Decision rules and information provision: monitoring versus manipulation

The paper focuses on the organization of institutions designed to resolve disputes between two parties, when some information is not veriable and decision makers may have vested preferences. It shows that the choice of how much discretional power to grant to the decision maker and who provides the information are intrinsically related. Direct involvement of the interested parties in the supply of information enhances monitoring over the decision maker, although at the cost of higher manipulation. Thus, it is desirable when the decision maker is granted high discretion. On the contrary, when the decision maker has limited discretional power, information provision is better assigned to an agent with no direct stake. The analysis helps to rationalize some organizational arrangements that are commonly observed in the context of judicial and antitrust decision-making.

Evidence of eligibility manipulation for conditional cash transfer programs

This paper assesses whether eligibility for conditional cash transfer programs have been manipulated, as well as the impact of this phenomenon on time allocation within households. To perform this analysis, we use data from the 2006 PNAD (Brazilian national household survey) and investigate the eligibility manipulation for the Bolsa Família (Family Stipend) program during this time period. The program assists families with a monthly per capita income of around R$120.00 (US$60.00). By applying the tests developed by McCrary (2008), we find suggestive evidence that individuals manipulate their income by voluntarily reducing their labor supply in order to become eligible to the program. Moreover, the reduction in labor supply is greater among women, especially single or divorced mothers. This evidence raises some concern about the unintended consequences related to the eligibility criteria utilized by Bolsa Família, as well as the program’s impact on individuals living in extreme poverty.

Decision rules and information provision : monitoring vs manipulation

We analyze the contractual design problem of a principal who delegates decision-making and information provision. The principal faces two tasks: he has to decide the level of discretion to be granted to the decision-maker and to establish who is in charge of supplying the information. We show that these two choices are intrinsically related. When the decision-maker is granted high discretion, information provision is optimally delegated to the parties directly affected by the decision. Conversely, when the decision-maker enjoys little discretion, it is more desirable to rely on a third impartial agent. The paper helps rationalize some organizational arrangements that are commonly observed in the context of judicial and antitrust decision-making.

Strategic manipulation of empirical tests

Theories can be produced by individuals seeking a good reputation of knowledge. Hence, a significant question is how to test theories anticipating that they might have been produced by (potentially uninformed) experts who prefer their theories not to be rejected. If a theory that predicts exactly like the data generating process is not rejected with high probability then the test is said to not reject the truth. On the other hand, if a false expert, with no knowledge over the data generating process, can strategically select theories that will not be rejected then the test can be ignorantly passed. These tests have limited use because they cannot feasibly dismiss completely uninformed experts. Many tests proposed in the literature (e.g., calibration tests) can be ignorantly passed. Dekel and Feinberg (2006) introduced a class of tests that seemingly have some power of dismissing uninformed experts. We show that some tests from their class can also be ignorantly passed. One of those tests, however, does not reject the truth and cannot be ignorantly passed. Thus, this empirical test can dismiss false experts.We also show that a false reputation of knowledge can be strategically sustained for an arbitrary, but given, number of periods, no matted which test is used (provided that it does not reject the truth). However, false experts can be discredited, even with bounded data sets, if the domain of permissible theories is mildly restricted.