfgang & Wasser, Cédric, 2018. "Optimal favoritism in all-pay auctions and lottery contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-37.
    5. de Miguel-Arribas, A. & Morón-Vidal, J. & Floría, L.M. & Gracia-Lázaro, C. & Hernández, L. & Moreno, Y., 2024. "Contests in two fronts," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Harold Houba & Roland Iwan Luttens & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2017. "Pareto efficiency in the jungle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(3), pages 153-161, September.
    7. Derek Clark & Øystein Foros & Jan Sand, 2011. "Foreclosure in contests," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 215-232, July.
    8. Ansink, Erik & Gengenbach, Michael & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2012. "River Sharing and Water Trade," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 122860, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Goerke, Laszlo & Neugart, Michael, 2015. "Lobbying and dismissal dispute resolution systems," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 50-62.
    10. Zachary Cohle, 2019. "Explaining the Current Innovative R&D Outsourcing to Developing Countries," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 211-234, June.
    11. Ivan Balbuzanov & Maciej H. Kotowski, 2019. "Endowments, Exclusion, and Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1663-1692, September.
    12. Afacan, Mustafa Oğuz & Bó, Inácio, 2022. "Strategy-proof popular mechanisms," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Li, Bo & Wu, Zenan & Xing, Zeyu, 2023. "Optimally biased contests with draws," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    14. Triossi, Matteo, 2005. "Implementation with state dependent feasible sets and preferences: a renegotiation approach," UC3M Working papers. Economics we057136, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    15. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2017. "Balance of power and the propensity of conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 168-184.
    16. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Çağrı Sağlam, 2024. "Submodularity and supermodularity in contest games," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 182-198, June.
    17. Long, Ngo Van & Soubeyran, Antoine, 1996. "Lobbying for protection by heterogeneous firms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 19-32, April.
    18. Toshihiro Ihori & C.C. Yang, 2010. "Laffer paradox, Leviathan, and Political Contest," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-769, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    19. J. Atsu Amegashie, 2021. "Advantageous Smallness in Contests," CESifo Working Paper Series 9419, CESifo.
    20. Michael Richter & Ariel Rubinstein, 2015. "Back to Fundamentals: Equilibrium in Abstract Economies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2570-2594, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Publicly provided goods; rival goods; merit goods; allocation contests;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:smppub:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-16. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.