Experimental economics is the up and coming new field, with plenty of interesting research going on. But many people criticize it because the experiments, while controlled, do not reflect real world situations. The stakes in the experiments are too small, the participants are not representative, the experiments not relevant. Add to these criticisms a new one.
Joseph Henrich, Steve Heine and Ara Norenzayan claim this literature, and others, concentrates on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. And these societies, with 12% of the world population, are not representative of the rest of the world, in fact they are downright ... weird. To make their point, Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan look, among others, at the ultimatum game in all sorts of societies. This is a standard game that is in particular used to measure altruism ans spite: a prize is to be shared, one player proposes a split, and the other can reject the proposal, leading to both getting nothing. In "weird" societies, the standard result is a 48-50% for the second player, who accepts. Offer below 30% are typically rejected. Subgame perfection, however, would suggest that any amount above zero should be accepted, and the smallest possible is to be accepted.
What about in other societies, the "non-weird" ones? Small scale societies, where people are used to live face-to-face, make low offers and accept them. Worse, it appears that offers that are particularly high are rejected, something that also applies to European societies. Quite consistently, and the authors provide other examples, American experimental subjects end up at an extreme of outcome distributions
Does this mean that the US undergraduate, on whom the vast majority of experiments are performed, is misleading us thoroughly? Not necessarily, after all he may help us understand the homo economicus americanus, but even there one can have doubts. But we may need to rethink seriously how economic theory applies to other societies, at least for some research questions. Experimental economics has still a lot of work on its plate.
C{A|R}RA utility
When it comes to modeling preferences in uncertainty, the usual choice is usually between constant absolute risk aversion (CARA, with an exponential function) and constant relative risk aversion (CRRA, with a power function). That is somewhat limiting, especially when one needs to cover a rather wide domain, as there is then no reason to believe risk aversion remains constant.
Masako Ikefuji, Roger Laeven, Jan Magnus and Chris Muris come up with a mixture, which they name Burr utility. It is CRRA at the origin and CARA at infinity and is a function that has some familiarity for those who use subsistence consumption (Stone-Geary utility function) except that this constant term is added. This implies in particular that marginal utility is never infinite, which is a property I am not sure I want to miss.
Masako Ikefuji, Roger Laeven, Jan Magnus and Chris Muris come up with a mixture, which they name Burr utility. It is CRRA at the origin and CARA at infinity and is a function that has some familiarity for those who use subsistence consumption (Stone-Geary utility function) except that this constant term is added. This implies in particular that marginal utility is never infinite, which is a property I am not sure I want to miss.
Is Europe a third world country?
Following up on last week's rant, why would an American arriving for the first time in Europe think he arrived in a third world country?
- Cars are tiny, many people use bicycles or walk.
- Food portions are small and rationed.
- People live on top of each other.
- Lots of idle people in the streets.
- Many places do not accept plastic money, including hotels.
- Ethnic hatred going far back in time.
- No shyness about being naked.
- Many monarchies.
- And... passports are checked when you leave.
Large plants and distance to customers
Understanding why some firms export and some others do not is important for industrial policy. In empirical studies, one factor that always appears to be important is plant size: larger plants have a higher propensity to export. This has been rationalized, for example, by some fix cost of exporting, for example learning about foreign markets and producing to their specifications. But there is more to the story.
Thomas Holmes and John Stevens find that the distance to domestic markets is also associated to plant size. As export markets typically also distant, the link is clear. In fact, Holmes and Stevens claim that 50% of the plant size-export relationship can be explained by distance. Then how are we going to rationalize this? But it is clear from this that it makes little sense to assist a plant in exporting if it does not ship across the country.
Thomas Holmes and John Stevens find that the distance to domestic markets is also associated to plant size. As export markets typically also distant, the link is clear. In fact, Holmes and Stevens claim that 50% of the plant size-export relationship can be explained by distance. Then how are we going to rationalize this? But it is clear from this that it makes little sense to assist a plant in exporting if it does not ship across the country.
Bubbles with collateral and infinite credit
Rational bubbles occur when people believe that prices will increase into the infinite future, which makes that they invest in more assets and prices really increase. But equilibrium models have difficulties replicating such phenomena because this increased wealth also induces, at some point, people to consume more, and then the budget constraint bites and halts the bubble. So how could one still get a rational bubble? By relaxing the budget constraint.
This is what Christopher Reicher does in a way that is reminiscent of the US before the crisis: through the provision of unlimited credit, which is possible if real estate is used as collateral. This sounds rather intuitive, as long as lenders are willing to go along. What is more interesting is that the model shows that there are monetary and fiscal policies that can prevent bubbles from happening. One is to apply the fiscal theory of the price level to credit markets, that is, to make sure the price level instantaneously responds to land prices to deflate the debt. If this is difficult to implement, and it would, another way to deflate a bubble is the make sure the returns of assets are lower by increasing interest rates of bonds, which makes them more interesting than real estate. Of course, one could also tax away the bubble. And one has first to recognize that there is a bubble.
This is what Christopher Reicher does in a way that is reminiscent of the US before the crisis: through the provision of unlimited credit, which is possible if real estate is used as collateral. This sounds rather intuitive, as long as lenders are willing to go along. What is more interesting is that the model shows that there are monetary and fiscal policies that can prevent bubbles from happening. One is to apply the fiscal theory of the price level to credit markets, that is, to make sure the price level instantaneously responds to land prices to deflate the debt. If this is difficult to implement, and it would, another way to deflate a bubble is the make sure the returns of assets are lower by increasing interest rates of bonds, which makes them more interesting than real estate. Of course, one could also tax away the bubble. And one has first to recognize that there is a bubble.
It is difficult to measure poverty
Measuring poverty is very difficult. First, it is a relative concept and requires the definition of a standard or threshold. Second, as people are usually not normally distributed, any single measure misses some aspect of the distribution. Third, the item whose distribution is measured may not be the appropriate one to represent poverty. Most of the time this is income, but temporary low income is very different from permanent low income, and in both cases, purchasing power may differ dramatically on location, social policies and period. All these difficulties have lead to a plethora of poverty measures. In fact, if you look at the program of any economic inequality conference, there will be plenty of papers on new measures by authors hopeful that their names will stick to a new index or coefficient.
Walter Bossert, Satya Chakravarty and Conchita d'Ambrosio come up with a new measure that emphasizes the persistence of poverty. They are very careful in making their measure following three axioms: the measure corresponds to static poverty in the one period-case, a measure is worse is poverty spells are longer ans spells out of poverty are shorter, and two decomposability axioms too complex to describe here.
The measure they propose is a weighted sum of per period poverty measures, where weight are proportional to the current poverty spell. Using the European Community Household Panel, they find that their measure does not change rankings much whether poverty spell weights are used or not. But I bet they would change quite a bit for the US.
Walter Bossert, Satya Chakravarty and Conchita d'Ambrosio come up with a new measure that emphasizes the persistence of poverty. They are very careful in making their measure following three axioms: the measure corresponds to static poverty in the one period-case, a measure is worse is poverty spells are longer ans spells out of poverty are shorter, and two decomposability axioms too complex to describe here.
The measure they propose is a weighted sum of per period poverty measures, where weight are proportional to the current poverty spell. Using the European Community Household Panel, they find that their measure does not change rankings much whether poverty spell weights are used or not. But I bet they would change quite a bit for the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)