<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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Set-Asides and Subsidies in Auctions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Susan</gnm><snm>Athey</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dominic</gnm><snm>Coey</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jonathan</gnm><snm>Levin</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>27</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Set-asides and subsidies are used extensively in government procurement
and resource sales. We analyze these policies in an empirical
model of US Forest Service timber auctions. The model fits the data
well both within the sample of unrestricted sales used for estimation,
and when we predict (out-of-sample) outcomes for small business
set-asides. Our estimates suggest that restricting entry substantially
reduces efficiency and revenue, although it increases small business
participation. An alternative policy of subsidizing small bidders
would increase revenue and small bidder profit, with little efficiency
cost. We explain these findings by connecting to the theory of optimal
auction design. (JEL D44, H57, L73, Q23)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.1</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Revealed Preference in a Discrete Consumption Space</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthew</gnm><snm>Polisson</snm><aff>U Leicester and IFS, London</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John K.-H.</gnm><snm>Quah</snm><aff>U Oxford</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>28</ppf>
<ppl>34</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show that an agent maximizing some utility function on a discrete
(as opposed to continuous) consumption space will obey the generalized
axiom of revealed preference (GARP), so long as the agent
obeys cost efficiency. Cost efficiency will hold if there is some good,
outside the set of goods being studied by the modeler, that can be
consumed by the agent in continuous quantities. An application of
Afriat's Theorem then guarantees that there is a strictly increasing
utility function on the discrete consumption space that rationalizes
price and demand observations. (JEL D11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.28</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.28</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Decentralized Deterrence, with an Application to Labor Tax Auditing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Edoardo</gnm><snm>Di Porto</snm><aff>U Rome "La Sapienza"</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Nicola</gnm><snm>Persico</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Nicolas</gnm><snm>Sahuguet</snm><aff>Montreal, Canada</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>35</ppf>
<ppl>62</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies a new strategic auditing game in which atomistic
auditors maximize the success rate of audits, and provides a method
to calibrate its parameters based on audit data. Calibrating the
model to Italian auditing data, we provide an estimate of tax evasion
based on (non-random) audit data alone. Counterfactual simulation
of the model quantifies the costs and benefits of alternative auditing
policies. We compare decentralized enforcement with a counterfactual
"commitment policy," and compute the loss from the former.
(JEL H25, H26, M42)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.35</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.35</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>On the Relationship between Preferential and Multilateral Trade Liberalization: The Case of Customs Unions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Kamal</gnm><snm>Saggi</snm><aff>Vanderbilt U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Alan</gnm><snm>Woodland</snm><aff>U New South Wales</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Halis Murat</gnm><snm>Yildiz</snm><aff>Ryerson U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>63</ppf>
<ppl>99</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper compares equilibrium outcomes of two games of trade
liberalization. In the Bilateralism game, countries choose whether to
liberalize trade preferentially via a customs union (CU ), multilaterally,
or not at all. The Multilateralism game is a restricted version
of the Bilateralism game in that countries cannot form CUs and can
only undertake non-discriminatory trade liberalization. When countries
have symmetric endowments, global free trade is the only stable
equilibrium of both games. Allowing for endowment asymmetry, we
isolate circumstances where the option to form CUs helps further
the cause of multilateral liberalization as well as where it does not.
(JEL F12, F13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.63</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.63</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Measuring the Efficiency of an FCC Spectrum Auction</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jeremy T.</gnm><snm>Fox</snm><aff>U MI</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Patrick</gnm><snm>Bajari</snm><aff>U MN</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>100</ppf>
<ppl>146</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We propose a method to structurally estimate the deterministic component of bidder valuations in FCC spectrum auctions, and apply it to the 1995-1996 C block auction. We base estimation on a pairwise stability condition: two bidders cannot exchange two licenses in a way that increases the sum of their valuations. Pairwise stability holds in some theoretical models of simultaneous ascending auctions under intimidatory collusion and demand reduction. Pairwise stability results in a matching game approach to estimation. We find that a system of four large regional licenses would raise the allocative efficiency of the C block outcome by 48 percent. (JEL D44, D45, H82, L82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.100</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.100</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Social Learning with Coarse Inference</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Antonio</gnm><snm>Guarino</snm><aff>U College London</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Philippe</gnm><snm>Jehiel</snm><aff>Paris School of Economics and U College London</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>147</ppf>
<ppl>74</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study social learning by boundedly rational agents. Agents take
a decision in sequence, after observing their predecessors and a private signal. They are unable to make perfect inferences from their
predecessors' decisions: they only understand the relation between
the aggregate distribution of actions and the state of nature, and
make their inferences accordingly. We show that, in a discrete action
space, even if agents receive signals of unbounded precision, there
are asymptotic inefficiencies. In a continuous action space, compared
to the rational case, agents overweight early signals. Despite this behavioral bias, eventually agents learn the realized state of the
world and choose the correct action. (JEL D82, D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.147</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.147</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Welfare Effects of Use-or-Lose Provisions in Markets with Dominant Firms</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ian</gnm><snm>Gale</snm><aff>Georgetown U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Daniel P.</gnm><snm>O'Brien</snm><aff>US Federal Trade Commission</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>175</ppf>
<ppl>93</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A use-or-lose provision requires that firms employ a certain minimum
fraction of their productive capacity. Variants have been used by
regulators in the airline and wireless communications industries,
among others. A typical stated objective is to limit capacity hoarding,
thereby increasing aggregate output and welfare. When the dominant
firm is more efficient than fringe firms, we find that imposing a use-or-
lose provision induces the dominant firm to acquire capacity from
the fringe, which causes aggregate output to fall. When the dominant
firm is less efficient than the fringe, aggregate output rises. In both
cases, total surplus may rise or fall. (JEL D43, K21, L13, L93)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.175</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.175</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Competition and the Use of Foggy Pricing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Eugenio J.</gnm><snm>Miravete</snm><aff>U TX</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>194</ppf>
<ppl>216</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Firms engage in foggy pricing when the menu of tariff options aims
at profiting from consumer mistakes. The analysis of this paper
concludes that the transition from monopoly to competition in the
early US cellular telephone industry does not generally foster the
use of such deceptive strategies. I offer three alternative measures
to account for the fogginess of the menu of options offered by cellular
carriers. All results are robust to the existence of uncertainty
regarding future consumption at the time of choosing a particular
tariff option, as well as to consumers' heterogeneity with respect to
cellular telephone usage. (JEL D03, L11, L12, L13, L96)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.194</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.194</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MIC&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>v</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mic.5.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mic.5.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


 