Journal of Economics

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 161–190 | Cite as

A comparison of cardinal tournaments and piece rate contracts with liquidity constrained agents

  • Kosmas Marinakis
  • Theofanis TsoulouhasEmail author


A celebrated result in the theory of tournaments is that relative performance evaluation (tournaments) is a superior compensation method to absolute performance evaluation (piece rate contracts) when the agents are risk-averse, the principal is risk-neutral or less risk-averse than the agents and production is subject to common shocks that are large relative to the idiosyncratic shocks. This is because tournaments get closer to the first best by filtering common uncertainty. This paper shows that, surprisingly, tournaments are superior even when agents are liquidity constrained so that transfers to them cannot fall short of a predetermined level. The rationale is that, by providing insurance against common shocks through a tournament, payments to the agents in unfavorable states increase and payments in favorable states decrease which enables the principal to satisfy tight liquidity constraints for the agents without paying any ex ante rents to them, while simultaneously providing higher-power incentives than under piece rates. The policy implication of our analysis is that firms should adopt relative performance evaluation over absolute performance evaluation regardless of whether the agents are liquidity (wealth) constrained or not.


Piece rates Tournaments Contests Liquidity constraints 

JEL Classification

D82 D21 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bolton P, Dewatripont M (2005) Contract theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Green J, Stokey N (1983) A comparison of tournaments and contracts. J Polit Econ 91: 349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Holmström B (1982) Moral hazard in teams. Bell J Econ 13: 324–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Holmström B, Milgrom P (1987) Aggregation and linearity in the provision of intertemporal incentives. Econometrica 55: 303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hueth B, Ligon E (2001) Agricultural markets as relative performance evaluation. Am J Agric Econ 83: 318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Innes R (1990) Limited liability and incentive contracting with ex-ante action choices. J Econ Theory 52: 45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Innes R (1993) Financial contracting under risk neutrality, limited liability and ex ante asymmetric information. Economica 60: 27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Innes R (1993) Debt, futures and options: optimal price-linked financial contracts under moral hazard and limited liability. Int Econ Rev 34: 271–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kolmar M, Sisak D (2007) Multi-prize contests as incentive mechanisms for the provision of public goods with heterogeneous agents. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim S (1997) Limited liability and bonus contracts. J Econ Manag Strategy 6: 899–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Konrad KA, Kovenock D (2010) Contests with stochastic abilities. Econ Inquiry 48(1): 89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Konrad KA, Schlesinger H (1997) Risk aversion in rent-seeking and rent-augmenting games. Econ J 107(445): 1671–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laffont JJ, Martimort D (2002) The theory of incentives; the principal-agent model. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Lazear EP, Rosen S (1981) Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J Political Econ 89: 841–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malcomson JM (1984) Work incentives, hierarchy, and internal labor markets. J Political Econ 92(3): 486–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marinakis K, Tsoulouhas T (2009) Are tournaments optimal over piece rates under limited liability for the principal? North Carolina State University Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathews T, Namoro SD (2008) Participation incentives in rank order tournaments with endogenous entry. J Econ 95: 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nalebuff BJ, Stiglitz JE (1983) Prizes and incentives: towards a general theory of compensation and competition. Bell J Econ 14(1): 21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riis C (2010) Efficient contests. J Econ Manag Strategy 19(3): 643–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skaperdas S, Gan L (1995) Risk aversion in contests. Econ J 105(431): 951–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Theilen B (2003) Simultaneous moral hazard and adverse selection with risk averse agents. Econ Lett 79: 283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tsoulouhas T (1999) Do tournaments solve the two-sided moral hazard problem?. J Econ Behav Org 40(3): 275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tsoulouhas T (2010) Hybrid cardinal tournaments. Econ Bull 30(3): 2279–2288Google Scholar
  24. Tsoulouhas T, Marinakis K (2007) Tournaments with ex post heterogeneous agents. Econ Bull 4(41): 1–9Google Scholar
  25. Tsoulouhas T, Knoeber C, Agrawal A (2007) Contests to become CEO: incentives, selection and handicaps. Econ Theory 30: 195–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsoulouhas T, Vukina T (1999) Integrator contracts with many agents and bankruptcy. Am J Agric Econ 81: 61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsoulouhas T, Vukina T (2001) Regulating broiler contracts: tournaments versus fixed performance standards. Am J Agric Econ 83: 1062–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wu S, Roe B (2005) Behavioral and welfare effects of tournaments and fixed performance contracts: some experimental evidence. Am J Agric Econ 87: 130–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wu S, Roe B (2006) Tournaments, fairness, and risk. Am J Agric Econ 88: 561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Poole College of ManagementNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations