Knowledge that Transforms

We document that firms can effectively retain executives by granting deferred equity pay. We show this by analyzing a unique regulatory change (FAS 123-R) that prompted 723 firms to suddenly eliminate stock option vesting periods. This allowed CEOs to keep 33% more options when departing the firm, and we find that voluntary CEO departure rates subsequently rose from 5% to 21%. Our identification strategy exploits FAS 123-R’s almost-random timing, which was staggered by firms’ fiscal year-ends. Firms that experienced departures suffered negative stock price reactions, and responded by increasing compensation for remaining and newly hired executives.

We propose that innovative originality is a valuable organizational resource and that owing to limited investor attention and skepticism of complexity, greater innovative originality may be undervalued. We find that firms' innovative originality strongly predicts higher, more persistent, and less volatile profitability and higher abnormal stock returns, findings that are robust to extensive controls. The return predictive power of innovative originality is stronger for firms with higher valuation uncertainty, lower investor attention, and greater sensitivity of future profitability to innovative originality. This evidence suggests that innovative originality acts as a "competitive moat" and is undervalued by the market.

We study the effects of stock market volatility on risk-taking and financial crises by constructing a cross-country database spanning up to 211 years and across 60 countries. Prolonged periods of low volatility have strong in-sample and out-of-sample predictive power over the incidence of banking crises and can be used as a reliable crisis indicator, whereas volatility itself does not predict crises. Low volatility leads to excessive credit buildups and balance sheet leverage in the financial system, indicating that agents take more risk in periods of low risk, supporting the dictum that “stability is destabilizing.” Received October 28, 2016; editorial decision February 7, 2017 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.

We study the gains from trade liberalization in models with monopolistic competition, firm-level heterogeneity, and variable markups. For a large class of demand functions used in the international macro and trade literature, we derive a parsimonious generalization of the welfare formula in Arkolakis et al. (2012). We then use both estimates from micro-level trade data and evidence regarding firm-level pass through to quantify the implications of this new formula.Within the class of models that we consider, our main finding is that gains from trade liberalization predicted by models with variable markups are equal to, at best, and slightly lower than, at worst, those predicted by models with constant markups. In this sense, pro-competitive effects of trade are elusive.

This article shows how input heterogeneity triggers productivity spillovers at the workplace. In an egg production plant in rural Peru, workers produce output combining effort with inputs of heterogeneous quality. Exploiting variation in the productivity of inputs assigned to workers, we find evidence of a negative causal effect of an increase in coworkers¿ daily output on own output and its quality. We show theoretically and suggest empirically that the effect captures free riding among workers, which originates from the way the management informs its dismissal decisions. Our study and results show that input heterogeneity and information on input quality contribute to determine the shape of incentives and have implications for human resource management, production management, and the interaction between the two. Counterfactual analyses show that processing information on inputs or changing their allocation among workers can generate significant productivity gains.

Difference-in-differences (DID) is a method to evaluate the effect of a treatment. In its basic version, a “control group” is untreated at two dates, whereas a “treatment group” becomes fully treated at the second date. However, in many applications of the DID method, the treatment rate only increases more in the treatment group. In such fuzzy designs, a popular estimator of the treatment effect is the DID of the outcome divided by the DID of the treatment. We show that this ratio identifies a local average treatment effect only if the effect of the treatment is stable over time, and if the effect of the treatment is the same in the treatment and in the control group. We then propose two alternative estimands that do not rely on any assumption on treatment effects, and that can be used when the treatment rate does not change over time in the control group. We prove that the corresponding estimators are asymptotically normal. Finally, we use our results to reassess the returns to schooling in Indonesia.

We develop a framework to study optimal sector-specific taxation, where each agent chooses an occupation by comparing her skill differential with the tax burden differential across sectors. Because skills are not perfectly transferable, the Diamond–Mirrlees theorem (according to which the second-best entails production efficiency) fails: social welfare can be increased by inducing some agents to join the sector in which their productivity is not the highest. At the optimum, income taxes balance the marginal losses from inter-sector migration with the marginal gains from tailoring tax schedules to the distribution of productivities in each sector (“tagging”). A calibrated model indicates that sector-specific taxation generates substantive welfare gains when skill transferability decreases with income, as it enables the government to increase average taxes on high earners with large wage premia.

Sender, who is either good or bad, wishes to look good at an exogenous deadline. Sender privately observes if and when she can release a public flow of information about her private type. Releasing information earlier exposes to greater scrutiny, but signals credibility. In equilibrium bad Sender releases information later than good Sender. We find empirical support for the dynamic predictions of our model using data on the timing of U.S. presidential scandals and U.S. initial public offerings. In the context of elections, our results suggest that October Surprises are driven by the strategic behaviour of bad Sender.

We propose a stylized dynamic model to understand the role of social networks in the phenomenon we call “globalization”. In a nutshell, this term refers to the process by which even agents who are geographically far apart come to interact, thus being able to overcome what would otherwise be a fast saturation of local opportunities. A key feature of our model is that the social network is the main channel through which agents exploit new opportunities. Therefore, only if the social network becomes global (heuristically, it “reaches far in few steps”) can global interaction be steadily sustained. An important insight derived from the model is that, for the social network to turn global, the long-range links required (bridges) cannot endogenously arise unless the matching mechanism displays significant local structure (cohesion). This sheds novel light on the dichotomy between bridging and cohesion that has long played a prominent role in the socio-economic literature. Our analysis also relates the process of globalization to other features of the environment such as the quality of institutions or the arrival rate of fresh ideas. The model is partially studied analytically for a limit scenario with a continuum population and is fully solved numerically for finite-population contexts.

This paper shows that accounting for variation in mistakes can be crucial for welfare analysis. Focusing on consumer underreaction to not-fully-salient sales taxes, we show theoretically that the efficiency costs of taxation are amplified by differences in underreaction across individuals and across tax rates. To empirically assess the importance of these issues, we implement an online shopping experiment in which 2,998 consumers purchase common household products, facing tax rates that vary in size and salience. We replicate prior findings that, on average, consumers underreact to non-salient sales taxes-consumers in our study react to existing sales taxes as if they were only 25% of their size. However, we find significant individual differences in this underreaction, and accounting for this heterogeneity increases the efficiency cost of taxation estimates by at least 200%. Tripling existing sales tax rates nearly doubles consumers' attention to taxes, and accounting for this endogeneity increases efficiency cost estimates by 336%. Our results provide new insights into the mechanisms and determinants of boundedly rational processing of not-fully-salient incentives, and our general approach provides a framework for robust behavioral welfare analysis.