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 set out a model of monopsonistic competition, where each employer competes equally with every other employer. The employment effects of minimum wages depend on the degree of distortion in the labor market. If fixed costs per firm are high then the labor market is relatively non-competitive and minimum wages increase employment. Conversely, low fixed costs make for a more competitive labor market where minimum wages reduce employment. This contrasts with the results of a Salop style model with localized employer competition where a minimum wage unambiguously raises employment. We also find that the welfare effect of a small minimum wage is unambiguously positive.

/pdf/minimum-wages-employment-and-monopsonistic-competition-23h9wj5z8d.pdf

Minimum Wages, Employment and Monopsonistic Competition

The kinked demand curve, one of the staples of oligopoly theory, was originally formulated as a theory of price rigidity. We review dynamic game-theoretic reformulations, which give rise to a theory of collusive price determination.

/pdf/the-kinked-demand-curve-4ccf7dfol8.pdf

The kinked demand curve

We provide a new explanation for why firms pay for general training in a competitive labor market. If firms are unable to tailor individual wages to ability, for informational or institutional reasons, they will pay for general training in order to attract better quality workers. The market provision of training may well exceed the first best level. Our explanation relies on wage compression within skill categories, while imperfect competition based explanations for firm subsidised general training rely on wage compression across skill categories.

Wage differentiation via subsidised general training

We examine buyer strategic power in the model of dynamic Bertrand-Edgeworth competition. Two sellers with a limited inventory sell to a single buyer, who has a consumption opportunity in each period. The market power of the sellers is offset by the strategic power of the buyer. By not consuming in any period, the buyer can destroy a unit of demand, thereby intensifying future price competition. If transactions are publicly observed, we find that that a strategic buyer can do significantly better than non-strategic buyers; strategic power may also give rise to inefficiencies. However, if an agent only perfectly observes those transactions in which he is directly involved, and imperfectly observes other transactions, the strategic power of the buyer is reduced, and in some cases, may be completely eliminated. This highlights the sharp discontinuity between the equilibrium outcomes between perfect and imperfect monitoring.

/pdf/dynamic-countervailing-power-under-public-and-private-3yzy33c8a8.pdf

Venkataraman Bhaskar

Papers

Minimum Wages, Employment and Monopsonistic Competition

The kinked demand curve

Wage differentiation via subsidised general training

Dynamic Countervailing Power under Public and Private Monitoring