nep-cta New Economics Papers
on Contract Theory and Applications
Issue of 2020‒08‒10
four papers chosen by
Guillem Roig
University of Melbourne

  1. Reciprocity in Dynamic Employment Relationships By Matthias Fahn
  2. Liability Insurance: Equilibrium Contracts under Monopoly and Competition By Jorge Lemus; Emil Temnyalov; John L. Turner
  3. A Theory of Progressive Lending By Dyotona Dasgupta; Dilip Mookherjee
  4. Coercion, Obnoxious Tasks, and Economic Efficiency By Soham Baksi; Pinaki Bose; Marc T. Law

  1. By: Matthias Fahn
    Abstract: This paper analyzes a dynamic relational contract for employees with reciprocal preferences. I develop a tractable model to investigate how “direct” performance-pay (promising a bonus in exchange for effort) and generous upfront wages (which activate the norm of reciprocity) interact over the course of an employee’s career. I show that firms can benefit from committing to paying non-discretionary wages in the future as this boosts their credibibility in the relational contract. The reason is that these wages have to be paid under any circumstances, whereas employees only reciprocate if the firm has kept its promises. Moreover, I demonstrate that more intense competition for workers can intensify the use of reciprocity-based incentives.
    Keywords: reciprocity, relational contracts, commitment, norms and social preferences
    JEL: C73 D21 D86 D90 D91
    Date: 2020–06
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jku:econwp:2020-12&r=all
  2. By: Jorge Lemus (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign); Emil Temnyalov (University of Technology Sydney); John L. Turner (University of Georgia)
    Abstract: In liability lawsuits (e.g. product liability or patent infringement), a third party demands compensation from a firm. Verifying that the firm harmed the third party requires a costly lawsuit, so parties often negotiate a settlement agreement. Liability insurance improves the firmÕs bargaining leverage when negotiating this settlement. We study this leverage effect of insurance and characterize equilibrium contracts under symmetric and asymmetric information: in a competitive market, only a pooling equilibrium with under-insurance may exist; in a monopolistic setting, the insurer offers at most two contracts which under-insure low-risk types and may inefficiently induce high-risk types to litigate.
    Keywords: liability; insurance; litigation; bargaining; adverse selection; competitive equilibrium; monopoly
    JEL: C7 D82 G22 K1 K41
    Date: 2019–07–01
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uts:ecowps:2019/11&r=all
  3. By: Dyotona Dasgupta (Delhi School of Economics); Dilip Mookherjee (Boston University)
    Abstract: We characterize Pareto efficient long term ‘relational’ lending contracts with one-sided lender commitment, to finance specific investments and smooth intertemporal consumption of a borrower who cannot commit to repaying loans. The borrower can save and accumulate assets, and has strictly concave preferences over consumption. For borrowers with initial wealth above a threshold, the first-best is sustainable with a stationary contract. For poorer agents, there is perpetual but shrinking underinvestment which disappears in the long run. Borrowing, investment and wealth grow and converge to the first-best threshold. Optimal allocations can be implemented by backloaded ‘progressive’ lending: a sequence of one period loans of growing size. Increased borrower bargaining power raises short run consumption and investment, with no long term effects. We discuss extensions to incorporate random productivity shocks.
    Keywords: Dynamic Contracts, Progressive Lending, Microfinance
    JEL: O16 G21 D86
    Date: 2020–06
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bos:iedwpr:dp-348&r=all
  4. By: Soham Baksi; Pinaki Bose; Marc T. Law
    Abstract: Incomplete contracts and inadequate enforcement of labor rights, together with the asymmetry of power between a worker and her employer, create an environment where the employer can forcibly extract additional services (e.g. unpaid overtime or sexual favors) from the worker beyond the mutually agreed terms of exchange. We show that coercive impositions can co-exist with voluntary transactions in the labour market, and that a positive incidence of coercion can adversely affect the efficiency of the corresponding market transactions. This may justify banning the legal market for the additional service if it is regarded as "obnoxious" by society.
    JEL: O17 D61
    Date: 2020–07
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:win:winwop:2020-01&r=all

This nep-cta issue is ©2020 by Guillem Roig. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at http://nep.repec.org. For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <director@nep.repec.org>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.