John Irons's Blog


Economic News, Data and Analysis

Nobel Prize for “Asymmetric Information”

G. Akerlof, M. Spence, J. Stiglitz win prize “for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information”

Asymmetric information

Much of economic analysis assumes that markets are characterized by full information: both buyers and sellers know everything about the product they are buying or selling.

However, many markets are characterized by the fact that either the buyer or the seller has considerably more information about the product than does the person or firm on the other side of the transaction. Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz won the 2001 Nobel Prize for illustrating the importance of asymmetric information in various kinds of markets and situations.

(Stiglitz recently noted that it’s not that economists were unaware that people had different amounts of information, it was just thought that information asymmetries were not necessarily very important. Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz, showed both how and why the asymmetries mattered, as well as developed important applications of the basic idea.)

Market for lemons

George Akerlof illustrated the most famous example of asymmetric information in his 1970 paper on “The Market for Lemons”. The paper examined the market for used cars to illustrate the importance of informational asymmetries. The scenario is quite simple – the seller of a used car usually knows more about it than does the buyer. They know, for example, how well it runs on the highway, in the snow, when it’s hot outside, etc. The buyer knows relatively little. So if a seller offers to sell the car for, say, $5,000, the buyer should be suspicious, since, if the car were worth more than 5,000, the owner would not be selling it at that price. In this case, Akerlof showed, the market may break down completely.

This general idea can be used to explain many issues in many markets. Perhaps the most important market with significant asymmetric information is the market for health care. The buyer knows much more about her health and habits than does the insurance seller. For example, a company that offers a really good (but expensive) health policy will find that only the sick (or likely to be – say the smoking, sky-diving, race car drivers of the world) will buy that kind of insurance. Only those who expect to get more from the policy than they pay in premiums will be likely to purchase, meaning that the people who buy will be less healthy, and likely to make the policy unprofitable for the firm.

The consequences of asymmetric can be profound. In the extreme, markets with asymmetric information may simply cease to exist. In other cases, asymmetric information will cause the market to “behave badly” and thus create an opportunity for a government or some external organization to come in and intervene to improve the private market outcome.


Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Economists

Recession? Fed Cuts Rates by 1/2 Point

The action by the Federal Reserve today (10.2.01) was the 9th rate reduction this year and brings the
target federal funds rate to 2.5%. In addition, the Fed continued to maintain its bias towards further rate cuts,
noting that the risks are “weighted mainly toward conditions that may generate economic weakness.”

With this cut, it appears that short-term real interest rates may drop below zero for the first time in over 20 years.
See this note on real interest rates for more details.

“The terrorist attacks have significantly heightened uncertainty in an economy that was already weak. Business and household spending as a consequence are being further damped. Nonetheless, the long-term prospects for productivity growth and the economy remain favorable and should become evident once the unusual forces restraining demand abate.”
Federal Reserve Announcement of 10.2.01

See also: Federal Reserve Announcement of 9.17.01 – the first day of trading after the events of 9.11.

Recession likely?

Recent consumer confidence
surveys have show a steep decline in confidence and in future expecations (see report on the Michigan survey for details.)
It appears that with the recent events and the apparent decline in confidence in the economy we may indeed finally and “officially” enter into a recession.

The data on GDP, however, is still not yet in. If we do slip into a recession, I would suspect that it would be short lived – both monetary and fiscal policy
are now strongly expansionary. This will be especially true if a $100 billion economic recovery package is passed in the Congress.

It is important to keep in mind that the economy has not been fundamentaly altered in any significant way as a result of the terrorist attacks. The long-term prospects are still quite good.

Filed under: Recession