Why Punish? Social reciprocity and the enforcement of prosocial norms

Recently economists have become interested in why people who face social dilemmas in the experimental lab use the seemingly incredible threat of punishment to deter free riding. Three theories with evolutionary microfoundations have been developed to explain punishment. We survey these theories and use behavioral data from surveys and experiments to show that the theory called social reciprocity in which people punish norm violators indiscriminately explains punishment best.JEL Classification: C91, C92, D64, H41 Correspondence to: Jeffrey P. CarpenterWe thank Carolyn Craven, Corinna Noelke and two referees for comments, and Middlebury College for financial assistance. In addition, Carpenter acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation (SES-CAREER 0092953).     

From production to sustainability: Considering the whole household

The recent focus on sustainability as guiding principle for economic activity has generated many, and often conflicting, definitions of sustainable economic development. Yet while the terminology may be new, the discussion is not. Rather it parallels the discussion about biases of economic measurement and valuation concepts which have led to the neglect of the domestic and subsistence contribution of female householdership relegated to the informal sector. This paper argues that the selective focus of economics on narrowly defined productive functions has led to the detrimental neglect of sustaining functions without which production itself would be impaired. Informed by feminist theory, three principles are identified which are essential to the conceptual framework of a sustainable production theory. They are: concretion rather than abstraction, connectedness rather than isolation, and diversity rather than homogeneity. Without deterring from the importance of gender (especially in economics), the discussion of these principles of a sustaining orientation of economics is viewed in a broader context of mind-sets. It is argued that to reframe the relationship between production and sustainability as compatible rather than adversarial requires a broadening of theory, inquiry, and methodology. The voices of women who have gone largely unheard in economics are essential in this refraining process.

---

Zusammenfassung Von der Produktion zur Nachhaltigkeit: Die Betrachtung des Haushalts als Ganzes. Die neuere Betonung der Nachhaltigkeit als Leitprinzip für ökonomisches Handeln hat zu vielen — manchmal uneinheitlichen — Definitionen der nachhaltigen wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung geführt. Neu ist bei dieser Diskussion nur die terminologische Seite, die inhaltliche ist es nicht. Vielmehr gleicht sie der Diskussion über unzulÄngliche Konzepte zur ökonomischen Messung und Bewertung, die zu einer VernachlÄssigung des dem informellen Sektor zugeordneten Unterhaltsbeitrages der überwiegend weiblichen haushÄlterischen TÄtigkeit geführt hat. Der vorliegende Beitrag will zeigen, da\ die einseitige Betonung eng definierter produktiver Funktionen durch das ökonomische Denken zu einer schÄdlichen VernachlÄssigung der Unterhaltsfunktionen geführt hat, ohne die die Produktion sehr beeintrÄchtigt wÄre. Ausgehend von feministischer Theorie werden drei Prinzipien identifiziert, die für eine Theorie nachhaltiger Produktion wichtig sind: Konkretisierung statt Abstraktion, Verbundenheit statt Isolation und Verschiedenheit statt Einheitlichkeit. Wenn Produktion und Nachhaltigkeit in neuer Sichtweise nicht mehr nur als gegensÄtzlich, sondern als miteinander vereinbar gesehen werden sollen, so ist dafür eine Ausweitung der Fragestellungen der Theorie und der Methodologie notwendig. Die Stimmen der in der ökonomik weitgehend ungehörten Frauen sind für diese neue Sichtweise sehr wichtig.

     

German rail vehicle construction in the context of market globalisation

Conclusion In the guise of ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation and Siemens, Germany has two powerful systems suppliers in a good position to keep pace with other systems suppliers on global markets. As in the air-travel industry it is conceivable that developments are moving towards a uniform rail technology. Although the buy national principle still dominates procurement practices, and national egos still dominate the development of rail systems (ICE, TGV), growing competition from Japan could force Europe to develop a European system. This would significantly increase the chances of European industry in bidding for international contracts. For this reason the EU should not relent in its efforts to standardise European rail systems.     

Consumer Bankruptcy: A Right or a Privilege? The Role of the Courts in Establishing Moral Standards of Economic Conduct

The Norwegian Consumer Bankruptcy Act was passed 17 July 1992 to give persons with "serious debt problems (. . .) the possibility to gain control over their economy." The Act contains provisions for negotiations between the debtor and the creditors, for court rulings on repayment plans, and for a discharge of the debts not covered by the plan. The origin of the Act was a social welfare approach to the problem of overindebtedness. However, the Act embodies an inherent contradiction in that it also includes moral elements in order to prevent it from exerting a negative influence on the perceived obligation to pay one's debts. This contradiction has given the courts a wide scope of discretion in the application of the Act. As a result, cases are treated differently in different jurisdictions. Some judges put more emphasis on moral evaluations than others. This situation also gives room for strategic action from creditor groups who typically are repeat players in cases of consumer bankruptcy. In this way the more objective, social welfare approach of the Act is undermined.     

REGULATION OF FINANCIAL MARKETS: TOWARD A FOCUSED APPROACH

Regulation of financial markets arose in a simpler time when transactions were carried out face to face on an exchange floor or in a banker's office—when trading was localized and the variety of financial instruments was small. Today the task of regulators is much more difficult. Markets are global, trading takes place in cyberspace, and the variety of financial instruments is limitless.
The initial focus, and still the central concern, of our regulatory system is to ensure full corporate disclosure and transparency of trading markets. But regulation today goes far beyond disclosure requirements. The existing tendency to expand regulation to match the expanding financial markets is likely to be inefficient, unwieldy, and too costly, given the increased complexity and global nature of financial markets. A new approach and a new regulatory mindset are needed—one in which regulators aim to identify and provide only necessary regulation rather than simply continuing to expand regulatory oversight. Such a focused approach to regulation would separate what is regulated from what is not. Those aspects of banking that are essential to the integrity of the payments system would be regulated while other aspects would not. Some securities and derivatives markets would be regulated, while others would not. And market participants would be able to choose which markets to participate in. Given an ever-expanding financial system, such a focused approach to regulation is not only the most cost effective one—it is also likely to prove the only workable alternative to a system that is now under great pressure.     

Biomarker of Quality? Venture‐backed Biotech IPOs and Insider Participation

Corporate financial managers of biotech firms need long‐term financing to reach key milestones, and that requires a long‐ term capital structure. They must balance a mix of investors with different objectives and different investment horizons that includes traditional venture capitalists and also hedge funds and mutual funds. This study helps practitioners understand the complex role of exit decisions, as venture capitalists seek better exit strategies and performance. IPOs are financing but not “exit” moves. In addition to certifying firm value, insider purchasing of shares in the IPO offering has two major consequences. First, venture capitalists reallocate large sums of capital from early‐stage to late‐stage deals that are expected to have lower risk (but also lower expected return) and shorter time to exit. Second, the speed at which VCs exit after the IPO depends on the firm ownership structure after the IPO and the stock liquidity. Going public with a significant participation by venture capitalists will probably increase the post‐IPO ownership and decrease the free float of the stock, implying a delay of the exit and the realization of the capital gains from the investments. Although this study has focused exclusively on the biotechnology industry, insider participation is not unique to it. Biotech's venture brethren in the software and technology industries also have insider participation in IPOs. During 2003–2015, approximately 41 venture‐backed firms outside of the biotechnology sector had insider participation.