The Perception of Inequality of Opportunity in Europe

Does the way in which scholars measure inequality of opportunity correspond to how people perceive it? What other factors influence individual perception of this phenomenon? To answer these questions, we must first clarify how scholars define and measure inequality of opportunity. We discuss the possible mechanisms linking objective measures to subjective perception of the phenomenon, then propose a measure of perceived inequality of opportunity, and finally test our hypothesis by merging data from two sources: the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (2011) and the International Social Survey Programme (2009). We suggest that the prevailing perception of the degree of unequal opportunity in a large sample of respondents is only weakly correlated with its objective measure. We estimate a multilevel model considering both individual‐ and country‐level controls to explain individual perception of unequal opportunity. Our estimates suggest that the two most adopted measures of inequality of opportunity have no clear role in explaining its perception. Conversely, other country‐level variables and personal experiences of intergenerational social mobility are important determinants of how inequality of opportunity is perceived.     

Export variety and the economic performance of countries

We explore the relationship between export variety and economic development, using data on OECD countries between 1964 and 2003. We show that structural change in the world economy has a particular arrow of time leading to a growing variety of exports. Distinguishing between related variety (within sectors) and unrelated variety (variety between sectors), we also show that related variety stimulates growth instantaneously, while unrelated variety only promotes growth with a considerable time lag. This finding is in line with the evolutionary notions that economic development and international trade patterns are path dependent.

Preferences,entry, and market structure

We provide a unified approach to imperfect (monopolistic, Bertrand, and Cournot) competition when preferences are symmetric over a finite but endogenous number of goods. Markups depend on the Morishima elasticity of substitution and on the number of varieties. The comparative statics of free‐entry equilibria is examined, establishing the conditions for markup neutrality with respect to income, market size, and productivity. We compare endogenous and optimal market structures for several non‐CES examples. With a generalized linear direct utility, the markup can be constant and optimal under monopolistic competition, and nonmonotonic in the number of firms under Bertrand or Cournot competition.     

Local volatility under rough volatility

Several asymptotic results for the implied volatility generated by a rough volatility model have been obtained in recent years (notably in the small-maturity regime), providing a better understanding of the shapes of the volatility surface induced by rough volatility models, supporting their calibration power to SP500 option data. Rough volatility models also generate a local volatility surface, via the so-called Markovian projection of the stochastic volatility. We complement the existing results on implied volatility by studying the asymptotic behavior of the local volatility surface generated by a class of rough stochastic volatility models, encompassing the rough Bergomi model. Notably, we observe that the celebrated “1/2 skew rule” linking the short-term at-the-money skew of the implied volatility to the short-term at-the-money skew of the local volatility, a consequence of the celebrated “harmonic mean formula” of [Berestycki et al. (2002). Quantitative Finance, 2, 61–69], is replaced by a new rule: the ratio of the at-the-money implied and local volatility skews tends to the constant $1/(H+3/2)$ (as opposed to the constant 1/2), where H is the regularity index of the underlying instantaneous volatility process.