Yggdrasil
MCP ServersMCP 伺服器 SKILLs技能 PlugIns解決方案 Asgard AI SolutionAsgard AI 方案 Submit Listing申請上架 GitHub
C

Contract Theory: Moral Hazard, Adverse Selection, and Incentive Design 契約理論

Released已發布
theory theory

Apply contract theory to design incentive-compatible agreements under moral hazard and adverse selection. Use this skill when the user needs to structure principal-agent contracts, evaluate compensation schemes, or analyze incomplete contract problems where parties cannot specify all contingencies ex ante.

學術研究技能:Contract Theory: Moral Hazard, Adverse Selection, and Incentive Design 分析與應用。

View on GitHub在 GitHub 查看

Overview概述

Contract theory studies how economic actors construct contractual arrangements in the presence of asymmetric information. The two canonical problems are moral hazard (hidden action — the agent's effort is unobservable) and adverse selection (hidden type — the agent's characteristics are private). The optimal contract balances the principal's desire for risk-sharing against the need to incentivize effort or truthful revelation. Hart and Holmstrom's contributions on incomplete contracts and incentive design form the modern foundation.

When to Use使用時機

  • Designing compensation, bonus, or commission structures for employees or contractors
  • Evaluating insurance contracts for moral hazard (deductibles, copays) or adverse selection (screening)
  • Structuring partnerships, franchise agreements, or procurement contracts with unobservable quality
  • Analyzing incomplete contracts where not all states of the world can be specified

When NOT to Use不適用時機

  • Both parties have symmetric information and trust is established (no incentive problem)
  • The relationship is a one-shot anonymous transaction with no contractual enforcement
  • Behavioral factors (reciprocity, intrinsic motivation) dominate monetary incentives

Assumptions前提假設

IRON LAW: The optimal contract balances risk-sharing against incentive
provision — full insurance destroys incentives, full incentives impose
unbearable risk. There is no contract that achieves first-best when
information is asymmetric.
  • The principal is risk-neutral; the agent is risk-averse (standard setup)
  • The agent's action (effort) or type is private information
  • Output is a noisy signal of the agent's effort: x = f(e) + epsilon
  • Both parties are rational and can commit to the contract terms
  • Courts can verify output but not effort (contractibility constraint)

Framework 框架

Step 1 — Classify the Information Problem Determine whether the core issue is moral hazard (hidden action after contracting), adverse selection (hidden type before contracting), or both. Identify who is the principal and who is the agent.

Step 2 — Specify Constraints Write down: (1) the Incentive Compatibility constraint (IC) — the agent prefers the intended action/type revelation; (2) the Participation Constraint (PC/IR) — the agent accepts the contract over the outside option; (3) Limited Liability (LL) if applicable — payments cannot go below zero.

Step 3 — Solve the Optimal Contract For moral hazard: maximize principal's expected profit subject to IC and PC. The optimal wage schedule w(x) satisfies the Holmstrom informativeness principle — pay should depend on output only insofar as it is informative about effort. For adverse selection: design a menu of contracts that induces self-selection (screening). Expect distortion at the bottom (inefficient allocation for low types) and efficiency at the top.

Step 4 — Assess Completeness and Renegotiation Check whether the contract is complete (covers all verifiable contingencies) or incomplete (residual rights matter). If incomplete, apply Hart's property rights approach: allocate residual control rights to the party whose investment is most important. Consider renegotiation-proofness.

Output Format輸出格式

Gotchas注意事項

  • Multi-tasking (Holmstrom-Milgrom): incentivizing one measurable task crowds out effort on unmeasurable tasks — strong incentives can be counterproductive
  • Ratchet effect: if the principal updates expectations based on past performance, the agent strategically underperforms early
  • Career concerns (Holmstrom 1999) can substitute for explicit incentives — young agents work hard to build reputation even without bonuses
  • Limited liability constraints shift power to the agent and can require the principal to leave rents (efficiency wages)
  • In repeated relationships, relational contracts (self-enforcing, not court-enforced) often dominate formal contracts
  • Intrinsic motivation can be crowded out by extrinsic incentives (Benabou-Tirole) — paying volunteers may reduce their effort

References參考資料

  • Holmstrom, B. (1979). "Moral Hazard and Observability." Bell Journal of Economics.
  • Hart, O. & Moore, J. (1990). "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm." Journal of Political Economy.
  • Laffont, J.-J. & Martimort, D. (2002). The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model.
  • Bolton, P. & Dewatripont, M. (2005). Contract Theory. MIT Press.

Tags標籤

contract-theorymoral-hazardadverse-selectionprincipal-agent