Home Piece Rates vs. Contests in Product Market Competition
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Piece Rates vs. Contests in Product Market Competition

  • Manfred Stadler EMAIL logo and Kerstin Pull
Published/Copyright: April 7, 2016

Abstract

We study product market competition between firm owners (principals) where workers (agents) decide on their efforts and, hence, on output levels. Various worker compensation schemes are compared: a piece-rate compensation as a benchmark when workers’ output performance is verifiable, and different contest-based compensation schemes with fixed and variable prizes when it is only verifiable who the best performing worker is. Without rivalry between firms, all considered compensation schemes lead to the same outcome. In case of product market competition, however, a contest-based compensation scheme with revenue-dependent prizes leads to more employment, more production, and lower firm profits. The reason is that strategic interaction between the firm owners leads to an aggressive overinvestment in worker employment as well as in the revenue shares offered to the contest winners.

JEL: C72; L22; M52

Acknowledgements

Paper presented at seminars at the MPI Jena, the University of Augsburg and the 16th annual GEABA conference in Hamburg. The authors gratefully acknowledge comments of the seminar participants, especially Jörg Budde, Peter Jost, Laszlo Goerke, Werner Güth, Susanne Warning and Peter Welzel. Furthermore, we would like to thank an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions.

References

Backes-Gellner, U. and K. Pull (2013): Tournament Compensation Systems, Employee Heterogeneity and Firm Performance, Human Resource Management 52, 375–398.10.1002/hrm.21535Search in Google Scholar

Baye, M. R. and H. C. Hoppe (2003): The Strategic Equivalence of Rent-Seeking, Innovation, and Patent-Race Games, Games and Economic Behavior 44, 217–226.10.1016/S0899-8256(03)00027-7Search in Google Scholar

Bulow, J., J. Geanakoplos and P. Klemperer (1985): Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements, Journal of Political Economy 93, 488–511.10.1086/261312Search in Google Scholar

Das, S. P. (1996): Incentive Pay, Worker Effort, and Trade Protection, Review of International Economics 4, 141–151.10.1111/j.1467-9396.1996.tb00092.xSearch in Google Scholar

Fudenberg, D. and J. Tirole (1984): The Fat Cat Effect, the Puppy Dog Ploy and the Lean and Hungry Look, American Economic Review, P&P 74, 361–368.Search in Google Scholar

Fullerton, R. L. and R. P. Mcafee (1999): Auctioning Entry Into Tournaments, Journal of Political Economy 107, 573–605.10.1086/250072Search in Google Scholar

Gershkov, A., J. Li and P. Schweinzer (2009): Efficient Tournaments Within Teams, Rand Journal of Economics 40, 103–119.10.1111/j.1756-2171.2008.00057.xSearch in Google Scholar

Güth, W., K. Pull and M. Stadler (2011): Intrafirm Conflicts and Interfirm Competition, Homo Oeconomicus 28, 367–378.Search in Google Scholar

Güth, W., K. Pull and M. Stadler (2015): Delegation, Worker Compensation, and Strategic Competition, Journal of Business Economics 85, 1–13.10.1007/s11573-013-0702-4Search in Google Scholar

Hirshleifer, J. and J. G. Riley (1992): The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167635Search in Google Scholar

Konrad, K. A. (2009): Strategy and Dynamics in Contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199549597.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Laffont, J.-J. and D. Martimort (2002): The Theory of Incentives. the Principal-Agent Model. Princeton: Princetion University Press.10.1515/9781400829453Search in Google Scholar

Macho-Stadler, I. and J. D. Perez-Castrillo (1997): An Introduction to the Economics of Information. Incentives and Contracts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198774679.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Sengul, M., J. Gimeno and J. Dial (2012): Strategic Delegation. A Review, Theoretical Integration, and Research Agenda, Journal of Management 38, 375–414.10.1108/sd.2012.05628gaa.013Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-4-7
Published in Print: 2015-12-1

©2016 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 9.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/roe-2015-1001/html
Scroll to top button