Econdiscussion
  • Home
  • Articles
  • About Me

Articles

1. “Secrets and Agents” – The Economist

27/7/2016

0 Comments

 
Synopsis: The first in the series about economic theory is about information asymmetry.

Click here to read the original article, and click here to read the introduction post.
Discussion: This article discusses the importance of information availability, and the consequences of information asymmetry (explained in “Key Terms”).

Introduction

In 2007, the state of Washington banned firms from checking applicants’ credit scores (explained in ‘Key Terms’) in the hope that it would make the labor market fairer, as applicants with poor credit scores are more likely to be poor, black, young, or all three. However, studies showed that the ban left specifically those groups with fewer jobs. Why did this happen? The answer lies in the availability of information.

Before 1970, little research was done on the importance of information. At the time, economists did believe that information availability was of paramount importance, but they assumed that it was freely available. For example, in any standard textbook, it was assumed that firms knew the productivity and utility of their workers, and could thus allocate wages efficiently.

Evidence to the contrary was met with great resistance from the economic community. In 1970, economist George Akerlof, published a paper called “The Market for Lemons”, which illustrated the fact that information is not so readily available in markets. Perhaps it was because Akerlof was very young – he had finished his PhD at MIT in 1966 and had just become an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley – his paper and his ideas were rejected for a long time. Journal editors dismissed his findings on the grounds that “if this is correct, economics would be different”.

“The Market for Lemons”

The theory is simple but powerful. Consider the market for cars. There are two types of cars: peaches (good quality cars) and lemons (bad quality cars). Now, suppose consumers value peaches at $10,000 and lemons at $5,000.

If buyers can tell which cars are peaches and which cars are lemons, trade for both will flourish. However, producers can mask the problems with lemons, like painting over scratches, such that consumers cannot tell the difference between the two.

Now, hesitant consumers will be willing to pay some midpoint between the value of peaches and lemons, e.g. $7,500, as they do not know whether the car they are purchasing is a peach or a lemon. Sellers who know that the car is a peach will reject the offer as it is much below the value of the car, whereas if the car were a lemon, producers would happily sell it. This is a classic example of “adverse selection” (explained in ‘Key Terms’).

Because a midpoint price would be offered to sellers, sellers will always refuse to sell peaches, and only lemons would be sold. Smart buyers would deduce that only lemons would be sold, and only offer $5,000. Because of this, information asymmetry kills the market for peaches, despite the fact that there would be people willing to buy it for $10,000 if only they knew it was a peach.
This is the basis of Akerlof’s paper: information asymmetry can eradicate the market for good products in favor of bad products.

Skepticism and signaling

Akerlof went on to win the Nobel Prize in 2001, sharing the prize with economists Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz. Mr. Spence’s reaction was that of incredulity – how is it that a Nobel Prize could be won by stating that some people know more than other people in markets? His criticism was not unfounded; the analogy of peaches and lemons was not even accurate in the market for cars. Clearly, it was the case that peaches were sold and that the market for peaches was not completely eradicated.

However, mainstream economics found many uses for this analogy. Take, for example, Mr. Spence’s own paper called “Job Market Signaling”. Employers would struggle to differentiate between good and bad workers – information asymmetry – so good workers signaled their value by showing employers specific things, such as a degree. As degrees are not easy to get, it is only accessible to the best candidates. Thus, workers signaled their worth to get a job.

The implication of this specific example is that degrees are used only to signal to employers their value, rather than what mainstream economics believed was the purpose of a degree: to improve the productivity and knowledge of the workers. Thus, a degree only benefits an individual looking for a job, rather than the whole society, which would have benefited from skilled workers in their markets.

In fact, another example of signaling is a candidate’s credit score. It is very hard to fake, and those with a good credit score would make more reliable employees. When the state of Washington created information asymmetry where applicants knew their credit scores, but employers did not, employers relied on other signals, such as education and experience. Because education and experience are rarer among the more disadvantaged groups than a good credit score is, this ban hampered, and not helped, these groups.

Signaling as a solution to adverse selection

Today, people overcome the problem of adverse selection by using signaling. Take, for instance, an insurance company for cars. The insurance company will get two types of drivers – risky and careful drivers. Only the driver will know which category he falls into, i.e. adverse selection. An insurance firm cannot profitably cater to the two groups equally. How does the company deal with this without knowing which drivers are risky and which ones are careful? They offer two types of insurance packages.

1. Low premiums and high deductibles (explained in ‘Key Terms’). The high deductibles would detract risky drivers, and careful drivers would be attracted low premiums (explained in ‘Context’).

2. High premiums and low deductibles. The high premiums would detract careful drivers, and risky drivers would be attracted to low deductibles.

Still, this is not a perfect solution; after all, careful drivers are still stuck with high deductibles. Just like it costs good workers a university degree to get a good job, it costs good drivers a high deductible to get a reasonable insurance plan.

Moral hazard and the principal-agent problem

The consequence of adverse selection and signaling is that people who buy insurance are more likely to take risks, a term coined as “moral hazard” when Kenneth Arrow wrote about this in 1963. In other words, moral hazard is when incentives are abused.

How do you align the interests of two parties, such as an employer and a risk-taking individual, such as an employee who is prone to slacking off? This question is referred to as the “principal-agent” problem, in which the principal, e.g. the employer, wants to make sure that his interests are aligned with the agent, the employee. The simplest solution is to reward the agent with some type of profit, i.e. bus drivers would be charged based on the number of passengers he carries. This would ensure that he does not slack off all day.

What if an agent’s hard work is not recognized? For example, what if there just aren’t any passengers for a bus driver to pick up? Another option to this problem is to provide the agents with “efficiency wages” (explained in ‘Key Terms’). Efficiency wages would be set high enough that individuals work hard; being caught and losing their job now costs a lot more.

This explains why wages do not fall to meet rising unemployment sometimes – efficiency wages are needed in order to ensure that existing workers are productive (explained under ‘Context’).

Conclusion

Research about information asymmetry reveals that in competitive markets, price is not equal to marginal costs (explained in ‘Context’) if adverse selection exists, as “good behavior is driven by earning a surplus over what one could get elsewhere”, according to Joseph Stiglitz.

As one of the revolutionary findings in economics, this redefines incentives, information availability, and equilibrium, in any job market.

Key Terms:
​
1. Credit score: A number that represents the creditworthiness of a person, e.g. their loan repayment record.

2. Information asymmetry: where one party has more information than another in a market.

3. Adverse selection: when information asymmetry is used before a transaction to benefit a certain party, such as when a car dealer charges more for a car than it is actually worth. Moral hazard, on the other hand, is when the information asymmetry is used after a transaction, such as when a driver with insurance drives more recklessly.

4. Premiums and deductibles: An insurance premium is the amount of money an individual must pay to purchase a policy. A deductible, on the other hand, is the amount of money the individual must pay first before the insurance covers the rest, e.g. if a car crash costs $1,000, the driver might have to pay the first $200 before insurance covers the remaining $800.

5. Efficiency wages: Wages that are above the equilibrium wage rate.

Context:

1. Why do certain combinations of premiums and deductibles attract certain types of drivers?

Risky drivers are more prone to accidents; thus, they need a low deductible to ensure that the insurance will cover most of the cost of crashes. They would be willing to pay for a high premium as long as they get the low deductible.

Careful drivers are not likely to get into an accident, so they would not need low deductibles. They will choose the package with the low premium and high deductibles.

2. Why are efficiency wages needed to ensure that workers are productive?

If efficiency wages are high enough that a worker cannot find wages as good as that in another job, the employee will make sure to work hard to retain his or her job.

3. When does price equal marginal cost? Does this apply to the labor market?

Price equals marginal cost (written P=MC) determines the price at which goods are sold in a perfectly competitive market, and only in a competitive market. Rules for determining price in other types of markets, such as monopolies, are different.

A perfectly competitive market is a market structure that is defined by four rules:

a. All perfectly competitive markets have free barriers to entry and exit. This means that it does not cost any money to join the market. Take, for example, the market for corn. To get permission to grow corn costs nothing, unlike in a monopolistic market such as tap water – there are rules and tariffs that block new sellers from selling tap water.

b. There is a large number of sellers in the market.

c.  Sellers are price-takers, not price-makers. This leads on from the second rule. If someone wants to sell corn for $4 when the market price is $3, they will not sell anything. This is because consumers have a large number of alternatives – due to the large number of sellers in the market – that will sell corn for $3. In a monopoly, the firm can decide to a much larger extent what price they wish to sell the good at – consumers have no choice but to accept that price as they cannot go to another seller to buy the same product.

d. Products are indistinguishable. In the market for corn, consumers do not consider one producer’s corn superior to others as they all look, smell, and taste the same.

Now, the definition of marginal cost (MC) is the cost of producing one extra unit of a good or service. Let us take the market for corn again. Once a farmer has set up his cornfield – equipments, land and other fixed costs are paid for – he starts producing corn. Say it costs $1 to water the soil around a single corn cob and a further $2 for a worker to shuck a single corn. Then, every time a new cob is ready to be sold, it costs the farmer $3. This is what is called the marginal cost.

With this, we can look at the price determining rule, P=MC.

In the previous example, MC=3. Suppose a new supplier, Supplier 1, enters the market for corn, and wants to sell each cob for $4. Another supplier, Supplier 2, will see this and sell his cobs for $3.9, attracting all the consumers of corn. Supplier 1 will lower his cost to $3.8, and then Supplier 2 will bid it down to $3.7. The cost will keep decreasing until a supplier hits $3. The price will not go lower than that, as it means that they would be making a loss for each cob that is sold. For example, if a supplier were to set his price at $2.9, and producing one corn cob costs $3, then the supplier would be losing $0.1 for every corn cob sold.

Because the market is so large, the bidding down process will be instantaneous. Price will be as low as possible such that the producers do not make a loss. The lowest possible price is the MC. Thus, P=MC in a perfectly competitive market.

Now, consider the labor market. The suppliers of labors are potential employees, and the consumers of labor are employers. In theory, the labor market is perfectly competitive, as it fulfills all four expectations for a perfectly competitive market:

a. Free barriers to entry/exit: it costs nothing to participate in the labor force, i.e. it costs nothing to start looking for a job and stop looking for a job.

b. Large number of suppliers: lots of people participate in the labor force, either at a job or actively looking for a job.

c. Suppliers are price takers: suppliers of labor, i.e. employees, accept the market wage rate, because if they do not, another supplier will come along and work for a lower wage.

d. Indistinguishable products: because of asymmetric information, an employer might struggle to tell which candidate is better, because only the candidate knows things such as their credit score and inherent ability.

In theory, then, the P=MC rule applies in the job market. The price of labor, i.e. the wage rate, is equal to the marginal cost of labor. In a news firm, for example, the price, or wage rate, of a journalist might equal the cost of an extra article written.
​
This article argues against mainstream theory. Signaling, for example, makes the workers distinguishable. A university degree or a high credit score would mean that the candidate is better than another candidate who has no university degree and a low credit score. Thus, the market for labor is not perfectly competitive, and P no longer equals MC. A great journalist might be paid a high efficiency wage, much more than the cost of writing an extra article, to encourage him to stay with the firm and work efficiently.
0 Comments

“Breakthroughs and Brickbats” – The Economist

27/7/2016

0 Comments

 
Over the next six weeks, The Economist will be writing articles about revolutionary economic theories, from the Nash equilibrium to information asymmetry. The introduction to this series can be read here. I will be following the articles and writing posts about them. The first one can be found here.

The introductory article states that too often, economists are blamed for not being able to foresee major economic events, such as the Global Financial Crisis. However, the ability to predict such events is a poor barometer of the usefulness of economics, as the point in economic theory is to explain how the world works. Many theories that were created years ago explain current events. Keynes’ fiscal multiplier, for example, explains the struggles the euro-zone faces, such as the “self-defeating pursuit of austerity”.

However, there are many problems with economic models. For example, the body of economic theory is not complete, as there are still gaping holes in the understanding of financial markets, for example. The already existing theory, as well, is not in its final form. It is constantly being revised and rewritten.

As well, over-reliance on mathematical models makes economic theory less credible. According to the article, “models should be a means, not an end”. Thus, anyone treating models as the end would be disappointed by their inability to accurately predict economic events.

Economics is very slow to accept revolutionary models that go against the grain. As a result, the evolution of economic thinking is sluggish. Mr. Akerlof’s paper on information asymmetry, called “The Market for Lemons”, was met with great resistance by several journalists who stated that if his theory were correct, “economics would be different”.

Still, none of this diminishes the importance of economic theory. While it may not be able to foresee future events accurately, theory is needed in order to explain the world around us. This series will thus elucidate the importance of economic theory, and follow how these groundbreaking theories redefined economics entirely.

The order of the articles is:

1. Information asymmetry
2. Minsky’s financial cycle
3. The Sloper-Samuelson theorem
4. The Keynesian multiplier
5. The Nash equilibrium
6. The Mundell-Fleming trilemma
0 Comments

Brexit: What Next?

9/7/2016

0 Comments

 
Synopsis: A quick summary on Brexit and an exploration of what the UK's future might hold.
Discussion:

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) surprised both Leave and Remain supporters alike - not to mention, the rest of the world. Whatever decisions the UK’s new prime minister will take, Britain will still be stepping into the unknown. With an unclear future ahead, everyone seems to be asking the question nobody has the answer to: what next?

Picture
A summary of Remain and Leave arguments

On trade and the economy:
  1. Leave supporter Ian Duncan Smith promises £350 million per week contributed towards the EU budget would be redirected to the National Health Service should the UK leave. In fact, most of this £350 million is returned by the EU through various payments, and the Leave party has since reneged on its promise.
  2. Leave cites an abundance of red tape due to the EU’s many product regulations as a barrier to trade.
  3. Remain states that uncertainty and a reduction of trade if the UK leaves would result in decreased growth, if not a recession, a statement met with general agreement among economists.
On the free movement of labor:
  1. Leave claims that EU members, especially the Poles, are taking away British jobs. Remain argues that it is free movement of labor that guarantees healthy competition and that only the more skilled workers get UK jobs.
  2. Leave argues that without forced cultural assimilation, Britain will face more and more pockets of impenetrable cultural bubbles.
Voter demographics

The Financial Times highlights five key demographics.
  1. Areas where more people had a degree voted to remain.
  2. Areas with a small number of people in “professional occupations” voted to leave.
  3. Areas where more people had passports voted to remain.
  4. Lower income areas voted to leave.
  5. Older people voted to leave.

Immediate reactions

After the shocking results of the EU referendum nearly a fortnight ago, it is no surprise that both UK and global financial markets reflected the sentiment of uncertainty. Most notably, the pound briefly dipped to a thirty-year low at $1.32 on June 27th, far below its pre-referendum high at $1.50. This drop is somewhat a relief as it dissuades imports and encourages exports in the UK. Equity markets, on the other hand, have bounced back above their pre-referendum levels. According to The Economist, this is due to the “oil and mining giants… [having] little to do with the British economy.”
Picture
Picture
Meanwhile, the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has tried to douse the sudden upsurge of uncertainty by announcing that the central bank will take “whatever action is needed to support growth”, most likely including some form of expansionary monetary policy. He warns that there is only so much the central bank can do. According to the Financial Times, two-year British government bond yields became negative for the first time following his statement.

Standard and Poor’s (S&P) downgraded Britain’s AAA rating to AA, and Fitch Ratings downgraded them from AA+ to AA. Moody’s has lowered its outlook for the UK from stable to negative.
S&P also lowered the EU’s credit rating from AA+ to AA.

What next?

Starting with the practical aspects, the BBC outlines the process for the UK to leave the EU.
Picture
As David Cameron has passed on the responsibility of invoking Article 50 to his successor, uncertainty about when (and whether) it will be invoked will be extended at least until October, when the new prime minister will take office.
In terms of trade agreements with the EU, the UK has a few choices:
Picture
If the UK had stayed in the EU, it would be allowed to not only trade freely between other EU members, but also be able to help write and dictate the EU trade agreements. Thus, it would have been part of the EU single market, which is the EU trade bloc.

Some suggest that the UK might stay in the European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA allows its members to participate in the EU’s single market. Countries that are in the EEA but not in the EU include Iceland, Leichtenstein and Norway. It is unlikely that the UK will remain here, as the single market requires the free movement of labor.

The only country that is not in the EEA but is still in the single market is Switzerland. It is unlikely that the UK will aim for a position like Switzerland as the single market means immigration.

If the UK does not participate in a special trade agreement with the EU, it will trade with the EU under global trade laws dictated by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Some Remain campaigners had suggested that if the UK leaves the EU, the EU would retaliate with tariffs. It is important to note, however, that under WTO laws, retaliatory tariffs are not allowed.

Regardless of whatever trade agreements are decided upon, unless the UK decides to somehow remain in the EU, it is likely that Scotland will hold a referendum to leave the UK, and quite possible that Northern Ireland might do the same. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. After the 2014 Scottish referendum was held to see whether Scotland would leave the UK, where ‘no’ was 55% and ‘yes’ was 45%, dissatisfaction with the UK has been steadily mounting, hitting a high when the UK voted to leave the EU. Informal talks about a second Scottish referendum are currently being held.

Undoubtedly, if Scotland does leave the UK, the British economy will suffer. However, most economists believe that the UK will suffer for a while regardless. Uncertainty continues to exacerbate the exchange rate depreciation. There is the possibility that London might lose its position as a global financial capital, leading to a shrinking of the financial sector, while the other countries in the EU will try to establish their own cities as the leading contenders for that role.

A majority of economists believes that the UK will be facing a recession either in the coming year or the next. Not all economists are as pessimistic – some believe that if the UK takes this opportunity to create strong trade agreements with other nations, Brexit will have a neutral, if not positive, effect on the UK economy.


To dispel the uncertainty, the Bank of England, as well as the government, must themselves have a clear plan of action, whether it is the Bank of England clearly outlining what steps it will take to begin monetary easing, or the new prime minister leaving little doubt regarding his or her plan for invoking Article 50. A clear plan on how they will proceed, economists say, will reassure the public that control of the economy is still in the hands of the UK. In fact, Carney has already promised the British public that the central bank’s monetary policy will be paired with “ruthless truth telling”.


A more disturbing message from the Leave campaign unveils not only how Britain will be in the years to follow, but the rest of the world as well. Much of the Leave campaigning promotes anti-immigrant sentiment, whether it be job displacement or cultural dilution. In fact, the likeness to Trump’s campaign is startling: he, too, blames immigrants for job losses, not to mention terrorism.


In this way, fear of globalization is a by-product of globalization. A wave of immigration might give the public a feeling of domestic job displacement, to which they will respond with anger against immigration. In a larger sense, these fears are not unreasonable – after all, many of the displaced domestic workers struggle to find jobs and receive little aid from the government. While this is not a reason to slam the borders to immigration shut (globalization provides many advantages such as increased skill and productivity, resulting in increased GDP), it is a call for governments worldwide to not only battle the fear but provide better systems to deal with displaced workers.


At this point, not enough time has passed after the EU referendum for the waters to settle. In a few months, we will know more about the possible shape of the economy, and less will be left in the hands of uncertainty.
0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    Abenomics
    Adam Smith
    Adverse Selection
    Ageing
    Amazon
    Arrows
    Arthur Okun
    Asset
    Asymmetric Information
    Ben Bernanke
    Booms And Busts
    Braess' Paradox
    Brazil
    Bretton Woods
    Brexit
    Bubble
    Bull Market
    Business Cycle
    Capital Control
    Capital Flows
    Capital In The Twenty First Century
    Capital In The Twenty-First Century
    Carry Trade
    Causation
    Central Bank
    China
    Christopher Sims
    Classical Economics
    Consumption
    Counter-cyclical
    CPI
    Creative Destruction
    Crisis
    Daron Acemoglu
    David Cameron
    David Ricardo
    Debt
    Debt-to-GDP
    Deflation
    Deleverage Cycle
    Demography
    Devaluation
    Developing Economies
    Development
    Diffusion
    Diminishing Returns
    Dominant Strategy
    Dominated Strategy
    ECB
    Economic History
    Economic Theory
    Equality
    Equitity
    Equity
    Equity Investments
    EU
    Exchange Rate
    FDI
    Fed
    Federal Reserve
    Finance
    Financial Crisis
    Financial Instability Hypothesis
    Financial-instability Hypothesis
    Financial Times
    Fiscal Multiplier
    Fiscal Policy
    Fixed Exchange Rate
    Fleming
    Floating Exchange Rate
    Free Market
    Free Trade
    Freshwater
    Game Theory
    GDP
    George Akerlof
    Germany
    GFC
    Gini Coefficient
    Global Financial Crisis
    Globalization
    Government Intervention
    Government Spending
    Great Depression
    Growth
    Heckscher-Ohlin
    Helene Rey
    Hyman Minsky
    ICOR
    Illiquid
    Immigration
    Income
    Inequality
    Inflation
    Infrastructure
    Innovation
    Interest Rates
    Investment
    Italy
    James Robinson
    Janet Yellen
    Japan
    Jean Tirole
    J.M. Keynes
    John Nash
    Keynesian Economics
    Labor
    Lawrence Summers
    Leverage
    Lindau
    Liquid
    Malaysia
    Managed Exchange Rate
    Mario Draghi
    Matteo Renzi
    Michael Spense
    Minsky Moment
    Mixed Strategy
    Monetary Policy
    Monopoly
    Monopsony
    Moral Hazard
    Mundell
    Mundell-Fleming Trilemma
    Nash
    Nash Equilibrium
    Nigeria
    Nobel
    Nobel Laureates
    Nobel Prize
    Paul Krugman
    Paul Samuelson
    Perfect Information
    Phillips Curve
    Politics
    Poverty Traps
    Principal Agent Problem
    Prisoner's Dilemma
    Productivity
    Protectionism
    QE
    Qualitative Easing
    Quantitative Easing
    Redistribution
    Regulation
    Retrenching
    Rich
    Risk
    Robert Shiller
    Saltwater
    Saving
    Secular Stagnation
    Shiller
    Shinzo Abe
    Signaling
    Stakeholders
    Stolper-Samuelson Theorem
    Strategy
    Subsidies
    Tariff
    Taxation
    Taxes
    The Economist
    The Market For Lemons
    Theory Of Comparative Advantage
    Thomas Piketty
    Total Factor Productivity
    Trade
    Trilemma
    UK
    Unemployment
    U.S.
    USD
    Wage Benefits
    Wages
    Wealth
    Wealth Effect
    Wolfgang Stolper
    WTO
    Yuan

    Author

    JANANI DHILEEPAN
    A gap year student trying to explore real-world economics

    Archives

    May 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.