Asymmetric expectation effects of regime shifts in monetary policy

This paper addresses two substantive issues: (1) Does the magnitude of the expectation effect of regime switching in monetary policy depend on a particular policy regime? (2) Under which regime is the expectation effect quantitatively important? Using two canonical DSGE models, we show that there exists asymmetry in the expectation effect across regimes. The expectation effect under the dovish policy regime is quantitatively more important than that under the hawkish regime. These results suggest that the possibility of regime shifts in monetary policy can have important effects on rational agents' expectation formation and on equilibrium dynamics. They offer a theoretical explanation for the empirical possibility that a policy shift from the dovish regime to the hawkish regime may not be the main source of substantial reductions in the volatilities of inflation and output.     

Globalization and the connection of remote communities: A review of household effects and their biodiversity implications

The remote regions of the world provide refuge to a disproportionate amount of the Earth's biodiversity. As globalization continues, isolated human communities in these regions are increasingly connected to global market, migration, and technology networks. We review the diffuse literature on the household effects of changing market access, migration, and technology adoption in remote regions and implications for native biodiversity. Market access affects biodiversity in remote communities through changes in household economics and social networks. Migration, either to or from remote settlements, affects biodiversity through changes in population, remittances, human capital, and social networks. Finally, we consider effects due to production, public infrastructure, and information and communication technologies. There is much ambiguity surrounding these causal pathways, and thus we also examine the roles of various ecological, household, community, and institutional mediating factors in determining the impacts of global connection. Finally, we explore the limitations of our current knowledge and research practices and propose directions for future work to address key uncertainties in theory and evidence as well as weaknesses in methodological approaches. We recommend a broad and interdisciplinary mode of inquiry as the best means toward clarifying globalization's impacts on human settlements and the biodiversity harbored in the Earth's remaining remote regions.     

Concatenate coordination and mutual coordination

We tell of the evolving meaning of the term coordination as used by economists. The paper is based on systematic electronic searches (on “coord,” etc.) of major works and leading journals. The term coordination first emerged in professional economics around 1880, to describe the directed productive concatenation of factors or activities within a firm. Also, transportation economists used the term to describe the concatenation of routes and trips of a transportation system. These usages represent what we term concatenate coordination. The next major development came in the 1930s from several LSE economists (Hayek, Plant, Hutt, and Coase), who extended that concept beyond the eye of any actual coordinator. That is, they wrote of the concatenate coordination of a system of polycentric or spontaneous activities. These various applications of concatenate coordination prevailed until the next major development, namely, Thomas Schelling and game models. Here coordination referred to a mutual meshing of actions. Game theorists developed crisp ideas of coordination games (like “battle of the sexes”), coordination equilibria, convention, and path dependence. This “coordination” was not a refashioning, but rather a distinct concept, one we distinguish as mutual coordination. As game models became more familiar to economists, it was mutual coordination that economists increasingly had in mind when they spoke of “coordination.” Economists switched, so to speak, to a new semantic equilibrium. Now, mutual coordination overshadows the older notion of concatenate coordination. The two senses of coordination are conceptually distinct and correspond neatly to the two dictionary definitions of the verb to coordinate. Both are crucial to economics. We suggest that distinguishing between the two senses can help to clarify “coordination” talk. Also, compared to talk of “efficiency” and “optimality,” concatenate coordination allows for a richer, more humanistic, and more openly aesthetic discussion of social affairs. The narrative is backed up by Excel worksheets that report on systematic content searches of the writings of economics using the worldwide web and, using JSTOR, of Quarterly Journal of Economics, Economic Journal, Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, and Economica.     

EQUILIBRIA EXISTENCE AND CHARACTERIZATION IN AUCTIONS: ACHIEVEMENTS AND OPEN QUESTIONS

Abstract Establishing existence and characterizing equilibria are both important achievements in the study of auctions. However, we recognize that equilibria existence results form the basis for well accepted characterizations. In this survey, we review the landmark results and highlight open questions regarding equilibria existence and characterizations in auctions. In addition, we review the standard assumptions underlying these results, and discuss the suitability of the Nash equilibrium solution concept. We focus our review on single‐object auctions, but also review results in multi‐unit, divisible, combinatorial and double auctions.     

Opportunity costs and non‐scale free capabilities: profit maximization,corporate scope,and profit margins

The resource‐based view on firm diversification, subsequent to Penrose ( 1959 ), has focused primarily on the fungibility of resources across domains. We make a clear analytical distinction between scale free capabilities and those that are subject to opportunity costs and must be allocated to one use or another, thereby shifting the discourse back to Penrose's ( 1959 ) original argument regarding the stock of organizational capabilities. The existence of resources and capabilities that must be allocated across alternative uses implies that profit‐maximizing diversification decisions should be based upon the opportunity cost of their use in one domain or another. This opportunity cost logic provides a rational explanation for the divergence between total profits and profit margins. Firms make profit‐maximizing decisions to increase total profit via diversification when the industries in which they are currently competing become relatively mature. Due to the spreading of these capabilities across more segments, we may observe that firms' profit‐maximizing diversification actions lead to total profit growth but lower average returns. The model provides an alternative explanation for empirical observations regarding the diversification discount. The self‐selection effect noted in recent work in corporate finance may not be indicative of inferior capabilities of diversifying firms but of the limited opportunity contexts in which these firms are operating. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Testing the TASP: An experimental investigation of learning in games with unstable equilibria

We report experiments studying mixed strategy Nash equilibria that are theoretically stable or unstable under learning. The Time Average Shapley Polygon (TASP) predicts behavior in the unstable case. We study two versions of Rock-Paper-Scissors that include a fourth strategy, Dumb. The unique Nash equilibrium is identical in the two games, but the predicted frequency of Dumb is much higher in the game where the NE is stable. Consistent with TASP, the observed frequency of Dumb is lower and play is further from Nash in the high payoff unstable treatment. However, Dumb is played too frequently in all treatments.     

The Forsaken‐Liberty Syndrome: Looking at Published Judgments to Say Whether Economists Reach a Conclusion

Do economists reach a conclusion on a given policy issue? One way to answer the question is to survey economists at large. Another is to look at the published judgments of economists who have gone on the record. Relative to an anonymous survey, going on the record makes for much greater accountability, and presumably more personal responsibility. I discuss 11 studies of economists’ published judgments. Several of them show greater support for liberalization than found among economists at large. This is offered as evidence of what I call the forsaken‐liberty syndrome. I discuss the nature of this test of such syndrome and point to some of the larger questions to which it relates.     

The Impulse of Stock Market Volatility and the Market Crash of October 1987

This paper employs the technique of variance decomposition and impulse response functions to examine the dynamic nature of stock market volatility relationships among six major countries during the pre, around, and post October 1987 crash period. During the period around the crash, the US stock market volatility explains much better the variations of the stock market volatility of Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and the UK. Our findings clearly indicate that the crash originated in the US and then spread to other major stock markets.