Can electoral districting be optimal?

Drawing electoral district borders is difficult to think of as an optimal outcome in the mechanism design of elections. It has all the ingredients that lead to manipulation by the incumbent majority, leading to suboptimal persistence of power. On the surface of it, it would much simpler and less strategic to just have everyone elect as many people as there are openings within a jurisdiction (say, a US state for federal elections), which has the advantage of giving smaller parties a fighting chance, and forget about districts and especially that ludicrous gerrymandering.

Yet, Emanuele Bracco think one can optimize the districting process. The key aspect here is that the parties platform is endogenous, that is, they are responsive to the electorate's wishes, as all the parties care about is getting elected. Parties tries to match the preferences of the median district- While this seems to be a rather romanticized view of elections in some countries, an interesting result is that if the electorate is risk averse, the majority party actually suffers from redistricting, while it would have benefited under exogenous platforms. So there is some hope that the US electoral system is not beyond repair. I still wish there would be a few viable small parties, though.

Cobwebs on the law professor market

Law professors were among the first in universities, and Economics emerged in many places from Law Schools. This make the study of laws an old and established profession, but this is not why I am mentioning cobwebs here. I am rather referring to the cobweb model, where price and quantity bounce around along the path of a spiral to reach an equilibrium.

According to Christoph Engel and Hanjo Hamann, this is what is happening on the market for Law professors in Germany. Say there are a lot of open positions in the German university system. This pikes the interest of law students, who after their doctorates require to go through a "habilitation" process that takes 6-9 years before they can apply for a professor position. And lo and behold, about eight years later, there is a surplus of candidates, which discourages younger students to choose this career, and we enter the other part of the cycle. Engel and Hamann show that this is not just theory, but applies remarkably well to the data, as it has before to cattle, whose biology leads to a similar market (ROsen, Murphy and Scheinkman 1994).

Recycling tourism

In areas where waste collection is paid by the one creating the waste, it is obvious that people are going to try to shop for the best option. In some cases, that option is illegal waste dumping, which leads to the unfortunate creation of trash police forces. But except for this the latter unfortunate turn of events, there is nothing wrong with price competition for trash.

Except when these prices are subsidized by municipalities, and they then complain that people from other municipalities use their services. Simon De Jaeger and Johan Eyckmans look at such trash and recycling tourism in Flanders, where this is believed to be a major issue facilitated by the fact that pricing methods vary widely from facility to facility. They build a choice model of where households would bring their trash given prices and estimate it with spatial econometric techniques. The average price in neighboring municipalities is used to capture waste tourism, but I think the lowest price, not the average one, should be used. Maybe this is why De Jaeger and Eyckmans find no evidence for tourism except for bulky household trash.

What is up with Elsevier?

Whether you like it or not, Elsevier matters in the dissemination of research in Economics. By far the largest player in the field, it enjoys considerable market power (and a profit margin around 30% that comes with it). And even though journals are not at the frontier of research in Economics, it still matters what happens at Elsevier because it controls so many of the top field journals.

According to its web page on the global dissemination of research, Elsevier states:

We recognise that access to quality research is vital to the scientific community and beyond. For us this means providing support and the latest tools to maintain the quality and integrity of published scientific literature, achieving the widest dissemination of content, and embracing the opportunities of open access. We will continue to identify access gaps, and work towards ensuring that everyone has access to quality scientific content anytime, anywhere.

These are all nice words, but this is not all what Elsevier practices. First of all, all of the Economics content of Elsevier is gated, and academic libraries have to pay through the nose to let faculty access the content, including their own works. Even errata and retraction notices are gated. There is no open access journal in Economics, and even in other fields where it is available, the cost is prohibitive (usually US$3000, even more with color charges!), which cannot be justified in any reasonable way by hosting costs. Indeed, Elsevier spends considerable resources trying to keep potential readers away, by gating the material for the general public and making it difficult for individuals to buy subscriptions, especially for hard copies. All this management of subscriptions and filtering of web traffic would disappear with open access, making it much cheaper, not more expensive.

But this is not an issue only with Elsevier (Springer is much worse in this respect). Elsevier, with its market power is trying to kill any competition and any initiative that tries to open up the dissemination of research. For example, it was a huge backer of the Research Works Act in the US, which would have prohibited mandates that publicly funded research should be available in open-access repositories. Of course this generated a huge outcry from the scientific community (you know, the one that Elsevier claims to serve) and lead to a call for a boycott. This seems to have been successful, as Elsevier reversed its stance, thereby killing the bill.

Unfortunately, few economists seem to have participated in the boycott, which is probably why Elsevier continues to flaunt the research community with no remorse. For example, it has not updated the listings of its journals for over a year in RePEc, and still vigorously refuses to let RePEc perform citation analysis on its contents. Repeated attempts to get a reaction from Elsevier have unsuccessful from my part. My suspicion is that RePEc is threatening some of the products that Elsevier is pushing (Sciverse, Scopus), and the interest of the research community becomes second fiddle. From what hear, people are deserting the Economics desk at Elsevier, starting with its head, which makes you wonder who is in charge of "the widest dissemination of content."

To understand further what a fine business Elsevier is, here are some of my previous posts:
The evil empire strikes again
The evil empire strikes again (II)
Copyright and the lack of competition in academic publishing
Why I am boycotting Elsevier

On my to-read pile

A new book by economist Ariel Rubinstein.  You can read it for free by clicking here.  (And in case you are wondering, the second link is legit, not pirated.)

Addendum: Here is a review of the book.

When do employers support minimum wages?

Germany does not have minimum wages, but there is currently a renewed debate about their introduction. As collective bargaining is largely handled at the sectoral level, one idea is to adopt sectoral minimum wages, for example by negotiating them within collective bargaining. In some sectors, there is already an informal wage this way, but this could be formalized. Given this idea of sectoral minimum wages, it is of interest to see which sectors would support them.

Ronald Bachmann, Thomas Bauer and Hanna Kröger use a survey of 800 firms in 8 sectors and uncover some interesting patterns. It looks like minimum wages are most supported where they would raise barriers of entry for competitors. This means that agreeing on a minimum wage is getting very close to cartelization. This is a feature of the fact that negotiations are done at the sectoral level. It would lead to a reduction in the number of firms, and likely to a reduction in employment as well, but for a different reason than usual with minimum wages: the cartelization reduces output and thus the labor force required for production. I suspect that if the minimum wage were set nationwide, though, this kind of support would largely vanish.

What is wrong with European central banking: the view from Cyprus

These are times where policy coordination between central banks and fiscal authorities seems to be particularly welcome. For one, monetary policy, which seems to be the only sustained and coherent policy, cannot right the ship beyond the short term, and the short term is shorter than the current crisis. For two, fiscal authorities are completely stuck in political wars exactly at the wrong moment. Upcoming elections in Europe and the United States certainly do not help in that. Central bankers have been rather frustrated with the political climate, yet they are still willing scape goats to deflect the furor of the public about unpopular policies.

But sometimes, enough is enough. One such case has been the open criticism of the central banker of Cyprus, who railed against the ineptitude of its government which has completely ignored his advice. Cyprus may not seem a big deal, yet it is a major banking center that may go down with Greece depending on how things unravel there. And this central banker, whose mandate was not renewed, is also not a nobody, as he was previously a senior official at the Board of Governors of the US Fed.

In probably his last paper while in Cyprus, Athanasios Orphanides summarizes all what is wrong with central banking in Europe (Cyprus is part of the monetary union). He recognizes that banking supervision must be taken much more seriously by central bankers, as the stability mandate that was typically meant for prices and sometimes employment or output is now interpreted to include the financial sector as well. Of course, this implies that central banks need to take more responsibilities in supervising the financial all the way to regulating individual institutions, an authority they do not always have at this point. But foremost, Orphanides argues that the biggest liability is economic governance. This is especially important within a monetary union where several governments need to agree. A more uniform fiscal policy would help tremendously, especially when monetary policy, in its more rudimentary form, is applied uniformly across the union. Worse, problems from fiscal policies that are not sustainable in the long term are magnified in a monetary union. You need rules and you need to adhere to them. Politicians are rather bad at this. Central bankers much better.