Assorted links


5. The authors claim that, "So far, economists have disregarded awards as incentive instruments despite
their ubiquity." The exceptions they make have pub dates of 1972, 2005, and 2005 again.

What about Adam Smith, 1759?

Almost no one values awards, applause, etc., per se. They strive to be reward-worthy, not just reward-receiving. The proof is simple introspection: do people feel greater happiness, pride, self-esteem, etc., when they act in reward-worthy ways yet don't get awards, or when they get an award for something they didn't do?

If anything, the latter makes you feel like a bigger loser because you compare your lowly actual self to the imagined lofty self that others have mistaken you for.

Smith lived in a face-to-face society. In an impersonal society like ours, I think awards also serve to make markets more liquid, in the same way that GPAs and GRE scores allow for a market of college admissions and applicants. That couldn't exist if you had to watch a 20 year-long movie about every detail of the applicant's academic career. Compress all that information into two cheap-to-process summaries like GPA and GRE score, and suddenly the market becomes liquid.

Same goes for letting strangers know of your talents. It's not just a self-serving status signal -- it lowers hiring costs to employers if they have compressed information like "employee of the month" status to read off of your application. Fewer mistakes will be made.

Clearly it'd be better if they had something like a GPA, but then regulation prevents previous employers from collecting and divulging that information! You don't want to get sued when you say that Susan scored 30 out of 100 on employee evaluations.

Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are not republics as this paper states. They are monarchies with government award systems derived from the UK. It'd be nice if the basic facts were correct in this paper.

Comments for this post are closed