This paper examines how the degree of competition among firms in an industry affects the optimal incentives that firms provide to their managers. A central assumption is that there is free entry and exit in the industry, which implies that changes in the nature of competition lead to changes in the equilibrium market structure. The main result is that as the intensity of product market competition increases (as a result of greater product substitutability or greater market size), principals unambiguously provide stronger incentives to their agents to reduce costs. At the same time, more intense competition also leads to more volatile firm-level profits. Consequently, managers’ incentives are positively correlated with firm-level risk, consistent with empirical evidence. A decrease in the cost of entering the market has the opposite effect on incentives, but still induces a positive correlation between risk and incentives.
The idea that the happiness of an individual depends upon the consumption of others is widely viewed as an important feature of our shared social existence. Recent research in finance has used this idea, through consumption externalities, to explore asset-pricing anomalies. Consumption externalities potentially break the link between Pareto optimality and competitive equilibria and open the door for beneficial government intervention (e.g., Lars Ljungqvist and Harald Uhlig, 2000). In this paper, we delineate two effects that a consumption externality may have. An increase in aggregate consumption may: (a) raise the marginal utility of individual consumption relative to leisure, and/or (b) lower an individual’s utility level. We refer to (a) as “keeping up with the Joneses” (henceforth, KUJ), following Jordi Gali (1994), and we refer to (b) as jealousy. Jealousy is a distinct concept from KUJ. Under KUJ, an individual derives greater utility from additional own consumption relative to leisure when others consume more. At the same time, higher per capita consumption holding fixed individual consumption can trigger either jealousy, so that individual utility falls, or admiration, so that individual utility rises. In Section I of this paper, we show that jealousy implies that the laissez-faire equilibrium consumption level is greater than the optimal level. Whether preferences exhibit KUJ is not necessary for this main result. Intuitively, in the presence of jealousy, consumption is similar to pollution. Overpollution exists because individuals do not take into account the cost of polluting on others, not because an increase in economywide pollution makes the return to individual polluting higher. Similarly, overconsumption exists because individuals do not take into account the negative effect of own consumption on jealous others. Things go in the opposite direction when individuals are admiring. In Section II, we consider a functional form that encompasses several existing models. We show that jealousy determines the optimal tax to correct overconsumption and that KUJ is mainly important for asset pricing.
This paper examines the short-term effect of school on juvenile crime. To do so, we bring together daily measures of criminal activity and detailed school calendar information from 29 jurisdictions across the country, and utilize the plausibly exogenous variation generated by teacher in-service days. We find that the level of property crime committed by juveniles decreases by 14 percent on days when school is in session, but the level of violent crime increases by 28 percent on such days. Our findings suggest that both incapacitation and concentration influence juvenile crime.
Many households received income tax rebates in 2001 of $300 or $600. These rebates represented advance payments of the tax cut from the new 10 percent tax bracket. Based on a survey of a representative sample of households, this paper finds that only 22 percent of households receiving the rebate would spent it. Instead, they would either save it or use it to pay off debt. This very low rate of spending represents a striking break with past behavior, which would have suggested a much higher rate of spending. The low spending rate implies that the tax rebate provided a very limited stimulus to aggregate demand.
We investigate the performance of forecast-based monetary policy rules using five macroeconomic models that reflect a wide range of views on aggregate dynamics. We identify the key characteristics of rules that are robust to model uncertainty; such rules respond to the one-year-ahead inflation forecast and to the current output gap and incorporate a substantial degree of policy inertia. In contrast, rules with longer forecast horizons are less robust and are prone to generating indeterminacy. Finally, we identify a robust benchmark rule that performs very well in all five models over a wide range of policy preferences.
Death is an integral part of life. Yet the economic modeling of death is perfunctory, with most of the controversy focused on whether people's planning horizon ends with their own life or extends beyond that. In contrast, one might expect that, of all aspects of life, decisions that require facing up to one's own mortality engender unique fears and psychological reactions.1 That we are forwardlooking and can anticipate death distinguishes human beings from other species. Sigmund Freud's student Otto Rank (1941) argued that mortality anxiety was the fundamental human fear, and he attributed the genesis of man's religious impulses and the source of humanity's construction of meaning and order to the awareness of one's personal finitude. Rank's ideas were revived and popularized in Ernest Becker's (1973) book The Denial of Death. The idea that many people live in denial of their own mortality is common in literature and philosophy, perhaps best summarized in the words of the 17th-century French epigrammist Francois La Rochefoucauld: One cannot look directly at either the sun or Many central issues in economics, such as the intertemporal pattern of consumption, are at stake if people systematically deviate from the predictions of standard models with regard to decisions concerning their own death. Assessing whether this is true requires enriching the models of how people behave in the face of death and testing them against observed patterns of behavior.
The permanent-income hypothesis (PIH) of Milton Friedman (1957) states that the agent saves in anticipation of possible future declines in labor income (John Y. Campbell, 1987). He also saves for precautionary reasons, and dissaves because of impatience. To justify the PIH in an intertemporal optimization framework, it has been conventional to assume both (i) quadratic utility, to turn off precautionary motives (Robert E. Hall, 1978), and (ii) equality between the subjective discount rate and the interest rate, in order to rule out dissavings for lack of patience. Neither assumption is plausible. Much work on consumption in the past decade has focused on individual’s precautionary savings motives and liquidity constraints. Impatience is a standard result in heterogeneousagents general-equilibrium incomplete-markets models, generally known as Bewley models. This paper shows that the PIH is in any case the optimal rule, in a Bewley model, in which each agent solves the precautionary-savings model of Caballero (1990, 1991). In addition to the demand for savings for a “rainy day,” Caballero’s model also predicts a constant precautionary-savings demand and constant dissavings due to impatience. In equilibrium, I show that these two forces must cancel each other. As a result, the agent behaves in accordance with the PIH. Section I describes the model. Section II concludes. The Appendix provides a heuristic derivation and a proof of the optimal consumption rule.
There is much discussion of the relationships between crime, inequality, and unemployment. We construct a model where all three are endogenous. We find that introducing crime into otherwise standard models of labor markets has several interesting implications. For example, it can lead to wage inequality among homogeneous workers. Also, it can generate multiple equilibria in natural but previously unexplored ways; hence two identical neighborhoods can end up with different levels of crime, inequality, and unemployment. We discuss the effects of anti-crime policies like changing jail sentences, as well as more traditional labor market policies like changing unemployment insurance.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Tobin's average q has usually been well above 1, but fell below 1 during 1974 – 1984. Our model explains this pattern and reconciles it with unchanging aggregate investment. The stock market value in the numerator of q reflects ownership of physical capital and knowledge, but the denominator measures just physical capital. Therefore, q is usually above 1. Periodic arrivals of important new technologies, such as the microprocessor in the 1970's, suddenly render old knowledge and capital obsolete, causing the stock market to drop. National accounts measures of physical capital miss this rapid obsolescence. Then q appears to drop below 1.
We test whether a nonbinding price ceiling may serve as a focal point for tacit collusion, using data from the credit card market during the 1980’s. Our empirical model can distinguish instances when firms match a binding ceiling from instances when firms tacitly collude at a nonbinding ceiling. The results suggest that tacit collusion at nonbinding state-level ceilings was prevalent during the early 1980’s, but that national integration of the market reduced the sustainability of tacit collusion by the end of the decade. The results highlight a perverse effect of price regulation.