Marginal Revolution

The "paradox of choice" is not robust

I missed this one while traveling, so I am grateful to the loyal MR reader who pointed it out to me:

... the psychological effect may not actually exist at all. It is hard to find much evidence that retailers are ferociously simplifying their offerings in an effort to boost sales. Starbucks boasts about its “87,000 drink combinations”; supermarkets are packed with options. This suggests that “choice demotivates” is not a universal human truth, but an effect that emerges under special circumstances.

Benjamin Scheibehenne, a psychologist at the University of Basel, was thinking along these lines when he decided (with Peter Todd and, later, Rainer Greifeneder) to design a range of experiments to figure out when choice demotivates, and when it does not.

But a curious thing happened almost immediately. They began by trying to replicate some classic experiments – such as the jam study, and a similar one with luxury chocolates. They couldn’t find any sign of the “choice is bad” effect. Neither the original Lepper-Iyengar experiments nor the new study appears to be at fault: the results are just different and we don’t know why.

After designing 10 different experiments in which participants were asked to make a choice, and finding very little evidence that variety caused any problems, Scheibehenne and his colleagues tried to assemble all the studies, published and unpublished, of the effect.

The average of all these studies suggests that offering lots of extra choices seems to make no important difference either way. There seem to be circumstances where choice is counterproductive but, despite looking hard for them, we don’t yet know much about what they are. Overall, says Scheibehenne: “If you did one of these studies tomorrow, the most probable result would be no effect.”

That's by Tim Harford.  In my view, the so-called paradox of choice is one of the most overrated and incorrectly cited results in the social sciences.  The full account is here.

How worried should we be about the deficit?

There have been many posts on this topic lately, start with Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong if you need to catch up.  Today I have a few simple points:

1. Even if "it is fine to borrow more" is the most likely scenario, it is not the only scenario.  Let's take a page from Marty Weitzman on climate change.  The worst-case scenarios matter too, because they can be very, very bad.  We need to think probabilistically about this issue.

2. Are there current intelligent discussions of the implied interest rate volatility embedded in current options prices?  If we are looking for market tests, why not start there?  Focusing on the point estimate of the market interest rate(s) discourages you from thinking probabilistically.

3. I know less about Belgium but I am not reassured by Krugman's point that "Italy can do it."  I and many other observers consider Italy's economy to be a basket case which will only get worse.  Nor is Japan in a satisfactory place, economically speaking.

4. Krugman writes: "Belgium is politically weak because of the linguistic divide; Italy is politically weak because it’s Italy. If these countries can run up debts of more than 100 percent of GDP without being destroyed by bond vigilantes, so can we."

I would interpret this evidence differently.  A high deficit often is an unfavorable symptom of bad politics, even if you think the high deficit is economically OK on its own terms.  It's a sign that you have dysfunctional institutions and decision-making procedures, as indeed they do in Belgium and Italy.  I believe that the not-always-swift American voter in fact understands high deficits -- correctly -- in this light.  They don't hold theories about "crowding out," rather they sense something in the house must be rotten.  And so they rail against deficits, as do some of their elected representatives.  It's a more justified reaction than the pure economics alone can illuminate.

When water regularly overflows from your toilet, you want the toilet fixed, whether or not the water is doing harm.

Sweet Trade

Here is a fun, easy and effective experiment that instructors can use to illustrate the gains from trade.  The instructor puts chocolate bars ("fun-size") or other candy in bags, one bag for each student. (Alternatively, you can use the type of small items that you can find at a dollar store.  Filling the bags is where the most work comes in especially if you have a large class). Students open the bag and are then asked to write down how much they would be willing to pay for the bag's contents.  But before snacking, students are allowed to trade.  After a few minutes of trade, ask the students to write down their valuation again.  Voila!  Gains from trade.  With a few numbers pulled at random from the students you can do a back of the envelope calculation for the total increase in value.  The experiment doesn't take long and the students will appreciate the candy!

A hat tip to Randy Simmons who first introduced this experiment to me.

The practical value of economics as a science

I know of three very good books on the actual (or sometimes hypothetical) application of economic ideas to real world problems:

1. Alex Tabarrok's Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science.

2. Some other book I haven't read and can no longer remember.

There is now a third:

3. Better Living Through Economics, edited by John J. Siegfried.  It covers emissions trading, the EITC, trade liberalization, welfare reform, the spectrum auction, airline deregulation, antitrust, the volunteer military, and Alvin Roth algorithms for deferred acceptance.  The contributions are uniformly excellent and written by top economists.

The culture that is Italy

The new (old) labor market idea -- you can call it fifth best perhaps -- is hereditary jobs:

It is a problem many a company faces in these tough times: how to replace older – and costlier – workers with younger, cheaper ones.

A Rome bank has what it thinks is the solution: to make the jobs hereditary. Under a deal signed with unions this week, 76 employees of Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Roma (BCC di Roma) must take early retirement but they will get a choice: either take a payoff or leave your job to your son or daughter (or indeed any relative "up to the third degree", which would allow the post to be left even to great-nieces and nephews).

The full story is here and I thank The Browser for the pointer.

Markets in everything?

A gang in the remote Peruvian jungle has been killing people for their fat, the police said Thursday, accusing the gang’s members of draining fat from bodies and selling it on the black market for use in cosmetics...

Three suspects have confessed to killing five people for their fat, said Col. Jorge Mejía, chief of Peru’s anti-kidnapping police. He said the suspects, two of whom were arrested carrying bottles of liquid fat, told the police it was worth $60,000 a gallon.

Colonel Mejía said the suspects had told the police that the fat had been sold to intermediaries in Lima, the capital. While police officials suspect that the fat was sold to cosmetic companies in Europe, he said he could not confirm any sales.

That's from The New York Times, not The Weekly World News.  Medical "experts" express varying degrees of skepticism about the depth and liquidity of this market, but if you read the whole article you will encounter some truly graphic descriptions of the production process.  Caveat emptor.

*From Poverty to Prosperity* watch

That's the title of the new and self-recommending book by Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz.  This work has text by the authors, interspersed with interviews with famous economists, including Robert Fogel, Robert Solow, Joel Mokyr, Doug North, Bill Easterly, Edmund Phelps, Amar Bhide, William Lewis, and Bill Baumol.  Here is Paul Romer:

It's the kind of culture that can tolerate rap music and extreme sports that can also create space for guys like Page and Brin and Google.  That's one of our hidden strengths.

You can buy the book here.  The subtitle is Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities and the Lasting Triumph over Scarcity.

Giovanni Peri's latest on immigration and productivity

Here is the abstract and it has to do with a Smithian theme, namely division of labor:

Using the large variation in the inflow of immigrants across US states we analyze the impact of immigration on state employment, average hours worked, physical capital accumulation and, most importantly, total factor productivity and its skill bias. We use the location of a state relative to the Mexican border and to the main ports of entry, as well as the existence of communities of immigrants before 1960, as instruments. We find no evidence that immigrants crowded-out employment and hours worked by natives. At the same time we find robust evidence that they increased total factor productivity, on the one hand, while they decreased capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies, on the other. These results are robust to controlling for several other determinants of productivity that may vary with geography such as R&D spending, computer adoption, international competition in the form of exports and sector composition. Our results suggest that immigrants promoted efficient task specialization, thus increasing TFP and, at the same time, promoted the adoption of unskilled-biased technology as the theory of directed technological change would predict. Combining these effects, an increase in employment in a US state of 1% due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5% in that state.

The paper is here.

Economics and biography

I think of the biographer as standing up and demanding that economists take their own method seriously.  Surely the economist should at some point be required to explain something in the life of an actual human being.

That is from my (favorable) review of E. Roy Weintraub and Evelyn L. Forget, Economists' Lives: Biography and Autobiography in the History of Economics.  The review will be published in a journal called Biography.

Only in economics are floors above ceilings!

Only in economics are floors above ceilings!  It might be better to say "a minimum allowed price above the market price" and "a maximum allowed price below the market price," although that is a bit of a mouthful.  I find that the floors and ceilings language does work, however, if the instructor explicitly points out the oddity of floors above ceilings!  In that case, students find the distinction memorable.