<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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</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.1.2.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.i</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>On the Potential of Neuroeconomics: A Critical (but Hopeful) Appraisal</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>B. Douglas</gnm><snm>Bernheim</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>41</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper attempts to identify and articulate the specific ways in
which the emerging field of neuroeconomics might shed light on traditional
positive and normative questions in economics, as well as
the likely limitations of its potential contributions. It sets forth both
reservations and reasons for guarded optimism. (JEL D01, D87)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.1</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Comment on Bernheim's Appraisal of Neuroeconomics</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Faruk</gnm><snm>Gul</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Wolfgang</gnm><snm>Pesendorfer</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>42</ppf>
<ppl>47</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper comments on "On the Potential of Neuroeconomics:
A Critical (but Hopeful) Appraisal" by B. Douglas Beinheim (JEL
D01, D87)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.42</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.42</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Is There a Method of Neuroeconomics?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Aldo</gnm><snm>Rustichini</snm><aff>U MN</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>48</ppf>
<ppl>59</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This note tries to state, precisely, the method of neuroecomics, and is
based on the discussion in B. Douglas Bernheim's (2009) appraisal.
We claim that the theory formulates hypotheses modeling the choice
process as an algorithmic procedure. The hypothesis of the algorithmic
procedure imposes restriction on the neural processes implementing
it, and, so, a joint test of the hypothesis based on behavioral
and neural data is possible, increasing the statistical and the explanatory
power of the theory. (JEL B41, D87)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.48</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.48</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Neuroeconomics: A Comment on Bernheim</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Joel</gnm><snm>Sobel</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>60</ppf>
<ppl>67</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper comments on "On the Potential of Neuroeconomics: A
Critical (but Hopeful) Appraisal" by B. Douglas Bernheim. (JEL
D01, D87)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.60</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.60</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Sniping and Squatting in Auction Markets</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jeffrey C.</gnm><snm>Ely</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Tanjim</gnm><snm>Hossain</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>68</ppf>
<ppl>94</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We conducted a field experiment to test the benefit from late bidding
(sniping) in online auction markets. We compared sniping to
early bidding (squatting) in auctions for newly-released DVDs on
eBay. Sniping led to a statistically significant increase in our average
surplus. However, this improvement was small. The two bidding
strategies resulted in a variety of other qualitative differences in the
outcomes of auctions. We show that a model of multiple concurrent
auctions, in which our opponents are naive or incremental bidders
as identified in the lab, explain the results well. Our findings illustrate
how the overall impact of naivete, and the benefit from sniping
observed in the lab, may be substantially attenuated in real-world
market settings. (JEL D44)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.68</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.68</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Assignment Messages and Exchanges</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Milgrom</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>95</ppf>
<ppl>113</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>"Assignment messages" are maximally general messages to describe
substitutable preferences by means of a linear program. With "integer
assignment messages," there exist integer-valued Walrasian allocations,
extending a result of Lloyd S. Shapley and Martin Shubik
(1971). Any pure Nash equilibrium profile of the Walrasian mechanism
with participants limited to assignment messages is also a Nash
equilibrium of the unrestricted Walrasian mechanism. Assignment
exchanges are generalizations of single-product double auctions
and are related to ascending multi-product clock auctions and the
Vickrey mechanism. Assignment messages also have additional
applications in mechanism design. (JEL D44, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.95</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.95</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Trading in Networks: A Normal Form Game Experiment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Douglas M.</gnm><snm>Gale</snm><aff>NYU</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Shachar</gnm><snm>Kariv</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>114</ppf>
<ppl>32</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper reports an experimental study of trading networks.
Networks are incomplete in the sense that each trader can only
exchange assets with a limited number of other traders. The greater
the incompleteness of the network, the more intermediation is
required to transfer the assets between initial and final owners. The
uncertainty of trade in networks constitutes a potentially important
market friction. Nevertheless, we find the pricing behavior observed
in the laboratory converges to competitive equilibrium behavior in
a variety of treatments. However, the rate of convergence varies
depending on the network, pricing rule, and payoff function. (JEL
C91, C92, G10, G19)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.114</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.114</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mic/data/2007-0025_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mic/app/2007-0025_app.zip</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Incentive Reversal</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Eyal</gnm><snm>Winter</snm><aff>Hebrew U Jerusalem</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>133</ppf>
<ppl>47</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>By incentive reversal we refer to situations in which an increase in
rewards for all agents results in fewer agents exerting effort. We
show that externalities among peers may give rise to such intriguing
situations even when all agents are fully rational. We provide a necessary
and sufficient condition for the organizational technology so
that it will be susceptible to incentive reversal. The condition implies
that some degree of complementarity is enough to allow incentive
reversal. (JEL D23, D82, M54)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.133</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.133</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A "Dual Self" Representation for Stochastic Temptation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Kalyan</gnm><snm>Chatterjee</snm><aff>PA State U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>R. Vijay</gnm><snm>Krishna</snm><aff>U NC</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>148</ppf>
<ppl>67</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We consider the following two-period problem of self-control. In the
first period, an individual has to decide on the set of feasible choices
from which she will select one in the second period. In the second
period, the individual might choose an alternative that she would
find inferior in the first period, an eventuality that need not occur
with certainty. We propose a model for this problem and axioms for
first-period preferences, in which the second-period choice could be
interpreted as being made by an "alter ego" who appears randomly.
We provide a discussion of the behavioral implications of our model
as compared with existing theories. (JEL D11, D80)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.148</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.148</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Dynamic Revenue Maximization with Heterogeneous Objects: A Mechanism Design Approach</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alex</gnm><snm>Gershkov</snm><aff>U Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Benny</gnm><snm>Moldovanu</snm><aff>U Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>168</ppf>
<ppl>98</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study the revenue-maximizing allocation of several heterogeneous,
commonly ranked objects to impatient agents with privately
known characteristics who arrive sequentially. There is a deadline
after which no more objects can be allocated. We first characterize
implementable allocation schemes, and compute the expected revenue
for any implementable, deterministic and Markovian allocation
policy. The revenue-maximizing policy is obtained by a variational
argument which sheds more light on its properties than the usual
dynamic programming approach. Finally, we use our main result in
order to derive the optimal inventory choice, and explain empirical
regularities about pricing in clearance sales. (JEL C61, D21, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.168</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.168</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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Market Culture: How Rules Governing Exploding Offers Affect Market Performance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Muriel</gnm><snm>Niederle</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Alvin E.</gnm><snm>Roth</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>199</ppf>
<ppl>219</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Many markets encounter difficulty maintaining a thick marketplace
because they experience transactions made at dispersed times. To
address such problems, many markets try to establish norms concerning
when offers can be made, accepted, and rejected. Examining
such markets suggests it is difficult to establish a thick market at an
efficient time if firms can make exploding offers, and workers cannot
renege on early commitments. Laboratory experiments allow us to
isolate the effects of exploding offers and binding acceptances. In a
simple experiment, we find inefficient early contracting when firms
can make exploding offers and applicants' acceptances are binding.
(JEL C91, D40, D81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.199</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.199</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mic/data/2007-0007_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mic/app/2007-0007_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>2</iss>
<cd>August 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=1&issue=2</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Corruptible Advice</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Erik</gnm><snm>Durbin</snm><aff>Federal Trade Commission</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Ganesh</gnm><snm>Iyer</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>220</ppf>
<ppl>42</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study information transmission to a decision maker from an
advisor who values a reputation for incorruptibility in the presence
of a third party who offers unobservable payments/bribes. While
it is common to ascribe negative effects to such bribes, we show
that given reputational concerns, bribes can play a positive role by
restoring truthful communication that would otherwise not occur.
Thus, while bribes can influence self-interested bad advisors to lie
about the unfavorable state, they can also be used to motivate good
advisors who care more about the decision maker’s utility to truthfully
report the favorable state. (JEL D82, D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.1.2.220</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.1.2.220</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


