The paper investigates the effect of interest policy on price bubbles, trading behavior and portfolio choice in experimental stock markets. Anseries of experiments has 8 participants trade an asset over 15 periods. Alternatively, the participants can invest money in interest-bearing bonds. Treatment groups are subjected to an endogenous interest policy, while control groups experience a constant interest rate. Our stock markets are characterized by bubbles. While we observe a small positive impact of our interest policy on bubbles, the policy also strongly increases market volatility. On the other hand, concerning portfolio choice, we find evidencenfor value-driven (rational) investment behavior.
A substantial number of people exhibit social preferences, which means they are not solely motivated by material self-interest but also care positively or negatively for the material payoffs of relevant reference agents. We show empirically that economists fail to understand fundamental economic questions when they disregard social preferences, in particular, that without taking social preferences into account, it is not possible to understand adequately (i) the effects of competition on market outcomes, (ii) laws governing cooperation and collective action, (iii) effects and the determinants of material incentives, (iv) which contracts and property rights arrangements are optimal, and (v) important forces shaping social norms and market failures.
Social norms are usually neglected in economics, because they are to anlarge extent enforced through non-market interactions and difficult to isolatenempirically. In this paper, we offer a direct measure of the social norm to work andnwe show that this norm has important economic effects. The stronger the norm, thenmore quickly unemployed people find a new job. This behavior can be explained bynutility differences, probably due to social pressure. Unemployed people arensignificantly less happy than employed people and their reduction in life satisfactionnis the larger, the stronger the norm is.
"Recent studies found evidence for nominal wage rigidity during periods of relatively high nominal GDP growth. It has been argued, however, that in an environment with low nominal GDP growth, when nominal wage cuts become customary, workers’ cuts would erode and, hence, firms would no longer hesitate to reduce nominal pay. If this argument is valid nominal wage rigidity is largely irrelevant because in a high-growth environment there is little need to cut nominal pay while in a low-growth environment the necessary cuts would occur. To examine this argument we use data from Switzerland where nominal GDP growth has been very low for many years in the 1990s. We find that the rigidity of nominal wages is a robust phenomenon that does not vanish in a low growth environment. In addition, it constitutes a considerable obstacle to real wage adjustments. In the absence of downward nominal rigidity, real wages would indeed be quite responsive to unemployment."
In 1997, the Swiss government introduced active labor market programs on a large scale to improve the job chances of unemployed workers. This paper evaluates the effect of these programs on the duration of unemployment. Our evaluation methodology allows for selectivity affecting the inflow into programs. We find that in most cases the programs do not reduce the duration of unemployment. The exception is the program of temporary wage subsidies which reduces unemployment, but only for foreign workers. From a cost-benefit point of view, temporary wage subsidies seem to be the only program worthwhile pursuing.
"We provide experimental evidence that contractual incompleteness, i.e., the absence of third party enforcement of workers’ effort or the quality of the good traded, causes a fundamental change in the nature of market interactions. If contracts are complete the vast majority of trades are initiated by public offers. Most trades take place in one-shot transactions and the contracting parties are indifferent with regard to the identity of their trading partner. Moreover, the short side of the market attempts to appropriate the whole gains from trade, which causes much disagreement about contract terms.nIf contracts are incomplete the vast majority of trades are initiated by private offers. The contracting parties form long-term relations and the provision of low effort or bad quality is penalized by the termination of the relationship. The threat of terminating the relation turns out to be an extremely powerful discipline device. "
In this paper we provide experimental evidence indicating that incentive contracts may undermine voluntary cooperation. This suggests that explicit incentives may have costly side effects that have been largely neglected by economists. In our experiments the undermining effect is so strong that the incentive contracts are less efficient than contracts without any incentives. Buyers, who are in the role of principals, nonetheless, prefer the incentive contracts because they allow them tonappropriate a much larger share of the (smaller) total surplus and are, hence, more profitable for them. The undermining of voluntary cooperation through incentives is, in principle, consistent with models of inequity aversion and reciprocity. Additional experiments show, however, that the reduction of voluntary cooperation throughnincentives is partly due to a framing effect.
We consider an economy where a finite set of agents can trade on one of two asset markets. Due to endogenous participation the differ in the liquidity they provide. Traders have idiosyncratic preferencesnfor the markets, e.g. due to differential time preferences for maturity dates of futures contracts. For a broad range of parameters we find that nontrade, trade on both markets (individualization) as well as trade on one market only (standardization) is supported by a Nash equilibrium. Byncontrast, whenever the number of traders becomes large, the evolutionary process selects a unique stochastically stable state which corresponds tonthe equilibrium with two active markets and coincides with the welfare maximizing market structure.
Most professional economists believe that economist in general are more selfish than other persons and that this greater selfishness is due to economic education. In this paper we offer empirical evidence against this widely held belief. Using a unique data set about giving behaviour to two social funds at the University of Zurich, it is shown that economic training does not make people act more selfish. However, the 'natural experiment' supports the hypothesis that the different behaviour of economist can be explained by a selection effect.
Recently developed models of fairness can explain a wide variety of seemingly contradictory facts. The most controversial and yet unresolved issue in the modeling of fairness preferences concerns the behavioral relevance of fairness intentions. In this paper we provide clear and unambiguous experimental evidence for the behavioral relevance of fairness intentions. Our results indicate that the attribution of fairness intentions is important both in the domain of negatively reciprocal behavior and in the domain of positively reciprocal behavior. This means that reciprocal behavior cannot be fully captured by equity models that are exclusively based on preferences over the distribution of material payoffs. Models that take into account players' fairness intentions and distributional preferences are consistent with our data while models thatnfocus exclusively on intentions or on the distribution of material payoffs are not.
