Who Says Economists Don’t Tackle the Tough Issues?
27 April 2008 at 8:23 am Peter G. Klein 1 comment
| Peter Klein |
How can anyone doubt the value added of mainstream economics research:
- Jeffrey S. DeSimone, “Fraternity Membership and Drinking Behavior,” NBER Working Paper No. W13262, July 2007.
- Jay Pil Choi, “Up or Down? A Male Economist’s Manifesto on Toilet Seat Etiquette.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Michigan State University, 2002.
- Robert Oxoby, “On the Efficiency of AC/DC: Bon Scott versus Brian Johnson,” Economic Inquiry, forthcoming (via Lasse). The abstract’s worth quoting in full:
We use tools from experimental economics to address the age-old debate regarding who was a better singer in the band AC/DC. Our results suggest that (using wealth maximization as a measure of “better”) listening to Brian Johnson (relative to listening to Bon Scott) resulted in “better” outcomes in an ultimatum game. These results may have important implications for settling drunken music debates and environmental design issues in organizations.
Note that I’m not completely innocent in this area either.
See also: “Economics: Puzzles or Problems?”
Organizations and Markets 
1.
Joe Mahoney | 27 April 2008 at 12:54 pm
The deterrent effect being discussed in terms of the collective rationality of winning the game seems to miss the boat in my opinion. In high school I saw a 70 mile per hour fastball fly by my head. Not good! A 95 mph pitch doing so is a total fear factor. Any discussion of this topic without FEAR is a “reconstructed logic” but it misses the “logic-in-use.”
I have been at many a national league games where the headhunting pitcher got pluncked himself (usually in the back). I take that as a first warning. The headhunting pitcher typically gets the message. The next time it will be at YOUR head. Behavior modification can be readily observed. Has anyone ever looked at the data of a pitcher hit by a pitch and their subsequent throwing behavior? The Mahoney hypothesis is that hitting the other team’s batters goes down MORE than if the pticher’s teammate gets hit.
By the way, another type of moral hazard is that a pticher can get better stats through intimidation in the American League. Sure it might cost the star teammate getting hit, and the team losing more games with that player injured. But hey, the piticher’s stats will be better through intimidation, and he will get a better salary next year. Fire away!