Rust’s and Staelin’s Comments on: “A structural model of sales force compensation dynamics: estimation and field implementation” by Sanjog Misra and Harikesh Nair

  • John RustEmail author
  • Richard Staelin

I am honored to have been asked to comment on this impressive and very interesting paper. While I was unaware of this work previously, I would count this paper among the small number of confirmed “successes” of the strategy of combining structural econometric modeling and field experimentation (several others are cited by the authors, including the very nice paper by Copeland and Monnet (2009) “The Welfare Effects of Incentive Schemes” that investigates the effect of alternative compensation policies for workers doing check clearing at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis). I would expect this paper to be highly influential not only in marketing but in economics more generally.

While much of the empirical literature in economics has become bogged down into what I regard as unproductive bickering between “structural” and “reduced form/natural experiment” camps as to which of these two approaches is “right” (as if researchers must choose one or the other of these approaches but not...


  1. Basu, A., Lal, R., Srinivasan, V., & Staelin, R. (1985). Sales-force compensation plans: an agency theoretic perspective. Marketing Science, 8(3), 324–342.Google Scholar
  2. Coughlan, A., & Narasimhan, C. (1992). An empirical analysis of sales-force compensation plans. Journal of Business, 65(1), 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cho, S., & Rust, J. (2008). Is econometrics useful for private policy making? A case study of replacement policy at an auto rental company. Journal of Econometrics, 145, 243–257.Google Scholar
  4. Cho, S., & Rust, J. (2010). The flat rental puzzle. Review of Economic Studies, 77(2), 534–559.Google Scholar
  5. Copeland, A. M., & Monnet, C. (2009). The welfare effects of incentive schemes. Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 1–93.Google Scholar
  6. Guadagni, P. M., & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2(3), 203–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hopenhayn, H., & Nicolini, J. P. (1997). Optimal unemployment insurance. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 412–438.Google Scholar
  8. Lal, R., & Srinivasan, V. (1993). Compensation Plans in Environments with assymetric deformation. Marketing Science, 5(Summer), 179–198.Google Scholar
  9. Lal, R., & Staelin, R. (1986). Salesforce compensation plans in environments with asymmetric information. Marketing Science, 5(3), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lal, R., Outland, D., & Staelin, R. (1994). Salesforce compensation plans: an individual-level analysis. Marketing Letters, 5(2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Misra, S., Coughlan, A., & Narasimhan, C. (2005). Sales-force compensation: an analytical and empirical examination of agency theoretic approach. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 3(1), 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Myerson, R. (1981). Optimal auction design. Mathematics of Operations Research, 6(1), 58–73.Google Scholar
  13. Phelan, C., & Townsend, R. (1991). Computing multiperiod, information-constrained optima. Review of Economic Studies, 58(5), 853–881.Google Scholar
  14. Srivastava, S., & Spear, S. (1987). On repeated moral hazard with discounting. Review of Economic Studies, 54, 499–617.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations