In the Hamadryas baboon, males are substantially larger than females. A troop of baboons is subdivided into a number of ‘one-male groups’, consisting of one adult male and one or more females with their young. The male prevents any of ‘his’ females from moving too far from him. Kummer (1971) performed the following experiment. Two males, A and B, previously unknown to each other, were placed in a large enclosure. Male A was free to move about the enclosure, but male B was shut in a small cage, from which he could observe A but not interfere. A female, unknown to both males, was then placed in the enclosure. Within 20 minutes male A had persuaded the female to accept his ownership. Male B was then released into the open enclosure. Instead of challenging male A , B avoided any contact, accepting A’s ownership.

Evolution and the Theory of Games

https://web.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Papers/ISOM+revised+(EER).pdf

Low inflation, pass-through, and the pricing power of firms

For some, it is an article of faith that governmentowned firms must be less efficient or, at least, less profitable than privately owned firms. Maxim Boycko et al. (1996) argue that politicians cause government-owned firms to employ excess labor inputs. Anne O. Krueger (1990) suggests that such firms may be pressured to hire politically connected people rather than those best qualified to perform desired tasks. More generally, government-owned firms are thought to forgo maximum profit in the pursuit of social and political objectives, such as wealth redistribution. In addition, the residual cash flow claims of these firms are not readily transferable like the shares of a private corporation. This impairs residual claimant incentives to monitor managers and, ultimately, degrades firm performance. As a consequence, one expects government-owned firms to be technically less efficient and, therefore, less profitable than private firms. The implication is that in competitive markets without significant externalities private ownership is the superior organizational form. The view that government firms are inherently less efficient than private ones, however, remains controversial among economists. John Vickers and George Yarrow (1991), among others, point out that agency problems arise in private firms as well as public ones. In most large private corporations managers own little of the stock. Because monitoring managers is costly, a divergence arises between their objectives and those of private shareholders. Private shareholders typically hold a small stake in any one firm and it may not pay any shareholder to bear the cost of monitoring management. It follows from this discussion that whether government firms are more or less efficient than private firms is primarily an empirical issue. To date the body of empirical evidence is mixed. In this paper, we report further empirical evidence on the relative efficiency of public and private enterprises. We build on previous work by studying larger samples over longer time periods and by allowing for additional factors that influence firm performance. In particular, our analysis controls for time-series variation in the general level of economic activity that may otherwise confound performance comparisons between government and private firms. 2 We approach the issue in two different ways. First, using accounting numbers, we conduct a large-sample cross-sectional comparison of government-owned and privately owned corporations. This comparison is similar in design to that of Boardman and Vining (1989), but our sample is three times the size of theirs and includes three

State-Owned and Privately Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity

A substantial number of people exhibit social preferences, which means they are not solely motivated by material self-interest but also care positively or negatively for the material payoffs of relevant reference agents. We show empirically that economists fail to understand fundamental economic questions when they disregard social preferences, in particular, that without taking social preferences into account, it is not possible to understand adequately (i) effects of competition on market outcomes, (ii) laws governing cooperation and collective action, (iii) effects and the determinants of material incentives, (iv) which contracts and property rights arrangements are optimal, and (v) important forces shaping social norms and market failures.

/pdf/why-social-preferences-matter-the-impact-of-non-selfish-5g6wozlwk1.pdf

Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives

Over the past decades financial investment of non-financial businesses has been rising and accumulation of capital goods has been declining. The first part of the paper offers a novel theory to explain this phenomenon. Financialization, the shareholder revolution and the development of a market for corporate control have shifted power to shareholders and thus changed management priorities, leading to a reduction in the desired growth rate. In the second part the link between accumulation and financialization is tested econometrically by means of a time series analysis of aggregate business investment for USA, UK, France, and Germany. Extensive test of robustness are performed. For the first three countries evidence that confirms the negative effect of financialization on accumulation is found. (author's abstract)

Financialisation and the slowdown of accumulation

We argue that models of oligopsony or monopsonistic competition provide insights and explanation for many empirical phenomena in labor markets. Using a simple model with job differentiation and preference heterogeneity, we illustrate how such models can be employed to explain the existence of wage dispersion, the persistence of labor market discrimination, market failures in the provision of training and the anomalous employment effects of minimum wages.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/0895330027300

Oligopsony and monopsonistic competition in labor markets

Recent empirical work on the effects of minimum wages has called into question the conventional wisdom that minimum wages invariably reduce employment. We develop a model of monopsonistic competition with free entry to analyse the effects of minimum wages, and our predictions fit the empirical results closely. Under monopsonistic competition, we find that a rise in the minimum wage raises employment per firm, causes firm exit and may increase or reduce industry employment. Minimum wages increase welfare if they raise industry employment but welfare effects are ambiguous if employment falls.

/pdf/minimum-wages-for-ronald-mcdonald-monopsonies-a-theory-of-5dqwbotein.pdf

Minimum Wages for Ronald McDonald Monopsonies: a Theory of Monopsonistic Competition

Belief-based equilibria in the repeated prisoners' dilemma with private monitoring

This paper analyses the sustainability of inter-generational transfers in Samuelson's consumption-loan model when agents are imperfectly informed about past events. We find that with mild informational constraints, transfers cannot be supported by pure-strategy equilibria. Mixed strategies allow transfers to be sustained even if agents have little information, so that a version of the Folk theorem holds. However, these equilibria are not robust. If each agent's utility function is subjected to a small random perturbation as in Harsanyi (1973), these mixed strategy equilibria unravel, and only the zero-transfer allocation survives as the unique rationalizable outcome. This result is an example of mixed strategy equilibrium of an extensive form game which cannot be purified.

/pdf/informational-constraints-and-the-overlapping-generations-nf9373bd6u.pdf

Informational Constraints and the Overlapping Generations Model: Folk and Anti-Folk Theorems

This paper analyzes the effect of privatization upon employment in the Bangladeshi jute textile industry. Privatization was partia and the selection of mills which were privatized was not based on current economic performance. This provides us with a panel data set which permits reliable estimates of the effects of ownership on employment and output. Privatization has reduced employment of all categories of permanent workers significantly, but the extent of employment reduction has been substantially greater among clerical workers and managers as compared to manual workers. This implies that public sector excess employment benefited white-collar workers, who were both better off and better educated, and suggests that public sector behaviour was clientelist rather than welfarist.

Venkataraman Bhaskar

Papers

Oligopsony and monopsonistic competition in labor markets

Minimum Wages for Ronald McDonald Monopsonies: a Theory of Monopsonistic Competition

Belief-based equilibria in the repeated prisoners' dilemma with private monitoring

Informational Constraints and the Overlapping Generations Model: Folk and Anti-Folk Theorems

Privatization and employment: a study of the Jute industry in Bangladesh