Knowledge that Transforms

The sovereign-debt literature has often implicitly assumed that all the power in the bargaining game between debtor and creditor lies with the latter. This paper explores that assumption by analyzing three game-theoretic models of debt renegotiations. In two of the models, both of which are built on the traditional one-sector growth model, all the subgame-perfect equilibria have an extreme form in which the game's surplus is captured by the creditor. The third game has many subgame-perfect equilibria that do not have this feature, however. The roles of various assumptions in all three games are examined.

This paper analyzes a multiperiod version of the Spence Job Market Signalling Model in which workers cannot commit to an education choice and firms make wage offers at any point in time. The dynamic competition combined with the incomplete information yield a multiplicity of sequential equilibria, including ones that sustain implicit collusion, even though the length of the game is finite. Emphasis is placed on equilibria that satisfy the “independence of never weak best response” criterion of Kohlberg and Mertens (1986). It is shown that in the limit, as the time between offers tends to zero, any such equilibrium results (in expectation) in the unique stable outcome of the static Spence model.

Generally, structural job search models are taken to be stationary. In this paper models are examined in which every exogenous variable can cause nonstationarity, for instance because its value is dependent on unemployment duration. A general differential equation that describes the evolution of the reservation wage over time is derived. As an empirical illustration a nonstationary structural model is estimated that focuses on the consequences of a downward shift in the level of benefits. It appears that the elasticity of duration with respect to the level of benefits after the shift is much larger than the elasticity with respect to the level before the shift.

This paper addresses the First Theorem of Welfare Economics in a moral hazard environment. An entrepreneur sells equity in a firm which he supplies with an unobservable, costly input. How much equity he retains determines his incentives and is observed by investors. The investors have rational expectaions which cause the equity price to increase in the amount of equity the entrepreneur retains. This gives the entrepreneur an incentive to retain equity and hence supply input. The entrepreneur may also be bound by an explicit incentive contract. In this framework, not all competitive equilibria are efficient, as defined relative to the moral hazard constraint. However, equilibria can be inefficient only if the entrepreneur's optimal input is nonunique or exhibits positive income effects.

We explore the idea that financial distress is costly because free-rider problems and information asymmetries make it difficult for firms to renegotiate with their creditors. We present evidence that Japanese firms with financial structures in which these problems are likely to be small perform better than other firms after the onset of distress. In particular, we show that firms in industrial groups — those with close financial relationships to their banks, suppliers, and customers — invest more and sell more after the onset of distress than nongroup firms. We find similar results for nongroup firms that nevertheless have strong ties to a main bank.

We investigate the effects of leveraged buyouts on total factor productivity (TFP) and related variables using a longitudinal database including over 12,000 manufacturing plants. LBOs (particularly MBOs) that occured during 1983–1986 had a strong positive effect on TFP in the first three post-buyout years: plant productivity increased from 2.0% above industry mean in the three pre-buyout years to 8.3% above industry mean in the three post-buyout years. However, 1981 and 1982 buyouts had no significant productivity effect. The employment and compensation of white-collar workers decline following buyouts, but those of blue-collar workers are unchanged.

This paper's results are consistent with the choice of accounting method in the oil and gas industry being dominated by measurable characteristics of firms and guided by the principles of efficient contracting. The results are inconsistent with an alternative hypothesis, opportunistic behavior by managers. The efficient contracting explanation is also consistent with the empirical findings from earlier studies; [e.g., Lilien and Pastena (1982) and Deakin 1979)].

Accounting-based dividend constraints in lending contracts are imperfect means of mitigating conflicts of interests between stockholders and bondholders since managers have flexibility to make accounting decisions to circumvent the covenants. This paper documents firms' accounting and dividend responses to an increase in the tightness of dividend constraints. Firms cut dividends and do not appear to make accounting changes to circumvent the dividend restriction. The magnitude of the dividend cut is proportional to the tightness of the dividend constraint. This suggests that accounting-based covenants are effective means for bondholders to restrict firmsś dividend policies.

Equity offers, Primary stock offers, Asset beta, Equity beta

IN AN IMPORTANT recent contribution, Persson, Persson, and Svensson (1987) (hereafter PPS) suggest that through careful restructuring of its nominal and real debt obligations, a government may be able to induce future governments to follow the monetary and fiscal policies that it regards as optimal today. The PPS argument builds on Lucas and Stokey's (1983) demonstration that in a special nonmonetary setting, the time inconsistency of optimal fiscal policy can be avoided through managing the term structure of real government obligations to the public. The basic idea of the PPS scheme for monetary economies is disarmingly intuitive: in addition to continually restructuring nominal and real debt obligations a la Lucas-Stokey, each government must ensure that the next government inherits a stream of nominal claims on the public whose present discounted value equals the stock of money. This equality, PPS argue, removes the incentive for surprise inflation or deflation, because such surprises would not affect the real net worth of the government. This note shows that the PPS prescription for avoiding time inconsistency, appealing as it is, is not generally sufficient. Even under the debt restructuring they recommend, optimal policy is likely to be time inconsistent. The main reason why their scheme fails is that the restrictions it imposes on government asset stocks satisfy first-order but not second-order conditions for an optimum. Because of the complex interactions between the current price level and future interest rates, a government can raise its objective function by moving several variables at once away from the levels planned by the previous government, even though price-level changes alone would not affect government net worth. We develop our argument using the model, notation, and equation numbers of PPS, to which the reader is referred for details. The maximization problem associated with