A rational rank four demand system

Past parametric tests of demand system rank employed polynomial Engel curve systems. However, by Gorman's ( 1981 ) theorem, the maximum possible rank of a utility‐derived polynomial demand system is three. The present paper proposes a class of demand systems that are utility derived, are close to polynomial, and have rank four. These systems nest rational polynomial demands, and so can be used to test ranks up to four. These systems are suitable for applications where high rank is likely, such as demand systems involving a large number of goods. A test of rank using this new class of systems is applied to UK consumer demand data. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Falsification of Four Popular Hypotheses About the Asian Crisis

Various claims have been made about the causes of the Asian crisis and its spread. Here, we use data on the behaviour of capital flows during the crisis to test the strong forms of four such hypotheses, that portfolio investors and hedge funds played a dominant role in initiating and/or spreading the crisis; that moral hazard kept efficient markets from predicting the crisis; and, finally, the common lender hypothesis of Kaminsky and Reinhart. In the process we also test implications of the Calvo-Mendoza model of rational investor ignorance. All are falsified as monocausal explanations. For example, portfolio investments that could not have been subject to substantial moral hazard continued to flow into Asia until very shortly before the crisis. Likewise, banks were a much larger source of capital outflows during the crisis than were portfolio investors. While falsified in their strongest forms, several of these hypotheses in less strong forms should play a role in a more nuanced analysis. It is necessary to move past simple single-factor approaches in order to produce a more complete, synthetic explanation of this episode.     

Background Risk and the Performance of Insurance Markets under Adverse Selection

Background risk can influence the performance of insurance markets that must deal with adverse selection when applicants are risk vulnerable, since they are more averse to bearing the insurable risk as a result of their exposures to background risk. We show that background risk always results in a lower deductible for the incentive constrained contract, and that a broader range of markets attains the stable sequential equilibrium cross-subsidized pair of separating contracts. We conclude that background risk always improves the performance of markets for coverage against (insurable) foreground risks that must deal with adverse selection. We also find, however, that these improvements are never sufficient to offset the cost to insureds of bearing the background risk.     

Gas plant problems and the insurance industry

The methodology used by insurance companies in evaluating risk covers both property and casualty insurance. Topics of discussion include: Total Loss Control (How to achieve it, and its relationship to Governmental Regulations), and the importance of equipment design and maintenance in preventing catastrophic losses. This discussion is based on studies of hundreds of large losses over the past twenty-five years.     

Öffentliches und Geheimes

In the second half of 2009, the entire media agenda in Germany was dominated by the swine flu, next to the German Federal Parliament elections. Criticism was voiced in the media against the pharmaceutical industry for lobbying the nationwide swine flu vaccination, which was widely considered nothing but a product of the industry’s lobbying power. In order to avoid the usual interviews with lobbyists, we attempted to apply a new methodological framework approach in analysing lobbying processes and key stakeholders in the public sphere—and outside. Crucial to the diversified approach, which involves quantitative content analysis of media coverage and press releases, are interviews with journalists, lobbyists’ network analysis and internet research on biographies. Although a conspiracy could not be conclusively proven, the results do indicate associations that validate the criticism of the industry’s lobbying activities.     

Paradox,accounting values,and intelligible regulation

Expected utility theory, which includes estimating the probabilities of uncertain future outcomes, is the classical model for rational economic decision making, and, by implication, rational valuation and financial reporting regulation. In Wittgensteinian terms it is a ‘hinge’ of the language game in which these practices are embedded. When rendered explicit, however, this ‘hinge’ appears to be formally incoherent. The exploration of this problem has consequences for all of our arguments over the epistemological underpinnings of accounting reports – whether realist, representational, constructivist, or otherwise.Arguably, there are two complementary primitive models that underlie real-world probability estimation. Taken together, they generate a version of Goodman's inductive paradox (other versions of which also arise for non-inductive empirical generalisation). This, in its turn, is related to Kripke's paradox, which arises when we try to give behavioural accounts of rule following, and so of participation in a language game.This paper explicates this type of paradox in the context of commercial decision making, and considers its consequences. The existence of paradoxes should render the system that generates them completely incoherent, but (paradoxically …) they seem to be generated by any attempt to give complete accounts of some of the normative fundamentals which underlie linguistic practice – such as truth-telling, validity and rule-following.Whether or not these paradoxes represent a serious threat to the coherence of the empirical or behavioural sciences, it might be objected that commercial decision making methods and financial regulation rarely aspire to the kind of rigour that these disciplines attempt to achieve. Part of the argument of this paper will be that the intelligibility of commercial language suggests an approach to these paradoxes which is not obvious from more traditional philosophical perspectives.The intentionality of belief renders certain belief claims by participants in a shared language game incorrigible (within the game), in the sense that they can be doubted only by doubting the seriousness or quality of participation. If certain statements about rule following and word meaning have this same quality, then there is a way of avoiding the consequences of Goodman's and Kripke's paradoxes, and of sterilising the probability estimation paradox for any playable commercial language game.