A Second Act for the CAFE Standards
| Peter Klein |
From former guest blogger David Gerard:
As you have no doubt learned, President Obama and Governor Schwarzenegger have teamed up for a healthy bump in the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, forcing automakers to boost their fleet averages to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. The announcement will dismay many economists, who for many, many reasons have advocated steeper gasoline taxes instead. Lester Lave and I argued that that there were some solid reasons to support some form of CAFE standards in conjunction with higher gasoline taxes. On pragmatic grounds, the CAFE standards have enjoyed public support and gas taxes decidedly have not, so CAFE has carried the day.
The original CAFE measures did not do much in terms of pushing the envelope of vehicle technology, as a change in consumer tastes toward more fuel efficient vehicles in the late 1970s. As a result, the standards were met by altering the mix of vehicles sold, not by any radical improvements in technology. It wasn’t until the early 1980s when oil prices tanked that the CAFE became a serious binding constraint. In contrast, the CAFE standards announced Monday are very aggressive. However, setting the standard is only the first part of the story. The real action takes place during the second act. What happens as the deadline approaches if firms are unable to meet the stricter standards? (more…)
Tweeting Too Hard
| Peter Klein |
Do these people remind you of any of your favorite bloggers — or academic seminar participants? (Via Cliff.)
Plowing Under Rural Sociology
| Peter Klein |
From Randy Westgren:
The aggie world, and to a lesser extent, the sociology world, is reacting to a decision by Washington State University to dissolve its Department of Community and Rural Sociology. There is a great deal of rancor developing about this type of budget-cutting strategy, as opposed to making everyone suffer equally. If one looks closely at the budget documents made public by WSU, the ag school is getting a smaller cut (5% teaching + 8% research) than many colleges, including the B-school (13%, 12 vacant positions). The budget plan can be found here. It looks like the Dean’s decision, rather than the CEO’s (The Dean is an agricultural economist).
I was stunned to see a comment to a piece written in Inside Higher Education on this battle from an engineering prof — well, not actually stunned, more like chagrined.
“As for the rural sociology department, while I can sympathize with their plight in Pullman I do not see the loss as intellectually serious. As a member of an engineering faculty at a major university for more than 25 years, I’ve known quite a few sociologists. Most of them publish little stories that are not much sounder empirically, and usually less interesting substantively, that a good fiction writer. With very few exceptions, sociologists I know and have known are mathophobes! The few who have some ability in math use it on their omnibus snapshots of human populations taken at widely spaced intervals and then try to figure out from those “data” what happened and why. Ridiculous! Continuous observation is probably not possible, but you need closely spaced observations that focus on the specific processes that are the point of your investigation! If you have continuous-time observations, you need calculus in order to analyze your data. If you have closely spaced discrete-time observations, you need something more than shotgun regressions to analyze your data. Most of what sociologists publish is a waste of time and money.”
Obviously, this scholar has not followed the closely reasoned defense of fuzzy, ill-defined concepts at orgtheory.net.
Teppo and Brayden, if you are watching, ask Dave Whetten about his take on the Chancellor of SUNY Albany who undertook a similar department-cutting strategy during the New York State budget difficulties of the late 1970s.
More on Adam Smith’s Metaphor
| Peter Klein |
If you enjoyed our earlier discussion of social science’s most famous metaphor — come on, guys, is “iron cage” even in the same ballpark? — see the current issue of EconJournalWatch, which features essays on the invisible hand by Gavin Kennedy and Dan Klein.
New Editorial Team at the EMR
| Nicolai Foss |
Not long ago after the start of O&M I blogged on the change of editor at the European Management Review, paraphrasing Keynes’s examination of Lloyd George’s pledge on unemployment policy. While EMR is not yet ISI listed and has not surpassed the Journal of Management Studies as the leading Euro management journal, Kogut has most certainly “done it” in terms of boosting the general reputation of the journal. This is another demonstration that an editor with a clear mission, a strong network, and well-defined objectives can rather quickly do wonders for a journal (think Arie Lewin with Organization Science or Joel Baum (et al.) with Strategic Organization).
Kogut has now stepped down as editor, and Professors Maurizio Zollo and Alfonso Gambardella, both of Bocconi University in Milan, carry the mantle. While Zollo is a fullblown management scholar, Gambardella is much more an economist. They share a basic evolutionary outlook. Needless to say, both a very well connected to the US research context in management and economics. The new team’s inaugural issue with a handful of invited paper is available here. Everything is downloadable for free.
ACAC Schedule
| Peter Klein |
The Atlanta Competitive Advantage Conference begins tomorrow. The updated schedule, along with other logistical information, is here. You can also download many of the papers. Emory, Georgia Tech, and Georgia State Universities have co-hosted this event the past five years and it’s become one of the main events for research in strategy, organizational economics, entrepreneurship, and related fields.
The Geography of Sin
| Lasse Lien |
I used to think geography was a dry and slightly boring subject, but then I found this. Peter, where is your house again?
Bad to Awful?
| Peter Klein |
Via John Hagel, here’s a Business Week preview of Jim Collins’s new book, How the Mighty Fall, and How Some Companies Never Give In, a profile of once-successful firms that go under. Will the new book avoid the core methodological fallacy that doomed Collins’s earlier work? Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear so:
At our research lab [sic], we’d already been discussing the possibility of a project on corporate decline, in part because some of the great companies we’d profiled in the books Good to Great and Built to Last had subsequently lost their positions of prominence. On one level this fact didn’t cause much angst; just because a company falls doesn’t invalidate what we can learn by studying that company when it was at its historical best.
True, but without some mechanism for distinguishing treatment and control, such an investigation can never be anything more than a collection of interesting vignettes. Collins and his team seem unable to grasp the fundamental scientific principle of cause and effect. Just because a particular behavior corresponds to a particular outcome (be it success or failure), there is no way to know if that behavior contributed to the outcome, without studying individuals or organizations that exhibited the same behavior but experienced a different outcome.
I eagerly await Phil Rosenzweig’s next book: The Horns-and-Pitchfork Effect.
Headline of the Day
| Peter Klein |
Sandy Ikeda gets the prize for his blog entry on the Obama Administration’s decision not to auction landing slots at NYC airports: “Coase, but No Cigar.”
I wasn’t nearly as clever when I wrote about this problem a while back. I’m still wondering about the question I posed then: Is the political resistance to using prices to allocate scarce resources best explained by public-choice concerns, or by ignorance of how the price mechanism works?
Debt, Relationship-Specific Investments, and Boundaries
| Lasse Lien |
Here is a link to a nice paper by Jayant R. Kalea and Husayn Shahrurb from JFE back in 2007. The key finding in the paper is that low leverage is used as a commitment device to induce customers and suppliers to make relationship-specific investments (RSI). In short; the higher the need for RSI, the lower the choice of leverage. This raises some intriguing questions about the financial crisis. On the one hand the crisis should generally reduce the willingness to make RSI, as leverage and bankruptcy risks are driven upwards. Presumably then, firms will want to take compensating measures, but what can those measures be? The classical Williamsonian response would be vertical integration. For a given sensitivity to RSI, the inventive to integrate vertically should be strongest for highly leveraged firms. But who would want to integrate with a highly leveraged firm in these times? Or vertically integrate with any firm for that matter? And if the crisis is a temporary phenomenon, vertical integration seems pretty drastic. Another obvious counter measure would be to reduce leverage. That is of course easier said than done during the crisis. A third alternative is increased use of hybrids and alliances of various kinds, but it is difficult to see how this can alleviate the fundamental problem of liquidation risk. So is bruxism the only option?
Sid Winter on the Crisis
| Peter Klein |
From a short piece at Knowledge@Wharton:
As computers have grown more powerful, academics have come to rely on mathematical models to figure how various economic forces will interact. But many of those models simply dispense with certain variables that stand in the way of clear conclusions, says Wharton management professor Sidney G. Winter. Commonly missing are hard-to-measure factors like human psychology and people’s expectations about the future, he notes.
Among the most damning examples of the blind spot this created, Winter says, was the failure by many economists and business people to acknowledge the common-sense fact that home prices could not continue rising faster than household incomes.
Says Winter: “The most remarkable fact is that serious people were willing to commit, both intellectually and financially, to the idea that housing prices would rise indefinitely, a really bizarre idea.”
Presumably Sid is referring here to some kind of behavioral anomaly, but what I see is the standard malinvestment story from Austrian business-cycle theory. Even investors with rational expectations, who know that a credit-induced artificial boom can’t last forever, won’t know exactly when the bubble will burst, and can profit from taking advantage of artificially low interest rates while they last.
Design by the Numbers
| Peter Klein |
A new item for our “by the numbers” series. Former Google lead designer Doug Bowman recently quit to take a position at Twitter, citing frustration with Google’s engineer-oriented, data-driven culture:
When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions.
Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case. I can’t operate in an environment like that. . . .
I’ll miss working with the incredibly smart and talented people I got to know there. But I won’t miss a design philosophy that lives or dies strictly by the sword of data.
Adds Keith Sawyer:
Google’s engineer-dominated culture wants to see the numbers, the proof. Artists and designers don’t think that way — they know a design that works in their gut, somehow, when they see it. It’s a holistic phenomenon, and it emerges in some unpredictable way from hundreds of tiny design decisions about line widths and color shades. How, they would ask, could you possibly test every single combination, every possible design? . . . Numbers get you focused on the trees and you forget you’re inside of a forest.
I hold to the basic Misesian position that quantitative empirical analysis is a complement to, not a substitute for, other forms of knowledge acquisition such as a priori theorizing and Verstehen. Needless to say, this doesn’t mean I approve of fuzzy constructs in social-science research.
Confidence
| Peter Klein |
Craig Pirrong is concerned about the stress tests:
[Bernanke] emphasized that they were a “confidence-building exercise.” That seems like assuming the conclusion. I would like a fact-finding exercise, with a clear statement of the findings, good or bad. Stating that the objective is to build confidence suggests a pre-ordained result — Kabuki Theater. It’s like saying that something is needed to build “self-esteem.” Success builds self-esteem, not the other way around. Similarly, success builds confidence; confidence-building does not ensure success.
This reminds me of something I read the other day from Isabel Paterson, quoted by Stephen Cox:
[I am] tired of being told that “credit depends on confidence.” Fudge. Credit depends on real assets, sound money and a clean record. . . . When any one asks us to have confidence we are glad to inform him that the request of itself would shatter any remaining confidence in our mind.
Missouri J-School Tastes the Apple
| Peter Klein |
Many colleges and universities require students to purchase a laptop with particular capabilities. Some schools are considering requiring Kindles or similar book readers. The University of Missouri School of Journalism, however, is going one better by mandating not just a particular type of device — in this case, a portable media player — but a particular brand. In a decision sure to warm Teppo’s heart, the school announced last week that incoming freshmen will be required to own an iPhone or iPod Touch. Not only are these high-end devices, for their class, but in the case of the phone a 2-year AT&T service contract is part of the package. The ostensible reason is to allow students to listen to recorded lectures and other multimedia presentations related to their coursework and projects.
If you think this places an unfair burden on students, given that they can listen to these materials on any personal computer and most portable music players, don’t worry: university officials immediately announced that the requirement won’t be enforced, but is merely a cynical ploy to let students add the cost of the fancy toy to their financial aid applications. No doubt makers of rival devices are delighted by the university’s move.
Professional Defenses
| Nicolai Foss |
In Critical Mass (an excellent book, although its treatment of economics is confused, but that is a different story), Philip Ball recounts an amusing anecdote about James Lighthill, an expert on the physics of fluid flow who did early work applying this part of physics to understanding traffic patterns:
In the Lighthill-Whitham model, the individuality of drivers is entirely submerged beneath average driving behavior. . . . This is ironic, for Lighthill himself was anything but average in his driving habits. He was a persistent speeding offender, but would explain in court that as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge (the chair once occupied by Newton), he was fully aware both of the laws of mechanics and of his social duty not to waste energy. As a result, he told the hapless judges, he felt obliged to desist from braking when going downhill. It seems that this defence was occassionally succesful (pp. 197-98).
Perhaps economists and management scholars should try something similar:
- The Decian Excuse: “Yes, your Honor, I did pay below the minimum wage, but that was because I know that what truly matters to the plaintiff is his intrinsic motivation.”
- The Kirznerian Excuse: “I did sell that stock in my company after learning from the CEO about the breakthrough in our drug development, but I did so in order to close pockets of ignorance in the market.”
- Etc. Please add.
Pomo Periscope XVIII: “The French Don’t Care What You Actually Say as Long as You Pronounce It Correctly”
| Nicolai Foss |
This line from My Fair Lady seems to be an accurate summing-up of the emphasis on rhetorics, conversation etc., a branch of pomo, in certain quarters in economic methodology and related fields and disciplines. Or, so Robert Solow argues in a review in the latest issue of the always-interesting Journal of Economic Methodology of Arjo Klamer’s Speaking of Economics; How to Get Into the Conversation (here is a site dedicated to the book, and here is another review).
Essentially, Solow criticizes those who engage in the conversation talk for not adding any substantive insights on the level of meta-theory (whether positive or normative). “I have real doubts,” he says about the utility of describing the practice of academic economics as a ‘conversation’ or a bunch of simultaneous conversations. . . . My claim is that it does not advance the serious understanding of what academic economists are up to, and its relation to what the economy is up to” (p. 94). He sums up by saying that “In the end, I did not find find the proposed connection between postmodernism and contemporary economics convincing. Maybe theories with little or no application, theories about chaos and complex systems, and theories that leave practical people clueless about the economy (those are all Klamer’s words) have something to do with the architecture of Frank Gehry or the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, but the connection needs work” (p. 95). It seems so.
Remembering Hayek
| Peter Klein |
In honor of today’s special day several writers have written personal reminisces of F. A. Hayek. Here are two by David Gordon and Mario Rizzo. (And here’s a 2003 remembrance from Ronald Hamowy.) The boys at orgtheory will get a kick out of the Merton reference in Gordon’s post.
Here’s an indirect Hayek reference that will amuse one or two of you. I was reading emails on my BlackBerry this afternoon while walking through the St. Louis airport and came across this passage, sent by a friend, from Terry Eagleton’s new book:
Because there is no necessity about the cosmos, we cannot deduce the laws which govern it from a priori principles, but need instead to look at how it actually works. This is the task of science. There is thus a curious connection between the doctrine of creation out of nothing and the career of Richard Dawkins. Without God, Dawkins would be out of a job. It is thus particularly churlish of him to call the existence of his employer into question.
Right after reading this, and pondering the word “cosmos,” I look up and see that I’m walking under a big sign, “Taxis.”
An Official O&M Holiday
| Mike Sykuta |
This date, May 8, is a holiday of sorts at O&M and certainly in the field of Austrian economics. As Peter is traveling today and has thus far not taken the opportunity to remind us of the day’s significance, I simply refer you to one of Peter’s earlier posts and wish you (and Peter) a Happy Hayek-Klein Day.
Skepticism and Greed
| Dick Langlois |
One of my University colleagues, who works in instructional technology, sent a few of us a post from a mailing list-blog at Stanford called Tomorrow’s Professor. The site has a lot of interesting stuff on teaching and the academy, which O&M readers may find interesting. But this particular post, reprinted from a blog at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, prompted me to send in a response. Here is what I said. (Take a look at the original post, but I think you can get the idea from my comment.)
I certainly endorse what I take to be the central idea of post 944 — that students of business and economics would benefit from a liberal education.
Having said that, however, let me also note that I think the post gets things exactly — and perhaps dangerously — backwards in many ways. It is a constant trope in the popular press that the idea of “free markets” is some kind of dogma among economists (and perhaps society more broadly). In fact, economists believe that markets exist only within institutional structures, and economics — even so-called free-market economics — is actually about getting the institutions right, not about letting people do whatever they want.
In my view, moreover, economists are the real skeptics in the academy. Despite his (marketing) claim to being a “rogue” economist, Steve Levitt of Freakonomics fame is actually a better model of what most economists do than is Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan. Unlike most other academics, economists are rewarded for taking skeptical and iconoclastic positions, at least when they can back those positions up with hard data and clear analysis.
By contrast, few people outside of economics departments or business schools have any understanding whatever about how and when — or even whether — individual action can lead to beneficial unintended consequences. Economics is actually counter-intuitive in many ways. Humans evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers, and as a result our intuitions about how a large open society operates are often wrong or backwards.
For all these reasons, it seems to me odd to suggest that economists (and students of economics) are dogmatic and would be made more skeptical and thoughtful about the economy by studying other liberal fields. In my experience, it’s rather the opposite. (Which is not to say, of course, that students won’t benefit in many ways from studying other fields.)
The post itself is a case in point. It starts out in the right direction with a marvelous story from Keynes about the nature of the money supply. But then it goes on to talk about “greed” as the central issue, ending with a quote from Roosevelt that “heedless self-interest” is bad economics. In fact, however, it is pointing to “greed” that is unexamined dogma. Why exactly has the level of greed changed over time? Is that really an explanation of anything? In stark contrast, many professional economists (including such serious scholars of the crisis as John Taylor and Karl Case) would point out that the most fundamental cause of the crisis was the expansive monetary policy of the Fed, which pumped money into the system and caused an asset bubble. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors endowed us with intuitions about greedy individuals; but they didn’t leave us intuitions about how a fiat money system works in a huge economy of non-face-to-face exchange. That we have to learn in an economics course.
My “No New Economy” Slides
| Peter Klein |
Here, for the curious, are my slides from this morning’s talk at the Law and Economics of Innovation conference, titled “Does the New Economy Need a New Economics?” (Short answer: no.) This will eventually morph into a paper so comments are most welcome (and thanks to those who have already helped). I’m looking forward to Susan Athey’s keynote later today.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments