DOCSLIB.ORG

Topics in Macroeconomics III: Firms, Networks and Macroeconomic Fluctuations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Topics in Macroeconomics III: Firms, Networks and Macroeconomic Fluctuations Topics in Macroeconomics III: Firms, Networks and Macroeconomic Fluctuations 2017-2018 Academic Year Master of Research in Economics, Finance and Management 1. Description of the subject Topics in Macroeconomics III Code: 32082 Total credits: 3 ECTS Workload: 75 hours Term: 3rd Type of subject: Optative Department of Economics and Business Teaching team: Julian di Giovanni Topics in Macroeconomics III 2. Teaching guide Introduction This course is designed for PhD students who are interested in exploring the importance of microeconomic shocks at the firm or sector level, and network linkages that underlie macroeconomic fluctuations, both in closed- and open- economy settings. The course first introduces students to recent models that study how shocks at the firm or sector level propagate through the economy and impact macroeconomic volatility. Empirical evidence is then presented, and techniques that employ large micro-datasets to study aggregate fluctuations are introduced. Finally, linkages in the open economy and the transmission of shocks across borders are studied. Admission Criteria This course is for MRes/PhD students. MSc Economics students can register in this course if the two following criteria are met: i) They have taken both Advanced Macroeconomics I and II in the previous terms and obtained a grade of 7 or higher in each course. ii) The total number of registered students is not larger than 15. Contents 1. Firm Size and Granularity a. Stylized facts on firm-size heterogeneity b. Model of firm-level shocks and aggregate fluctuations 2. Granularity in the open economy a. Stylized facts on firms and international trade b. Multi-country model of world trade and macroeconomic volatility 3. Linkages a. Empirical motivation: firms, sectors and geographical linkages b. Simple model of linkages in the macroeconomy 4. Closed-economy evidence on linkages a. Sector-level evidence b. Firm-level evidence 5. Open economy and linkages a. Baseline model and extensions b. Empirical evidence 2 Topics in Macroeconomics III Syllabus Note: this list is preliminary. New papers may be added before the course starts. 1. Firm Size and Granularity ** Axtell, Robert L., 2001. “Zipf Distribution of U.S. Firm Sizes.” Science, 293 (5536): 1818–1820. ** Carvalho, Vasco M., and Xavier Gabaix. 2013. “The Great Diversification and Its Undoing.” American Economic Review, 103 (5): 1697–1727. ** di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko, and Isabelle Mejean. 2014. “Firms, Destinations, and Aggregate Fluctuations.” Econometrica, 82 (4): 1303–1340. ** Gabaix, Xavier. 2011. “The Granular Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations.” Econometrica, 79 (3): 733–772. ** Gabaix, Xavier. 2016. “Power Laws in Economics: An Introduction.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30 (1): 185–206. Recommended Carvalho,Vasco M., and Basile Grassi. 2017. “Large Firms and the Business Cycle.” Mimeo, University of Cambridge and Università Bocconi. Comín, Diego, and Thomas Philippon. 2006. “The Rise in Firm-Level Volatility: Causes and Consequences.” In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2005, edited by Mark Gertler and Kenneth S. Rogoff, 167–201. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Davis, Steven J., John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. 2006. “Volatility and Dispersion in Business Growth Rates Publicly Traded versus Privately Held Firms.” In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2005, edited by Daron Acemoglu and Kenneth S. Rogoff, 107–180. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Gabaix, Xavier, and Ibragimov, Rustam. 2011. “Rank-1/2: A Simple Way to Improve the OLS Estimation of Tail Exponents.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29 (1): 24–39. Grassi, Basile. 2016. “IO in I-O: Size, Industrial Organization, and the Input-Output Network Make a Firm Structurally Important.” Mimeo, Università Bocconi. Luttmer, Erzo G.J. 2007. “Selection, Growth, and the Size Distribution of Firms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (3): 1103–1144. Stanley, Michael H.R., Luis A.N. Amaral, Sergey V. Buldyrev, Shlomo Havlin, Heiko Leschhorn, Philipp Maass, Michael A. Salinger, and H. Eugene Stanley. 1996. “Scaling Behaviour in the Growth of Companies.” Nature, 379: 804–806. 3 Topics in Macroeconomics III Sutton, John. 2002. “The Variance of Firm Growth Rates: The ‘Scaling’ Puzzle.” Physica A, 312 (3-4): 577–590. Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 2. Granularity in the open economy ** Bernard, Andrew B., Stephen J. Redding, and Peter K. Schott. 2007. “Firms in International Trade.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (3): 105-130. ** di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko. 2012. “Country Size, International Trade and Aggregate Fluctuations in Granular Economies.” Journal of Political Economy, 120 (6): 1083–1132. ** di Giovanni, Julian, and Andrei A. Levchenko, and Romain Rancière. 2011. “Power Laws in Firm Size and Openness to Trade: Measurement and Implications.” Journal of International Economics, 85 (1): 42–52. Recommended Bernard, Andrew B., Stephen J. Redding, and Peter K. Schott. 2010. “Multiple-Product Firms and Product Switching.” American Economic Review, 100 (1): 70–97. Chaney, Thomas. 2008. Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade. American Economic Review, 98 (4): 1707–1721. di Giovanni, Julian, and Andrei A. Levchenko. 2013. “Firm Entry, Trade, and Welfare in Zipf’s World.” Journal of International Economics, 89 (2): 283–296. Eaton, Jonathan, Samuel Kortum, and Francis Kramarz. 2011. “An Anatomy of International Trade: Evidence from French Firms.” Econometrica, 79 (5): 1453–1498. Melitz, Marc J. 2003. “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71 (6): 1695–1725. 3. Linkages ** Acemoglu, Daron, Vasco M. Carvalho, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Alireza Tahbaz- Salehi. 2012. “The Network Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations.” Econometrica, 80 (5): 1977–2016. ** Bernard, Andrew B., Andreas Moxnes, and Yukiko U. Saito. 2015. “Production Networks, Geography and Firm Performance.” Mimeo, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, University of Oslo, and RIETI. ** Carvalho, Vasco M. 2014. “From Micro to Macro via Production Networks.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28 (4): 23–48. 4 Topics in Macroeconomics III ** Dhyne, Emmanuel, Glenn Magerman and Stela Rubínová. 2015. “The Belgium Production Network.” National Bank of Belgium Working Paper No. 288. Recommended Atalay, Enghin, Ali Hortaçsu, and Chad Syverson. 2014. Vertical Integration and Input Flows. American Economic Review, 104 (4): 1120-48. Dupor, Bill. 1999. “Aggregation and Irrelevance in Multi-Sector Models.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 43 (2): 391–409. Horvath, Michael. 1998. “Cyclicality and Sectoral Linkages: Aggregate Fluctuations from Independent Sectoral Shocks.” Review of Economic Dynamics, 1 (4): 781–808. Horvath, Michael. 2000. “Sectoral Shocks and Aggregate Fluctuations.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 45 (1): 69–106. Jones, Charles. 2011. “Intermediate Goods and Weak Links in the Theory of Economic Development.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3 (2): 1–28. Long, John, and Charles Plosser. 1983. “Real Business Cycles.” Journal of Political Economy, 91 (1): 39–69. Shea, John. 2002. “Complementarities and Comovements.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 34 (2): 412–433. 4. Closed-economy evidence on linkages ** Acemoglu, Daron, Ufuk Akcigit, and William Kerr. 2016. “Network and the Macroeconomy: An Empirical Exploration.” In NBER Macroeconomic Annual 2015, edited by Martin Eichenbaum and Jonathan Parker, 276–335. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. ** Barrot, Jean-Noël and Julien Sauvagnat. 2016. “Input Specificity and the Propagation of Shocks in Production Networks.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (3): 1543–1592. ** Carvalho, Vasco M., Makoto Nireiz, Yukiko U. Saito, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. 2016. “Supply Chain Disruptions: Evidence from the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Mimeo, Cambridge University, Hitotsubashi University, RIETI, and Northwestern University. ** di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko, and Isabelle Mejean. 2014. “Firms, Destinations, and Aggregate Fluctuations.” Econometrica, 82 (4): 1303–1340. Recommended Alfaro, Laura, Manuel García-Santana, and Enrique Moral-Bentio. 2017. “Credit Supply Shocks, Networks Effects, and the Real Economy.” Mimeo, HBS, UPF, and Banco de España. 5 Topics in Macroeconomics III Atalay, Enghin. 2017. “How Important are Sectoral Shocks?” American Journal of Economics: Macroeconomics, 9 (4): 254–280. Bigio, Saki, and Jennifer La’O. 2017. “Distortions in Production Networks.” Mimeo, UCLA and Columbia University. Caliendo, Lorenzo, Fernando Parro, Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, and Pierre-Daniel Sarte. 2014. The Impact of Regional and Sectoral Productivity Changes on the U.S. Economy. NBER Working Paper No. 20168. Foerster, Andrew, Pierre-Danieal Sarte, and Mark Watson. 2011. “Sectoral vs. Aggregate Shocks: A Structural Factor Analysis of Industrial Production.” Journal of Political Economy, 119 (1): 1–38. Magerman, Glenn, Karolien De Bruyne, Emmanuel Dhyne, and Jan Van Hove. “Heterogeneous Firms and the Micro Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations.” Mimeo, KU Leuven and National Bank of Belgium. Ozdagli, Ali, and Michael Weber. 2016. “Monetary Policy through Production Networks: Evidence from the Stock Market.” Mimeo, FRB of Boston and Booth School of Business, University of Chicago. 5. Open economy and linkages ** di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko. 2010. “Putting the Parts Together: Trade, Vertical Linkages, and Business
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fintech Opportunity
    The FinTech Opportunity Thomas Philippon∗ March 2018 Abstract This paper assesses the potential impact of FinTech on the finance industry, focusing on financial stability and access to services. I document first that financial services remain surprisingly expensive, which explains the emergence of new entrants. I then argue that the current regulatory approach is subject to significant political economy and coordination costs, and therefore unlikely to deliver much structural change. FinTech, on the other hand, can bring deep changes but is likely to create significant regulatory challenges. JEL: E2, G2, N2 ∗Stern School of Business, New York University; NBER and CEPR. This paper was prepared for the 2016 Annual Conference of the BIS. I am grateful to my discussants Martin Hellwig and Ross Levine, and to Kim Schoenholtz, Anat Admati, Stephen Cecchetti, François Véron, Nathalie Beaudemoulin, Stefan Ingves, Raghu Rajan, Viral Acharya, Philipp Schnabl, Bruce Tuckman, and Sabrina Howell for stimulating discussions and/or comments on early drafts. 1 This paper studies the FinTech movement in the context of the long run evolution of the finance industry and its regulations. The 2007/2009 financial crisis has triggered new regulatory initiatives and has accelerated existing ones. I argue that the current framework has been useful but that it has run its course and is unlikely to deliver significant structural changes in the future. If regulators want to go further, they will need to consider alternative approaches that are likely to involve FinTech. FinTech covers digital innovations and technology-enabled business model innovations in the financial sector. Such innovations can disrupt existing industry structures and blur industry boundaries, facilitate strategic disin- termediation, revolutionize how existing firms create and deliver products and services, provide new gateways for entrepreneurship, democratize access to financial services, but also create significant privacy, regulatory and law- enforcement challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • SED Program A4.Indd
    THE SED 2007 ANNUAL MEETING IS ORGANIZED BY CERGE-EI together with THE CZECH NATIONAL BANK and THE CZECH ECONOMIC SOCIETY THE SED GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE SPONSORSHIP OF CSOB CEZ METROSTAV The Conference is held under the auspices of Mr. Pavel Bem, Mayor of Prague. PROGRAM CHAIRS Ricardo Lagos (New York University) Noah Williams (Princeton University) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE George Alessandria (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) Michelle Alexopoulos (University of Toronto) Manuel Amador (Stanford University) George-Marios Angeletos (MIT) Cristina Arellano (University of Minnesota) Francisco Buera (Northwestern University) Ariel Burstein (UCLA) Ricardo de O. Cavalcanti (EPGE) James Costain (Bank of Spain) Carlos Eugenio da Costa (EPGE) Chris Edmond (New York University) Jan Eeckhout (University of Pennsylvania) Liran Einav (Stanford University) Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde (University of Pennsylvania) Mikhail Golosov (MIT) Gita Gopinath (Harvard University) Nezih Guner (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) Christian Hellwig (UCLA) Johannes Horner (Northwestern University) Nir Jaimovich (Stanford University) Dirk Krueger (University of Pennsylvania) Rasmus Lentz (University of Wisconsin-Madison) Igor Livshits (University of Western Ontario) Maurizio Mazzocco (UCLA) Guido Menzio (University of Pennsylvania) Eva Nagypal (Northwestern University) Tomoyuki Nakajima (Kyoto University) Monika Piazzesi (University of Chicago) Luigi Pistaferri (Stanford University) Ronny Razin (LSE) Stephen Redding (LSE) Diego Restuccia (University of Toronto) Yuliy
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 05 Reporter.Qxd
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (Ed.) Periodical Part NBER Reporter Online, Volume 2005 NBER Reporter Online Provided in Cooperation with: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, Mass. Suggested Citation: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (Ed.) (2005) : NBER Reporter Online, Volume 2005, NBER Reporter Online, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/61988 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences),
    [Show full text]
  • Are Markets Too Concentrated?
    Are Markets Too Concentrated? Industries are increasingly n its heyday in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Standard Oil concentrated Company and Trust controlled as much as 95 percent of the oil refining in the hands of Ibusiness in the United States. Domination of markets by large firms like Standard Oil was emblematic of the so-called Gilded Age, and it sparked fewer firms. an antitrust movement. Ultimately, in 1911 the U.S. Supreme Court would order Standard Oil broken up into more than 30 companies. But is that a Today, many sectors of the economy exhibit similar levels of concentra- tion. Google accounts for more than 90 percent of all search traffic. Between bad thing? them, Google and Apple produce the operating systems that run on nearly 99 percent of all smartphones. Just four companies — Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile — provide 94 percent of U.S. wireless services. And the five largest banks in America control nearly half of all bank assets in the country. By Tim Sablik In response to rising concentration in these and other industries (see chart), commentators and politicians from both sides of the political spec- trum have expressed alarm. William Galston and Clara Hendrickson of the Brookings Institution wrote in a January report, “In 1954, the top 60 firms accounted for less than 20 percent of GDP. Now, just the top 20 firms account for more than 20 percent.” And a 2017 article in the American Economic Review by David Autor, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; David Dorn of the University of Zurich; and Lawrence Katz of Harvard University reported that concen- tration increased between 1982 and 2012 in six industries accounting for four- fifths of private sector employment.
    [Show full text]
  • Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.∗
    Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.∗ Germ´anGuti´errezy and Thomas Philipponz November 2017 Abstract Since the early 2000's, US industries have become more concentrated and profitable while non residential business investment has been weak relative to fundamentals. The interpretation of these trends is controversial. We test four explanations: decreasing domestic competition (DDC); increases in the efficient scale of operation (EFS); intangible investment (INTAN); and globalization (GLOBAL). We first present new evidence that supports DDC against EFS: concentration rose in the U.S. but not in Europe; the relationship between concentration and productivity was positive in the 1990s, but is zero or negative in the 2000s; and industry leaders cut investment when concentration increased. We then establish the causal impact of competi- tion on investment using three identification strategies: Chinese competition in manufacturing; noisy entry in the late 1990s; and discrete jumps in concentration following large M&As. Tak- ing into account INTAN and GLOBAL, we find that more (less) competition causes more (less) investment, particularly in intangible assets by industry leaders. We conclude that DDC has resulted in a shortfall of non residential business capital of 5 to 10% by 2016. ∗We are grateful to Bob Hall, Janice Eberly, Steve Davis and Christopher House for their comments and discussions, as well as Viral Acharya, Manuel Adelino, Olivier Blanchard, Ricardo Caballero, Charles Calomiris, Alexandre Corhay, Emmanuel Farhi, Jason Furman, Xavier Gabaix, John Haltiwanger, Campbell Harvey, Glenn Hubbard, Ron Jarmin, Boyan Jovanovic, Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan, Ralph Koijen, Howard Kung, Javier Miranda, Holger Mueller, Valerie Ramey, David Robinson, Tano Santos, Ren´eStulz, Alexi Savov, Philipp Schnabl, Jose Scheinkman, Martin Schmalz, Lukas Schmid, Carolina Villegas-Sanchez, Johannes Wieland, Luigi Zingales, and seminar participants at NYU, ESSIM, Columbia University, University of Chicago, Harvard, Duke, NBER EFG and NBER ME meetings for stimulating discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Macro Finance Research Program Summer Session for Young Scholars Agenda · Tuesday, July 28, 2020 Times Are Central Time (UTC/GMT-5)
    JULY 28-31, 2020 • THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 2020 Macro Finance Research Program Summer Session for Young Scholars Agenda · Tuesday, July 28, 2020 Times are Central Time (UTC/GMT-5) 8:45 a.m. VIRTUAL CONFERENCE ROOM OPENS 9:00 a.m. Opening Remarks Lars Peter Hansen, David Rockefeller Distinguished Service Professor in Economics, Statistics, Booth School of Business & the College, The University of Chicago 9:05 a.m. Inequality and Indebted Demand Amir Sufi, Bruce Lindsay Professor of Economics and Public Policy, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business 11:05 a.m. BREAK 11:25 a.m. LUNCH BREAK & YOUNG SCHOLAR SESSIONS Presentations are 10 minutes followed by a 5-minute discussion. Credibility, Pass-Through and Monetary Policy in Latin America Santiago Camara, Northwestern University Consumption and Portfolio Rebalancing Response of Households to Monetary Policy: Evidence of the HANK Channel Yeow Hwee Chua, National University of Singapore The Corporate Supply of (Quasi) Safe Assets Lira Mota, Columbia Business School When Do Currency Unions Benefit from Default? Xuan Wang, University of Oxford 12:25 p.m. Cryptocurrencies and Central Bank Digital Currencies Harald Uhlig, Bruce Allen and Barbara Ritzenthaler Professor of Economics, The University of Chicago 2:25 p.m. BREAK 2:45 p.m. A Demand System Approach to Understand Global Financial Markets Ralph S.J. Koijen, AQR Capital Management Professor of Finance, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business 4:45 p.m. CONFERENCE ADJOURNS Wednesday, July 29, 2020 8:45 a.m. VIRTUAL CONFERENCE ROOM OPENS 9:00 a.m. The Role of the US Dollar in Global Capital Markets Wenxin Du, Associate Professor of Finance, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business 11:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 37 Terri Parrish
    Editors: Maryann Semer Fall 2004, No. 37 Terri Parrish This edition covers events and publications involving economists at Northwestern for the period of September 1, 2003 through August 31, 2004. Additional copies are available from the editor in Room 350, Andersen Hall. APPOINTMENTS, HONORS, AND GRANTS RON BRAEUTIGAM has been appointed Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. Ron was also selected to the Associated Student Government Faculty/Administrator Honor Roll for 2004. LOUIS CAIN completed his term as President of the Illinois Economics Association in October 2003 and continued as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Cliometric Society. In January 2004, he was appointed an assistant editor of Macmillan’s The History of World Trade Since 1450. EDDIE DEKEL’s NSF grant “Assessment via Contests: (1) Persistence in Occupation Choice; (2) Over/Underconfidence and Interaction Levels,” was renewed for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. Dekel continues to serve as Editor of Econometrica. JEFF ELY was awarded a Research Fellowship for the years 2003-2004 from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. In addition, the NSF extended funding for his project “CAREER: Economic Theory at Northwestern” for the year 2004. Jeff was named to the editorial boards of Journal of Economic Theory and BE Press Journal of Theoretical Economics. ROBERT J. GORDON has been reappointed as a Senior Member of the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, as a member of the economic advisory panels of the Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and as a research affiliate of OFCE in Paris.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Competition and Dynamism: Facts About Concentration, Start-Ups, and Related Policies
    ECONOMIC FACTS | JUNE 2018 The State of Competition and Dynamism: Facts about Concentration, Start-Ups, and Related Policies Jay Shambaugh, Ryan Nunn, Audrey Breitwieser, and Patrick Liu WWW.HAMILTONPROJECT.ORG ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Lauren Bauer, Kimberly Bayard, Ryan Decker, David Dreyer, Florian Ederer, Joy Fox, Germán Gutiérrez, James Kwoka, Robert Litan, Ioana Marinescu, Kriston McIntosh, Benjamin Pugsley, Douglas Webber, and David Wessel for insightful feedback, as well as Jana Parsons and Becca Portman for excellent research assistance. The contributions of Rachel Williams were particularly valuable to this paper. We would also like to thank Jason Furman, Germán Gutiérrez, and Thomas Philippon for generously sharing their data. MISSION STATEMENT The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments. We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy requires public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the 21st century. Our strategy calls for combining increased public investments in key growth-enhancing areas, a secure social safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers — based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the national debate. The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Philippon New York University, Stern School of Business Department of Finance, 44 West 4Th Street, Suite 9-190 New York, NY 10012-1126
    Thomas Philippon New York University, Stern School of Business Department of Finance, 44 West 4th Street, Suite 9-190 New York, NY 10012-1126. Tel: (212) 998-0490, fax: (212) 995-4233 http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/ Education MIT Ph.D. in Economics, June 2003 DELTA-EHESS Master in Economics, 1998 Ecole Polytechnique M.A. in Physics, 1994-1997 Academic Appointments New York University, Stern School of Business John L. Vogelstein Faculty Fellow, 2010-present Associate Professor of Finance, with Tenure, 2009-present Charles Schaefer Family Fellow, 2006-2009 Assistant Professor of Finance, 2003-2009 American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics Associate Editor, 2007-present National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Research Associate, Economic Fluctuations and Growth, Mai 2011-present Faculty Research Fellow, Economic Fluctuations and Growth, April 2005-April 2011 Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Research Affiliate, International Macroeconomics, July 2004-present Research Interests Corporate Finance, Macroeconomics, Applied Theory Honors & Awards • Michael Brennan & BlackRock Award, Best Paper, Review of Financial Studies, 2010 • Excellence in Refereeing Award 2009, American Economic Review, 2009 • Global Economic Fellow 2009, Kiel Institute for the World Economyi, 2009 • Best Young French Economist, Cercle des économistes/ Le Monde, 2009 • Brattle Prize (First Prize), Best Paper in Corporate Finance, Journal of Finance, 2008 • Stylo d’Or, Best Book on Human Resources Management, ANDRH, 2007 • Charles Schaefer Family Fellow,
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Stock Exchange Competition and Innovation: Will the Market Fix the Market?
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES A THEORY OF STOCK EXCHANGE COMPETITION AND INNOVATION: WILL THE MARKET FIX THE MARKET? Eric Budish Robin S. Lee John J. Shim Working Paper 25855 http://www.nber.org/papers/w25855 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 May 2019 An early version of this research was presented in the 2017 AEA/AFA joint luncheon address. We are extremely grateful to the colleagues, policymakers, and industry participants with whom we have discussed this research over the last several years. Special thanks to Larry Glosten, Terry Hendershott and Jakub Kastl for providing valuable feedback as conference discussants, and to Jason Abaluck, Nikhil Agarwal, Susan Athey, John Campbell, Dennis Carlton, Judy Chevalier, John Cochrane, Christopher Conlon, Shane Corwin, Peter Cramton, Doug Diamond, David Easley, Alex Frankel, Joel Hasbrouck, Kate Ho, Anil Kashyap, Pete Kyle, Donald Mackenzie, Neale Mahoney, Paul Milgrom, Joshua Mollner, Ariel Pakes, Al Roth, Fiona Scott Morton, Sophie Shive, Andrei Shleifer, Jeremy Stein, Mike Whinston, Heidi Williams and Luigi Zingales for valuable discussions and suggestions. We are also very grateful to seminar audiences at Chicago, Yale, Northwestern, NYU, Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, UPenn, Columbia, HKUST, KER, the Economics of Platforms Workshop, NBER IO, and SEC DERA. Paul Kim, Cameron Taylor, Matthew O’Keefe, Natalia Drozdoff, and Ethan Che provided excellent research assistance. Budish acknowledges financial support from the Fama-Miller Center, the Stigler Center, and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Disclosure: the authors declare that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analytics of Greek Crisis
    Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Thomas Philippon, Dimitri Vayanos The analytics of Greek crisis Article (Published version) (Refereed) Original citation: Gourinchas, Pierre-Olivier and Philippon, Thomas and Vayanos, Dimitri (2017) The analytics of the Greek crisis. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 31 (1). pp. 1-81. ISSN 0889-3365 DOI: 10.1086/690239 © 2017 by the National Bureau of Economic Research This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/82433/ Available in LSE Research Online: June 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. 1 The Analytics of the Greek Crisis Pierre- Olivier Gourinchas, UC Berkeley, NBER, and CEPR Thomas Philippon, NYU Stern and NBER Dimitri Vayanos, London School of Economics, NBER, and CEPR Gourinchas, Philippon, and Vayanos I. Introduction and Motivation The economic crisis that Greece has been experiencing from 2008 on- ward has been particularly severe. Real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita stood at approximately €22,600 in 2008, and dropped to €17,000 by 2014, a decline of 24.8%.1 The unemployment rate was 7.8% in 2008, and rose to 26.6% in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Perspectives
    The Journal of The Journal of Economic Perspectives Economic Perspectives The Journal of Summer 2019, Volume 33, Number 3 Economic Perspectives Symposia Markups Susanto Basu, “Are Price-Cost Markups Rising in the United States? A Discussion of the Evidence” Chad Syverson, “Macroeconomics and Market Power: Context, Implications, and Open Questions” Steven Berry, Martin Gaynor, and Fiona Scott Morton, “Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization” Issues in Antitrust A journal of the Carl Shapiro, “Protecting Competition in the American Economy: American Economic Association Merger Control, Tech Titans, Labor Markets” Naomi R. Lamoreaux, “The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google” Articles 33, Number 3 Summer 2019 Volume Alvin E. Roth and Robert B. Wilson, “How Market Design Emerged from Game Theory: A Mutual Interview” Joshua B. Miller and Adam Sanjurjo, “A Bridge from Monty Hall to the Hot Hand: The Principle of Restricted Choice” Nicholas Bloom, John Van Reenen, and Heidi Williams, “A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation” Michael W. L. Elsby and Gary Solon, “How Prevalent Is Downward Rigidity in Nominal Wages? International Evidence from Payroll Records and Pay Slips” Hunt Allcott, Benjamin B. Lockwood, and Dmitry Taubinsky, “Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence” Features Alain Béraud and Guy Numa, “Retrospectives: Lord Keynes and Mr. Say: A Proximity of Ideas” Timothy Taylor, “Some Journal of Economic Perspectives Articles Recommended for Classroom Use” Recommendations for Further Reading Summer 2019 The American Economic Association The Journal of Correspondence relating to advertising, busi- Founded in 1885 ness matters, permission to quote, or change Economic Perspectives of address should be sent to the AEA business EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE office: [email protected].
    [Show full text]