Exam 1 Flashcards
(168 cards)
VHV Ch 1 reading
Tons of regulations everywhere about a very wide range of things
Perfect competition - little need for antitrust policies and other regulatory efforts. But this doesn’t exist
Government has 2 types of mechanisms to address departures from perfectly competitive:
1. Price incentives. Impose tax on activities to make them less attractive
2. Control behavior directly. (I.e antitrust where take explicit action to block mergers to prevent such high market share)
Point of antitrust regulation is that economy efficiency losses result from monopolies.
Economic regulation to help promote efficiency. And may be to control price.
Deregulation of airlines - competition helps consumers and create better market structure
Health, safety, and environmental regulations to fix externalities from economic behavior
Regulation thru litigation
Regulation to try to fix these market failures
Economic Gangsters: Corruption, Violence, and Poverty of Nations
President Suharto of Indonesia - whenever he gets sick, shares of a company called Bimantara Citra, which he helps out, get hurt badly. Clear market connection between his health and the company.
Insiders trade before announced and have stock fall a few days before announce he’s going to the doctor
Suharto, while he had corruption, he was consistent and was honorable in that if say a deal, do it. No chaos
Looking at Dick Cheney and his ties to Halliburton. Even though has ties to them, stock market not changing based on Cheney’s health. Limits to favor giving in Washington. Too much scrutiny
Look at smuggling and measure it as difference as what country A reports leaving vs what country B reports entering
Higher tariffs, higher smuggling gap
BEPP 203 at wharton
Wharton: market transactions (customers, suppliers, financial services) and market competition
Bepp 203: government is a big player; regulation (political process, response to market failures)
They interact thru firm owners and managers
Market equilibrium - is it good? 2 powerful ideas
EQ is the rest point of a system
Market EQ is the prices and quantities we will see traded when firms and consumers act without interference.
Is it good?
Adam smith says it is - market efficiency without regulations allows for best output
Drug prices - could argue EQ results in high price, but conversely it is government patents that result in that. How it compares to different EQ is important.
Powerful idea 1: resources are allocated optimally when a. Firms and consumers act in their own interest. B. Nobody could come in and re-organize who gets what or increase total welfare (market is efficiency). Point is they traded only happen if both better off, so best thing to do is let all trades happen. Assume market efficiency, but not always the case.
However, reality is sometimes different from smiths story
Powerful idea 2: identifying situations where markets fail to lead to optimal allocations.
Market failures covered in class
- Weak institutions (I.e. lack of property rights)
- Externalities
- Asymmetric info
- Inequality
- Labor markets
Overview of US regulation and how to measure it
A state imposed limitation on the discretion that may be exercised by individuals or organizations, which is supported by the threat of sanction.
Alan stone - “regulation and its alternatives”
Measure regulation thru federal register of the US government (daily publication, new rules and regulations, final rules, changes to existing rules, notices of meetings and adjudicatory proceedings)
Regulation over time
Regulations are everywhere in the
Federal register pages - annual page count (number of pages published annually) increase massively in the 60s and mid 70s. Then falls and has risen since the 80s
And the cumulative pages has been on a big rise for a while
1800s - forging markets (expansion)
1900s - developing markets (regulation to promote equity and universality. Allow access to goods and services - looking at prices too. Force At&T to serve rural areas - regulate their prices)
1970s - mature markets (deregulation to promote efficiency)
2010s - back to developing markets with finance and healthcare under Obama. Under trump, less regulations
Looking at most industries in the US, regulations in the 30s and 40s and then deregulation in the late 70s
Indonesia example of corruption
Looking at importance of business/politics relationship and the corruption in Indonesia
Suppose you’re a money manager and considering investments in Indonesia in 1990s - choose which ones to look at based on fundamental analysis (future profitability, etc), and what roles regulations and political connections play in future profitability
Hypothesis: President Suharto is important for future profitability
Suharto was president of Indonesia from 1967 to 98. Pro market and anti communism and autocratic ruler (persecute communists and Chinese Indonesians). Rumored to direct resources to favored companies’ such as Bimantara Citra
Looking at stocks correlated with his health - companies that depend more on Suharto should be hurt more when he gets sick.
Suharto dependency index scored 0-4.
High scores - managed by his children and long term allied.
See that well connected firms lose most value when he gets sick.
Wrap up lecture 1
Markets don’t always give efficient outcome
Regulation should attempt to fix market failures (overview of us regulatory history)
Motivating examples of market failures, regulation, corruption
Thanks to Finely Tuned Focus Groups… reading by Sullivan
2000 presidential election - extremely close. Insane amount of polls, hard to pull ahead in a state or even a country, end up in stalemate. Ton of data and dominating life. Marketing research
Stigma attached to losing
Parties are cautious bc evenly matched, or evenly matched bc they’re both cautious. Country split down the middle, frozen like this since 1994
Fight about matters of procedure bc parties sensitive that no mandate for anything.
To get rid of this split, new candidate could try to shake up political system. Appeal fo new voters.
Fifty-fifty forever by Kaus
2002 article.
Nation is split right down the middle
Over time, each party crafts its message to maximize its appeal and adjust after each election to regain any lost share of the votes
Shift/drift toward what current people think. Ideological drift won’t translate into political dominance by one party or the other, but rather both parties move toward new center of gravity.
Changes that resulted in current deadlock
A. Convergence of both parties’ ideologies. Parties not that far apart - both are democratic capitalism, differences at the margins.
B. Withering away of interest groups that inhibit party flexibility
C. Dimming of historic memories
Median voter theorem
Think about a problem where the government needs to decide whether to provide a public good (I.e. build a school) and of the level of a public good to provide (I.e. where to build a school, how much to spend)
- government needs to aggregate indiviudal preferences into a single decision
- how can the government decide
- voting, particularly majority voting, is a common method
- mvt: under some conditions, the policy that is adopted will reflect the ideal point of the person whose ideal point is at the median of all the ideal points
Looking at a number line, say 100 is most conservative and 0 is most liberal. Say we have a candidate D1 at 10 and R1 at 90. If R1 shifts to 80, then will gain more of the vote. Dem candidate shifts too. Both wind up in the middle at 50
Parties shift policies toward what the median ideology is.
Party ideology less important as shift toward the middle.
Kaus argument
Fifty fifty forever - us presidential election about 50-50 split for a long time
Central claim:
-parties compete for votes
- so even if parties have ideologies, they will adapt to changing whims of the electorate, in order to remain electorally competitive
- how will they do this?
- by adapting the platform that the median voter would most desire
- median votes preferences are in the middle with an equal number on each side
More formal discussion of MVT
We can think of MVT in context of genera, electorate, Congress, or any other group that votes
Kaus is talking about US public
MVT was originally stated in terms of a representative body with rules of procedure
Look at past presidential election popular votes - no landslide votes. Median voter theorem provided explanation as no one dominant party.
In that kind of environment, three key assumptions (see next slide)
3 main assumptions of MVT plus 2 assumptions of voters
2 voter assumptions:
- Uniform distribution of voters across political spectrum - equal number of voters at each value
- Voters choose candidate closest to them on the line.
3 key assumptions:
- Unidimensionality
- Single peaked preferences
- Open rule, so all proposals can be considered
Unidimensionality
Preferences can be considered on a single dimension from right to left
For example, consider candidates based on a single score of how liberal or conservative they are. Certain indexes exist to do so
Despite huge variety of issues in national politics, unidimensionality isn’t such a bad assumption
Single-peakedness
Preferences with a single local peak and utility falls as you move away in any direction from that peak. The ideal point = bliss point. Utility falls as move away from the peak in any direction
Looking at utility graphs, must be just one peak. Each of the lines are different voters and their preferences, but they require single peak for each person
Ex: if you don’t care about policy but just that other person loses, then this doesn’t hold.
Open rule
- Permits all relevant amendments to be offered to a bill, without any resitrictions. This is close to what actually occurs in the us House of Representatives
- representatives decide on the policy by simple majority vote
- continue until policy is enacted (or legislative session ends)
- in general elections, open rule obviously doesn’t apply. Voters generally have to choose between candidates presented by parties.
Any choice within the range.
MVT summary
Assume 2 candidates (A and B), single peaked preferences, and a single dimensional policy, and voting by majority rule. Assume candidates want to win
Then the prediction is the EQ policy outcome of A and B will be the same (the median policy). Convergence toward the median voter’s bliss point. They need more than 50% of votes to win so they must gravitate toward the median. If they don’t, the other candidate will win.
Business analogy to the MVT
Houses ha equal distance between them. 2 Ice cream trucks that sell same amount of ice cream for same price. Customer decision based on distance. Ice cream trucks can move and want to maximize profits
Key implication is the convergence of businesses, the sameness you might observe
We see the trucks going to the middle and locate next to each other so neither has advantage. This is the Eq.
1929 Hoteling law - observation that businesses make products as similar as possible
Extending women the right to vote
Between 1869 and 1929, diff states extend voting rights to women
Congress fear of being punished at the polls by women, not conviction of the bills necessity, result in them voting for a certain bill, such as prohibition and hygiene which women are in favor of.
Hygiene public campaign by women - campaign by nurses btwn end of May and September - visiting new members, examining children, encouraging breastfeeding, hygiene info.
Where 0-50 is men preferences (0 is least in favor of public health spending and 100 is most in favor) and 50-100 are women, before the median voter is at 25. Then give women the right to vote it shifts to 50. So get a lot more in favor of public health spending.
See that state level public health spending increased by 35% after women get voting rights. Childhood mortality declined by 8-15%. Mainly thru better hygienic conditions. Translates to 20k deaths saved.
Politicians actually respond to median voter.
MVT evidence: us house elections.
Take 2 very similar us house districts (like C and D which go from 25 to 75). One randomly assigned Democrat district (A, goes from 0 to 50) and one randomly assigned republican (B, goes from 50 to 100)
Voters will respond to the median voter.
What we see is the 50% threshold is very important bc above 50 is republican and below 50 is Democrat. If median voter theory holds, then we wouldn’t expect a jump at 50, would expect a sloping upward line as approach mid point with policies only slightly diff above 50
Evidence actually shows big jump at 50 with a gap, gamma, suggesting that the MVT doesn’t hold here, as would expect similar towns to support similar policies but the jump doesn’t support that.
Strategic extremism
Not everyone votes
You can use negative advertising to defer your opponents moderate supporters from voting (I.e. Republican Party can smear dem candidate to get moderate dems to not show up)
Parties might strategically target their extreme allies who won’t be deterred by the opponents negative ads
Ex: consider 0 to 100 scale where 40 to 60 don’t vote.
Eq is now are 40 and 60. No voters btwn 40 and 60 fundamentally alters this thinking.
Primary elections
Primaries affect whether MVT will hold in general elections
Politicians might have to commit, at least partially, to wishes of the median primary voter.
In Democrat primary, looking between 0 and 50. Median is 25. Republican at 75. Then shift to 50 for general election.
Problem is that primary voters hold you accountable, call them flip-flippers. So not fully to 50, but definitely more moderate.