Effort Provision in Peer Groups

Isabel Melguizo & Sergio Tovar

Journal of Public Economic Theory2026https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.70095article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

We study a model in which individuals, who are heterogeneous along a single dimension capturing productivity, choose which of two available groups to join and how much costly effort to exert within their chosen group. On the one hand, individuals like to be in groups where others' average performance is high (global quality). On the other hand, individuals are concerned with their ranking with respect to their peers' average performance (local standing). Nash equilibrium efforts are such that the higher the individual's productivity the higher her private outcome. In contrast, it is not necessarily the case that highly productive individuals exert more effort. When social welfare is measured as the sum of individual utilities, Nash equilibrium efforts are never efficient and whether they are higher or lower than efficient efforts depends on the strength of global quality versus local standing concerns. Moreover, stable partitions of society into groups may either resemble grouping by productivity or productivity mixing. In contrast, efficient partitions must always exhibit grouping by productivity.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.70095

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{isabel2026,
  title        = {{Effort Provision in Peer Groups}},
  author       = {Isabel Melguizo & Sergio Tovar},
  journal      = {Journal of Public Economic Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.70095},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Effort Provision in Peer Groups

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.