More on Middlemen: Equilibrium Entry and Efficiency in Intermediated Markets

This paper generalizes Rubinstein and Wolinsky's (1987) model of middlemen (intermediation) by incorporating production and search costs, plus more general matching and bargaining. This allows us to study many new issues, including entry, efficiency, and dynamics. In the benchmark model, equilibrium exists uniquely and involves production and intermediation for some parameters but not others. Sometimes intermediation is essential: the market operates if and only if middlemen are active. If bargaining powers are set correctly equilibrium is efficient; if not there can be too much or too little economic activity. This is novel, compared to the original Rubinstein–Wolinsky model, where equilibrium is always efficient.     

Nutrition Labels: An Exploratory Study of Consumer Reasons For Nonuse

Studies of consumer usage of nutrition labels required by the Food and Drug Administration have found that usage levels are low. A mailback survey of food shoppers in Madison, Wisconsin was conducted to determine who uses nutrition labels as well as reasons for nonuse. Multiple regression analysis revealed that compared to users, nonusers did not rate themselves as highly on nutrition knowledge, were less likely to plan meals in advance, and were not as highly educated. When asked why they did not use labels, most nonusers said they did not need them, and a sizable group reported their shopping practices pre-empt label usage. Nonusers also felt that a sample label had too much information. When asked to perform computations from sample label information, nonusers were less successful than users. The implications of these findings for nutrition education efforts are discussed.     

The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting*

This study examines the impact of alternative risk assessment (standard risk checklist versus no checklist) and program development (standard program versus no program) tools on two facets of fraud planning effectiveness: (1) the quality of audit procedures relative to a benchmark validated by a panel of experts, and (2) the propensity to consult fraud experts. A between‐subjects experiment, using an SEC enforcement fraud case, was conducted to examine these relationships. Sixty‐nine auditors made risk assessments and designed an audit program. We found that auditors who used a standard risk checklist, structured by SAS No. 82 risk categories, made lower risk assessments than those without a checklist. This suggests that the use of the checklist was associated with a less effective diagnosis of the fraud. We also found that auditors with a standard audit program designed a relatively less effective fraud program than those without this tool but were not more willing to seek consultation with fraud experts. This suggests that standard programs may impair auditors' ability to respond to fraud risk. Finally, our results show that fraud risk assessment (FRASK) was not associated with the planning of more effective fraud procedures but was directly associated with the desire to consult with fraud specialists. This suggests that one benefit of improved FRASK is its relation with consultation. Overall, the findings call into question the effectiveness of standard audit tools in a fraud setting and highlight the need for a more strategic reasoning approach in an elevated risk situation.