Knowledge that Transforms

This paper studies the education policy chosen by a utilitarian government. In the model, households differ in their income and in their children's ability; income is observed by the government, but ability is private information. Households can use private education, but cannot borrow to finance it. The government can finance education with income tax, but at the cost of blunting the individuals' incentive to exert labour market effort. The optimal education policy we derive is elitist: it increases the spread between the educational achievement of the bright and the less bright individuals, compared to private provision. It is also such that the education received by less bright individuals depends positively on their parental income. Finally, the optimal education policy is input regressive, in the sense of Arrow (1971, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 38, 175–208): households with higher income and brighter children contribute less in tuition fees towards the cost of the education system than households with lower income and less bright children.

The canonical selection contracting programme takes the agent's participation decision as deterministic and finds the optimal contract, typically satisfying this constraint for the worst type. Upon weakening this assumption of known reservation values by introducing independent randomness into the agents' outside options, we find that some of the received wisdom from mechanism design and nonlinear pricing is not robust and the richer model which allows for stochastic participation affords a more general empirical specification. We develop a multidimensional methodology for addressing this class of problems, providing two important applications to nonlinear pricing. First, with nonlinear pricing by a monopolist the familiar “nodistortion-at-the-top” result persists, but in tandem with the surprising conclusion that there is either no distortion at the bottom or bunching. Second, in a simple model of product differentiated duopolists competing with nonlinear pricing we show that, generally, the duopoly outcome is qualitatively similar to the monopoly outcome. However, when marginal costs are symmetric and competition is sufficiently intense, distortions disappear and the equilibrium outcome takes a remarkably simple form: efficient quality allocations with cost-plus-fee pricing.

Taylor's model of staggered contracts is an influential explanation for nominal inertia and the persistent real effects of nominal shocks. However, in standard imperfect competition models, if agents are allowed to choose the timing of pricing decisions, they will typically choose to synchronize. This paper provides a simple model of imperfect competition which produces stable staggering. Our argument relies on strategic interaction at two levels—between firms within an industries, and across industries—and produces a continuum of staggered price equilibria. These equilibria are strict, and hence stable under a simple adaptive learning process.

A key aspect of industrialization is the adoption of increasing-returns-to-scale, industrial, technologies. Two other well-documented aspects are that industrial technologies (ITs) are adopted throughout intermediate-input chains and that they use intermediate inputs intensively relative to the technologies they replace. These features of ITs combined imply that countries with access to similar technologies may have very different levels of industrialization and aggregate income, even if the degree of increasing returns to scale at the firm level is relatively small. Furthermore, a minor improvement in the productivity of ITs can trigger full-scale industrialization and a large increase in aggregate income.

In this paper I analyse the directed search/matching problem in an economy with heterogeneous skills and skill-biased technology. A unique symmetric equilibrium exists and is socially efficient. Matching is partially mixed in the equilibrium. A high-tech firm receives both skilled and unskilled applicants with positive probability, and favours skilled workers, while a low-tech firm receives only unskilled applicants. The model generates wage inequality among identical unskilled workers, as well as between-skill inequality, despite the fact that all unskilled workers perform the same task and have the same productivity in the two types of firms. Inequality has interesting responses to skill-biased technological progress, a general productivity slowdown, and an exogenous increase in the skill supply elasticity.

This paper considers irreversible investment in competing research projects with uncertain returns under a winner-takes-all patent system. Uncertainty takes two distinct forms: the technological success of the project is probabilistic, while the economic value of the patent to be won evolves stochastically over time. According to the theory of real options uncertainty generates an option value of delay, but with two competing firms the fear of preemption would appear to undermine this approach. In non-cooperative equilibrium two patterns of investment emerge depending on parameter values. In a preemptive leader-follower equilibrium firms invest sequentially and option values are reduced by competition. A symmetric outcome may also occur, however, in which investment is more delayed than the single-firm counterpart. Comparing this with the optimal cooperative investment pattern, investment is found to be more delayed when firms act non-cooperatively, as each holds back from investing in the fear of starting a patent race. Implications of the analysis for empirical and policy issues in R&D are considered.

This paper proposes a dynamic GE model with standard business cycle properties that also achieves a satisfactory replication of the major financial stylized facts. We ride on two major ideas. First, we show that operating leverage, originating in the priority status of wage claims given the observed business cycle characteristics of the latter, magnifies the risk properties of the residual payments to firm owners and justifies a substantial risk premium. Further we build on the observation that the low frequency variations in income shares constitute a significant source of risk, one that is unlikely to be insurable. When we price this risk in an incomplete market framework, we obtain a GE model with return volatilities close to observations and a sizable equity premium. This is accomplished in a world of low risk aversion and standard utility function but with agent heterogeneity. Workers with restricted access to financial markets are insured by firms and the consumption and preferences of firm owners solely determine the pricing kernel.

Recent work on consumption allocations in village economies finds that idiosyncratic variation in consumption is systematically related to idiosyncratic variation in income, thus rejecting the hypothesis of full risk-pooling. We attempt to explain these observations by adding limited commitment as an impediment to risk-pooling. We provide a general dynamic model and completely characterise efficient informal insurance arrangements constrained by limited commitment, and test the model using data from three Indian villages. We find that the model can fully explain the dynamic response of consumption to income, but that it fails to explain the distribution of consumption across households.

We examine the force of three types of behavioural dynamics in quantity-setting triopoly experiments: (1) mimicking the successful firm, (2) rules based on following the exemplary firm, and (3) rules based on belief learning. Theoretically, these three types of rules lead to the competitive, the collusive, and the Cournot—Nash outcome, respectively. In the experiment we employ three information treatments, each of which is hypothesized to be conducive to the force of one of the three dynamic rules. To a large extent, the results are consistent with the hypothesized relationships between treatments, behavioural rules, and outcomes.

In his seminal work on tariff retaliation, Johnson (Review of Economic Studies,21, 1953–1954) showed that a country will “win” a bilateral “tariff war” if its relative monopoly/monopsony power in world trade is sufficiently large. However, it is unclear from Johnson's analysis and from subsequent research on the subject how this power is determined in general economic environments. An important goal of this paper is to address this issue. With the help of a neoclassical trade model in which country size is at centre stage, it is shown that a sufficient condition for a country to prefer a non-cooperative Nash tariff equilibrium (retaliation) over free trade is that its relative size be sufficiently large. The paper also refines the structure of the general trade model and generates additional characterization results on the importance of country size for best-response tariff functions, retaliatory tariffs, and welfare.