Showing papers by "Michael Kremer published in 1997"

How Much does Sorting Increase Inequality

Abstract: Some commentators argue that increased sorting into internally homogeneous neighborhoods, schools, and marriages is radically polarizing society. Calibration of a formal model, however, suggests that the steady-state standard deviation of education would increase only 1.7 percent if the correlation between neighbors' education doubled, and would fall only 1.6 percent if educational sorting by neighborhood disappeared. The steady-state standard deviation of education would grow 1 percent if the correlation between spouses' education increased from 0.6 to 0.8. In fact, marital and neighborhood sorting have been stable, or even decreasing historically. Sorting has somewhat more significant effects on intergenerational mobility than on inequality.

Patent Buy-Outs: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation

Abstract: In 1839, the French government purchased the patent on the Daguerreotype process and" placed it in the public domain. This paper examines a mechanism under which governments" would use an auction to estimate the private value of patents and then offer to buy out patents at" this private value, times a fixed markup. The markup would correspond to the estimated typical" ratio of the social and private values of inventions -- perhaps two. Most patents purchased would" be placed in the public domain, but in order to induce bidders to reveal their valuations patents would be sold to the highest bidder. Such patent buy-outs could eliminate monopoly" price distortions and incentives for wasteful reverse engineering, while raising private incentives" for original research closer to their social value. However, patent buy-outs are potentially" vulnerable to collusion. Patent buy-outs may be particularly appropriate for pharmaceuticals."

Why are Worker Cooperatives So Rare

Abstract: This paper argues that worker cooperatives are prone to redistribution among members, and that this redistribution distorts incentives. I assume that employment contracts are incomplete. In the model cooperative members pay in a capital contribution to purchase equipment. They then receive shocks to ability. Each worker's (observable) output depends on ability and on effort, neither of which can be observed separately. After ability is realized, members vote on a wage schedule as a function of output. If the median member has less than average ability, the cooperative will vote for a redistributive schedule, dulling incentives. Whereas workers in firms owned by outside shareholders would quit if the firm redistributed away from them, cooperative members will be reluctant to leave, since this entails forfeiting the dividends on their capital contribution. The model can explain why cooperatives typically have egalitarian wage policies.

Why are Worker Cooperatives So Rare

Abstract: This paper argues that worker cooperatives are prone to redistribution among members, and that this redistribution distorts incentives. I assume that employment contracts are incomplete. In the model cooperative members pay in a capital contribution to purchase equipment. They then receive shocks to ability. Each worker's (observable) output depends on ability and on effort, neither of which can be observed separately. After ability is realized, members vote on a wage schedule as a function of output. If the median member has less than average ability, the cooperative will vote for a redistributive schedule, dulling incentives. Whereas workers in firms owned by outside shareholders would quit if the firm redistributed away from them, cooperative members will be reluctant to leave, since this entails forfeiting the dividends on their capital contribution. The model can explain why cooperatives typically have egalitarian wage policies.

Why are Worker Cooperatives So Rare

Abstract: This paper argues that worker cooperatives are prone to redistribution among members, and that this redistribution distorts incentives. I assume that employment contracts are incomplete. In the model cooperative members pay in a capital contribution to purchase equipment. They then receive shocks to ability. Each worker's (observable) output depends on ability and on effort, neither of which can be observed separately. After ability is realized, members vote on a wage schedule as a function of output. If the median member has less than average ability, the cooperative will vote for a redistributive schedule, dulling incentives. Whereas workers in firms owned by outside shareholders would quit if the firm redistributed away from them, cooperative members will be reluctant to leave, since this entails forfeiting the dividends on their capital contribution. The model can explain why cooperatives typically have egalitarian wage policies.

Does Favorable Tax-Treatment of Housing Reduce Equipment Investment?

Abstract: It is often argued that low tax rates on owner-occupied housing divert investment from equipment. This paper demonstrates that if people are heterogeneous in their propensity to save, and if there are constraints on borrowing, favorable tax treatment of owner-occupied housing up to a certain value increases equipment investment. This is because low housing taxes encourage renters to become owner-occupiers, and this leads existing owner-occupiers to shift their portfolio of other assets from rental housing to equipment.