Competing with Costco and Sam's Club: Warehouse Club Entry and Grocery Prices

Prior research shows that grocery stores reduce prices to compete with Walmart Supercenters. This study finds evidence that the competitive effects of two other big‐box retailers—Costco and Walmart‐owned Sam's Club—are quite different. Using city‐level panel grocery price data matched with a unique data set on Walmart and warehouse club locations, we find that Costco entry is associated with higher grocery prices at incumbent retailers and that the effect is strongest in cities with small populations and high grocery store densities. This is consistent with incumbents competing with Costco along nonprice dimensions, such as product quality or quality of the shopping experience. We find no evidence that Sam's Club entry affects grocery stores' prices, consistent with Sam's Club's focus on small businesses instead of consumers.     

Is Holland a Lumpy Country? An application of the Lens-Condition to Dutch Cities

De Economist - Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are dimensionless points. Recent research, however, shows that the internal geography of countries is important for the trade...     

Government‐spending multipliers and the zero lower bound in an open economy

This paper assesses the size of the government‐spending multiplier in an open economy when the zero lower bound (ZLB) on the nominal interest rate is binding. In a theoretical framework, in a closed economy, other authors have shown that when the nominal interest rate is binding the government‐spending multiplier can be very large (close to four). Their theory helps illuminate the government‐spending multiplier in the ZLB, but it is difficult to match that theory with the data. We argue that, in an open economy, another channel exists for the crowding‐out effect via the real exchange rate. For an open economy, the government‐spending multiplier is not large owing to the appreciation of the real exchange rate, induced by the appreciation of aggregate demand that follows the increases in government spending. To test the robustness of our open economic model, we conduct the same analysis in a corresponding closed economy model. The result from our closed economy model confirms the result obtained in the other work. Our theoretical results are consistent with the results obtained in the empirical literature, which uses the vector autoregressive method and the structural vector autoregressive approach to measure the impact of government‐spending shock on the real gross domestic product and revealed that the government‐spending multiplier tends to be lower in open economy.     

A possible explanation of the ‘Exchange Rate Disconnect Puzzle’: a common solution to three macroeconomic puzzles?

Meese and Rogoff (1983) and subsequent studies find that economic fundamentals are apparently not able to explain exchange rate movements, but we argue that this so-called ‘Exchange Rate Disconnect Puzzle’ arose because researchers such as Meese and Rogoff (1983) did not use the right fundamentals and because they did not allow for the forward-looking nature of exchange rate determination. Further, because they apparently were not aware that financial markets by themselves could not equalize interest rates across countries, they did not properly appreciate that the exchange rate is strongly influenced by agents’ expectations of aggregated differences in local returns. Thus, we believe that the same underlying explanation provided by Ford (2015) and Ford and Horioka (2016a, 2016b) for the Feldstein-Horioka (1980) Puzzle and the PPP Puzzle – namely that financial markets alone cannot achieve net transfers of financial capital and cannot equalize real interest rates across countries – also helps explain why previous attempts to connect changes in the exchange rate to economic fundamentals have not been successful and so can also be said to contribute to solving the Exchange Rate Disconnect Puzzle.     

Anticipatory Savoring and Consumption: Just Thinking about That First Bite of Chocolate Fills You Up Faster

Two laboratory studies examine how consumers adjust their eating to the size of the portion they expect to receive. Participants who knew in advance that they would receive six pieces of chocolate waited less time before eating each piece and ate more pieces than participants who expected to receive only two pieces when they started, even though both groups were ultimately offered six pieces. In the second study, natural variance in how long participants waited before tasting the chocolates was negatively related to how many additional pieces they thought they could eat after finishing the last piece. These results suggest that increasing the interval prior to taking the first bite of a piece of chocolate reduced overall consumption. When consumers focus their attention on eating, the interval before taking the first bite captures anticipatory savoring—psychologically looking forward to the actual consumption experience.