Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1993399178> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 77 of
77
with 100 items per page.
- W1993399178 endingPage "1690" @default.
- W1993399178 startingPage "1679" @default.
- W1993399178 abstract "Abstract For some hard-to-fill jobs the Navy awards Assignment Incentive Pay using an auction-like format. With respect to the optimal job assignment auction format, however, there is only a very limited academic literature. Furthermore, the extant literature assumes all bidders are equally qualified. In the Navy assignment context, this is not a tenable assumption, as other considerations, such as relocation and en-route training costs, must be considered when making an assignment. The lower the weight on the bid, the greater the weight that can be attached to the qualification component in the objective function. The lower the weight, however, the weaker the incentive to bid near one's reservation wage. The consideration of such other criteria precludes the implementation of the incentive-compatible, Vickery–Leonard assignment auction. We relax the assumption that bid amounts alone determine the assignment set and experimentally estimate the efficiency reductions associated with decreased bid-weights. The estimated elasticity of the value of the bids to changes in the bid-weight in low contention, first price auctions vary by bid-weight. Nonetheless, an increase from a 10 to a 50% weight on the bids decreases the level of the submitted bids by approximately 28%. Acknowledgements We are indebted to James Smith, Janet Spoonamore, David Alderton, Tanja Blackstone and James Simien for their invaluable assistance and sound advice. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Navy. Notes 1 Curiously, despite having the greatest bid-weight difference between the high and low bid-weight parameterizations, the University of Memphis observations appear almost invariant to the choice of bid-weight. Abstracting from those observations the inverse relationship becomes even more striking." @default.
- W1993399178 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W1993399178 creator A5002913709 @default.
- W1993399178 creator A5006089525 @default.
- W1993399178 date "2007-07-01" @default.
- W1993399178 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
- W1993399178 title "Empirical analysis of the efficiency of job assignment auctions" @default.
- W1993399178 cites W1982746847 @default.
- W1993399178 cites W2006561906 @default.
- W1993399178 cites W2024694589 @default.
- W1993399178 cites W2096423350 @default.
- W1993399178 cites W2111818668 @default.
- W1993399178 cites W4235234911 @default.
- W1993399178 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600675646" @default.
- W1993399178 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
- W1993399178 type Work @default.
- W1993399178 sameAs 1993399178 @default.
- W1993399178 citedByCount "2" @default.
- W1993399178 countsByYear W19933991782016 @default.
- W1993399178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W1993399178 hasAuthorship W1993399178A5002913709 @default.
- W1993399178 hasAuthorship W1993399178A5006089525 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C11276805 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C163239763 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C178300618 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C205871297 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C2776746162 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C2777632111 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C31258907 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C11276805 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C151730666 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C162324750 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C163239763 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C175444787 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C17744445 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C178300618 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C199539241 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C205871297 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C2776746162 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C2777632111 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C2779343474 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C29122968 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C31258907 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C41008148 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C78458016 @default.
- W1993399178 hasConceptScore W1993399178C86803240 @default.
- W1993399178 hasIssue "13" @default.
- W1993399178 hasLocation W19933991781 @default.
- W1993399178 hasOpenAccess W1993399178 @default.
- W1993399178 hasPrimaryLocation W19933991781 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W1550171692 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W2021856647 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W2059765468 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W2140898801 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W2171187116 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W2883843897 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W3122593487 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W3124104392 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W3124142589 @default.
- W1993399178 hasRelatedWork W3140178783 @default.
- W1993399178 hasVolume "39" @default.
- W1993399178 isParatext "false" @default.
- W1993399178 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W1993399178 magId "1993399178" @default.
- W1993399178 workType "article" @default.