Archive for December, 2008
| David Gerard |
As I pack my bags for the American Economic Association meetings this weekend in San Francisco, I am reminded of a recent New Yorker article on the impacts of medical marijuana legalization. This is probably a rather mundane topic for you left-coasters, but here in Pennsylvania where we can’t even buy beer in grocery stores, it is a pretty exotic concept.
The article highlights a number of ways in which legalization foments organizational change, and also gives some anecdotal evidence on sharecropping terms, suggesting different terms for indoor and outdoor operations.
The easiest way to make this kind of small indoor scene work is to live in someone else’s house and nurture the plants in exchange for a third or half the profits, and that is how the Kid would be spending her time for the next two months.
On the outdoor side, however, this description of the “Humboldt Slide” suggests that landlords appear more willing to change the contracting terms:
“You start at this really great percentage, and you’re buddy-buddy and everything’s great,” Emily said. As the harvest approaches, growers inevitably begin to run out of money and get greedy, and the sharecroppers lose whatever leverage they had earlier in the growing cycle, when their daily attention was necessary for the young plants to survive. Emily’s wage the previous year was initially set at a third of the value of the plants that she harvested. Later, her boss “slid” her percentage to a sixth, meaning that she owned only a dozen of the eighty plants that she grew that season.
The explanation is that the laborers have no legal recourse, so the landlord is free to rewrite contracts as he pleases, but then wouldn’t we expect a slide in the case of the indoor operations as well?
I welcome suggestions for more systematic treatments for effects of the California legalization. One effect that I don’t expect is for it to have much of an impact on the average sobriety level at this weekend’s conference.
| Peter Klein |
Paul Krugman suffers increasingly from what might be called Stiglitz’s Disease, the inability to read (or cite) anyone but oneself. Some years ago Krugman wrote a rather silly and superficial piece on the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which he called the “hangover theory” of recessions. Krugman’s essay provoked strong reactions from Roger Garrison, John Cochran, David Gordon, and Bob Murphy, all of whom have considerable expertise regarding this particular theory. Naturally, Krugman didn’t read any of these responses because they weren’t written by, well, Paul Krugman. So, a couple of days ago, Krugman again trots out his “hangover” metahpor, oblivious to the fact that his original essay got the Austrian theory completely wrong. Ah, the joys of being a full-time dilettante!
| David Gerard |
I would like to thank Peter for inviting me to guest blog, as I have been a fan of Organizations & Markets for some time. I spent the better part of the past year developing courses that emphasized organizations, entrepreneurship, and innovation. O&M has been an invaluable resource, whether to “borrow” slides from Richard Langlois, or to get ideas for classroom topics.
I am writing from the “Steel City” of Pittsburgh, though the steel industry has largely fled the region. For evidence of that we need to look no further than our skyline (which we can now see because there is less smog), where the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s UPMC logo is now emblazoned atop the US Steel Tower. Health care accounts for about 15% of the region’s workforce.
Aside from being a case-study in post-industrialization, UPMC is also an interesting point of departure for exploration of some fundamental organizational questions. One that leaps to mind: Are non-profits where the real money is? Last year, UPMC generated $6 billion in revenue and cleared more than $600 million in “non-profit.”
A more traditional organizations question is the question of organization boundaries, and the tortured negotiations between UPMC and Highmark illustrate concepts such as transaction costs (hint for the exam: if it takes 3+ years to strike a deal, transaction costs may be high), vertical integration versus arm’s-length contracting, market power, bilateral dependency, credible commitment, and the hostage model. Indeed, the linchpin of the deal was Highmark kicking in for the construction of the new Children’s Hospital:
Highmark and UPMC have had a good working relationship since 2002, when the two companies signed a landmark 10-year deal. UPMC won a contract with its best customer, and hundreds of millions in loans and grants from Highmark so UPMC could build a new Children’s Hospital in Lawrenceville. Highmark, meanwhile, was guaranteed access to the wide UPMC network for a decade.
Having students explain why Highmark built a hospital rather than simply writing a check turned out to be a pretty good exam question.
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette ran a nice five-part series on the growth of UPMC growth and its phenomenal role in medical innovation. Despite the is long-term agreement, UPMC and Highmark are at odds over a proposed merger between Highmark and Independence Blue Cross. The federal authorities granted antitrust clearance, but Pennsylvania regulators won’t rule on the matter until next month. The state’s hesitation to give the green light gave Senator Specter and federal regulators time to reexamine the matter, and this might be a case to follow to see how the new Administration exercises its antitrust authority.
| Peter Klein |
I’m pleased to introduce David Gerard as our newest guest blogger. David is Executive Director of the Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation (CSIR) at Carnegie-Mellon University. He works on the development, implementation and enforcement of regulations and the effect of regulatory institutions on economic behavior, the environment, and public safety. David teaches the core course in managerial economics and a course on innovation in the master’s program in Engineering and Technology Innovation Management. He also teaches several courses in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences including entrepreneurship, regulation, and technological change (with David Hounshell). I’ve known David since his student days at the University of Illinois, where he received a PhD in economics in 1997. Welcome, David!
| Peter Klein |
Bob Higgs sends this clip, adding: “Those of you who were unable to obtain admission to the Ph.D. program at MIT or UC Berkeley may go here for a quick look at what you missed.” He’s right, it was a lot like that.
| Peter Klein |
. . . before someone blamed the financial crisis on agency theory. Sure enough, Raymond Fisman and Rakesh Khurana trace the source of the current mess not to expansionary monetary policy, or lax underwriting standards, or implicit (now explicit) government guarantees against market discipline, or the Basel Committee, or a host of other policy and institutional failures, but to business schools, and the critics’ favorite bête noire, the concept of shareholder wealth maximization.
[B]usiness schools [promote] a particular brand of free-market ideology — squarely focused on shareholder maximization theories — that forms the staple fare of MBA and executive education courses today. . . .
In the world views that underlie modern business education, the market always “gets prices right” and “managers” are merely agents for shareholders. An individual’s worth can be reduced to one’s worth in the market.
If I get $100 million in compensation, the thinking goes, it is because ‘I deserve it.’ There is no discussion of the role of circumstance, luck or market failure. It is the type of thinking that has resulted in literally hundreds of billions of dollars being transferred away from organizational resources and into the personal bank accounts of CEOs, and is now bringing capitalism to its knees.
So, teaching future managers how the price system works, how managerial behavior effects shareholder wealth, how marginal productivity affects wages, and the like is equivalent to encouraging managers to lie, cheat, and steal! I suppose it would be better to teach that water runs uphill, that central planning is more efficient than free markets, and that men are angels. Perhaps we should cover socially responsible statistics and accounting too.
Sumantra Ghoshal famously blamed transaction cost economics and agency theory for much of the world’s ills, including the Enron affair. At least Ghoshal offered some arguments. Fisman and Khurana can’t be bothered. (HT: Ben Asa Rast.)
| Peter Klein |
Cool, very cool. With these guys staring down at me I am sure to increase my productivity. That’s Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, and Hazlitt, in case you can’t make out the captions (or, embarrassingly, don’t recognize the mug shots.) Sadly it doesn’t include Nicolai Foss, but you can’t have everything. Thank you, Santa! You can get yours here.