Economics is more than price theory, but it’s not less.
Each semester, I offer my students the opportunity to test their price theory knowledge for extra credit.
Here’s the price theory palooza I make available.
Economics is more than price theory, but it’s not less.
Each semester, I offer my students the opportunity to test their price theory knowledge for extra credit.
Here’s the price theory palooza I make available.
Yale Law School will be holding a virtual workshop on the history of the corporation June 10th.
Here’s the description:
In anticipation of the sixth Global Corporate Governance Colloquium, which will be hosted by Yale Law School on 11-12 June 2021, the organisers will present a virtual workshop on ‘The History of the Corporation’ on 10 June 2021. The workshop will journey through Imperial Russia, turn of the century Egypt and China, Edwardian Britain and the Gilded Age US, exploring issues of corporate governance that continue to resonate in the present day. The morning sessions will examine the relative performance of western-style corporations and their indigenous alternatives in Russia, Egypt, and China. The afternoon papers will re-examine structures of corporate governance and control in the US and Britain in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The conference will end with commentary that draws out the broader implications of these historical studies, setting up themes that will run through the discussions of the next two days.
Distinguished scholar of organizations, Henry Hansmann, is an organizer of the conference.
I think the more important role of a brand is, not as higher quality in some absolute sense, but as a form of reliability. Since information about the quality of any product is costly, customers may be hesitant to purchase goods. They may be stuck with a lemon. In response, firms may compete by offering a more reliable product.
Ennio and I find Doug Allen’s definition of transaction costs to be fruitful.
Over at Econlib last year, I offer a few ways–some more speculative than others–that this definition changes how we think.
From my piece:
Incorporating transaction costs—in the sense defined by Allen—does not invalidate the positions expressed above. Rather, these positions can be viewed as “baseline,” zero transaction cost cases. As such, they may serve as foils in a way similar to that employed by Ronald Coase in his seminal 1960 paper. While debates about “what Coase meant” continue, a fruitful way of seeing his argument is that he did not mean to suggest that a zero transaction cost scenario is an approximation for our world. Rather, the existence of positive transaction costs serves as the engine by which we explain the diverse array of institutional arrangements that characterize social life. Indeed, evidence for this interpretation stems from his earlier 1937 paper that explores the consequences of positive transaction costs. The cases of “perfect” ownership and pricing can thus serve as benchmarks against which the zero transaction cost assumption is relaxed. Doing so opens an entirely new world of social practices and arrangements that beg for explanation.
I have a new paper out at Economics of Governance on the organization of high-end restaurants. The basic question behind the paper was: why are so many Haute-Cuisine chefs also the owners of the restaurants where they work? In trying to figure out an answer, I developed a framework to study the relationship between creativity, ownership of, and the division of labor within, the firm/restaurant. Here’s how I summarize the paper’s key idea in the concluding section:
My approach relies on the conjecture that, in organizing their businesses, entrepreneurs face a tradeoff between the benefits of specialization and the losses from opportunism. If one knows the specific sources of opportunism a firm must overcome in its line of business, one should be able to predict the organizational responses the firm will adopt in the real world. I focus on two aspects of organizational choice: an establishment’s ownership structure and the allocation of tasks within it. I predict that the industry’s characteristics favor the assignment of residual claimancy to the chef and that the chef-owner will also maintain for herself such tasks as the design of the restaurant’s menu and the selection of ingredients. Other tasks, including the preparation of the meal and the management of the establishment’s finances, will fall in the hands of someone else.
Here’s the abstract of the paper:
This paper develops a theory of the organization of high-end restaurants. I identify the high degree of output complexity produced by these establishments as the industry’s fundamental characteristic. This high degree of output complexity leads to reputational investments by restaurants, which in turn affects their organizational structure. In particular, my theory addresses the prevalence of chef-owned establishments in the fine dining industry and the assignment of productive tasks within its kitchens.
Have the writers at the Babylon Bee been reading Pete Leeson and / or Doug Allen?
Probably not. But a recent article nicely illustrates the idea that sometimes the least-costly means of protecting wealth is to destroy some portion of it. Such a destructive act makes the wealth less attractive to would-be violators of the property right.
Doug Allen explores the idea here, while Pete Leeson does here. Of course, it should go without saying that there is nothing normative about either Allen’s or Leeson’s work, but it bears emphasizing particularly with regard to the latter. He’s simply trying to provide a positive account of a barbaric practice. I don’t know anyone who would conclude that the Konds’ approach to protecting property rights (which Leeson describes) was “good.”
HT: My student Ben Seevers alerted me to the Babylon Bee article.
All markets are regulated by the lure of profit and the discipline of losses.
Most application of this point focuses on how profit and loss constrain entrepreneurs’ production choices and processes. That’s true, and that’s the most important element of a capitalist system’s “regulatory” behavior. However, as I illustrate in the video, the profit-and-loss system also constrain the impulse toward fraud and discrimination.
An illuminating article in the Harvard Business Review.
Imagine that a supplier of engineering services submits a proposal in a competitive bidding process and wins the contract. If demand is lower during the term of the contract than the buyer stated in the RFP or the scope expands in an unanticipated area, the supplier’s profit will take a hit. If the buyer refuses to adjust the supplier’s fee or the statement of work, the supplier may try to recoup losses by, for example, replacing the expensive A team it currently has on the project with its less costly C team. In long-term, complex deals, shading can be so pervasive that the tit-for-tat behavior becomes a death spiral. Oliver and Moore’s expanded theory focuses on contracts as reference points, a new perspective that emphasizes the need for mechanisms to continually align expectations—or update reference points—as unanticipated events occur and needs change over time.
And here’s the paper that put Hart on the map. Over 13,000 citations.
The last lecture in my six-part series on everyday economic errors releases this upcoming Wednesday. Thanks again to Grove City College for the opportunity.
I kept my talks to around 25 minutes, which means there are lots of objections and/or extensions I didn’t cover. If I had more time, here’s what I might add.
Lecture 1: The most sophisticated comeback to the broken window story is the notion of “idle resources,” or the idea that Bastiat’s parable only applies under conditions of “full employment.” Krugman, for instance, expresses these hydraulic Keynesian ideas in his Depression Economics, which my GCC colleague Shawn Ritenour reviews here. (Trigger warning: Shawn believes demand curves slope downward to the right–see the last paragraph!)
The “idle resources/full employment” retort misses the mark for at least two reasons. First, it evinces a remarkable lack of curiosity about why so many resources become “idle” simultaneously. As Murray Rothbard famously put it, the central question of business cycle theory is: “How is it that…the business world suddenly experiences a massive cluster of severe losses?” (Here at CSOC, we promise not to do too much macro…)
In my opinion, the best answer to that question leans heavily on the fact that capital goods are heterogeneous and multi-specific. For reasons Austrian business cycle theory explains, capital goods can become mal-invested, ill-suited to their current position in the economy’s capital structure. When this is revealed, widespread dislocation results (i.e. seemingly, but not actually, “idle resources”). Arguably, this understanding of the economy’s capital structure, and the associated business cycle theory, is the hallmark of the contemporary Austrian school.
But the idle resources comeback fails for another reason too. As W.H. Hutt argued, “idleness” isn’t really idleness at all. All resources have alternative uses, and who’s to say that withholding a resource from the market isn’t a “use”? In fact, such withholding is precisely what we’d expect in the wake of a depression, as resource owners “search” for where they can best refit into the economy’s shifting capital structure.
Resources are searching. They’re not idle! In what he considered his most difficult paper (I thank Rosolino Candela for this tidbit), Alchian provides micro-foundations for the idea that seemingly “idle resources” are actually hard at work.
Lecture 2: In my opinion, price controls are among the most illuminating topics in Econ 101 because they (indirectly) demonstrate all the problems that unhampered prices are solving, mostly in invisible fashion.
Economists agree rent control is destructive, so they won’t be the ones raising objections here. In addition to the evidence I cited in my talk, Alson et al.’s 1992 survey of AEA economists found that 93% agreed with the following statement: “A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”
Interestingly, even as the minimum wage consensus has disintegrated in the wake of Card and Krueger (1994), economists’ confidence in the destructiveness of rent control seems to have only increased since 1992.
Though I wouldn’t have devoted more time to objections, twenty-five minutes is hardly enough time to explore the near-infinite–and sometimes quite bizarre–margins of adjustment people devise when policy takes price competition off the table.
One important aspect of rent control that I did not discuss is that it “freezes” tenants in their apartments. Renters who got an apartment in Manhattan at rent-controlled prices shortly after WWII clung to those spaces for decades to come. This contributes to an inefficient use of housing space, longer commuting times for those can’t find an apartment in the city, and may even help explain the persistence of rent controls.
Why? Those outside the city limits may want to vote for the repeal of rent control, but their current address means they can’t vote in the crucial municipal elections. Instead, those who benefit from rent control continue to vote for city council members who promise they won’t repeal the rent freeze.
This sort of public choice analysis reminds us that economists aren’t claiming that no one benefits from rent control. Cui bono?
It’s possible to benefit at the expense of landlords and other prospective tenants if the apartment complex doesn’t deteriorate to the point that a tenant would rather have the market rental price and the well-maintained apartment. See here for the complete catalogue of photographs comparing bomb damage with rent control.
For additional material that had to be nixed for time, see Diamond et al.’s recent, interesting work on how rent control worsens inequality. And evidently, Donald Trump can accurately claim: The rent control made me do it!
Some runners-up examples I nixed for the sake of time:
All this said, I don’t think it’s analytically helpful to attribute all public policy outcomes we don’t like to “unintended consequences.” To do so would be to deny an enormous body of public choice literature, which has illuminated the role rent-seeking plays in explaining law.
Unions don’t lobby for minimum wage increases out of ignorance–but from knowledge–of the consequences. More political economy / historical research could profitably investigate which interventions are the result of “true believers” generating “secondary consequences” (Hazlitt’s preferred term) and which are the result of special interest victories (also generating secondary consequences).
Lecture 4: Maybe the most controversial lecture to laymen. Something just feels wrong about the compensation package multinational corporations pay to the world’s poorest people. Yet, if economists are wrong about voluntary exchange being mutually beneficial, they are wrong about nearly everything. Additionally, this sort of thinking fails to remember that all of mankind used to labor in sweatshop conditions (or worse). The puzzle is prosperity, not poverty.
In my lecture, I hint at a few questions that I didn’t have time to answer there. Here are the answers that I promised economics can provide.
Another question I’ve received: Is agriculture really more dangerous than manufacturing? Yes. First, the “indirect” evidence suggests this is the case. People flocked from the fields to the factories beginning in the Industrial Revolution, a tendency which continues to the present day. They did / do it for the combination of higher wages, shorter hours, and safer working conditions.
More directly, the International Labour Organisation estimates that agricultural workers suffer 250 million injuries a year, and that the fatality rate among these injuries tends to far outstrip rates found in other industries. Ben Powell reports that the injury rates for children working in agriculture are higher than for those working in manufacturing. As the ILO rightly summarizes it: “Agriculture is one of the most hazardous occupations worldwide,” (p. 7).
What about my claim that the rate of economic development has been increasing worldwide? See evidence from Ben Powell’s book on how the length of the “sweatshop phase” of developing countries has been falling. And the evidence suggests that we have the fashionable-to-hate Age of Milton Friedman to thank. (Even Amartya Sen says something like: “When someone uses the word ‘neoliberal,’ I have no idea what they mean, but I do know they don’t like me!”)
Lecture 5: If labor econ corrects a disproportionate share of economic fallacies, international econ is a close runner-up. Indeed, perhaps lecture 4 is controversial because it sits right at the intersection of labor and international econ.
As I explicitly note, my talk is about why international trade raises living standards for all parties in the long run, ceteris paribus. I intentionally did not address other arguments for tariffs, such as the idea that they facilitate national defense. The argument is that tariffs can protect crucial war-time industries, in the event that these goods are supplied by our enemies. A closely-related argument maintains that tariffs might help us survive pandemics.
The national defense argument is lacking, not because it doesn’t identify a possible scenario, but because the relevant alternative is worse. Advocates of this view assume that government possesses both the knowledge and the incentives to protect the “right” industries. Both of these are heroic assumptions.
First, consider knowledge. As Don Boudreaux speculates, it’s easy to see how 1960’s governments might have identified the typewriter industry as critical to prosecuting a war. Imagine trying to win a war sans the ability to communicate. But encouraging the typewriter industry amounts to suppressing other emergent and innovative means of communicating–like the laptop. National security would undoubtedly be worse if the military relied on typewriter technology in 2021.
Now, consider incentives. In 1984, the president of the Footwear Industry of America made the following plea to the Armed Services Committee of Congress: “In the event of a war or other national emergency, it is highly unlikely that the domestic footwear industry could provide sufficient footwear for the military and civilian population. We won’t be able to wait for ships to deliver shoes from Taiwan or Korea or Brazil or Eastern Europe…Improper footwear can lead to needless casualties and turn sure victory into possible defeat.” Rumor is he even said it with a straight face.
Of course, it’s difficult to imagine any good that’s not “essential” to successful war-making. And once government announces its intention to protect such industries, who wouldn’t be lining up to receive protection? Once they do, the logic of “concentrated benefits, dispersed costs” kicks in, and what non-arbitrary, logical stopping point is there short of national autarky? (To answer that question, you’d need to overcome the knowledge problem of the previous paragraph…)
Let’s also not forget that trade reduces the likelihood of trade in the first place. See Coyne and Pelillo for a review of some evidence.
What about when other countries don’t “play fair”? It turns out that the case for free trade is unilateral. No country on earth “plays fair” if that phrase means the country is free of interventions, which distort relative prices and therefore production decisions. But from “our” perspective, it still makes sense to take the other country’s interventions as exogenous to our production decisions.
Whether cheap steel is due to “genuine” production superiority or from subsidies, it still frees up “our” laborers to enter alternative lines of production. Our consumers/producers are better off due to the cheap imports, which leave more money in their pockets.
Lecture 6: There are far-reaching implications of the fact that markets are regulated by profit and loss. When I present this idea in class, the most common objections fail to realize just how much behavior the profit-and-loss system constrains.
No only does the profit-and-loss system mitigate the impulse to defraud and discriminate, as I discuss in my final talk, it also imposes a non-arbitrary “stopping point” for all production processes.
Why don’t we produce more medicine, more books, more chocolate? Because we’d have to withdraw scarce capital goods from production processes that create more value to do so. This argument applies to your “favorite” goods–goods you just feel the world should have more of. (It also has dramatic implications for the tenuous theory of “public goods,” but that’s a story for another time…)
Additionally, this argument also has important implications for the confused literature on entry barriers. Fashionable entry barriers like economies of scale or brand loyalty are merely evidence of the constraining power of the profit-and-loss system to channel resources to where they’re most highly valued. See more here.
Of course, the biggest implication of understanding profit and loss is that incentives aren’t the Achilles Heel of socialism. Socialism doesn’t “work,” even if all men are angels. New Soviet Man, seeking only his fellow comrade’s maximum welfare, wouldn’t know what to produce or how to produce it. (Evidently, there was also New Soviet Woman).
As Mises put it in Socialism, profit and loss calculation, “…provides a guide amid the bewildering throng of economic possibilities…Without it, all production by lengthy and roundabout processes would be so many steps in the dark…And then we have a socialist community which must cross the whole ocean of possible and imaginable economic permutations without the compass of economic calculation,” (, 1951, pp. 117, 122).
To read more about economic calculation, there’s no better place to start than Mises’ 1920 Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.
One additional question I received concerns the story Klein and Leffler develop in their insightful, 1981 paper. In their story, producers offer “hostages” to consumers in the form of sunk investments, usually taking the form of specific assets or advertising. Producers will never recoup these investments if they renege on their commitment to high quality.
For this mechanism to guarantee quality, must consumers be walking around with a a sophisticated understanding of the Klein/Leffler model in their heads? No.
Klein and Leffler anticipate this question, writing: “We obviously do not want to claim that consumers ‘know’ this theory in the sense that they can verbalize it but only that they behave in such a way as if they recognize the forces at work. They may, for example, know from past experience that when a particular type of investment is present such as advertising they are much less likely to be deceived. Therefore, survivorship of crude decision rules over time may produce consumer behavior very similar to what would be predicted by this model without the existence of explicit ‘knowledge’ of the forces we have examined,” (p. 634).
Megan Rapinoe is a great soccer player.
She’s demanding equal pay for equal work.
First, let’s define terms: What’s the work here? Kicking a soccer ball?
That’s hard work, but it’s hardly work.
The fact is, athletes aren’t paid according to their skill. They’re paid by companies with the resources to monetize their talent by selling tickets, merchandise, and advertisements. They’re also paid by brands who use their names to sell more product (Rapinoe herself has inked deals with Nike and Samsung).
The fact that she (or anyone—Lebron James, Tom Brady, Serena Williams, etc.) is a good athlete adds probably no value to anyone’s life. It’s only when people can watch and be inspired by her skill that her talent becomes valuable. And only when people can see her skill do they want to buy merchandise.
The same isn’t true for, say, the best plumber in the world. We don’t have to watch the best plumber work in order to benefit from his or her labor. What matters is the finished product.
A plumber produces good plumbing. A soccer player produces an event.
Few would care who won the World Cup — men’s or women’s — if no one could see it happen. Imagine the World Cup, but played secretly and without fans or TV crews.
In this sense, Megan Rapinoe is an entertainer. That’s her work. She’s paid in proportion to how many people care to watch her.
So we’ve defined our terms. Megan Rapinoe is an athlete. Athletes are entertainers—compensated according to how many people enjoy watching.
Now what about the context?
Yes, it’s true—the USWNT (World Cup winner) is relatively better than the USMNT (didn’t qualify for the World Cup). And the USWNT earns revenue comparable to the USMNT.
But that last sentence actually undermines Rapinoe’s case for equal pay. The USWNT won the World Cup, but only barely beat the non-qualifying USMNT that year?
The fact is, few people care about women’s soccer. The women’s World Cup brought in about 1/50th the revenue of the men’s World Cup. Major networks did not show the women’s games.
Again, professional athleticism is about the show. If you cannot see an athlete’s performance, it’s not worth much (or even anything)—there is no “finished product” aside from whatever is captured on video.
Now: Does it make sense for one entertainer with a small audience to demand equal pay as anther entertainer with a large audience?
I don’t think so.
The popular conversation shows that many don’t understand how wages are formed (or even that they’re “formed”) or why wages rise. Until they do, we can’t expect most to be curious about the wide array of contractual forms that characterize the commercial world, including that of sports.
For instance, constraining the impulse to maximize individual stats at the cost of team performance has obvious analogues to more traditional commercial contexts (i.e. preventing empire-building at the expense of shareholder value). Curiosity about those questions won’t come until people grasp the basics of what a wage is.
As Bryan Caplan might say, it’s “labor econ vs. the world.”