Volume 8, Issue 6, November 2019, Page: 259-265
Research on the Avoidance of Moral Hazard in Higher Education Evaluation of China Under Multi-agent Mode
Yang Chun Sun, Graduate School of Education, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
An Qi Xu, Graduate School of Education, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
Received: Aug. 27, 2019;       Accepted: Sep. 12, 2019;       Published: Sep. 27, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.edu.20190806.14      View  20      Downloads  29
Abstract
The education evaluation agencies will undertake education evaluation task and will form principal-agent relationships with the governments with the separation reform of supervision, running and evaluation in China. Because of bounded rationality and information asymmetry, it was already a big problem to avoid the moral hazard of an education evaluation agency in a principal-agent relationship involving only one principal and one agent. In reality, the principal-agent relationship is often more complicated. Of particular concern is that the situation of “one principal–multiple agents” in the evaluation of higher education has emerged. The coexistence of “multiple” education evaluation agencies, such as the official agencies, the semi-official agencies, the agencies affiliated with the university, and the third-party agencies, has taken shape. By using critical discourse analysis, this study attempts to argue that avoiding the moral hazard of higher education evaluation under the “multi-agent” mode becomes a research issue that must be squarely addressed. The paper concluded that in “multi-agent” mode, although the possibility of implied moral hazard in higher education evaluation increases, if the “relative performance” evaluation mechanism can be understood and effective measures can be taken, not only will it not lead to the consequences of moral hazard being more difficult to avoid, but it will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the avoidance of moral hazard. The conclusion has important reference significance on how to effectively use the “multi-agent” mode to avoid the moral hazard of higher education evaluation.
Keywords
Moral Hazard, Multi-agent, Education Evaluation
To cite this article
Yang Chun Sun, An Qi Xu, Research on the Avoidance of Moral Hazard in Higher Education Evaluation of China Under Multi-agent Mode, Education Journal. Vol. 8, No. 6, 2019, pp. 259-265. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20190806.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Guan-Yan WANG, Jie YANG. Development of the Third-Party Assessment System for Education Quality Based on Public Trust [J]. Educational Research, 2018 (8): 63-68.
[2]
Xiang-Hua WANG, Xi-Lin ZHANG. The Predicament of the Third-party Evaluation of China Higher Education and Its Countermeasures: From the Perspective of New Institutionalism [J]. Journal of Higher Education, 2018 (6): 40-45.
[3]
Yang-Chun SUN. Moral Hazard Precaution in University Governance: A Perspective of Residual Rights [J]. Journal of Higher Education, 2018 (2): 22-26.
[4]
Bernheim B D, Whinston M D. Common agency [J], Econometrica, 1986, 54 (4): 923-942.
[5]
Holmstrom B, Milgrom P. Multi-task principal-agent analyses: Incentives contracts, asset ownership and job design [J], Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1991, 7 (special): 24-52.
[6]
Guo-Dong ZHONG, Kun WAN, Rui-Yu LIU. Multi-agent Behavior Analysis and Incentive Mechanism under Multi-relationship [J]. Technology Economics, 2013 (6): 92-97.
[7]
Ye-An ZHOU, Zi-Feng SONG. Social Preferences, Information Structure and Contract Selection——A Principal-agent Experiment with Multiple Agents [J]. Economic Research Journal, 2011 (11): 130-144.
[8]
Hong-Bin CAI, Qing LIU. Delegation Structure and Incentives: The Case of Multiple Agents [J]. China Economic Quarterly, 2009 (1): 1-22.
[9]
Shu-Lin LIU, Xin-Peng JIANG, Qian YU. Research on Board Effectiveness Based on Multi-agent Cooperation Model [J]. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2015 (2): 150-156.
[10]
Hou-Ping TIAN, Chang-Xian LIU, Ya-Jun GUO. Pay scheme designing with multiple agents in production distribution system and analysis on information value [J]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2008 (1): 42-48.
[11]
Jiao-Jie HAN, Guo-Hua ZHOU, Yan-Lai LI. Research on Multi-Agent Evolutionary Behavior with Bounded Rationality in Project Team Cooperation [J]. Journal of Systems & Management, 2011 (1): 119-128.
[12]
Helmann T F, Murdock K C, Stiglitz J E. Liberalization, moral hazard in banking, and prudential regulation: Are capital requirements enough? [J]. American Economic Review, 2000, 90 (1): 147-165.
[13]
Guo-Hua HUANG, Bang-Yi LI, Tao YE. Research on Collusion of Multiple Agents under Relative Performance Evaluation [J]. Statistics & Decision, 2006 (3): 13-14.
[14]
Jing QIN. Summary of Relative Performance Evaluation Research [J]. Economic Vision, 2013 (2): 102-103.
[15]
Milgrom H P. Aggregation and linearity in the provision of intertemporal Incentives [J], Econometrica, 1987, 55 (2): 303-328.
[16]
Frederickson J R. Relative performance information: The effects of common uncertainty and contract type on agent effort [J], Accounting Review, 1992, 67 (4): 647-669.
[17]
Camara A. The pricing of relative performance based incentives for executive compensation [J]. Journal of Business Finance& Accounting, 2001, (9-10): 1149-1188.
[18]
Holmstrom B, Chen LI. Moral Hazard in Teams [J]. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 2017 (1): 31-45.
Browse journals by subject