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

On the neutral stability of mixed strategies in asymmetric contests

We study dynamic moral hazard with symmetric ex ante uncertainty about the difficulty of the job. The principal and agent update their beliefs about the difficulty as they observe output. Effort is private and the principal can only offer spot contracts. The agent has an additional incentive to shirk beyond the disutility of effort when the principal induces effort: shirking results in the principal having incorrect beliefs. We show that the effort inducing contract must provide increasingly high powered incentives as the length of the relationship increases. Thus it is never optimal to always induce effort in very long relationships.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/DP11431.pdf?abstractid=2823456&mirid=1

The Curse of Long Horizons

We study marital sorting on academic qualifications and latent ability in an equilibrium marriage market model using the 1972 UK Raising of the School-Leaving Age (RoSLA) legislation as a natural experiment that induced a sudden, large shift in the distribution of academic qualifications in affected cohorts, but plausibly had no impact on the distribution of ability. We show that a Choo and Siow (2006) model with sorting on cohort, qualifications, and latent ability is identified and estimable using the RoSLA-induced population shifts. We find that the RoSLA isolated low ability individuals in the marriage market, and affected marital outcomes of individuals whose qualification attainment were unaffected. We also decompose the difference in marriage probabilities between unqualified individuals and those with basic qualifications into causal effects stemming from ability and qualification differences. Differences in marriage probabilities are almost entirely driven by ability.

Marriage Market Equilibrium, Qualifications, and Ability

We study stochastic games with an infinite horizon and sequential moves played by an arbitrary number of players. We assume that social memory is finite—every player, except possibly one, is finitely lived and cannot observe events that are sufficiently far back in the past. This class of games includes games between a long-run player and a sequence of short-run players and games with overlapping generations of players. Indeed, any stochastic game with infinitely lived players can be reinterpreted as one with finitely lived players: Each finitelylived player is replaced by a successor, and receives the value of the successor’s payoff. This value may arise from altruism, but the player also receives such a value if he can “sell” his position in a competitive market. In both cases, his objective will be to maximize infinite horizon payoffs, though his information on past events will be limited. An equilibrium is purifiable if close-by behavior is consistent with equilibrium when agents’ payoffs in each period are perturbed additively and independently. We show that only Markov equilibria are purifiable when social memory is finite. Thus if a game has at most one long-run player, all purifiable equilibria are Markov.

/pdf/a-foundation-for-markov-equilibria-with-finite-social-memory-219hfggofj.pdf

A Foundation for Markov Equilibria with Finite Social Memory

http://repository.essex.ac.uk/8878/1/dp583.pdf

Venkataraman Bhaskar

Papers

On the neutral stability of mixed strategies in asymmetric contests

The Curse of Long Horizons

Marriage Market Equilibrium, Qualifications, and Ability

A Foundation for Markov Equilibria with Finite Social Memory

Games played in a contracting environment