The Ponds Dilemma
Dana Sisak () and
Economic Journal, 2018, vol. 128, issue 611, 1634-1682
Is it better to be a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond? To find out, we study selfâ€ selection into contests. Our simple model predicts that: (i) entry into the big pond â€“ in terms of showâ€ up fees, number or value of prizes â€“ is nonâ€ monotonic in ability; (ii) entry into the more meritocratic pond is likewise nonâ€ monotonic, exhibiting two interior extrema and disproportionately attracting very low ability types; and (iii) changes in rewards can produce unexpected effects, e.g. higher showâ€ up fees may lower entry, while higher prizes or more meritocracy may lower the average ability of entrants.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Working Paper: The Ponds Dilemma (2015)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:econjl:v:128:y:2018:i:611:p:1634-1682
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://onlinelibrary ... 1111/(ISSN)1468-0297
Access Statistics for this article
Economic Journal is currently edited by Estelle Cantillon, Martin Cripps, Andrea Galeotti, Morten Ravn, Kjell G. Salvanes, Frederic Vermeulen, Hans-Joachim Voth and Rachel Kranton
More articles in Economic Journal from Royal Economic Society Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().