Incentives are more likely to elicit desired outcomes when they are designed based on accurate models of agents strategic behavior. A growing literature, however, suggests that people do not quite behave like standard economic agents in a variety of environments, both online and offline. What consequences might such differences have for the optimal design of mechanisms in these environments? In this paper, we explore this question in the context of optimal contest design for simple agents---agents who strategically reason about whether or not to participate in a system, but not about the input they provide to it. Specifically, consider a contest where $n$ potential contestants with types $(q_i,c_i)$ each choose between participating and producing a submission of quality $q_i$ at cost $c_i$, versus not participating at all, to maximize their utilities. How should a principal distribute a total prize $V$ amongst the $n$ ranks to maximize some increasing function of the qualities of elicited submissions in a contest with such simple agents? We first solve the optimal contest design problem for settings with homogenous participation costs $c_i = c$. Here, the optimal contest is always a simple contest, awarding equal prizes to the top $j^*$ contestants for a suitable choice of $j^*$. (In comparable models with strategic effort choices, the optimal contest is either a winner-take-all contest or awards possibly unequal prizes, depending on the curvature of agents effort cost functions.) We next address the general case with heterogeneous costs where agents types are inherently two-dimensional, significantly complicating equilibrium analysis. Our main result here is that the winner-take-all contest is a 3-approximation of the optimal contest when the principals objective is to maximize the quality of the best elicited contribution.
Download