竞争竞争的均衡分析

Konstantinos I. Stouras, Sanjiv Erat, Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr.
{"title":"竞争竞争的均衡分析","authors":"Konstantinos I. Stouras, Sanjiv Erat, Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr.","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3485193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crowdsourcing platforms typically take a passive approach and let solvers self-select which (if any) of the concurrently running contests they wish to participate into. Thus, firms which set prizes and organize contests on these platforms are competing among themselves (for solver participation and effort). We model this competition among contests, and solve for the equilibrium solver participation and characterize the equilibrium among the firms. Next we compare the outcomes to a setting where the platform can “nudge” the solvers toward a particular contest (i.e., platforms can recommend a contest for a given solver, but cannot enforce participation). Our main results reveal that solvers' self-sorting into contests hurts the solvers, the firms and the platform. Thus, platform policies to nudge solver entry improve overall welfare.","PeriodicalId":11881,"journal":{"name":"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos I. Stouras, Sanjiv Erat, Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr.\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3485193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Crowdsourcing platforms typically take a passive approach and let solvers self-select which (if any) of the concurrently running contests they wish to participate into. Thus, firms which set prizes and organize contests on these platforms are competing among themselves (for solver participation and effort). We model this competition among contests, and solve for the equilibrium solver participation and characterize the equilibrium among the firms. Next we compare the outcomes to a setting where the platform can “nudge” the solvers toward a particular contest (i.e., platforms can recommend a contest for a given solver, but cannot enforce participation). Our main results reveal that solvers' self-sorting into contests hurts the solvers, the firms and the platform. Thus, platform policies to nudge solver entry improve overall welfare.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3485193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Entrepreneurship & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3485193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

众包平台通常采取被动的方法,让解决者自行选择他们希望参加的同时进行的竞赛。因此,在这些平台上设置奖品和组织竞赛的公司是在相互竞争(为了求解者的参与和努力)。在此基础上,建立了企业间竞争的模型,求解了均衡求解器的参与率,并刻画了企业间的均衡。接下来,我们将结果与平台可以“推动”求解者参加特定比赛的设置进行比较(即,平台可以为给定的求解者推荐比赛,但不能强制参与)。我们的主要研究结果表明,求解者的自分类竞赛对求解者、企业和平台都有伤害。因此,推动求解器进入的平台政策提高了整体福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests
Crowdsourcing platforms typically take a passive approach and let solvers self-select which (if any) of the concurrently running contests they wish to participate into. Thus, firms which set prizes and organize contests on these platforms are competing among themselves (for solver participation and effort). We model this competition among contests, and solve for the equilibrium solver participation and characterize the equilibrium among the firms. Next we compare the outcomes to a setting where the platform can “nudge” the solvers toward a particular contest (i.e., platforms can recommend a contest for a given solver, but cannot enforce participation). Our main results reveal that solvers' self-sorting into contests hurts the solvers, the firms and the platform. Thus, platform policies to nudge solver entry improve overall welfare.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信