Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ECO 340: Micro Theory Optimal Contracts Sami Dakhlia U. of Southern Mississippi

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ECO 340: Micro Theory Optimal Contracts Sami Dakhlia U. of Southern Mississippi"— Presentation transcript:

1 ECO 340: Micro Theory Optimal Contracts Sami Dakhlia U. of Southern Mississippi microprof@gmail.com

2 Optimal Contracts Principal/Agent Game: Principal (boss) has objective (maximize profit) and must provide agent (worker) with proper incentives to work hard. We study two examples: –sharecropping vs. land lease –optimal commission for salespeople

3 Sharecropping vs. Lease Confine attention to linear contracts, where the farmer’s income is Y=  Q+ , where Q is output,  is the share of crop, and  is fixed income.  3 typical contracts: 1.  =0,  >0 : fixed salary 2.  =1,  <0 : tenant farming 3.0<  <1,  =0: sharecropping

4 Sharecropping vs. Lease How do these contracts spread risk between principal (owner) and agent (farmer)? How does this compare with incentives to work hard? RISK fixed salary tenant farming share- cropping Landlordhighlowmedium Farmerlowhighmedium

5 Sharecropping vs. Lease 2 states of nature: good weather w/ prob p and bad weather w/ prob (1-p). tenant system:EY t = p(Q H -  )+(1-p)(Q L -  ) sharecrop syst:EY s = p  Q H +(1-p)  Q L  * s.t. EY t =Ey s, i.e., where a risk-neutral landlord is indifferent between both contracts. But since Y L s > Y L t if Q=Q L and Y H s < Y H t if Q=Q H a risk-averse farmer will prefer sharecropping.

6 Sharecropping vs. Lease Now let’s focus on the moral hazard problem: Farmer can put in two levels of effort, E L and E H. As before, if effort is high, prob(Q=Q H if E= E H )=p. high effortlow effort good weatherpq bad weather1-p1-q (Of course, p>q.) Principal must now come up with a contract that provides incentive to work hard!

7 Sharecropping vs. Lease This contract must satisfy 1. the participation constraint: p U(w H ) +(1-p) U(w L ) - E ≥ U(w R ) i.e., U H ≥ (U R +E)/p - (1-p)/p U L 2. the incentive constraint: p U(w H ) +(1-p) U(w L ) - E ≥ q U(w H ) +(1-q) U(w L ) i.e., U H ≥ E/(p-q) + U L UHUH ULUL

8 Principal/Agent Problem Suppose a salesperson’s (agent’s) utility is U(w,a) =  (w) - a a  A={0,5}; reservation utility u=9 Finite set of outcomes (sales): proba=0a=5 S=$00.60.1 S=$1000.3 S=$4000.10.6

9 Principal/Agent Problem Principal is risk neutral: B(a)=  p a (S).S Hence B(0)=$70 and B(5)=$270 Must design a contract, i.e., a function that maps effort into wage (w:S  ) P A A N N reject accept (0,u) a=5 a=0 0 0 100 400 ( S-w(S), U(w(S),a) ) expected utilities: ( B(a)-  p a (a,S)w(S),  p a (S)U(w(S),a) )

10 Principal/Agent Problem Quick computations: To get A to work at low effort, P must offer wage s.t.  (w) - 0  9, i.e., w  $81. But since low effort only generates expected revenue B(0) = $70, there will be no deal. To get A to work hard, P must offer wage s.t.  (w) - 5  9, i.e., w  $196. Harder work would generate expected revenue B(5) = $270, so deal is potentially possible.

11 Principal/Agent Problem We assume that trust will not work (so offering $196 without further stipulations will not garantee high effort.) Neither can contract be made contingent on effort, since it is not observable/enforceable. Therefore contract must be made contingent on sales result. This means that agent must share some risk: Pay: w 0 if S=$0 w 1 if S=$100 w 2 if S=$400

12 Principal/Agent Problem So A’s utility is –U = 9 if he refuses contract; –U = 0.6  (w 0 ) + 0.3  (w 1 ) + 0.1  (w 2 ) - 0 if E=0; –U = 0.1  (w 0 ) + 0.3  (w 1 ) + 0.6  (w 2 ) - 5 if E=5. P wants to minimizes wages paid subject to –participation constraint (A agrees to be hired) –incentive constraint (A puts in high effort) Formally: MIN 0.1 w 0 + 0.3 w 1 + 0.6 w 2 s.t. 0.1  (w 0 ) + 0.3  (w 1 ) + 0.6  (w 2 ) - 5  9 and 0.1  (w 0 ) + 0.3  (w 1 ) + 0.6  (w 2 ) - 5  0.6  (w 0 ) + 0.3  (w 1 ) + 0.1  (w 2 ) - 0

13 Principal/Agent Problem Solution –w 0 = $29.46 –w 1 = $196.00 –w 2 = $238.04 Expected wage bill 0.1 w 0 + 0.3 w 1 + 0.6 w 2 = $204.56 Expected profit 270 - 204.56 = $65.44

14 Principal/Agent Problem Question: what would happen if agent was risk neutral? For instance, what if his utility function was U(w,a) = w - a and his reservation utility equal to 81? Answer: A will work hard if w - 5 ≥ 81, i.e., w ≥ $86. Profit to P is then 270 - 86 = $184. Contract: A is free to choose effort, but must pay P a fixed rent of $184; all risk is borne by A.


Download ppt "ECO 340: Micro Theory Optimal Contracts Sami Dakhlia U. of Southern Mississippi"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google