Committee Preferences and Information Acquisition

Author:

Arve MalinORCID,Desrieux ClaudineORCID

Abstract

AbstractWe study committees whose task is to make a binary decision where the correct decision depends on the state of the world that is imperfectly known. Committee members can exert effort to learn about the true state of the world, and their efforts are linked in a team production function. This allows to explore the externalities between the committee members’ efforts in the search for the truth and the different interactions between them. We compare committees made up of neutral members (neutral committees) to committees including biased members (polarized committees). We show that polarized committees may be more efficient than neutral committees when members’ efforts to acquire information are strategic substitutes, but not when efforts are strategic complements. Qualitatively, our results still hold when biased members have mixed preferences, i.e., they have a bias for one decision outcome but also care about matching the decision to the true state of the world. Our results have implications, for instance, for the rules governing committees in international arbitration and allow us to better understand how the committee composition affects the committee’s efficiency.

Funder

Norwegian School Of Economics

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Economics and Econometrics

Reference39 articles.

1. Ben-Yashar R, Koh WTH, Nitzan S (2012) Is specialization desirable in committee decision making? Theory and Decision 72:341–357

2. Bjorklund A, Bungenberg M, Chi M, Titi C (2019) Selection and appointment of international adjudicators: structural options for ISDS reform. Academic Forum on ISDS Concept Paper 2019/11

3. Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2015) Chapter 1: an overview of international arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, in Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, $$6^{th}$$ Edition, Kluwer Law International, Oxford University Press, 1-70

4. Bloom DE, Cavanagh CL (1986) An analysis of the selection of arbitrators. American Economic Review 76(3):408–422

5. Brekoulakis S (2013) Systemic bias and the institution of international arbitration: a new approach to arbitral decision-making. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 4(3):553–585

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3