How a Reduction of Standard Working Hours Affects Employment Dynamics

December 1, 1996 a new law was implemented in Portugal to gradually reduce the standard workweek from 44 to 40 h. We study how this mandatory reduction affected employment through job creation and job destruction. There was considerable regional, sectoral and firm-size variation in the share of workers who were affected by the working hours reduction. We exploit this variation to assess the impact of the workweek reduction. We find evidence that the working hours reduction had a positive effect on employment through a fall in job destruction.     

Overreaction to Fearsome Risks

When risks threaten, cognitive mechanisms bias people toward action or inaction. Fearsome risks are highly available. The availability bias tells us that this leads people to overestimate their frequency. Therefore, they also overreact to curtail the likelihood or consequences of such risks. More generally, fear can paralyze efforts to think clearly about risks. We draw on a range of environmental risks to show the following: (1) Fear leads us to neglect probability of occurrence; (2) As fearsome environmental risks are usually imposed by others (as externalities), indignation stirs excess reaction; (3) We often misperceive or miscalculate such risks. Two experiments demonstrate probability neglect when fearsome risks arise: (a) willingness-to-pay to eliminate the cancer risk from arsenic in water (described in vivid terms) did not vary despite a 10-fold variation in risk; (b) the willingness-to-accept price for a painful but non dangerous electric shock did not vary between a 1 and 100% chance. Possible explanations relate to the role of the amygdala in impairing cognitive brain function. Government and the law, both made by mortals and both responding to public pressures, similarly neglect probabilities for fearsome risks. Examples relating to shark attacks, Love Canal, alar and terrorism are discussed.     

Migrate or not? The effects of regulation SHO on options trading activities

In this study, we investigate the effects of stock short-sale constraints on options trading by exploiting two US Securities and Exchange Commission rule changes under Regulation SHO: Rule 203 (locate and close-out requirements) and Rule 202T (temporary removal of short-sale price tests). We find that stock short selling activities decrease (increase) significantly after Rule 203 (Rule 202T) implementation, supporting the validity of Rule 203 (Rule 202T) as an exogenous increase (decrease) in short-sale constraints. Options volume increases significantly after Rule 203 went into effect and the result is more pronounced among firms with lower levels of institutional ownership and smaller options bid-ask spreads. Therefore, the evidence from Rule 203 suggests that investors may use options as substitutes for stock short sales when short selling is less feasible or more costly due to the locate and delivery requirements. In contrast, we find no significant change in the options trading volume of pilot stocks during the pilot program of Rule 202T. Overall, our results indicate that the impact of short-sale constraints on options trading varies with the types of constraints affected.