What’s In a Name?
| Peter Klein |
Speaking of Levitt, another of his characteristically quirky studies is this one on baby names (nontechnical summary here), showing that “distinctively black” names are indicators, not determinants, of socioeconomic status. Baron and Kreps summarize the literature on job titles and conclude, similarly, that titles are primarily signals, not drivers of job characteristics or performance (though titles can be important motivators).
I was thinking about names when watching a little Wimbledon this morning. (I grew up in the era of Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, etc., and remain a huge Wimbledon fan.) Former champion Maria Sharapova won her first-round match easily, dispatching clay-court specialist Anna Smashnova in straight sets. Smashnova — what a great name for a tennis player! (I’m considering changing my legal name to Publishnova.)
More on Economics and the Contiguous Disciplines
| Peter Klein |
Monday’s post on the accusation that contemporary economists focus too heavily on “puzzles,” rather than real problems, elicited a number of interesting responses. Tom Schenk alludes to Coase’s suggestion that economists are shying away from their traditional areas of interest because they can’t solve the standard problems. Coase is worth quoting in full:
Economists are extending the range of their studies to include all of the social sciences. . . . What is the reason why this is happening? One completely satisfying explanation . . . would be that economists have by now solved all of the major problems posed by the economic system, and, therefore, rather than become unemployed or be forced to deal with the trivial problems which remain to be solved, have decided to employ their obviously considerable talents in achieving a similar success in the other social sciences. However, it is not possible to examine any area of economics with which I have familiarity without finding major puzzles for which we have no agreed solutions, or, indeed, questions to which we have no answers at all. The reason for this movement of economists into neighbouring fields is certainly not that we have solved the problems of the economic system; it would perhaps be more plausible to argue that economists are looking for fields in which they can have some success.
Steve Sailer, who has gained a reputation as Steve Levitt’s most vocal critic (1, 2), suggests that the problem is not the application of economic analysis to neighboring disciplines per se, but rather economists’ tendency to apply their tools to subjects in which they lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise. “My objection to Levitt’s work is not that he’s wasting his vast analytical powers on trivial subjects, but that his analytical powers have too often been found inadequate for the magnitude of his subjects.” (more…)
A Brief History of Time (in Management)
| Peter Klein |
My colleague Allen Bluedorn, Professor of Management at the University of Missouri, recently published an interesting book, The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experience (Stanford University Press, 2002). The book explores a number of philosophical, sociological, and cultural issues related to time and our perception of time and develops applications for business administration. Of course, attention to time, process, and history is a hallmark of the Austrian, evolutionary, and dynamic capabilities approaches to economics and management featured frequently on this blog.
For a short introduction to these issues check out the June 2006 issue of the Academy of Management Learning and Education, which features “Time and the Temporal Imagination” by Bluedorn and Rhetta Standifer. Here is the abstract:
Time has been one of the most challenging and elusive concepts in human thought, and it is only now beginning to receive the attention it deserves in organizational scholarship. To this growing scholarly attention we present the case for including material about this most universal of phenomena in our teaching, just as we are beginning to do in our theoretical and empirical investigations. We argue for developing a temporal imagination, a concept we proposed recently, and then describe reasons for teaching about time as well as present first principles that provide a foundation for the teaching of time and temporal phenomena. These reasons and principles are then illustrated in a discussion of temporal depth (time horizons) and how it might be taught.
Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics
| Peter Klein |
I’m pleased to announce that I am editing, along with my colleague Michael E. Sykuta, a new entry in the Elgar Companion series: The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics. The volume will contain several dozen encyclopedia-style entries on the TCE’s foundations and basic principles, precursors and influences, modeling approaches, empirical research, applications, and critiques. Look for publication in late 2007 or early 2008.
New Paper by Kirzner and Sautet
| Nicolai Foss |
Israel Kirzner is surely one of the more neglected of economists. Now that entrepreneurship has become almost a mainstream theme in economics, Kirzner certainly deserves more recognition and credit for his four decades long insistence on the importance of the entrepreneur as the prime mover of the market process. (Here is a great Israel Kirzner site.)
What appears to be Kirzner’s latest paper is “The Nature and Role of Entrepreneurship in Markets: Implications for Policy,” written with Frederic Sautet and published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
The paper is particularly interesting as it is taken up with a theme that has often been claimed to be absent from Kirzner’s work, namely that of institutions and how institutions can be designed (or influenced) to impact entrepreneurship. The new stuff arrives at about p. 14. In addition to discussing how the institutional matrix impacts entrepreneurship, there is so much emphasis on creativity as an aspect of entrepreneurship that the paper sounds Schumpeterian in places. There is also much emphasis on entrepreneurship being embedded in a cultural context.
So, has Israel Kirzner gone applied? Well, not exactly, as the discussion still moves on a fairly abstract level (for an applied exercise that is rather related to Kirzner and Sautet’s, see this excellent paper), but certainly is more “applied” than the Kirzner of, say, Competition and Entrepreneurship.
We Need Some Economics of Pomo
| Nicolai Foss |
I am re-reading Tyler Cowen’s excellent What Price Fame? for the second time. I continue to be amazed by the number of bright ideas that this slim volume is packed with. Among the many observations of the ways that celebrities and critics can game their mutual relations is this one:
Some performers manipulate the style of their product to shift the incentives of critics to pay attention … Unclear authors, at least if they have substance and depth, receive more attention from critics and require more textual exegesis. Individual critics can establish their own reputations by studying such a writer and by promoting one interpretation of that writer’s work over another. These same critics will support the inclusion of the writer in the canon to promote the importance of their own criticism … In the economics literature, enormous attention is devoted to the vagaries of John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory. The monetary writings of Milton Friedman or Irving Fisher, far clearer and not inferior as practical guides to monetary policy, do not receive equal attention from historians of thought (p.34-5).
Perhaps this observation may help us to account for the increasing prominence of pomo ideas in management (economics seems so far to have stayed almost immune to this disease). (more…)
More on Family Firms
| Peter Klein |
Recent posts here at O&M and at orgtheory.net have discussed the nature and consequences of family ownership. Today’s Wall Street Journal ($) profiles Fiat’s John Elkann, great-great-grandson of founder Giovanni Agnelli and next in line for the top spot, and discusses the challenges of family capitalism more generally. Excerpts:
[A]s Mr. Elkann is poised to move into the driver’s seat at the 107-year-old icon, the European model of family capitalism espoused by his clan is struggling to endure. Financial markets have become impatient with family-dominated companies, which sometimes put dynastic interests first and occasionally have murky corporate-governance practices. There is also increased skepticism that companies controlled by Europe’s grand families can produce top-flight managers. . . .
Some argue that the model has served Europe poorly. “The sooner we get rid of family capitalism the better off we all are,” says Umberto Mosetti, a corporate-governance expert at the University of Siena and president of shareholder adviser Deminor.
When markets were regional, says Mr. Mosetti, families could finance their businesses through cash flow and loans from friendly local banks. As markets went global, large companies needed to go to capital markets to fuel expansion. Family-controlled firms were often ill-prepared. Something similar happened at Fiat. When competitors from Asia entered the European market, Fiat was caught flat-footed and lost market share; it has been trying to recover ever since.
Economics: Puzzles or Problems?
| Peter Klein |
I’ve enjoyed reading Wittgenstein’s Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers, an engaging account of the famous “poker incident” at which Ludwig Wittgenstein may or may not have threatened a visiting Karl Popper with a fireplace poker during a 1946 meeting of Cambridge’s Moral Sciences Club. David Edmonds and John Eidinow perform a forensic reconstruction and conclude that Popper probably exaggerated what happened but that Wittgenstein did act like a boor. More important, Edmonds and Eidinow explore the background and aftermath and use the incident to anchor an elegant survey of twentieth-century philosophy putting Popper’s and Wittgenstein’s contributions in context.
(Incidentally, neither philosopher comes across as the sort of guy you’d want to spend an evening with. Popper appears petty and insecure, almost paranoid. As for Wittgenstein . . . I’m no philosopher, but I know what I like, and Wittgenstein — in his later incarnation, anyway — isn’t it. He’s revealed here as a spoiled brat, petulant and overbearing, and his linguistic approach to philosophy strikes me as little more than clever nonsense. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I first heard about the poker incident from Popper’s student W. W. Bartley, III, who was far from impartial. See The Fortunes of Liberalism, p. 179, footnote 5.)
At issue between Popper and Wittgenstein that night was the status of philosophy itself. Are there real philosophical problems, as Popper maintained, or merely “puzzles,” as Wittgenstein and his disciples insisted? Contemporary analytic philosophy has tended to gravitate toward the latter view, that philosophy is little more than word-play, a fun and interesting exercise but one with little bearing on the “big questions” of life.
What about economics? Over the last couple of decades economists have paid less attention to the “big questions” of unemployment, inflation, capitalism versus socialism, the quality of life, and so on, focusing instead on finding clever solutions to small, empirical puzzles — call it the “Freakonomics approach.” There are exceptions to this trend — the literature on institutions and economic growth, for example — but on the whole economists seem more interested in puzzles than problems. (more…)
Does Creativity Harm Innovation?
| Peter Klein |
The always-interesting Robin Hansen argues in Business Week that creativity may harm, not help, innovation.
[M]uch of the hoopla over creativity is a crock. Why? Because we are already up to our eyeballs in it. Make no mistake: Innovation matters. Nothing is more essential for long-term economic growth. But to get more innovation we may want less, not more, creativity.
The sobering truth is that the dramatic artistic creations or intellectual insights we most admire for their striking "creativity" matter little for economic growth. . . . Instead, the innovations that matter most are the millions of small changes we constantly make to our billions of daily procedures and arrangements. Such changes do not require free-spirited self-expression. Instead, people quite naturally think of changes as they go about their routine business and social lives. . . .
Are Routines Necessary for an Evolutionary Theory of the Firm?
| Nicolai Foss |
The seminal and in many ways founding contribution to the evolutionary theory of the firm, and its numerous relatives in management, such as the knowledge-based , the competence , the capabilities, etc. views, is without much doubt Sidney Winter and Richard Nelson's An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change from 1982.
The book is very heavily cited in management (e.g., it is among the top 10 cites in Strategic Management Journal), but has made less of an impact in economics (it was originally intended as an economics contribution rather than a contribution to management). The reason can be found in chapters 4 and 5 that develop notions of routines and organizational capabilities, and try to do so from the notion of individual skill. Since Nelson and Winter (1982) organizational routines have become a primitive in the definition of "higher-level" constructs, such as capabilities or "dynamic" capabilities.
In a number of recent papers (beginning with this paper, but mainly with Teppo Felin), I have identified and discussed various problems with the notion of routines. Very briefly, there are still no clean definitions of routines (which evidently makes it somewhat problematic to define capabilities etc. in terms of routines), the routines construct often implies a denial of methodological individualism, the empirical basis for asserting that routines are so strongly prevalent in real world firms that it is meaningful to think of firms in terms of routines is questionable, routines draw attention away from conscious, rational choice, etc. etc.
New Issue of Industry and Innovation
| Nicolai Foss |
Now in its 13 year of publication, Industry and Innovation is a journal dedicated to "scholarship on the dynamics of industries and innovation". (It was originally launched as the Journal of Industry Studies).
Its closest competitors are arguably journals such as Industrial and Corporate Change and Research Policy. In terms of intellectual affiliation, I&I serves the communities that are organized in the Schumpeter Society, attend the DRUID conferences, and the like. In other words, I&I is taken up with research in evolutionary economics, dynamic capabilities stuff, parts of economic geography, technology studies and so on. Its editorial board includes Anita McGahan, Richard Nelson, and yours truly. The editor is my CBS colleague, Mark Lorenzen (check his photo!).
Usually, there may not be much of interest for the readers of O&M in I&I. However, the latest issue — guest edited by my former PhD student, Volker Mahnke (CBS, Informatics Dept.) and Serden Ozcan (CBS, Dept of Industrial Economics and Strategy)– features a set of papers that are clearly relevant to those with an interest in organization and organizational strategy.
Entrepreneurship and Business Education
| Peter Klein |
Kauffman Foundation president Carl Schramm joins a rising chorus of protest against contemporary business education with an op-ed, "The Broken MBA," in the Chronicle of Higher Education. US business schools, says Schramm, have missed the transition from "bureaucratic capitalism" to "entrepreneurial capitalism."
Although most major schools now have formal programs in entrepreneurship, the programs typically exist in isolation. Their precepts have had little impact on the core curriculum. It is hard to find serious research on entrepreneurial processes, and not much attention is paid to the importance of technology in entrepreneurial growth — even in large companies.
Instead, business schools have chosen to emphasize ethics and social responsibility, a move Schramm blasts as "ineffective, irrelevant, or even counterproductive." On ethics: "Presumably the goal is to prevent future Enron-like scandals, but how likely is it that human behavior can be changed for the better by tacking on a course on ethics?" On social responsibility, which he calls a "nebulous area": "The implicit message of those courses is often that business goals should be subordinate to political goals. Business serves society by creating wealth — that is its true social responsibility. Business schools do their students and society a disservice by teaching that corporations should pledge primary allegiance to political ends, which could harm their ability to create the wealth upon which civil society depends." (more…)
The New Legal Realism
| Peter Klein |
Oliver Williamson attributes to Karl Llewellyn the idea of contracts as frameworks for structuring relationships rather than abstract, formal rules that apply independent of context. Llewellyn was also a founder of legal realism, an early-twentieth-century movement to make the study of law not only more pragmatic and realistic, but also more firmly grounded in modern social science. Llewellyn's writings don't appeal to everyone, but his ideas have been revived by a movement known as the New Legal Realism. The new legal realists aim
to develop rigorous, genuinely interdisciplinary approaches to the empirical study of law. In recent years, legal academics have shown renewed interest in social science. However, to date there has been no organized paradigm within the legal academy for translating and integrating diverse social science disciplines and methodologies. NLR scholarship pays systematic attention to this process of translation and integration. Like the "old" legal realists, we seek to bring the best of current social science and legal scholarship to bear on important policy issues of our day — but with the benefit of several generations of new knowledge.
The blog Empirical Legal Studies is running a series on this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, more to come). Brian Leiter is not impressed. I'm not sure exactly what it all means for the economic analysis of contracting and organization but plan to follow the debate, at least from afar. (HT: Conglomerate Blog)
Between Society and Market
| Peter Klein |
I know little about the economic history of the Middle East, but the title of this upcoming workshop, "Between Society and the Market: Novel Approaches to the Business History of the Middle East," caught my eye. The workshop, organized by Relli Shechter and Andrew Godley, is part of the 8th Mediterranean Research Meeting, coming in March 2007. From the call for papers:
In the period before independent states in the Middle East (the Ottoman and colonial eras), businesses were often studied in the context of community history. It is known that entrepreneurial ethnic minorities were very active, but little is known of their larger economic and social impact on the region, and even less on Muslim entrepreneurship. There is also a large body of literature on the activities of foreign multinationals in the region, especially in the oil industry of course, but also in banking (Bamberg, Clay, Ferrier, Corley, Codley et al Jones 1981, 1987, Yergin). While these multinationals were the progenitors of the modern commercial enterprise in the region, this literature overwhelmingly views their Middle Eastern activities through the lenses of the parent companies or corporate HQ rather than understanding how the introduction of new products, techniques and business forms may have influenced local entrepreneurs, workers and consumers. . . .
During the period of emerging nation-states nad the rapid build up of national economies . . . , the study of businesses was again relegated to a secondary status. Private businesses were either discredited or simply ignored, and the rise of public sector ones mostly discussed from an administrative and political perspective. How small, medium, and large (the latter mostly state owned) businesses actually operated, and how the role of management and workers changed during these transitions has hardly been discussed.
Read the rest here.
Tying Your Own Hands, BlackBerry Edition
| Peter Klein |
Joe writes below about time inconsistency, or the Ulysses problem: sometimes you can make yourself better off by deliberately limiting your own options ("tying your own hands"). This phenomenon has been widely studied in monetary policy (earning Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott a Nobel Prize), bargaining theory, and even internal organization.
From the New York Times we learn that a Chicago hotel has found a way to solve the time-inconsistency problem for heavy BlackBerry users: upon check-in, guests wishing to enjoy some downtime can give their device to the general manager, who agrees to keep it under lock and key for the duration of the stay. (I hope my wife isn't reading this.) (HT: Steven Dubner)
Motivation Workshop at CBS
| Nicolai Foss |
One of the more pleasing aspects of being a Professor is to have committed and active PhD students. One of my PhD students, Mia Reinholdt, is organizing a workshop on "Motivational Foundations of Knowledge Sharing" at the Copenhagen Business School on the 27. October.
She has done a good job indeed with respect to keynote speakers. The first keynote speaker is the extremely influential Edward Deci, Professor of Psychology and Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences of the University of Rochester. The second keynote speaker is Europe's perhaps best known, and certainly most productive, economist, Professor Bruno Frey of the University of Zürich.
There is still time to think about a paper theme. Deadline (for abstracts) is 28. August. Send 500 a words abstract (or a full paper) to Mia on mr.smg@cbs.dk
Rings and Promises
| Peter Klein |
Brayden King caught my eye today with a post titled "Is Power Sexy?" He's referring to a 2005 American Journal of Sociology paper with the same title. Of course, contemporary academic prose can make even sex and power seem dull — Using a set of network data from a large number of naturally occurring groups, this study seeks to determine whether powerful people are more likely to be seen as sexy by others than are persons without power [, and] disentangles two aspects of power that are often confused, namely power as a dyadic relationship and power as an individual characteristic or position (which the author calls "status") — but I believe Brayden when he says it's a fun paper to read and blog about.
This made me think, what are some papers in organizational economics that are fun to read? One is Margaret Brinig's "Rings and Promises" (1990), which applies Williamson's hostage model to diamond engagement rings. (more…)
Materials for PhD Course on the Theory of the Firm
| Peter Klein |
Our PhD course on the Theory of the Firm concluded yesterday with a research workshop on Joe Mahoney’s stakeholder approach. All the course materials, including readings and lecture slides, are now available at the course website. These materials might be useful for someone seeking an overview of the key issues and problems in transaction cost economics, the property-rights approach, and the resource-based and capabilities views, as well as Austrian, evolutionary, and entrepreneurial perspectives on the firm.
The student participants were impressive, and the three instructors made a fabulous team. (To hire us for your upcoming gig, please contact our agent at BR-549.)
Danish Economists
| Peter Klein |
This post definitely merits the ephemera tag, but here it is anyway, largely for the benefit of my Danish co-blogger.
Where are the important Danish economists? The Swedes have Wicksell, Myrdall, Hecksher, Ohlin, Lindbeck, and Holmström. Norway gave us Trygve Haavelmo and Finn Kydland. The president-elect of ISNIE is Icelander Thrainn Eggertsson. (Sorry, Finns!) So, what happened to the Danes? Did they exhaust all their collective intellectual capital on philosophy, physics, and literature?
Time Inconsistency and a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm
| Joe Mahoney |
Recently I have become more persuaded that the incomplete contracting literature potentially offers a theoretical foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm.
In this light, two industrial organization economists — Dan Kovenock and Stephen Martin — have “inspired” me to learn more about the concept of time inconsistency problems. In a world of incomplete contracting, we often face the potential for time inconsistency problems (Grossman and Hart, 1986) and opportunistic rent extraction. A policy that is optimal ex ante but sub-optimal ex post can be described as “time inconsistent.”
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments