Decision Making as Output and Bounded Rationality

  The classical economics theories proceed on the assumption of rational agents. Rationality implies the economic agents undertake actions or exercise choices based on the cost-benefit analysis they undertake. The assumption further posits that there exists no information asymmetry and thus the agent is aware of all the costs and benefits associated with the choice he or she has exercised. The behavioral school contested the decision stating the decisions in practice are often irrational. Implied there is a continuous departure from rationality. Rationality in the views of the behavioral school is more an exception to the norm rather a rule. The past posts have discussed the limitations of this view by the behavioral school. Economics has often posited rationality in the context in which the choices are exercised rather than theoretical abstract view of rational action. Rational action in theory seems to be grounded in zero restraint situation yet in practice, there are numerous restra

Formula 1 Constructors, Champions and Elasticity of Supply



Formula 1 World Constructors’ Championship is won every year based on the points system determined through the Grand Prix results. It is calculated by adding the drivers points in each Grand Prix. In more than half century of championships only 14 constructors have been successful. Further these constructors have come only from four different nations. The most successful is the Scuderia Ferrari which won it 16 times.  Only 12 teams compete in this race from all across the globe of which one wins the top position.

The victory in the championship yields tremendous dividends. As we know, participation is limited implying FIA which runs the races is operating in monopsony market. Demand for slots is high with highly inelastic supply.  Why would firms spend billions of dollars to gain that FIA constructors crown.  In fact in recent years, thanks to increasing expenditure on technological improvements, firms have gone bankrupt. Adding to this cost is the astronomical fee of 47 million USD which each new team has to pay upfront. At one point that due to increased car costs a scarcity was created which had to be filled up by using Formula 2 cars.

Further if you consider Formula I Constructors Championship itself as a resource being contested by 12 teams, it is infinitely inelastic. There is one resource per year and only one team gains..  The price for that resource is the costs the firms incur in preparing the cars and drivers every year to go for that ultimate honor. Why firms incur these costs?  The answer lies in the marginal benefits they derive from winning the championship. We know every constructor would compete and incur expenses until the marginal benefits (MB) equal marginal costs (MC). If MC is greater than MB, the constructor scales down its participation.  However, the windfalls the constructor gains are tremendous. High profile and popularity makes it an attractive proposition for merchandising environment.  Further the sponsorship money has increased to more than $800 million in 2011. The sponsors expect positive spillovers from the championship and indirectly contribute to the car constructors spending in millions of dollars on drivers and even minor improvements.  Further the sponsorship money (accounts for 60% of the constructor’s budget) is not uniformly spread. The front-runners gain most of this budget while the back markers traditionally lose out heavily. In such scenario being a front runner can mean life or death for the constructor.  While the top 3 teams gain more than half of the sponsorship amount, the teams at the rear struggle to raise even a million dollars of sponsorship the following year. In the contest where engines and technological differences can play a vital role, budget differentials could play spoilsport for the minor players.  The payments for engine development and also hiring best of the drivers incur further costs and unless the firms get revenues commiserate with the costs; it is not possible for them to be a part of the competition.  For the marketers, this is a platform for global marketing and merchandising and promotions. The popularity of the show can lead to positive spillovers for host of industries who sponsor the show.

Spillovers for car manufacturers and sponsors determine why constructors crave for F1 world constructors championship.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decision Making as Output and Bounded Rationality

The Chicken-Egg Conundrum of Economics

A Note on Supply-Demand Dynamics