<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Eric S.</gnm><snm>Maskin</snm><aff>Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>567</ppf>
<ppl>76</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=1&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.567</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>But Who Will Guard the Guardians?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Leonid</gnm><snm>Hurwicz</snm><aff>U MN</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>577</ppf>
<ppl>85</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=2&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.577</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Perspectives on Mechanism Design in Economic Theory</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Roger B.</gnm><snm>Myerson</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>586</ppf>
<ppl>603</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=3&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.586</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Time-Varying Volatility of Macroeconomic Fluctuations</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alejandro</gnm><snm>Justiniano</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Giorgio E.</gnm><snm>Primiceri</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>604</ppf>
<ppl>41</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We investigate the sources of the important shifts in the volatility of US
macroeconomic variables in the postwar period. To this end, we propose the
estimation of DSGE models allowing for time variation in the volatility of
the structural innovations. We apply our estimation strategy to a
large-scale model of the business cycle and find that shocks specific to
the equilibrium condition of investment account for most of the sharp
decline in volatility of the last two decades.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=4&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.604</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060122_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Difference That CEOs Make: An Assignment Model Approach</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marko</gnm><snm>Tervio</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>642</ppf>
<ppl>68</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper presents an assignment model of CEOs and firms. The distributions
of CEO pay levels and firms' market values are analyzed as the competitive
equilibrium of a matching market where talents, as well as CEO positions,
are scarce. It is shown how the observed joint distribution of CEO pay and
market value can then be used to infer the economic value of underlying
ability differences. The variation in CEO pay is found to be mostly due
to variation in firm characteristics, whereas implied differences in
managerial ability are small and make relatively little difference to
shareholder value.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=5&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.642</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20070234_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>What's the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Aytek</gnm><snm>Erdil</snm><aff>Nuffield College, U Oxford</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Haluk</gnm><snm>Ergin</snm><aff>Washington U in Saint Louis</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>669</ppf>
<ppl>89</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In several school choice districts in the United States, the student
proposing deferred acceptance algorithm is applied after indifferences in
priority orders are broken in some exogenous way. Although such a
tie-breaking procedure preserves stability, it adversely affects the
welfare of the students since it introduces artificial stability
constraints. Our main finding is a polynomial-time algorithm for the
computation of a student-optimal stable matching when priorities are weak.
The idea behind our construction relies on a new notion which we call a
stable improvement cycle. We also investigate the strategic properties of
the student-optimal stable mechanism.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=6&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.669</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060525_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Default Risk and Income Fluctuations in Emerging Economies</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Cristina</gnm><snm>Arellano</snm><aff>U MN and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>690</ppf>
<ppl>712</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Recent sovereign defaults are accompanied by interest rate spikes and deep
recessions. This paper develops a small open economy model to study default
risk and its interaction with output and foreign debt. Default
probabilities and interest rates depend on incentives for repayment.
Default is more likely in recessions because this is when it is more
costly for a risk averse borrower to repay noncontingent debt. The model
closely matches business cycles in Argentina predicting high volatility of
interest rates, higher volatility of consumption relative to output, and
negative correlations of output with interest rates and the trade balance.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=7&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.690</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050350_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Do Wealth Fluctuations Generate Time-Varying Risk Aversion? Micro-evidence on Individuals</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Markus K.</gnm><snm>Brunnermeier</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stefan</gnm><snm>Nagel</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>713</ppf>
<ppl>36</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to investigate how
households portfolio allocations change in response to wealth fluctuations.
Persistent habits, consumption commitments, and subsistence levels can
generate time-varying risk aversion with the consequence that when the
level of liquid wealth changes, the proportion a household invests in
risky assets should also change in the same direction. In contrast, our
analysis shows that the share of liquid assets that households invest in
risky assets is not affected by wealth changes. Instead, one of the major
drivers of household portfolio allocation seems to be inertia: households
rebalance only very slowly following inflows and outflows or capital gains
and losses.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=8&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.713</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050872_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050872_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Temporary Investment Tax Incentives: Theory with Evidence from Bonus Depreciation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Christopher L.</gnm><snm>House</snm><aff>U MI</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Matthew D.</gnm><snm>Shapiro</snm><aff>U MI</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>737</ppf>
<ppl>68</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The intertemporal elasticity of investment for long-lived capital goods is
nearly infinite. Consequently, investment prices should fully reflect
temporary tax subsidies, regardless of the investment supply elasticity.
Since prices move one-for-one with the subsidy, elasticities can be
inferred from quantities alone. This paper uses a recent tax policy--bonus
depreciation--to estimate the investment supply elasticity. Investment in
qualified capital increased sharply. The estimated elasticity is
high--between 6 and 14. There is no evidence that market prices reacted to
the subsidy, suggesting that adjustment costs are internal, or that
measurement error masks the price changes.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=9&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.737</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060888_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>How the Electoral College Influences Campaigns and Policy: The Probability of Being Florida</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>David</gnm><snm>Stromberg</snm><aff>IIES, Stockholm U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>769</ppf>
<ppl>807</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper analyzes how US presidential candidates should allocate resources
across states to maximize the probability of winning the election, by
developing and estimating a probabilistic-voting model of political
competition under the Electoral College system. Actual campaigns act in
close agreement with the model. There is a 0.9 correlation between
equilibrium and actual presidential campaign visits across states, both in
2000 and 2004. The paper shows how presidential candidate attention is
affected by the states' number of electoral votes, forecasted
state-election outcomes, and forecast uncertainty. It also analyzes the
effects of a direct national popular vote for president.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=10&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.769</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050711_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Income and Democracy</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Daron</gnm><snm>Acemoglu</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Simon</gnm><snm>Johnson</snm><aff>MIT and International Monetary Fund</aff></au>
<au><gnm>James A.</gnm><snm>Robinson</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Pierre</gnm><snm>Yared</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>808</ppf>
<ppl>42</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Existing studies establish a strong cross-country correlation between income
and democracy but do not control for factors that simultaneously affect both
variables. We show that controlling for such factors by including country
fixed effects removes the statistical association between income per
capita and various measures of democracy. We present
instrumental-variables estimates that also show no causal effect of income
on democracy. The cross-country correlation between income and democracy
reflects a positive correlation between changes in income and democracy
over the past 500 years. This pattern is consistent with the idea that
societies embarked on divergent political-economic development paths at
certain critical junctures.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=11&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.808</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050219_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Do People Vote with Their Feet? An Empirical Test of Tiebout</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>H. Spencer</gnm><snm>Banzhaf</snm><aff>GA State U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Randall P.</gnm><snm>Walsh</snm><aff>U CO</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>843</ppf>
<ppl>63</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Charles Tiebout's suggestion that people "vote with their feet" for
communities with optimal bundles of taxes and public goods has played a
central role in local public finance for over 50 years. Using a locational
equilibrium model, we derive formal tests of his premise. The model
predicts increased population density in neighborhoods experiencing
exogenous improvements in public goods and, for large improvements,
increased relative mean incomes. We test these hypotheses in the context
of changing air quality. Our results provide strong empirical support for
the notion that households "vote with their feet" for environmental
quality.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=12&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.843</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060190_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Information Aggregation in Polls</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Morgan</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Phillip C.</gnm><snm>Stocken</snm><aff>Dartmouth College</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>864</ppf>
<ppl>96</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study information transmission via polling. A policymaker polls
constituents, who differ in their information and ideology, to determine
policy. Full revelation is an equilibrium in a poll with a small sample,
but not with a large one. In large polls, full information aggregation can
arise in an equilibrium where constituents endogenously sort themselves
into centrists, who respond truthfully, and extremists, who do not. We
find polling statistics that ignore strategic behavior yield biased
estimators and mischaracterize the poll's margin of error. We construct
estimators that account for strategic behavior. Finally, we compare polls
and elections.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=13&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.864</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20051222_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Stability in Supply Chain Networks</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Ostrovsky</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>897</ppf>
<ppl>923</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies matching in vertical networks, generalizing the theory of
matching in two-sided markets. It gives sufficient conditions for the
existence of stable networks and presents an algorithm for finding two of
them. One is the best stable network for the agents on the "upstream" end
of an industry. The other is best for the agents on the "downstream" end.
The paper describes several properties of the set of stable networks and
discusses applications of the theory to the design of matching markets
with more than two types of agents and to the empirical analysis of supply
chains.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=14&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.897</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Thar She Blows: Can Bubbles Be Rekindled with Experienced Subjects?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Reshmaan N.</gnm><snm>Hussam</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>David</gnm><snm>Porter</snm><aff>Economic Science Institute, Chapman U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Vernon L.</gnm><snm>Smith</snm><aff>Economic Science Institute, Chapman U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>924</ppf>
<ppl>37</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We report 28 new experiment sessions consisting of up to three experience
levels to examine the robustness of learning and "error" elimination among
participants in a laboratory asset market and its effect on price bubbles.
Our answer to the title question is: "yes." We impose a large increase in
liquidity and dividend uncertainty to shock the environment of experienced
subjects who have converged to equilibrium, and this treatment rekindles a
bubble. However, in replications of that same challenging environment
across three experience levels, we discover that the environment yields a
rare residual tendency to bubble even in the third experience session.
Therefore, a caveat must be placed on the effect of twice-experienced
subjects in asset markets: in order for price bubbles to be extinguished,
the environment in which the participants engage in exchange must be
stationary and bounded by a range of parameters. Experience, including
possible "error" elimination, is not robust to major new environment
changes in determining the characteristics of a price bubble.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=15&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.924</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060312_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2x2-Games</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Reinhard</gnm><snm>Selten</snm><aff>Laboratory of Experimental Economics, Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Thorsten</gnm><snm>Chmura</snm><aff>Shanghai Jiao Tong U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>938</ppf>
<ppl>66</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Five stationary concepts for completely mixed 2 x 2-games are experimentally
compared: Nash equilibrium, quantal response equilibrium, action-sampling
equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium (Martin J. Osborne and Ariel
Rubinstein 1998), and impulse balance equilibrium. Experiments on 12
games, 6 constant sum games, and 6 nonconstant sum games were run with 12
independent subject groups for each constant sum game and 6 independent
subject groups for each nonconstant sum game. Each independent subject
group consisted of four players 1 and four players 2, interacting
anonymously over 200 periods with random matching. The comparison of the
five theories shows that the order of performance from best to worst is as
follows: impulse balance equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium,
action-sampling equilibrium, quantal response equilibrium, Nash
equilibrium.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=16&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.938</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20051147_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Contracts, Hold-Up, and Exports: Textiles and Opium in Colonial India</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Rachel</gnm><snm>Kranton</snm><aff>Duke U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Anand V.</gnm><snm>Swamy</snm><aff>Williams College</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>967</ppf>
<ppl>89</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Trade and export, it is argued, spur economic growth. This paper studies
the microeconomics of exporting. We build a heuristic model of transactions
between exporters and producers and relate it to East India Company (EIC)
operations in colonial Bengal. Our model and the historical record stress
two difficulties: the exporter and its agents might not uphold payment
agreements, and producers might not honor sales contracts. The model shows
when procurement succeeds or fails, highlighting the tension between these
two hold-up problems. We analyze several cases, including the EIC's cotton
textile venture, the famous Opium Monopoly, and present-day contract
farming.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=17&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.967</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Tore</gnm><snm>Ellingsen</snm><aff>Stockholm School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Magnus</gnm><snm>Johannesson</snm><aff>Stockholm School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>990</ppf>
<ppl>1008</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Desire for social esteem is a source of prosocial behavior. We develop a
model in which actors' utility of esteem depends on the audience. In a
principal agent setting, we show that the model can account for
motivational crowding out. Control systems and pecuniary incentives erode
morale by signaling to the agent that the principal is not worth
impressing. The model also offers an explanation for why agents are
motivated by unconditionally high pay and by mission-oriented principals.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=18&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.990</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Historical Property Rights, Sociality, and the Emergence of Impersonal Exchange in Long-Distance Trade</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Erik O.</gnm><snm>Kimbrough</snm><aff>Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George Mason U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Vernon L.</gnm><snm>Smith</snm><aff>Economic Science Institute, Chapman U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Bart J.</gnm><snm>Wilson</snm><aff>Economic Science Institute, Chapman U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1009</ppf>
<ppl>39</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This laboratory experiment explores the extent to which impersonal exchange
emerges from personal exchange with opportunities for long-distance trade.
We design a three-commodity production and exchange economy in which
agents
in three geographically separated villages must develop multilateral
exchange networks to import a good only available abroad. For treatments,
we induce two distinct institutional histories to investigate how past
experience with property rights affects the evolution of specialization
and exchange. We find that a history of unenforced property rights hinders
our subjects' ability to develop the requisite personal social
arrangements to support specialization and effectively exploit impersonal
long-distance trade.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=19&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1009</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20061025_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20061025_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Regular Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Credit Elasticities in Less-Developed Economies: Implications for Microfinance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Dean S.</gnm><snm>Karlan</snm><aff>Yale U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jonathan</gnm><snm>Zinman</snm><aff>Dartmouth College</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1040</ppf>
<ppl>68</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Policymakers often prescribe that microfinance institutions increase
interest rates to eliminate their reliance on subsidies. This strategy
makes sense if the poor are rate insensitive: then microlenders increase
profitability (or achieve sustainability) without reducing the poor's
access to credit. We test the assumption of price inelastic demand using
randomized trials conducted by a consumer lender in South Africa. The
demand curves are downward sloping, and steeper for price increases
relative to the lender's standard rates. We also find that loan size is
far more responsive to changes in loan maturity than to changes in
interest rates, which is consistent with binding liquidity constraints.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=20&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1040</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20070848_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20070848_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Reference-Dependent Preferences and Labor Supply: The Case of New York City Taxi Drivers</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Henry S.</gnm><snm>Farber</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1069</ppf>
<ppl>82</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>I develop a model of daily labor supply where preferences are dependent on a reference daily income level, and I apply this model to data on the labor supply of New York City taxi drivers. I find that there may be a reference level of income on a given day that affects labor supply. However, there is substantial day-to-day variation in a given driver's reference level, and most shifts end before reaching the reference income level. This pattern is inconsistent with an important role for reference-dependent preferences.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=21&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1069</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20030605_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Interaction of Public and Private Insurance: Medicaid and the Long-Term Care Insurance Market</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jeffrey R.</gnm><snm>Brown</snm><aff>U IL</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Amy</gnm><snm>Finkelstein</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1083</ppf>
<ppl>1102</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show that even incomplete public insurance can crowd out private insurance demand. We estimate that Medicaid could explain the lack of private long-term care insurance for about two-thirds of the wealth distribution, even if no other factors limited the market's size. Yet Medicaid provides incomplete consumption smoothing for most individuals. Medicaid's crowd-out effect stems from the large implicit tax (about 60-75 percent for a median-wealth individual) that Medicaid imposes on private insurance. An implication is that public policies designed to stimulate the private insurance market will have limited efficacy as long as Medicaid's large implicit tax remains.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=22&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1083</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050525_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20050525_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Leigh</gnm><snm>Linden</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jonah E.</gnm><snm>Rockoff</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1103</ppf>
<ppl>27</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We estimate the willingness to pay for reductions in crime risk using the location and move-in dates of sex offenders. We find significant effects of sex offenders' locations that are geographically localized. House prices within 0.1 miles of a sex offender fall by 4 percent on average. We then use this finding to estimate the costs to victims of sexual offenses, and find costs of over $1 million per victim--far greater than previous estimates. However, we cannot reject the alternative hypotheses that individuals overestimate risks posed by offenders or that living near an offender poses significant costs exclusive of crime risk.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=23&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1103</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060620_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060620_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Ordering the Extraction of Polluting Nonrenewable Resources</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ujjayant</gnm><snm>Chakravorty</snm><aff>U Alberta</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Michel</gnm><snm>Moreaux</snm><aff>U Toulouse I</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mabel</gnm><snm>Tidball</snm><aff>INRA-LAMETA, Montpellier</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1128</ppf>
<ppl>44</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A well-known theorem by Herfindahl states that the low-cost nonrenewable resource must be exploited first. Consider resources that are differentiated only by their pollution content. For instance, both coal and natural gas are used to generate electricity, yet coal is more polluting. We show that the ordering of extraction need not be driven by whether a resource is clean or dirty. Coal may be used first, followed by natural gas, and again by coal. Such "vacillation" does not occur under cost heterogeneity. A perverse policy implication is that regulating pollution may accelerate use of the polluting resource.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=24&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1128</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20060998_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Strotz Meets Allais: Diminishing Impatience and the Certainty Effect</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yoram</gnm><snm>Halevy</snm><aff>U British Columbia</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1145</ppf>
<ppl>62</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Decision makers tend to exhibit a higher degree of impatience when considering a delay to an immediate reward than when contemplating an identical delay to an equal future reward. This work argues that diminishing impatience originates from the distinction between the certain present and the risky future. A simple functional representation of preferences, exhibiting time inconsistency when the future is uncertain, is derived. Experimental evidence, which is inconsistent with other formulations that account for diminishing impatience, supports the proposed approach. The new theory uncovers a tight relation between diminishing impatience and well-known behavioral regularities in choice under risk and uncertainty.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=25&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1145</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Monetary Policy, Judgment, and Near-Rational Exuberance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>James</gnm><snm>Bullard</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>George W.</gnm><snm>Evans</snm><aff>U OR</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Seppo</gnm><snm>Honkapohja</snm><aff>Bank of Finland</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1163</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study how the use of judgment or "add-factors" in macroeconomic forecasting may disturb the set of equilibrium outcomes when agents learn using recursive methods. We examine the possibility of a new phenomenon, which we call exuberance equilibria, in the New Keynesian monetary policy framework. Inclusion of judgment in forecasts can lead to self-fulfilling fluctuations in a subset of the determinacy region. We study how policymakers can minimize the risk of exuberance equilibria.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=26&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1163</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20051011_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Evolution of Time Preference by Natural Selection: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Arthur J.</gnm><snm>Robson</snm><aff>Simon Fraser U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Balazs</gnm><snm>Szentes</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1178</ppf>
<ppl>88</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We reexamine Alan R. Rogers' (1994) analysis of the biological basis of the rate of time preference. Although his basic insight concerning the derivation of the utility function holds up, the functional form he uses does not generate equilibrium evolutionary behavior. Moreover, Rogers relies upon an interior solution for a particular kind of intergenerational transfer. We show such interior solutions need not generally arise. Hence Rogers most striking prediction, namely that the real interest rate should be about 2 percent per annum, does not follow.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=27&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1178</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20070247_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Matching with Contracts: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John William</gnm><snm>Hatfield</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Fuhito</gnm><snm>Kojima</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1189</ppf>
<ppl>94</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Hatfield and Milgrom (2005) present a unified model of matching with contracts phrased in terms of hospitals and doctors, which subsumes the standard two-sided matching and some package auction models. They show that a stable allocation exists if contracts are substitutes for each hospital. They further claim that if a hospital's preferences violate the substitutes condition, there exist singleton preferences for the other hospitals and doctors such that no stable allocation exists. We show this last claim does not hold in general. We further present a weaker condition that is necessary to guarantee the existence of stable allocations.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=28&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1189</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june08/20070593_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>When Does Coordination Require Centralization? Corrigendum</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ricardo</gnm><snm>Alonso</snm><aff>U Southern CA, Los Angeles</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Wouter</gnm><snm>Dessein</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Niko</gnm><snm>Matouschek</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1195</ppf>
<ppl>96</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=29&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1195</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>98</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&issue_date=June 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Reports</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Independent Auditors' Report</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1197</ppf>
<ppl>1205</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=3&article=30&issue_date=June 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.3.1197</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


