Efficient Allocation of Radio Spectrum

Legislative reforms in Anglo‐American countries require governments to account for efficient spectrum usage subject to interference control. New spectrum governance regimes promote flexible and competitive usage but the broadcasting industry remains exempt from reforms, at a significant cost to society. The need to liberalize broadcast spectrum cannot be overstated, but how should we select among alternative deregulatory regimes? In a simple stylized model we formalize the welfare effects of allocating licenses for using bandwidth on broadcast spectrum. We provide optimality conditions for entry, spectrum usage, and congestion levels under different market conditions, which allows us to justify the selection of specific governance arrangements.     

Cognitive Ability and the Stock Reallocations of Retirees during the Great Recession

Retirees are increasingly responsible for managing their retirement savings. The ability to manage these assets efficiently can have an important impact on retirement well‐being. Lower levels of cognitive ability in old age can reduce an investor's ability to control emotional responses to a loss. Greater sensitivity to loss may increase preferences for safety following a market decline, resulting in allocations away from stocks that are associated with long‐term underperformance. We investigate whether cognitive ability is related to stock reallocations among retirees during the Great Recession. Using the Health and Retirement Study, we find that cognitive ability is negatively related to allocations away from stock. Compared to those with the lowest levels of cognitive ability, respondents with higher cognitive ability are 40% less likely to reduce their stock allocation by 50% or more. These results suggest that the quality of investment decisions in old age may be compromised by cognitive decline.     

Why Don't Households Have a Checking Account?

Using the Surveys of Consumer Finance from 1989 to 2001, this study expolres households’ reasons for not having a checking account. Reasons havechanged over time, shifting away from account features and toward human capital and institutional reasons. We also find that reasons for not having an account are related to income, race/ethnicity, marital status/gender, planning horizon, education, previous account experience, and credit history. We suggest potential responses for community educators, firms, and policy makers.     

Under Construction: The Continuing Evolution of Job Structures in Call Centers

We study inbound call centers in fourteen businesses, using interview‐based case studies. Contrary to the notion that U.S. businesses are eliminating job security and internal career tracks, these firms still incorporate these features in their job structures, and in many cases businesses that initially dismantled job and career structures ended up rebuilding them. The paper suggests a more nuanced account of changing job structures that incorporates market, institutional, and agency factors.     

Working‐class consumer credit in the UK, 1925–60: the role of the check trader1

This article provides fresh insights into working‐class credit by examining the history of check trading. It explains the system's origins, and its dependence on a series of relationships involving check traders and their agents, retailers, and customers. Data from the market leader— Provident Clothing and Supply Co. Ltd—is analysed to explore the scale and scope of the sector, and to examine its history from the early 1920s to the 1960s. Check trading was both an important and controversial supplier of credit to working‐class families, and the article explores criticisms of the system, and the reason for its popularity.     

MONITORING ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE POVERTY: “NOT ENOUGH” IS NOT THE SAME AS “MUCH LESS”

Financial poverty indicators assess which people have few financial resources and are thereby at risk of having an unacceptably low living standard. Most countries use one or several “official” poverty indicators, but they typically use either an absolute or a relative benchmark to determine what is unacceptable; absolute benchmarks are based on basic needs or rights while relative benchmarks depend on what is considered to be a “normal” living standard. Applying the absolute U.S. and the relative EU poverty indicators on the U.S. and 15 EU member states, this research shows that it makes sense to use both benchmarks.