<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Editor's Note</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Andrew</gnm><snm>Postlewaite</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>iii</ppf>
<ppl>iii</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.iii</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.iii</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Assessing Strategic Risk</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>R. J.</gnm><snm>Aumann</snm><aff>Hebrew U Jerusalem</aff></au>
<au><gnm>J. H.</gnm><snm>Dreze</snm><aff>CORE, Catholic U Louvain</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>16</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In recent decades, subjective probabilities have been increasingly
applied to an adversary's choices in strategic games (SGs). In games
against nature (GANs), the subjective probability of a state can be
elicited from lotteries yielding utility 1 if that state obtains, 0 otherwise.
But in SGs, making such a lottery available changes the game,
and so the players' incentives. Here, we propose a definition of subjective
probabilities in SGs that uses actually available strategies
only. The definition applies also to GANs where the decision maker's
options are restricted. The probabilities that emerge need not be
unique, but expected utilities are unique. (JEL D81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.1</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Asymmetric Networks in Two-Sided Markets</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Attila</gnm><snm>Ambrus</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Rossella</gnm><snm>Argenziano</snm><aff>U Essex</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>17</ppf>
<ppl>52</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper investigates pricing decisions and network choices in two-sided
markets with network externalities. Consumers are heterogeneous
in how much they value the externality. Imposing restrictions
on the extent of coordination failure among consumers generates
clear qualitative conclusions about equilibrium market configurations.
Multiple asymmetric networks can coexist in equilibrium,
both in the case of a monopolist network provider and in the case
of competing providers. These equilibria have the property that one
network is cheaper and larger on one side, while the other network
is cheaper and larger on the other side. Product differentiation is
endogenized by consumers' network choices. (JEL D85, L12, L13,
L14, D42, D43)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.17</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.17</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Geography of Trade in Online Transactions: Evidence from eBay and MercadoLibre</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ali</gnm><snm>Horta&ccedil;su</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>F. As&iacute;s</gnm><snm>Mart&iacute;nez-Jerez</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jason</gnm><snm>Douglas</snm><aff>Apple, Inc, Santa Clara, CA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>53</ppf>
<ppl>74</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We analyze geographic patterns of trade between individuals using
transactions data from eBay and MercadoLibre, two large online
auction sites. We find that distance continues to be an important
deterrent to trade between geographically separated buyers and sellers,
though to a lesser extent than has been observed in studies of
non-Internet commerce between business counterparties. We also
find a strong "home bias" for trading with counterparties located in
the same city. Further analyses suggest that location-specific goods
such as opera tickets, cultural factors, and the possibility of direct
contract enforcement in case of breach may be the main reasons
behind the same-city bias. (JEL D44, F11, R12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.53</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.53</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mic/data/2007-0011_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Contracting with Third Parties</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Sandeep</gnm><snm>Baliga</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Tomas</gnm><snm>Sj&ouml;str&ouml;m</snm><aff>Rutgers U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>75</ppf>
<ppl>100</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In bilateral holdup and moral hazard in teams models, introducing
a third party allows implementation of the first best, even if renegotiation
is possible. Fines paid to the third party provide incentives
for truth-telling and investment. This result holds even if the third
party is corruptible, as long as the grand coalition has access to
the same contracting technology as any colluding subcoalition. (JEL
D86, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.75</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.75</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Moral Hazard and Customer Loyalty Programs</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Leonardo J.</gnm><snm>Basso</snm><aff>U Chile</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Matthew T.</gnm><snm>Clements</snm><aff>St Edward's U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Thomas W.</gnm><snm>Ross</snm><aff>U British Columbia</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>101</ppf>
<ppl>23</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Frequent-flier plans (FFPs) may be the most famous of customer loyalty
programs, and there are similar schemes in other industries. We
present a theory that models FFPs as efforts to exploit the agency
relationship between employers (who pay for tickets) and employees
(who book travel). FFPs "bribe" employees to book flights at higher
prices. While a single airline offering an FFP has an advantage,
competing FFPs can result in lower profits for airlines even while
ticket prices rise. Thus, in contrast to switching-cost treatments of
FFPs, we may observe prices and profits moving in opposite directions.
(JEL D82, L93, M31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.101</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.101</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Like Father, Like Son: Social Network Externalities and Parent-Child Correlation in Behavior</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Antoni</gnm><snm>Calv&oacute;-Armengol</snm><aff>?</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Matthew O.</gnm><snm>Jackson</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>124</ppf>
<ppl>50</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We build an overlapping generations model where an individual sees
higher returns to adopting a behavior as many neighbors adopt the
behavior. We show that overlap in the state of a parent and child's
neighborhood can lead to correlation in parent-child behavior
independent of any parent-child interaction. Increasing the sensitivity
of individual decisions to the state of their social community
leads to increased parent-child correlation and less efficient (more
costly) behavior on average in the society. We show this model is
distinguished from a direct parental influence model, in that it predicts
increased generational effects, implying residual correlation
between children and grandparents after including parental information.
(JEL J12, J13, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.124</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.124</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Compromise Game: Two-Sided Adverse Selection in the Laboratory</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Juan D.</gnm><snm>Carrillo</snm><aff>U Southern CA, Los Angeles</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Thomas R.</gnm><snm>Palfrey</snm><aff>CA Institute of Technology</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>151</ppf>
<ppl>81</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We analyze a game of two-sided private information where players
have privately known "strengths" and can decide to fight or compromise.
If either chooses to fight, the stronger player receives a high
payoff and the weaker player receives a low payoff. If both choose
to compromise, each player receives an intermediate payoff. The
only equilibrium is for players to always fight. In our experiment, we
observe frequent compromise, more fighting the lower the compromise
payoff and less fighting by first than second movers. We explore
several theories of cognitive limitations in an attempt to understand
these anomalous findings. (JEL C91, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.151</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.151</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/data/2007-0039_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/app/2007-0039_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Veto Constraint in Mechanism Design: Inefficiency with Correlated Types</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Olivier</gnm><snm>Compte</snm><aff>Paris School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Philippe</gnm><snm>Jehiel</snm><aff>Paris School of Economics and U College, London</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>182</ppf>
<ppl>206</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We consider bargaining problems in which parties have access to
outside options, the size of the pie is commonly known and each
party privately knows the realization of her outside option. We allow
for correlations in the distributions of outside options. Parties have
a veto right, which allows them to obtain at least their outside option
payoff in any event. Besides, agents can receive no subsidy ex post.
We show that inefficiencies are inevitable whatever the exact form
of correlation, as long as private information is dispersed. We also
illustrate how veto constraints differ from ex post participation constraints.
(JEL C78, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.182</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.182</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Origin of the Winner's Curse: A Laboratory Study</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Gary</gnm><snm>Charness</snm><aff>U CA, Santa Barbara</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dan</gnm><snm>Levin</snm><aff>OH State U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>207</ppf>
<ppl>36</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The Winner's Curse (WC) is a robust and persistent deviation
from theoretical predictions established in experimental economics
and claimed to exist in field environments. Recent attempts to
reconcile such deviation include "cursed equilibrium" and level-k
reasoning. We design and implement a simplified version of the
Acquiring-a-Company game that transformed the game to an individual-choice problem that still retains the adverse-selection problem.
We further simplified the problem so that simple ordinal reasoning
could replace both Bayesian updating and contingent thinking. Our
results suggest that the WC reflects bounded rationality in that people
have difficulties performing contingent reasoning on future events.
(JEL D81, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.207</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.207</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/data/2007-0003_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Reputational Incentives for Restaurant Hygiene</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ginger Zhe</gnm><snm>Jin</snm><aff>U MD</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Phillip</gnm><snm>Leslie</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>237</ppf>
<ppl>67</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>How can consumers be assured that firms will endeavor to provide
good quality when quality is unobservable prior to purchase? We
test the hypothesis that reputational incentives are effective at causing
restaurants to maintain good hygiene quality. We find that chain
affiliation provides reputational incentives and franchised units tend
to free-ride on chain reputation. We also show that regional variation
in the degree of repeat customers affects the strength of reputational
incentives for good hygiene at both chain and nonchain restaurants.
Despite these incentives, a policy intervention in the form of posted
hygiene grade cards causes significant improvements in restaurant
hygiene. (JEL I18, I19, L14, L83).</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.237</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.237</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mic/data/2007-0014_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7669</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7685</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-micro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>1</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>ii</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


