American Economic Review
1940 1942 1946 1948 1953 1955 1958 1959 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Harriet Orcott Duleep, Mark C. Regets American Economic Review. 1999. Vol. 89. No. 2. P. 186-191.
The following question is approached theoretically and empirically: Why do immigrants invest more in human capital than the native-born, and how do investment patterns vary by type of immigrant? It is found that greater immigrant human capital investment is due to the lower opportunity costs of investment by immigrants lacking US-specific skills and the role of untransferred human capital as a factor of production for destination-country skills, as well as the higher return to investment spending from the complementarity of foreign and US human capital. This theoretical insight is supported by direct evidence of human capital investment and by empirical analyses.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles American Economic Review. 2001. Vol. 91. No. 2. P. 73-78.
Twelve experienced field researchers, working in 12 countries on five continents, recruited subjects from 15 small-scale societies exhibiting a wide variety of economic and cultural conditions. While the results do not imply that economists should abandon the rational-actor framework, they do suggest 2 major revisions. First, the canonical model of the self-interested material payoff-maximizing actor is systematically violated. Second, preferences over economic choices are not exogenous as the canonical model would have it, but rather are shaped by the economic and social interactions of everyday life. Finally, the connection between experimental behavior and the structure of everyday economic life should provide an important clue in revising the canonical model of individual choice behavior.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Haizhou Huang, Chenggang Xu American Economic Review. 1999. Vol. 89. No. 2. P. 438-443.
The fundamental importance of economic institutions for economic growth through their impact on technological change has long been argued by Joseph Schumpter and others. Recent empirical studies have reconfirmed such arguments. Robert Barro (1997) finds that economic and political institutions are the most important factors in explaining differences in growth across economies. New growth theory has made major breakthroughs in endogenizing technological changes. However, although some insightful and inspiring discussions of institutional impacts of innovation are provided, there is little attempt in these models to explain what, aside from capital, labor inputs, and knowledge accumulation, determines innovation. An attempt is made to fill the gap in literature by examining how financial institutions affect technological innovation and thus affect growth.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002John Hassler, Jose V. Rodriguez Mora American Economic Review. 2000. Vol. 90. No. 4. P. 888-908.
This study develops a model where the allocation of human resources, intergenerational social mobility, and technological growth are jointly determined. High growth endogenously increases the equilibrium return to innate cognitive ability and makes the allocation of individuals depend more on innate ability and less on social background. A social allocation based on innate ability and high growth will thus reinforce each other, implying the possibility of multiple endogenous growth equilibria.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Marco Cagetti American Economic Review. 2001. Vol. 91. No. 2. P. 418-421.
This paper examines the question of whether households adjust savings in response to interest rates in a life-cycle model with precautionary savings, where both motives for saving (retirement and precautionary) are present. While uncertainty may be the most important motive for younger households, eventually, households will start saving for retirement as well. By how much the wealth of the median household at retirement changes after an exogenous permanent increase in the after-tax interest rate is computed. In an estimated life-cycle model with precautionary savings, the elasticity of savings is also very low. However, the results are sensitive to the utility parameters.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Laura Chadwick, Gary Solon American Economic Review. 2002. Vol. 92. No. 1. P. 335-344.
New evidence on daughters' intergenerational mobility in a framework that encompasses women not in the labor force, using broader measures of economic status than just the women's own earnings, is presented, and the role of husbands' earnings is highlighted. A parallel analysis of sons' mobility is performed. Intergenerational transmission of income status may be weaker for daughters than for sons, but is still quite substantial. Assortative mating is an important element in the intergenerational transmission process.
Опубликовано на портале: 18-08-2004Kenneth R. French, James Michael Poterba American Economic Review. 1991. Vol. 81. No. 2. P. 222-226.
Since the fortunes of different nations do not always move together, investors can diversify their portfolios by holding assets in several countries. The benefits of international diversification have been recognized for decades. In spite of this, most investors hold nearly all of their wealth in domestic assets. In this paper we use a simple model of investor preferences and behavior to show that current portfolio patterns imply that investors in each nation expect returns in their domestic equity market to be several hundred basis points higher than returns in other markets. The lack of diversification appears to be result of investor choices, rather than institutional constraints.
Markets and Diversity [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Sherwin Rosen American Economic Review. 2002. Vol. 92. No. 1. P. 1-15.
Despite the importance of diversity in economic life, only a small part of economic theory is devoted to analyzing differences. Competitive markets value diversity and sort out complex patterns of tastes and technologies that translate into supply of and demand for an enormous variety of products and factors of production. The theory of diversity applies universally and is manifest in many economic problems. This paper explores 3 themes: Markets value diversity, markets sort buyers and sellers appropriately to take advantage of heterogeneous talents and tastes, and sorting and choice create income inequality.
Опубликовано на портале: 18-08-2004Olivier Jean Blanchard, Nobuhiro Kiyotaki American Economic Review. 1987. Vol. 77. No. 4. P. 647-666.
How important is monopolistic competition to an understanding of the effects of aggregate demand on output? We ask the question at three levels. Can monopolistic competition, by itself, explain why aggregate demand movements affect output? Can it, together with other imperfections, generate effects of aggregate demand in a way that perfect competition cannot? If so, can it give an accurate account of the response of the economy to aggregate demand movements? The answers are no, yes, and yes.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Shlomo Benartzi, Richard H. Thaler American Economic Review. 2001. Vol. 91. No. 1. P. 79-98.
There is a worldwide trend toward defined contribution saving plans and growing interest in privatized social security plans. In both environments, individuals are given some responsibility to make their own asset-allocation decisions, raising concerns about how well they do at this task. This paper investigates one aspect of the task, namely diversification. It is shown that some investors follow the "1/n strategy": they divide their contributions evenly across the funds offered in the plan. Consistent with this naive notion of diversification, it is found that the proportion invested in stocks depends strongly on the proportion of stock funds in the plan.
On Monopoly Welfare Losses [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 07-02-2003Abram Bergson American Economic Review. 1973. Vol. 63. No. 5. P. 853-870.
Studies welfare losses due to monopolistic pricing in the United States. Evaluation of calculations indicating that welfare losses from monopolistic pricing is inconsequential; Consumer's surplus analysis; Proposed method in deriving coefficient of net compensating variation. (Из Ebsco)
Опубликовано на портале: 06-02-2003William Jack Baumol, David L. Bradford American Economic Review. 1970. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 265-83.
Focuses on departures from marginal cost pricing. Optimal allocation or resources; Level of tax revenue that will be collected by the government; theorems developed for resource allocation. (Из Ebsco)
Опубликовано на портале: 31-03-2003Richard Schmalensee American Economic Review. 2002. Vol. 71. No. 1. P. 242-247 .
Focuses on output and welfare implications of monopolistic third-degree price discrimination. Maximization of profits by charging different prices to different markets or classes for customers; Maldistribution of resources for different uses. (From Ebsco)
Опубликовано на портале: 05-10-2004Timothy Cogley, James M. Nason American Economic Review. 1995. Vol. 85. No. 3. P. 492-511.
The time-series literature reports two stylized facts about output dynamics in the United States: GNP growth is positively autocorrelated, and GNP appears to have an important trend-reverting component. This paper investigates whether current real-business-cycle (RBC) models are consistent with these stylized facts. Many RBC models have weak internal propagation mechanisms and must rely on external sources of dynamics to replicate both facts. Models that incorporate labor adjustment costs are partially successful. They endogenously generate positive autocorrelation in output growth, but they need implausibly large transitory shocks to match the trend-reverting component in output.
Опубликовано на портале: 31-03-2003A. Ross Shepherd American Economic Review. 1971. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 237-239.
Comments on the article by Milton Kafoglis concerning the output of the restrained firm. Examination of the price and output behavior of the restrained monopoly firm; Implications of private cost saving on output and revenue; Production of optimal output by output and revenue maximizers in the case of increasing cost; Production of optimally large outputs in single markets through monopsony power. (Из Ebsco)