Measure for Measure
| Craig Pirrong |
The FT has an interesting article about the difficulties and uncertainties facing cap & trade schemes, even in Europe where they’ve been implemented. A good part of the article focuses on the loss of intellectual coherence in climate policy in Europe, as regulations and taxes are being mooted to reduce CO2 emissions. Such command and control bolt-ons are inconsistent with the basic concept of cap & trade, which is that by determining a price of carbon the market will induce efficient responses to reduce emissions on all relevant dimensions:
And the more the carbon market shrinks in its ambitions, the more it faces a broader threat: that of losing touch with its original objective. Credits could continue being traded in the old way. But if the main thrust of carbon reduction is tackled by other means, the market could face questions about its social utility.
But to me, the most interesting part of the article relates to the arcane area of offsets: (more…)
1 comment 8 February 2010
Happy Schumpeter Day
| Peter Klein |
Today’s the birthday of Joesph A. Schumpeter, one of the great theorists — and one of the great characters — in the history of economics. To celebrate, how about remembering some of the classic Schumpeter quotes:
“[Competitive] behavior . . . is the result of a piece of past history and . . . as an attempt by those firms to keep on their feet, on ground that is slipping away from under them.”
“The process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism … it is not [price] competition which counts but the competition from . . . new technology . . . competition which strikes not at the margins of profits . . . of existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.”
“Intellectuals are people who wield the power of the spoken and written word, and one of the touches that distinguishes them from other people who do the same is the absence of direct responsibility for practical affairs . . . .The critical attitude [arises] no less from the intellectual’s situation as an onlooker — in most cases, also an outsider — than from the fact that his main chance of asserting himself lies in his actual or potential nuisance value.”
“[C]apitalism, while economically stable, creates a mentality and a style of life incompatible with its own fundamental conditions. [It] will be changed, although not by economic necessity and probably even at some sacrifice of economic welfare, into an order of things which it will be merely a matter of taste and terminology to call Socialism or not.”
Update: Walter Grinder reminds me that it’s also Julian Simon’s birthday. Here’s a nice tribute from Steven Moore.
2 comments 8 February 2010
Forget Knightian Uncertainty
| Peter Klein |
And characterize the world’s uncertain future by listing all possible future events, assigning each a magnitude and probability, linking each event to (causally?) connected events, and sticking them all in a cool interactive graph. I doubt this tells us anything meaningful about the world but it sure is an interesting data visualization exercise! (Datavisualization.ch via Cliff Kuang.)
3 comments 6 February 2010
Missouri Economics Conference
| Peter Klein |
Here’s the CFP for the 10th Annual Missouri Economics Conference, held on the MU campus 26-27 March 2010. The keynote speakers are Michele Boldrin, co-founder of the excellent Against Monopoly blog, and Nobel Laureate Finn Kydland (like me an adjunct professor at NHH — we have so much in common!).
Add comment 5 February 2010
Do Social Scientists Misuse the Term “Natural Experiment”?
| Peter Klein |
Richard Nielsen thinks so:
I’m on board with using the language of experiments, but I’ve also seen more than a few recent papers framed as “natural experiments” that are really just observational studies with no particular claim to special status. The spread of experimental language into observational studies may have downsides as well as benefits.
Until recently, I basically assumed that when people said they had a natural experiment, what they really meant was that they had a credible instrument: a variable that breaks the link between treatment assignment and the potential outcomes for some or all of the units. However, the lead [Political Analysis] article places difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, and matching methods under the tent of natural experiments. While I like (and use) these techniques and find them compelling, only some of them explicitly rely on an IV-type argument. Maybe I have more to learn.
The problem with any randomization that isn’t controlled by the researcher is that extreme skeptics like me can then try to spin complicated stories about how confounding could occur.
Nielson is talking about political-science research, but economists and management scholars also use the term “natural experiment” more loosely (e.g., to include difference-in-differences models). But Nielson (if I understand him correctly) seems to be mixing the specific method of analyzing the natural experiment with the presence or absence of a credible instrument. In other words, he’s concerned that people are using the term “natural experiment” to mean “any situation in which variation is introduced by nature,” rather than “a situation in which I can tell a convincing story about identification.” I don’t think economists are guilty of using it in the former way. As Angrist and Krueger put it, “A common criticism of the natural experiments approach to instrumental variables is that it does not spell out fully the underlying theoretical relationships. . . . [But] there is usually a well-developed story or model motivating the choice of instruments.” And if this story is persuasive, then discontinuity analysis or differences-in-difference modeling should be fine. Right?
Add comment 5 February 2010
“I, Pencil,” Updated
| Peter Klein |
Like many instructors, I rely on Leonard Read’s classic “I, Pencil” to illustrate the vast network of impersonal, voluntary exchanges that make up the market system. One problem, however, is that many of today’s students have never seen a yellow wooden pencil. Thanks to Ed Lopez, I now have an updated version.
1 comment 3 February 2010
Brad’s Bloviations, Part #2,235
| Peter Klein |
Brad DeLong accuses non-Keynesians (Austrians, Chicagoites, and other sensible people) of “los[ing] themselves amidst their early-nineteenth century books, one hundred and seventy years behind the state of the art in economics,” just because they think public spending and deficits might be crowding out private-market activity, making it difficult — impossible, actually — to come up with meaningful estimates of “jobs saved” by stimulus spending. If you can get past Brad’s adolescent writing style (anyone citing Bastiat, for example, is “a truly clueless idiot”), you find that he is indeed very “progressive” in his thinking — he’s made it all the way to 1950. Brad, like most Keynesians, is stuck in the C + I + G world of undergraduate macro. His argument is that the stimulus can’t be crowding out private-sector jobs because (a) wages aren’t rising (implying that stimulus-funded workers aren’t being bid away from other potential opportunities) and (b) T-bill prices aren’t falling (suggesting that private employers aren’t competing with the Feds for credit).
Leave aside for the moment that Brad has no idea what wages and bond prices would be in the absence of stimulus. The key problem with Brad’s argument, noted by Russ Roberts, is its reliance on crude macroeconomic aggregates. As pointed out here many times, heterogeneity matters. Sensible economists care not about the aggregate unemployment rate, but the effect of stimulus activity on individual labor markets. Stimulus affects the composition of employment, not just its level. (more…)
8 comments 3 February 2010
Stuck on the Methodological Hamster Wheel
| Craig Pirrong |
I’ve read John Cassidy’s New Yorker article (not available online) in which he described his journey to the freshwater provinces in his attempt to see whether the financial crisis had caused Chicago economists to reject their reactionary views. (With one exception, the answer is blessedly “no.”) I’ve also read his paean to Pigou in the WSJ. So I pretty much knew what to expect when I picked up his How Markets Fail. Let’s say I wasn’t disappointed, in the sense that my very low expectations were met.
The book is a very conventional, Stiglitz-esque critique of market economics and those who defend markets. The latter are always described with Homer-esque modifiers, just so you’ll know that they [we!] are retrograde knuckle draggers. (more…)
4 comments 3 February 2010
The Backchannel
| Peter Klein |
Cliff Atkinson’s new book (summarized here) makes me think I should use a private Twitter window during lectures. “Presenters can use the backchannel to extend a presentation and engage the audience inside and outside of the room. The backchannel can also destroy a presentation when the audience posts negative feedback online for the world to see, or changes the mood in the room entirely.” Maybe I should rethink my policy against tweeting in class?
Add comment 3 February 2010
Kauffman Economic Outlook
| Peter Klein |
Here’s the inaugural release of the Kauffman Economic Outlook, based on a survey of distinguished economics bloggers (including Yours Truly). “America’s top economics bloggers represent a diverse group of writers with wide-ranging intellectual and political vantage points on one of the most important issues of the day — the economy. As independent thinkers who are immersed in discourse through the innovation of blogging, these economics writers have a unique voice and perspective, and potentially profound influence.” Take that, Old Media!
Lots of interesting charts. And who says economists don’t agree?
Despite being a balanced panel in terms of political alignment (16 percent Republican, 19 percent Democratic, 47 percent independent, and roughly 18 percent libertarian/other), there is a strong consensus around many policy recommendations. Seventy-one percent of economics bloggers think the U.S. government is “too involved in the economy,” with only 17 percent calling for greater involvement. When asked what the government should be doing, the only policies with more than 50 percent support are: 1) to increase high-skill immigration (63 percent), and 2) to increase legal immigration at all skill levels (57 percent). Two policies stood out sharply with near-unanimous opposition: increasing business regulation (9 percent) and increasing tariffs (4 percent). . . .
According to economics bloggers, the top three variables that policymakers should emphasize in a model of economic growth are human capital, innovation, and economic freedom. In a related question, bloggers were asked to rate the beneficial importance of numerous key players in the U.S. economy. One hundred percent of the panel rate entrepreneurs as “important” or “very important,” and innovation also had unanimous support. Only slightly less important are free trade and education, with nearly all respondents rating them as “important” or “very important.” In contrast, only 30 percent of economics bloggers think labor unions are important, and nearly 70 percent rate them as “unimportant” (numbers may not add to 100 due to non-responses and rounding). Opinion is decidedly mixed on manufacturing, while there is mild support for the importance of big business.
Add comment 2 February 2010
Cooperation and the Team Problem
| Nicolai Foss |
Alchian and Demsetz’s famous 1972 paper on the team problem and how resolving that problem may call for the “classical capitalist firm” is one of my teaching favorites. Students like the stark, stylized reasoning in the paper, and the team problem is a great way to introduce agency theory, among other things, because it so directly links to what is usually the only piece of game theory they know, namely the PD game.
However, I often experience that some students (particularly those who are following an OB or HRM class) are worried about the reasoning in Alchian and Demsetz, and are not convinced by the argument that it is basically counterfactual (provided they understand this point). I usually also explain that experimental evidence from the public goods literature suggests that cooperativeness declines over time (e.g., here) unless cooperation is backed up by various flanking arrangements (a recent Nobel can now be invoked in support of this).
A recent experimental paper, “Not just hot air: normative codes of conduct induce cooperative behavior,” — written by a German team (Thomas Lauer, Bettina Rockenbach, and Peter Walgenbach), and published in the newly founded Review of Managerial Science — suggests that the verbal framing of a work environment with cooperative connotations may go a long way towards inducing cooperativeness in team settings. In their experiments, the authors implement five “treatments” that differ only in terms of the framing, specifically in the extent to which reference is made to a cooperative firm context.
The basic experimental setup is team production with teams of four members that each have to make decisions on whether to invest or not in a team project. Each unit invested generates a benefit of 1.6 units for the team — but those benefits are divided equally among all team members. In this setting, changes in framing dramatically influence outcomes. I recommend the paper as a fascinating example of the emerging intersection of the economics of the firm, OB, and experimental methods.
Add comment 2 February 2010
Interview with a Randian CEO
| Peter Klein |
Today is Ayn Rand’s birthday, so in her honor we direct you to the December 2009 issue of Academy of Management Learning and Executive, which features an interview with BB&T Bank CEO John Allison, a follower of Rand. Access appears to be restricted to AoM members (manuscript version here, published version here). Sample:
After I went to work I began to read philosophy, in search for the answers to the big questions of life. I became interested in what I consider to be the great reason/reality based philosophers — Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand.
That philosophical background combined with my own observations, which I call my inductions from life, together with my family upbringing, formed my philosophical framework as a young adult and executive. In 1993 or 1994 I read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. This book really integrated everything for me. It enabled me to focus my thinking. By this time, I had been CEO of BB&T for a few years and we were in the midst of a merger of equals. It was very important that we have a clearly defined value system. Two large organizations with cultures that had some differences had to come together with a single value system. Peikoff’s book put everything together for me. We had some of the basics of a value system — honesty, integrity, traditional conservative business values, but we also held a number of contradictions. What Rand’s philosophy did for me was to provide a framework for how to integrate all the disparate pieces. I could see everything in a different way than I had seen before. Rand’s philosophy provided an ordering. It also clarified concepts. For example, people often mix up justice with mercy. From Rand I learned that justice requires that you reward those who contribute the most with the most, which implied that paternalism is unjust; failing to deal with non-performance is unjust. Also, rationality is the foundation for values, and rationality can not be compromised.
NB: BB&T has funded a number of professorships in the last few years.
2 comments 2 February 2010
Rethinking the Diversification Discount
| Peter Klein |
A very good summary by Don Sull of recent literature on diversification. I like points #1 and #4 the best. He missed a few of the seminal papers (1, 2, 3) but nobody’s perfect. Note also that Sull is focusing on the corporate finance literature, which generally ignores inter-industry relatedness. In the strategic management literature, by contrast, relatedness (and its measurement) has been a central concern (see the references here).
Add comment 1 February 2010
Apocalypse Averted
| Dick Langlois |
In a recent post, I lamented the willingness of pundits (and dissenting Justices) to see rights as a consequential exercise: we should restrict the speech of group X, in this case private corporations, because allowing such speech would lead to a bad outcome, in this case the corruption of democracy by corporate interests. (Feel free to substitute here your own favorite candidate for silencing and your own associated bad outcome.) But, of course, those who argue in this manner must also demonstrate that the asserted bad outcome would actually happen. A recent article in the Times — bless some reporter’s or editor’s contrarian heart — asks the question: so, what effect does corporate money actually have on democracy?” The answer seems to be: none at all. One of the economists cited is Peter’s Missouri colleague, and my former student, Jeff Milyo: “There is just no good evidence that campaign finance laws have any effect on actual corruption.”
And while we are at it, a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety finds no effect of cell phone laws on traffic accidents. This hasn’t stopped Connecticut’s Governor from calling for even stricter cell phone laws.
6 comments 31 January 2010
Infographic of the Day: Bailouts Around the World
| Peter Klein |
Via HBR, bank bailouts and stimulus packages as percentages of GDP. China tops (bottoms?) the list with stimulus goodies worth a whopping 47% of GDP.
1 comment 29 January 2010
Now That’s a Complete Contract!
| Peter Klein |
A major theme of the contracting literature in organizational economics is that formal contracts are inevitably incomplete, meaning that they do not specify actions and remedies for every possible set of circumstances. Given genuine uncertainty about the future, parties may decide that formal contracts to not adequately protect relationship-specific investments, providing an important rationale for vertical integration or another mechanism to protect quasi-rents (alliances, equity-sharing arrangements, reputation, and other “hybrids”).
A recent WSJ piece suggests that writing complete contracts may not be so hard after all:
Decked out in sequined black and gold dresses, Anne Harrison and the other women in her Bulgarian folk-singing group were lined up to try out for NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” TV show when they noticed peculiar wording in the release papers they were asked to sign.
Any of their actions that day last February, the contract said, could be “edited, in all media, throughout the universe, in perpetuity.”
My Mom says she once told me I was the best little boy in the world, to which I responded, “and all the planets too?” The WSJ gives several examples of similarly expansive coverage:
- The terms of use listed on Starwars.com, where people can post to message boards among other things, tell users that they give up the rights to any content submissions “throughout the universe and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed.”
- In a May 15, 2008, “expedition agreement” between JWM Productions LLC, a film-production company, and Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc., a shipwreck-exploration outfit, JWM seeks the rights to footage from an Odyssey expedition. The contract covers rights “in any media, whether now known or hereafter devised, or in any form whether now known or hereafter devised, an unlimited number of times throughout the universe and forever, including, but not limited to, interactive television, CD-ROMs, computer services and the Internet.”
And my personal favorite:
A 189-word sentence in a September agreement between Denver-based Spicy Pickle Franchising Inc. and investment bank Midtown Partners & Co. — which has helped raise capital for the sandwich and pickle shops dotted across the region — unconditionally releases Spicy Pickle from all claims “from the beginning of time” until the date of the agreement.
Says Spicy Pickle’s Marc Geman, “the length of the paragraph is only limited by the creativity of the attorney.”
4 comments 29 January 2010
The Era of Laissez-Faire?
| Peter Klein |
One of the established memes about the financial crisis is that it demonstrates the failure of unfettered capitalism, the dog-eat-dog, laissez-faire environment that prevailed in the West over the last few decades, all driven by the ideology of “free-market fundamentalism.” This seems to be a truism among most of the Commentariat. Of course, as pointed out repeatedly on this blog, the truth is virtually the opposite: there was never any “deregulation,” the Bush Administration spent public money like a drunken sailor, and government continued to expand as it always does. But a picture is worth a thousand words, so try these on for size. (US data; click charts for sources.)
One response I sometimes hear is “Sure, there are more regulations and more government spending, but the set of things that should be regulated and the amount of government spending the economy needs are growing even faster!” This is essentially the Krugman-DeLong view about the stimulus: it just wasn’t big enough. Or they say that financial markets were “deregulated,” de facto, because the number of regulations and regulators increased more slowly than the number of new financial instruments and new markets. I wonder, though: are these falsifiable propositions? No matter how big the government is, if there are any problems, it’s always because the government isn’t big enough!
13 comments 28 January 2010
Hayekian Comments on Student Papers
| Peter Klein |
A grad student inspired these:
“The writer clearly suffers from a fatal conceit.”
“Reading this proposal helps me understand the knowledge problem.”
“Your paper appears to be the result of human action, but not human design.”
“The proposed outline reveals how little people really know about what they imagine they can design.”
Your suggestions?
6 comments 27 January 2010
ISNIE 2010 Call for Papers
| Peter Klein |
The Call for Papers is out for the International Society for New Institutional Economics’s 2010 meeting, 17-19 June in Stirling, Scotland. Proposals are due 1 March. President-Elect Frank Stephen is putting together an impressive program with keynotes from Bruno Frey and two longtime ISNIE members you may have heard of: Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson. Don’t miss it!
Add comment 27 January 2010
Keynes vs. Hayek Rap Battle
| Lasse Lien |
If you’re teaching macro or the history of economic thought and you feel you’re not getting through to the kids, this video might be worth a try.
Thanks to Eirik Sjåholm Knudsen for the pointer.
2 comments 26 January 2010
Mutual Admiration Clubs
| Lasse Lien |
Check out this cool paper by Wing Suen, titled “Mutual Admiration Clubs.”
This article proposes a theory of group formation based on the motive to seek informed opinion. Because an individual evaluates whether others are informed or not using his own priors, he identifies people with similar beliefs to be more informed than those with different beliefs. The result is an equilibrium in which like-minded individuals self-select into distinct groups, with members of each group believing that their own group is superior.
So is O&M a Mutual Admiration Club? I guess if we all agree that we are not, that is evidence that we are. So please disagree with each other on this issue.
5 comments 26 January 2010
New Issue of ICC
| Dick Langlois |
A new issue of Industrial and Corporate Change is out (TOC here) with a bunch of interesting articles. Prominent among them is a well-researched and nicely written piece by Pierre Desrochers that argues a politically unpopular view about corporations and the environment. Free speech in action?
Add comment 25 January 2010
Corporations Are People Too
| Craig Pirrong |
Legally, in some respects, anyways. That was a key issue in the recent Supreme Court decision re McCain-Feingold (see Dick’s post). I don’t have a lot to say about the specifics of the decision, as campaign finance law is way too arcane for me. Suffice it to say that I am inherently skeptical about any regulation regarding elections designed by incumbent politicians. People yammer about conflicts of interest all the time, but there’s a colossal one for you.
I just wanted to make a quick point about a debate between Stevens and Scalia carried out in the opinion and the dissent. Stevens noted that the Founders were deeply skeptical of corporations. Indeed so. Scalia noted that there are so many corporations today. Also true. The interesting question is how we got from A (Stevens) to B (Scalia).
The story is told in the North, Wallis and Weingast natural-state book Violence and Social Orders I’ve blogged about several times over at Streetwise Professor, mostly in the context of Russia. The relevant chapter is primarily based on John Wallis’s work. The basic story is that hostility to corporations — reflected very well in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations — was due to the fact that historically, English corporations were created by the crown, and were essentially very profitable favors provided to the politically connected. They were, in NWW terms, part of the “closed order” of the natural state, in which access to certain contracting forms was limited to a select powerful few. This animus towards corporations was inherited in the United States, but in the early years of the 19th century, state legislatures confronting issues associated with the financing of new infrastructure turned the corporate form into a prop of an open-order system in which this contracting form was made available to all. Rather than limit the right of incorporation to an elite, they made it available to everybody. The system changed from one in which legislatures had to grant every incorporation, to one in which pretty much anybody could incorporate if they met a set of general, universally applicable requirements. Hence, the proliferation of corporations. (more…)
2 comments 25 January 2010
Paging John Stuart Mill
| Dick Langlois |
I have been amused by the firestorm of outrage in the press over the Supreme Court’s recent mild affirmation of the free-speech rights of corporations. As many readers of this blog will probably appreciate, the point of a right to free speech is that it must apply even to speech, and to speakers, we don’t like. Many if not most angry commentators, like the writers of the Times editorial on the subject, don’t even bother to worry about the nature of rights. To the Times and many others, constitutional jurisprudence is a purely consequentialist exercise no different from legislation (which, sadly, may be often be true in practice). But other writers and organizations aghast at the Court’s decision have a thorny problem of argument, to the extent that they have themselves invoked the First Amendment in an effort to protect speech of which they approve (or, more generally, to protect specific sub-spheres of discourse in which they themselves participate). A case in point is People for the American Way, which has called for a constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate political speech (via William Saletan). “People For the American Way,” they write, “has been at the forefront of defense of free speech and the First Amendment for almost 30 years. We continue in that role today.” In order to square the circle, PFAM and like-minded pundits and Justices have to find a way to define corporate speech as not speech. The answer? Spending is not speech and corporations aren’t people. So: does this mean that it would be OK under this logic for the government, say, to decree that the New York Times must limit its editorial budget — limiting dollars not ideas, after all — because the Times is a corporation not an individual? Why should this logic not apply to the other Amendments as well? The Times should flat-out not have freedom of the press because it is a corporation; and the Roman Catholic Church should certainly not have freedom of religion.
My favorite line, from Justice Stevens (in dissent): “The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve.” So freedom of speech is really a neoclassical or Benthamite exercise in which we aren’t trying to protect individual (let alone corporate) speech but are instead trying to maximize the total amount of self-expression in society.
In its recent obituary of Erich Segal, the Times cites the following cringe-inducing line, spoken by college-student protagonist Oliver Barrett IV, as a measure of the literary caliber of Segal’s novel Love Story: “Jenny, for Christ’s sake, how can I read John Stuart Mill when every single second I’m dying to make love to you?” This suggests that many a Justice, editorial writer, and pundit must have fallen prey to similar distractions in college. They certainly failed to read John Stuart Mill.
5 comments 25 January 2010
Endogenous Indoctrination
| Dick Langlois |
I have been wanting for some time to write about an interesting paper by Gilles St. Paul called “Endogenous Indoctrination.” (I wasn’t familiar with his work, but he seems to do interesting things, including this.) Here’s the abstract:
Much of the political economy analysis of reform focuses on the conflict of interest between groups that stand to gain or lose from the competing policy proposals. In reality, there is also a lot of disagreement about the working of the policy: in addition to conflicting interests, conflicting views play an important role. Those views are shaped in part by an educational bureaucracy. It is documented that the beliefs of that bureaucracy differ substantially from those of the broader constituency. I analyse a model where this effect originates in the self-selection of workers in the educational occupation, and is partly reinforced by the insulation of the educational profession from the real economy (an effect which had been discussed by Hayek). The bias makes it harder for the population to learn the true parameters of the economy if these are favourable to the market economy. Two parameters that govern this capacity to learn are social entropy and heritability. Social entropy defines how predictable one’s occupation is as a function of one’s beliefs. Heritability is the weight of the family’s beliefs in the determination of the priors of a new generation. Both heritability and social entropy reduce the bias and makes it easier to learn that the market economy is “good,” under the assumption that it is. Finally I argue that the capacity to learn from experience is itself affected by economic institutions. A society which does not trust markets is more likely to favour labour market rigidities that in turn reduces the exposure of individuals to the market economy, and thus their ability to learn from experience. This in turn reinforces the weight of the educational system in the formation of beliefs, thus validating the initial presumption against the market economy. This sustains an equilibrium where beliefs and institutions reinforce each other in slowing or preventing people from learning the correct underlying parameters.
I was catalyzed to write today because of a related article I recently saw in the Times, which enthuses giddily about a paper called “Why Are Professors Liberal?” by two sociologists called Fosse [N. B. not Foss] and Gross. The Times lauds the paper for its sophistication and use of the quantitative. (more…)
6 comments 24 January 2010
Top Scholar Presidents and University Performance
| Nicolai Foss |
Last Friday my unit at CBS, the Center for Strategic Management and Globalization, sponsored a seminar with Dr. Amanda Goodall, the author of Socrates in the Boardroom: Why Research Universities Should be Led by Top Scholars. (For an earlier O&M post on Goodall, see here). Not only did the upper CBS echolons show up (the Research Dean and the President — both highly cited scholars, BTW), but we also had a long and lively discussion. A highly undull seminar!
Goodall’s findings are mainly based on UK data. Roughly, they are that university rankings correlate rather closely with how well-cited the presidents of the relevant universities are, and that there is strong evidence of the research standing of presidents driving university performance. It is hard to understand why this finding (or the book in general) was dissed by Tyler as a “radical attack on economic reasoning” (here).
Anyway, Goodall’s findings made me wonder whether the finding of causality from president/vice-chancellor/BSchool dean generalizes to other university bureaucrats, notably department heads (and deans in general, not just BSchool deans). Many of the things that are being said in the book of the top scholar-president (an example, somebody who defines the standard, an expert etc.) are things that can be said of department heads in well-functioning research universities. Perhaps one of the ways in which university presidents/VCs/deans matter to research performance is by picking good department heads. Also,Goodall claims that top scholars will not have positive performance consequences if they assume the presidency of bad or mediocre universities. She doesn’t really present evidence for this claim, although it does sound intuitive that a Nobel Prize winner is not best placed at the helm of University of Crapville. However, it may be interesting to look at less extreme cases. I do think there are cases of highly regarded scientists helping rather mediocre universities to improve.
4 comments 24 January 2010
Positive Spillovers from Bad Behavior
| Peter Klein |
When I introduce in class the concept of influence activities I emphasize that these, like other forms of discretionary behavior, can have benefits as well as costs. Think of self-assessments, such as a faculty member’s annual report to the department head or Dean. Certainly, faculty will find creative ways to overstate their accomplishments, minimize their failures, make themselves look better relative to their peers, and so on, and the time and energy spent doing this can be considered influence costs. At the same time, a savvy department head or Dean knows how to read between the lines, to separate signal from noise, and generally how to extract useful information from these reports, information he or she might not otherwise have. The challenge for organizational design, then, is not to eliminate influence activities altogether, but to limit them to the point where marginal benefit equals marginal cost.
This popped into my mind the other day when I read (courtesy of Stephan Kinsella) the confessions of a self-described “law school asshole.” University of Pennsylvania 3L Steve Mendelsohn (writing in 1990) tells his fellow students: “You know who we are. We’re the ones who always have our hands up in class volunteering to answer the professor’s questions, or ready to ask one of our own at seemingly any and every opportunity. Everytime you hear one of our names called, you groan and turn to the person next to you and slowly shake your head from side to side.” He even admits his name was in the center square of the Asshole Bingo cards his fellow students would bring to class.
As with influence activities, however, law-school assholery seems to have public benefits: keeping the discussion going and the atmosphere lively, eliciting from the professor information that other students would like to have but are afraid to ask for, and so on. I confess that, as an instructor, I’d rather have a few such assholes in class than a room full of polite, well-behaved dullards.
The serious question is whether this applies to organizations more generally. Are “civilized” workplaces necessarily better than rough-and-rowdy ones? It’s easy to come up with examples of organizations run by jerks that failed, but do we have systematic empirical evidence that nice-guy firms finish first? Do the marginal costs of costs of placing rude, self-centered people in management positions outweigh the marginal benefits?
1 comment 24 January 2010
CFP: “Understanding Firm Growth”
| Peter Klein |
The Ratio Institute invites paper proposals from young scholars (sorry, O&M bloggers!) in economics, economic history, entrepreneurship, management, sociology, statistics, psychology, and related disciplines for a workshop on firm growth in Stockholm, 12-14 August 2010. David Audretsch and Alex Coad are keynoting. Suggested topics include the role of high-growth firms, determinants of the growth of firms, growth ambitions and attitudes towards growth, firm growth and the characteristics of the entrepreneur, the persistence of firm growth, barriers to growth, post-entry performance, firm growth in a historical perspective, and innovation and firm growth. Details here.
Add comment 21 January 2010
The Virtual Firm
| Peter Klein |
If the proprietor has been to business school, it can never be smaller than two persons:
Bonus material, via Craig Newmark: the Boston Globe ponders “The End of the Office.” But it won’t happen, IMHO.
3 comments 21 January 2010
OECD Data on Entrepreneurship
| Peter Klein |
A new OECD report provides data on startups and similar measures for 39 countries. Lots of variables, e.g.:
- Number of enterprises by size class
- Employment by size class
- Value added by size class
- Exports by size class
- Employer enterprise birth rates (manufacturing and services by industry, by size class)
- Employer enterprise death rates (manufacturing and services, by industry, by size class)
- One- and two-year survival rates (manufacturing and services)
- Share of one- and two-year-old employer enterprises in the population (manufacturing and services)
- Share of high-growth firms (employment)
- Share of high-growth firms (turnover)
- Share of gazelles (employment)
- Share of gazelles (turnover)
- Employment creation by enterprise deaths
Add comment 20 January 2010
