People | Organizations and Markets

Diamond-Dybvig (1983) and the Financial Crisis

| Peter Klein |

I started writing a really clever post about the famous Diamond paper (with Philip Dybvig) on financial intermediation and bank runs, its relevance for the financial crisis, and its elevated status in light of Monday’s Nobel announcement. Then I remembered that the author is Douglas Diamond, not Peter Diamond. Doh!

So I’ll try a different framing. “Speaking of guys named Diamond. . . .” The Diamond-Dybvig model, presented in a 1983 JPE article, has become famous enough to spawn an extensive secondary literature (and even sports its own Wikipedia entry). In a nutshell, it models fractional-reserve banks as intermediaries transforming illiquid assets into liquid liabilities and depicts the relationship among depositors as a coordination game with two Nash equilibria, one in which nobody tries to withdraw his funds because he believes no one else will try to withdraw his funds, and one in which everyone tries to withdraw their funds because they believe everyone else will try to withdraw their funds. Bank runs, in other words, constitute a Pareto-inferior Nash equilibrium. This framework led to extensive discussions about deposit insurance, option clauses, and other mechanisms to prevent the bad equilibrium by affecting depositors’ beliefs about solvency. (My former colleague Larry White devotes nearly a chapter of his Theory of Monetary Institutions to Diamond-Dybvig 1983.)

This is a hugely influential article, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been gotten more attention in the last two years. The essential fragility of a complex, interdependent, highly leveraged, fractional-reserve, implicitly government guaranteed system is at the heart of the financial crisis, so you’d think the Diamond-Dybvig framework would play an important role in the debate. But I can’t find much literature on this. The Richmond Fed devoted a special 2010 issue of its Financial Quarterly, guest edited by Ed Prescott, to the DD model, but it attracted little attention. Writes Prescott in his introduction: (more…)

13 October 2010 at 11:06 pm Peter G. Klein 8 comments

Nobel 2010

| Peter Klein |

I hope to have something intelligent and interesting to say about this year’s prize to Diamond, Mortensen, and Pissarides — not as much as last year, of course — but for now I just have a small snark. Here’s me, a couple of weeks ago:

It is said that when the Nobel Prize in economics was first established, prizes were given for using economics to teach people things they didn’t already know, e.g., that economic growth might increase inequality, that depressions are caused by central banks, that macroeconomic stabilization policy doesn’t work, etc. Now, prizes are given to economists who teach other economists things that regular people already know — politicians are self-interested, you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket, institutions matter, different people know different things, etc.

From today’s official press release, on the Laureates’ subject matter:

On many markets, buyers and sellers do not always make contact with one another immediately. This concerns, for example, employers who are looking for employees and workers who are trying to find jobs. Since the search process requires time and resources, it creates frictions in the market. On such search markets, the demands of some buyers will not be met, while some sellers cannot sell as much as they would wish. Simultaneously, there are both job vacancies and unemployment on the labor market.

Addendum: In other Nobel news, Maurice Allais passed away this weekend. I was going to blog something about Allais and the Austrians but Alex Tabarrok beat me to it.

Addendum II: Here’s a nontechnical summary of some of the Laureates’ contributions from Sandeep Baliga.

11 October 2010 at 8:40 am Peter G. Klein 13 comments

Mises Quote of the Day

| Peter Klein |

Mises is known for his uncompromising defense of apriorism in economics, yet he began his career as a historicist, trained by Karl Grünberg, a Marxist and prominent member of the German Historical School. (Mises’s first publications were on land reform in his native Galicia and child-labor laws in Austria, both tediously empirical and inductive.) It was only later, after encountering Menger’s Principles, that Mises turned to social theory.

One of this week’s Mises Dailies features an excerpt from Mises’s 1957 book Theory and History and I can’t resist passing along this nugget, which is hopelessly out of touch with today’s enthusiasm for all things experimental:

[H]istorical experience is always the experience of complex phenomena, of the joint effects brought about by the operation of a multiplicity of elements. Such historical experience does not give the observer facts in the sense in which the natural sciences apply this term to the results obtained in laboratory experiments. (People who call their offices, studies, and libraries “laboratories” for research in economics, statistics, or the social sciences are hopelessly muddle-headed.)

Mises isn’t talking about the literal laboratories used by today’s experimental economists, but the casual use of such scientistic jargon when collecting and analyzing non-experimental data, whether or primary or secondary. (He likewise rejected the language of “hypothesis testing” and the like when applied to social science.) Anyway, agree or disagree, you have to admit there are a lot of hopelessly muddle-headed people on university campuses.

9 October 2010 at 8:24 am Peter G. Klein 9 comments

Mmmmmm. . . . Bacon!

| Peter Klein |

This post begged to be written. It started last weekend when I heard Jim Gaffigan’s bacon routine on the Slacker Comedy Channel. Then, during the week, the Mises Institute ran an excerpt from Murray Rothbard’s History of Economic Thought on Francis Bacon. (Rothbard wasn’t impressed, calling Bacon “the prophet of primitive and naive empiricism, the guru of fact grubbing.”) As if that weren’t enough, Rafe Champion decided around the same time to summarize Terence Kealey’s Economic Laws of Scientific Research, the first chapter of which contrasts Bacon’s and Adam Smith’s views on the relationship between science and economic growth. (Bacon’s model: State support -> Basic Research -> Technology -> Progress in human welfare. Smith’s model: Old technology -> New Technology -> Wealth and Welfare.) Bacon — you just can’t get enough!

3 October 2010 at 11:31 pm Peter G. Klein 3 comments

Oliver Williamson to Win Physics Nobel

| Scott Masten |

At least that’s what the writers of The Simpsons are predicting. (See upper left-hand corner.) Their Economics Prize predictions: Jagdish Bhagwati, Avinash Dixit, Bengt Holmstrom, and Elhanan Helpman. (via Marginal Revolution)

30 September 2010 at 6:46 am Scott Masten 6 comments

Introducing Guest Blogger Scott Masten

| Peter Klein |

It’s a real pleasure to introduce Scott Masten as our newest guest blogger. Scott is Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and a leading figure in the transaction cost approach. Trained by Oliver Williamson at Penn, Scott was one of the first (along with David Teece and a few others) to do systematic empirical work on alternative institutions of governance. Scott’s 1984 paper on procurement in aerospace, his 1985 paper (with Keith Crocker) on characteristics of natural gas contracts, and his 1991 paper (with James Meehan and Ted Snyder) on the costs of internal organization are classics in the transaction cost literature. Scott has also made important contributions to law and economics, antitrust, contract theory, and many other areas. He’s a past president of ISNIE, co-editor of JEMS, and, as I learned a few years ago at a conference for Williamson’s 70th birthday, a wickedly funny after-dinner speaker.

We’re delighted to have Scott on the team and look forward to his insights. Welcome, Scott!

24 September 2010 at 11:40 pm Peter G. Klein Leave a comment

Richard T. Ely’s Influence on Woodrow Wilson

| Peter Klein |

Researching and teaching sound economics during the Dark Era (i.e., the Keynesian Revival) can be frustrating and depressing. Keynesian doctrine has been refuted again and again; why won’t this zombie stay dead? What, more generally, is the role of economic education? Can we really transform hearts and minds through reason and dialogue? Or do students and scholars simply seek intellectual cover to justify what they already believe?

Hayek reports that he was originally a mild Fabian but was converted by laissez-faire by Mises’s 1922 book Socialism. Such conversion stories are rare, however, in either direction. With this in mind, I was intrigued by Gary Pecquet and Clifford Thies’s paper, “The Shaping of a Future President’s Economic Thought: Richard T. Ely and Woodrow Wilson at ‘The Hopkins'” (Independent Review, Fall 2010). Pecquet and Thies report that “Woodrow Wilson entered graduate studies at Johns Hopkins University as a classical liberal in his economic views but departed as a progressive. His fateful transformation had much to do with his apprenticeship with Richard T. Ely, who disparaged the laissez-faire policy prescriptions and deductive methodology of classical economics.” Worth a look for those interested in the impact of economic education on economic policy.

23 September 2010 at 9:06 am Peter G. Klein Leave a comment

Bruce Caldwell on The Road from Mont Pèlerin

| Peter Klein |

Don’t miss Bruce Caldwell’s review of Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, eds., The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Harvard, 2009). “Mont Pèlerin” refers, of course, to the Mont Pèlerin Society, the association of classical liberal academics and journalists founded by Hayek in 1947. Bruce finds the volume informative, despite its frequently disdainful tone toward its subjects. He also raises an important general point, one that I’ve wrestled with a lot since the financial crisis: does anybody listen to us?

The second question [raised by the book] has to do with the potency of intellectuals to shape world events or, more narrowly, even economic and social policy. It is evident that members of the Mont Pèlerin Society, for all of their diversity, still preferred some form of liberalism . . . to other ways of organizing economic and political affairs. But how important were they in the emerging global consensus that began in the 1980s in favor of trade liberalization and privatization? Were not, for example, the dismal performance of Keynesian demand management policies in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere in the 1970s; the heavy-handed actions of the trade unions in Britain during the “Winter of Discontent”; the sclerotic performance of countries like India who had embraced a modified version of the planning model for their own; and, of course, the patent economic and political failures of the East Bloc, far more important in turning the tide, however briefly, towards globalization? Was not George Stigler (himself a founding member of the Society) right in his comment about economists that “our influence appears to be powerful only when we support policies ripe for adoption” (Stigler 1987, p. 11)?

2 September 2010 at 11:31 am Peter G. Klein 9 comments

Chris Freeman, 1921-2010

| Nicolai Foss |

Chris Freeman, author of The Economics of Industrial Innovation, co-founder of Research Policy, and founder and first director of the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, died yesterday. Freeman was not only an academic entrepreneur, but also an important mentor for innovation scholars like Giovanni Dosi, Keith Pavitt, and Jan Fagerberg.

17 August 2010 at 1:52 am Nicolai Foss 1 comment

Foss and Klein Critique of Kirzner

| Peter Klein |

The Spring 2010 issue of the Journal of Private Enterprise contains a Kirzner symposium, including a paper by Nicolai and me, “Alertness, Action, and the Antecedents of Entrepreneurship.” We critique Kirzner’s concept of the “pure entrepreneur,” arguing that alertness is a historically contingent attribute of real-world business people — what Mises calls “promoters” — but not essential to the entrepreneurial function itself. We also suggest that Kirzner is inconsistent on the issue of antecedents, simultaneously holding that the entrepreneur-as-discoverer exists outside any particular institutional environment, and that certain public policies inhibit entrepreneurial discovery by blocking profit opportunities. Some of the material in the paper is familiar to readers of our other works, but our critique of the Kirznerian pure entrepreneur, in the context of ideal types, goes beyond previous arguments.

Oh, some of you may be more interested in the rest of the special issue, which leads with Dan Klein and Jason Briggeman’s broadside, “Israel Kirzner on Coordination and Discovery,” followed by a lengthy response from Kirzner himself. (Our paper is really an addendum.) Pete Boettke and Dan D’Amico, Steve Horwitz, Gene Callahan, Bob Murphy, and Martin Ricketts round out the Kirzner symposium.

28 July 2010 at 11:57 am Peter G. Klein 2 comments

Misc Academic Links

| Peter Klein |

Academia’s love-hate relationship with wikis.
Deathbed witticisms from Voltaire, Hegel, and other interesting persons.
Should research universities exploit the internal division of labor?
Tips on academic job talks from Fabio’s valuable series.

19 July 2010 at 12:49 pm Peter G. Klein 2 comments

Hayek Interviews

| Peter Klein |

In 1983 the Earhart Foundation sponsored a lengthy set of interviews with F. A. Hayek in Los Angeles. The transcripts have long been available (and form the basis of the interview parts of Hayek on Hayek), but the complete set of videos has just now been put online, courtesy of the Universidad Francisco Marroquín. The interviewers are an impressive lot as well: James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Axel Leijonhufvud, Robert Bork, Tom Hazlett, Jack High, Bob Chitester, Leo Rosten, and Earlene Craver. (I hardly recognized the youthful Hazlett!) You can also get the transcripts, if you prefer plain text.

14 July 2010 at 10:51 am Peter G. Klein 2 comments

The History of Nikola Tesla

| Peter Klein |

Saturday was Nikola Tesla’s birthday. Here’s Jeremiah Warren’s video in Tesla’s honor:

Tesla was, of course, the great inventor whose technical achievements outshone those of his great rival, Thomas Edison, but who was unable to commercialize any of his discoveries. Tesla, unfortunately, put his faith in intellectual property-rights protection, while Edison emphasized management and marketing. As Danny Quah puts it, “Public relations and entrepreneurial savvy trump the raw intellectual idea.”

12 July 2010 at 11:05 am Peter G. Klein 1 comment

In the Pink

| Dick Langlois |

A propos Peter’s recent post about behavioral economics, I discovered this interesting video illustrating Daniel Pink’s book Drive (thanks, Steve). I don’t think there is anything about it that is particularly inconsistent with what we know about the economics of organization, but others may disagree.

I once heard Pink speak, at the 2002 Business History Conference meeting, just after his book Free Agent Nation (about the rise of self-employment) appeared. He was one third of a panel on the New Economy, the rest of which consisted of two extremely far-left twits. It was amusing to hear Pink, a former speechwriter for Al Gore, gamely hold up a sensible position, though I remember thinking what greater fun it would have been if they had invited Virginia Postrel.

13 June 2010 at 4:02 am Dick Langlois Leave a comment

Taking AIM

| Dick Langlois |

Aha! So that’s why nobody met me at the airport: I was supposed to be in France. Actually, I’m in the UK, traveling around as a Visiting Fellow of the Academy of Advanced International Management (AIM). I will be giving a series of talks under their aegis in Lancaster, London, and Edinburgh. I am now in Lancaster, where my host is Martin Spring, an operations management guy who is interested in modularity and contracting in the delivery of complex services like engineering. My first stop in the UK was Nottingham, where I refrained from any tax protests let alone progressive redistribution of rents. (This despite the ads for the new Ridley Scott-Russell Crowe movie prominently displayed on all the busses.) But I did speak at the Nottingham University Business School, which is home to the likes of Paul Windrum and Peter Swann.

Today I hope to see some of Lancaster, possibly including Williamson Park. Among its highly specific assets is the pictured Ashton Memorial, built by James Williamson, Jr., Lord Ashton, who made his fortune in the linoleum trade. (According to the city council website, he was able to afford this grand edifice because he paid his workers so little.)

During the trip I also plan to stop in at several conferences, including DRUID (for one day), the ISNIE conference in Stirling (where I am likely to view a flesh-and-blood Williamson), and the Schumpeter Society in Aalborg. If I can, and if the material warrants, I may try a little live (or at least half-dead) blogging from the conferences.

12 June 2010 at 5:47 am Dick Langlois Leave a comment

Jane Jacobs Festschrift

| Peter Klein |

It’s called What We See and has just been published by New Village Press. Here are the publisher and Amazon links. The website, whatwesee.org, has a blog and lots of useful information about the book, the authors, and Jacobs.

Of particular interest to O&Mers include “Rethinking ‘Jacobs Spillovers,’ or How Diverse Cities Actually Make Individuals More Creative and Economically Successful” by Pierre Desrochers and Samuli Leppälä and “The Mirage of the Efficient City” by Sandy Ikeda.

8 June 2010 at 7:21 am Peter G. Klein Leave a comment

Buridan’s Ass

| Peter Klein |

This week’s A.Word.A.Day features “Words not named after the person they should be,” including McKenzie, orrery, philippic, and guillotine. Thursday’s entry, on Buridan’s ass, reminded me of Murray Rothbard’s insightful discussion of Buridan. Rothbard treats Buridan as an important contributor to the theory of value, price, and exchange, particularly the theory of money. Buridan’s ass makes the daily word list because a) the famous example of an animal who, indifferent between two equidistant bales of hay, can choose neither and hence starves to death, did not originate with Buridan, who merely commented on a familiar story, and b) Buridan referred to a dog, not a donkey — it was Buridan’s critics who changed the animal in the story to an ass, as an insult.

4 June 2010 at 2:18 am Peter G. Klein 3 comments

Manne on Fama and French

| Peter Klein |

An open letter to Gene Fama and Ken French from Henry Manne (also running today at Truth on the Market):

Dear Gene and Ken:

I must say that I was totally flabbergasted when I read your recent blog posting on insider trading. I know that your usual posts on investments, which I often cite to friends, are well-informed and empirically supported; your work over the years on these topics is important and influential — and rightly so. Unfortunately, in this post, you have deviated from your usual high quality. Anyone current on the topic of insider trading will recognize that you have been careless in your selection of anti-insider-trading arguments and that you omitted from your brief note the major part of the argument about insider trading: whether and how much it contributes to market efficiency. To say this is a strange omission coming from Fama and French would be an understatement.

Your first error is to assume that the insider trading debate is about informed trading only by “top management.” I suspect that this error may flow from my original argument for using insider trading to compensate for entrepreneurial services in a publicly held company, a matter you do not mention and which I will not pursue here except to note that “entrepreneurial services” does not equate to top management. Strangely no one seems to notice that most of the celebrated cases on the subject have not involved corporate personnel at all (a printer, a financial analyst, a lawyer, and Martha Stewart). (more…)

17 May 2010 at 1:45 pm Peter G. Klein Leave a comment

Readings for Hayek-Klein Day

| Peter Klein |

Here are some readings to help you celebrate tomorrow’s Hayek-Klein Day:

7 May 2010 at 11:05 am Peter G. Klein 8 comments

Esther Duflo Wins Clark Medal

| Peter Klein |

Congratulations to MIT’s Esther Duflo for winning the John Bates Clark Medal. (NB: Unlike Richard T. Ely, J. B. Clark was actually a great economist.) Duflo is a pioneer in the use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which, along with natural experiments, is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to conventional regression models. Interestingly, the WSJ reports that Harvard’s Sendhil Mullainathan, another RCT person, was also on the short list. Given the extreme faddishness of social scientists we can expect a wave of RCT centers, experiments, and papers in the next few years.