Archive for October 12th, 2020

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2020: Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson for auction theory

October 12, 2020

The announcement just came in:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2020 was awarded jointly to Paul R. Milgrom and Robert B. Wilson “for improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats.”

People have always sold things to the highest bidder, or bought them from whoever makes the cheapest offer. Nowadays, objects worth astronomical sums of money change hands every day in auctions, not only household objects, art and antiquities, but also securities, minerals and energy. Public procurements can also be conducted as auctions.

Using auction theory, researchers try to understand the outcomes of different rules for bidding and final prices, the auction format. The analysis is difficult, because bidders behave strategically, based on the available information. They take into consideration both what they know themselves and what they believe other bidders to know.

Robert Wilson developed the theory for auctions of objects with a common value – a value which is uncertain beforehand but, in the end, is the same for everyone. Examples include the future value of radio frequencies or the volume of minerals in a particular area. Wilson showed why rational bidders tend to place bids below their own best estimate of the common value: they are worried about the winner’s curse – that is, about paying too much and losing out.

Paul Milgrom formulated a more general theory of auctions that not only allows common values, but also private values that vary from bidder to bidder. He analysed the bidding strategies in a number of well-known auction formats, demonstrating that a format will give the seller higher expected revenue when bidders learn more about each other’s estimated values during bidding.

 

The case for central bank independence: a review of key issues in the international debate

October 12, 2020

Rodolfo Dall’Orto Mas, Benjamin Vonessen, Christian Fehlker and Katrin Arnold of ECB in this new WP:

This Occasional Paper analyses how significant expansions in central banks’ mandates, roles and instruments can result in challenges to the independence of monetary policy. The paper reviews, in particular, some of the key challenges to central bank independence brought about by the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007 and assesses their impact on the de jure and de facto independence of selected central banks around the world in the past few years. It finds that although the level of de jure (legal) central bank independence did not deteriorate, the level of de facto (actual) independence of the central banks of some of the largest economies in the world may have weakened. The paper presents counterarguments to the key critiques raised against central banks due to their policy response during the GFC, and concludes that the case for central bank independence is as strong as ever.

They review central bank independence in 13 countries (including India) which comprises 75% of World GDP.

Ethnographic and Field Data in Historical Economics

October 12, 2020

New NBER WP by Sara Lowes of UC San Diego points how economists are increasingly using ethnographic data compiled by anthropologists:

This chapter will cover recent research in historical economics that uses ethnographic data and data from surveys and lab experiments. The study of historical economics, particularly outside of non-Western countries, has been constrained by availability of historical data. However, recent work incorporates data and tools from other fields and sub-fields to fill this gap. For example, economists are increasingly taking advantage of ethnographic data sets compiled by anthropologists.

There is also growing interest in the use of original survey data collection both within and across countries and lab-in-the-field experiments to answer questions on culture and institutions. Often, these tools are used together to provide complementary evidence on the question of interest. These sources of data have been particularly important for research on areas where there is limited historical data, and they have increased the scope of questions that can be examined. This chapter will overview these recent developments and highlight the benefits of these diverse methodologies and data sources.

Interesting. Bring them on.

One just hopes the economists who use this data give adequate credit to anthropologists. Anthropologists should ensure it too. Else very quickly before you realise, the field has been taken over by economists!


Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started