This paper presents a model of large institutional and small individual investors choosing stocks. Dividend policy of firms is determined by the preferences of the resulting stockholders. Large investors choose to invest in large corporations because it lowers their transaction costs. Since these institutions prefer dividends, the large corporations choose to pay dividends, while the small corporations, owned by individuals, do not. The results show that firm size and liquidity explain the decision ofwhetherto pay dividends well, whereas existing informational explanations (such as monitoring and signaling) explain thelevelof dividends well.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: G32, G35, G11.

A two‐period model in which communication restrictions preclude the usual revelation representation is analyzed, and the communication policies take on the appearance of “income smoothing.” The driving force is the information content of the “smoothed” or manipulated series, relative to its counterpart were manipulation not possible. Various possibilities arise, depending on the underlying stochastic structure: performance measure manipulation might be socially efficient, or not; and when it is best to invite and motivate this manipulation, the optimal policy itself can take on a variety of forms.

This paper discusses the decentralization of production and cost decisions in a multidivisional firm via divisional performance measurement systems based on accounting information. The model firm has a single producing division that supplies goods to several consuming divisions for further processing and sale on external markets. Production is assumed to be characterized, in the long run, by constant returns to scale, and, in the short run, by constant unit variable cost up to a fixed capacity, which imposes a short‐run fixed cost. It is also assumed that the final products sold on external markets face downward sloping demand. The firm's accounting information system transmits a comprehensive record of quantities, revenues, and costs resulting from realized transactions, including the classification of costs between fixed and variable, but transmits no information concerning unrealized production, cost, and revenue possibilities. The paper shows that such information is not sufficient to motivate short‐run profit maximization, which requires the optimal allocation of scarce producing division capacity among the competing demands of the consuming division. However, in the long run, a more positive result is obtained. A class of transfer price mechanisms, termed profit‐sharing systems , leads net‐income maximizing division managers to optimal production decisions and cost ‐efficient technology choices in the long run. Moreover, it is shown that the profit‐sharing transfer price is equal to the “arm's‐length” negotiated price determined by the Nash bargaining solution. Résumé. L'auteur traite de la décentralisation des décisions relatives à la fabrication et aux coûts dans une entreprise à divisions multiples, par l'intermédiaire de systèmes de mesure du rendement divisionnaire fondés sur l'information comptable. L'entreprise type possède une seule division de fabrication qui approvisionne plusieurs divisions consommatrices en produits intermédiaires qui sont retraités par elles et vendus sur les marchés extérieurs. L'auteur suppose que la fabrication se caractérise à long terme par des rendements d'échelle constants, et à court terme par des coûts variables unitaires constants au regard d'une capacité établie qui suppose un coût fixe à court terme. Il pose également l'hypothèse que la demande pour les produits finis vendus sur les marchés extérieurs connaît un déclin. Le système d'information comptable de l'entreprise comporte un registre complet des renseignements concernant les quantités fabriquées, les produits d'exploitation et les coûts relatifs aux opérations ainsi conclues, avec classification des coûts fixes et varibles, mais ne livre aucune information relative aux possibilités de fabrication, de coûts et de produits d'exploitation auxquelles l'entreprise a renoncé. L'auteur montre que cette information ne suffit pas à motiver la maximisation des bénéfices à court terme, qui exige l'affectation optimale des capacités de fabrication limitées de la division de fabrication entre les divisions consommatrices dont les demandes sont en concurrence. À long terme, l'on obtient cependant un résultat plus positif. En effet, un ensemble de mécanismes touchant l'établissement des prix de cession, qu l'on appelle les systèmes d'intéressement, amène les gestionnaires qui cherchent à maximiser le bénéfice net de leur division à des décisions optimales de fabrication et à des choix économiques rationnels en matière de technologie. On constate en outre que le prix de cession en système d'intéressement est équivalent au prix négocié « sans lien de dépendance » déterminé selon la solution de négociation de Nash.

This paper offers some impressions of current research in accounting. Three themes are identified: Movement toward imbedding accounting thought in (1) a setting that accommodates substitutes for the accounting product, (2) a dynamic view of the environment in which the accounting product is used, and (3) a model of human cognition that generates explicit demand for decision support activities. It is also suggested that closer correlation between theoretical and empirical research would be productive. Résumé. Cet article présente quelques impressions sur la recherche actuelle en comptabilité. Trois thèmes sont identifiés. Un mouvement visant à enchâsser la pensée comptable dans (1) un cadre qui inclut les compléments au produit comptable (2) une vision dynamique de l'environnement dans lequel le produit comptable est utilisé et (3) un modèle de connaissance humaine qui génère une demande explicite pour des activités de support à la prise de décision. Il est également suggéré qu'une corrélation plus étroite entre la recherche théorique et empirique serait productive.

ECONOMISTS generally take tastes as given and work out consequences of changes in prices, incomes, and other variables under assumption that tastes do not change. When pressed, either they engage in ad hoc theorizing or they explicitly delegate discussion of tastes to sociologist, psychologist, or anthropologist. Unfortunately, these disciplines have not developed much in way of systematic usable knowledge about tastes. Although economists have been reluctant to discuss systematically changes in structure of tastes, they have long relied on assumptions about basic and enduring properties of tastes. Self-interest is assumed to dominate all other motives,' with a prominent place also assigned to benevolence toward children2 (and occasionally others), and with self-interest partly dependent on distinction and other aspects of one's position in society.3 The dominance of self-interest and persistence of some benevolence have usually been explained by nature, or an equivalent evasion of problem. The development of modern biology since mid-nineteenth century and of population genetics in twentieth century made clear that is only beginning, not end of answer. The enduring traits of human (and animal) nature presumably were genetically selected under very different physical environments and social arrangements as life on earth evolved during millions of years. It is not difficult to understand why self-interest has high survival value under very different circumstances,4 but why should altruistic behavior, sometimes observed among animals as well as human beings, also survive? This kind of question has been asked by some geneticists and other biologists especially during last two decades. Their work has recently been christened sociI For example, Adam Smith said, We are not ready to suspect any person of being defective in selfishness [9, 1969, p. 446], and it is not from benevolence of butcher, brewer, or baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest [10, 1937, p. 14]. 2According to Alfred Marshall, . . men labor and save chiefly for sake of their families and not for themselves [6, 1920, p. 228]. 3Nassau Senior said, the desire for distinction . . . may be pronounced to be most powerful of human passions [8, 1938, p. 12]. 4Ronald Coase argues convincingly that Adam Smith, especially in his Moral Sentiments, was groping toward an explanation of importance of selfinterest in terms of its contribution to viable social and economic arrangements (see Coase [5, 1976]).

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g., the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.

Presenting data on all full-length articles in the three top general economics journals for one year in each decade 1960s–2010s, I analyze changes in patterns of coauthorship, age structure and methodology, and their possible causes. The distribution of number of authors has shifted steadily rightward. In the last two decades, the fraction of older authors has almost quadrupled. Top journals are publishing many fewer papers that represent pure theory, regardless of subfield, somewhat less empirical work based on publicly available data sets, and many more empirical studies based on data collected by the author(s) or on laboratory or field experiments.

The nature and scope of the Federal Reserve's authority and the structure of its decision making are now “on the table” to an extent that has not been seen since 1935, and the Fed's vaunted independence is under some attack. This essay asks what the Federal Reserve should—and shouldn't—do, leaning heavily on the concept of economies of scope. In particular, I conclude that the central bank should monitor and regulate systemic risk because preserving financial stability is (a) closely aligned with the standard objectives of monetary policy and (b) likely to require lender of last resort powers. I also conclude that the Fed should supervise large financial institutions because that function is so closely to regulating systemic risk. However, several other functions now performed by the Fed could easily be done elsewhere.

I wish to express my appreciation to thefollowingfor their comments and suggestions either in their capacity as the referees of this journal or otherwise: Anthony Atkinson, Zvi Griliches, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Rudolph Blitz, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, James Meade, Jacob Mincer, Franco Modigliani, Naomi Perlman, John Rawls, Paul Schultz, Gerald Sazama, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Taubman, Lester Thurow, and Charles Wilson. None of them, however, bears any responsibility for my errors and my appraisal of different theories. I dedicate this paper to the memory of Harry G. Johnson, my teacher, who died at the early age of 53 on 9 May 1977, a few months after we had exchanged correspondence on this survey and had plans for further discussion, especially on the development of his ideas about cultural inheritance. Alas, that was the end.