4.5 Article

Robust Contract Designs: Linear Contracts and Moral Hazard

期刊

OPERATIONS RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 5, 页码 1457-1473

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/opre.2020.1994

关键词

incentives; robust contract design; linear contracts; moral hazard; worst-case criterion

资金

  1. Hong Kong Research Grants Council [11506818, T32-102/14-N, T32-101/15-R]
  2. CityU [9042268]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider incentive compensation where the firm has ambiguity on the effort-contingent output distribution: The parameters of the output probability distribution are in an ellipsoidal uncertainty set. The firm evaluates any contract by its worst-case performance over all possible parameters in the uncertainty set. Similarly, the incentive compatible condition for the agent must hold for all possible parameters in the uncertainty set. The firm is financially risk neutral and the agent has limited liability. We find that when the agent is financially risk neutral, the optimal robust contract is a linear contract-paying the agent a base payment and a fixed share of the output. Moreover, the linear contract is the only type of contract that is robust to the parameter uncertainty. When there is model uncertainty over a general effort-contingent output distribution, we show that a generalized linear contract is uniquely optimal. When the agent is risk averse and has a piecewise linear utility, the only optimal contract is a piecewise linear contract that consists of progressive fixed payments and linear rewards with progressive commission rates. We also provide the analysis for the trade-off between robustness and worst-case performance and show that our results are robust to a variety of settings, including cases with general l(p)-norm uncertainty sets, multiple effort levels, and so on. Our paper provides a new explanation for the popularity of linear contracts and piecewise linear contracts in practice and introduces a flexible modeling approach for robust contract designs with model uncertainty.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据