Published bypasty-toler
NTRODUCTION Accordin to standar economi reasoning an increas in th nancia incentive provide fo an activit wil improv perfor mance Thi predictio is conclusio of ver basi assumption in economi theory performanc is positivel relate to effort effor is u
Download Pdf - The PPT/PDF document "ENOUG OR DON AT ALL RI NEEZY AND LDO UST..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL*URIGNEEZYANDALDORUSTICHINIEconomistsusuallyassumethatmonetaryincentivesimproveperformance,andpsychologistsclaimthattheoppositemayhappen.Wepresentanddiscussasetofexperimentsdesignedtotestthesecontrastingclaims.Wefoundthattheeffectofmonetarycompensationonperformancewasnotmonotonic.Inthetreatmentsinwhichmoneywasoffered,alargeramountyieldedahigherperformance.However,offeringmoneydidnotalwaysproduceanimprovement:subjectswhowereofferedmonetaryincentivesperformedmorepoorlythanthosewhowereofferednocompensation.Severalpossibleinterpreta-tionsoftheresultsarediscussed.I.IAccordingtostandardeconomicreasoning,anincreaseintheŽnancialincentivesprovidedforanactivitywillimproveperfor-mance.Thispredictionisaconclusionofverybasicassumptionsineconomictheory:performanceispositivelyrelatedtoeffort;effortisunpleasant,andmoneyisgood.Weshouldthereforeobserveamonotonicandincreasingrelationshipbetweenmone-tarycompensationforanactivityandtheperformancelevelofthatactivity.1Themainaimofthispaperistoprovideatestofthisprediction,inacontrolledlaboratoryenvironment,whichpaysparticularattentiontothecomparisonbetweenthetotalabsenceandthepresenceofmonetaryrewards.Ourmainresultisthatperformancevariesinanonmonotonicwaywithincentives.Themonotonicrelationshippredictedbythetheorymayfailinconcretesituations,eitherinreallifeorinexperiments,becausefactorsdifferentfrommoneyandeffortmayenterintothedecisionoftheagent.Forinstance,apersonmaybereluctanttoworkforverysmallcompensationbecausethisfactmightsignalhisgeneralwillingnesstoacceptasmallwage,andthusweakenhisfuturebargainingposition.Adifferentreason,whichismorecommonlysuggestedintheeconomicsliterature,isthatpeoplefollowsocialnormsthatprescribeabehaviorindependentlyofany*WethankColinCamerer,GaryCharness,DouglasDejong,MartinDufwen-berg,ErnstFehr,theeditorEdwardGlaeser,GeorgKirchsteiger,MatthewRabin,RobertRosenthal,ArielRubinstein,twoanonymousreferees,andananonymouseditorforhelpfulcommentsandsuggestions.SpecialthanksgotoEricvanDammeforhiscommentsaswellasforhishelpinraisingthemoneyneededforthe1.Thisargumentrequiresthatchangesincompensationaresmallenoughsothattheincomeeffectsarenegligibleascomparedwiththesubstitutioneffect.Inourexperimentsandintheliteraturewediscuss,thisisalwaysthecase.r2000bythePresidentandFellowsofHarvardCollegeandtheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics,August2000791 monetarycompensation.Donatingbloodmaybeconsideredadutytothecommunitythatoneshouldperformwhenpossible.Amonetarycompensationmaydestroythissenseofdutyandproduceanetdecreaseintheaction.2Adifferentsocialnormthatmaybeunderminedbymonetarycompensationisreciprocity.SupposethatanactionisoriginallyperformedinreturnforapreviousbeneŽt,butthatmoneyispaidforit.Thenthecompensa-tionratherthanthereciprocitywillprobablybetakenasamotivationforthataction.Theincentiveforreciprocityisde-stroyed,andtheactionbecomeslessappealingonitsownmerits.3Aswewillsee,noneoftheseexplanationsseemsadequateforourresults.Theissueoftheeffectofrewardsonbehaviorhasbeendebatedinpsychologythroughoutthepastfourdecades.Behavior-isttheoryhadthesameopinionasstandardeconomics,althoughforcompletelydifferentreasons.Accordingtoinstrumentalcondi-tioning,rewardofferedforanactivitywhichisinitselfneutralorevenmildlyunpleasant,willeventuallyassociateapositivevalencetothatactivity.Sointhelongrunapastrewardhasapositiveeffectontheperformanceofthatactivity.4Thisconclusionofbehavioristpsychologywaschallengedatthebeginningoftheseventiesbythecognitivepsychologyschool.Theyofferedanalternativeview:anactivityhasamotivationofitsown,independentofanyreward,calledintrinsicmotivation.Areward,differentfromthisintrinsicmotivation(inparticular,butnotonly,amonetaryreward)mayreplacetheintrinsicmotiva-tion.5Theneteffectmaybeareductionoftheoverallmotivation,2.Titmuss{1970}claimedthatmonetarycompensationmightunderminethesenseofcivicduty.HeconsidersthespeciŽcexampleofblooddonationinTitmuss{1971},wherehearguesthattheintroductionofmonetarycompensationwillmakethequalityofblooddonatedworse.Arrow{1972}discusseshisthesis:hepredictsthatanincreaseinpricewilleventuallyproduceanincreaseinsupply.Morerecently,theworkofFreyandseveralcoauthors{Frey1994;Frey,Oberholzer-Gee,andEichenberger1996;FreyandOberholzer-Gee1997}haspresentedanddefendedtheideathatpriceincentivesmaycrowdoutmotivation.Kohn{1993a,1993b}hascriticizedincentiveplansbecausetheymakepeoplelessenthusiasticabouttheirwork.3.IntheexperimentsofFehr,Gachter,andKirchsteiger{1996}theintroduc-tionofexplicitincentivesreducedtheperformanceofworkersinaŽrm-workerrelationshipbecausethenormofreciprocitywascompromised.ThispointisdiscussedinFehrandGachter{1998},andmoreextensively,withadditionalevidence,inFehrandRockenbach{2000}.InhisŽeldstudyonmanagementbehavior,Bewley{1995,1997}notesthatreal-lifemanagersknowwellthatitisnotwisetodependonŽnancialincentivesaloneasmotivators.4.AclearexpositionofthispointofviewisinSkinner{1953}.5.DeŽnitionsandmeasurementofintrinsicmotivationarestillcontroversial:butabasicconditionfortheexistence(andempiricalevidence)ofintrinsicmotivationisthattheactivityshouldbeexercisedevenwhenrewardisabsent.QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS792 andhenceareductionoftheactivityitself.Wecanformulatethesameideainthelanguage,morefamiliartoeconomists,ofpreferences:iftherewarddirectlyaffectstheutilityofanindi-vidualinanegativeway(becauseitreducestheintrinsicmotiva-tion),thenperformancemaydeclinewiththeincreaseinmone-taryincentive.6Themainconclusionsofthesestudieswerethatpositiverewards,inparticularmonetaryrewards,haveanegativeeffectonintrinsicmotivation.Ifapersonisrewardedforperform-inganinterestingactivity,hisintrinsicmotivationdecreases.ThenegativeeffectissigniŽcantonlyiftherewardiscontingentontheperformance;subjectswhoarepaidaŽxedpositiveamount,independentoftheirperformance,donotdisplayreductioninintrinsicmotivation.71.TwoExperimentalTestsInthispaperwetestexperimentallytheeffectsofmonetaryincentivesonperformance.IntheŽrstexperimentagroupof160studentsattheUniversityofHaifawereaskedtoanswerasetof50questionstakenfromanIQtest.ThestudentswerepaidaŽxedamountof60NIS(NewIsraeliShekel8)forparticipatingintheexperiment.Theyweredividedintofourdifferentgroups,corre-spondingtofourdifferenttreatments.TheŽrstgroupwassimplyaskedtoanswerasmanyquestionsastheycould.Tosubjectsinthesecondgroupwepromisedanadditionalpaymentof10centsofaNISpereachquestionthattheyansweredcorrectly.Tosubjectsinthethirdgroupwepromisedanamountof1NIS,andtothoseinthefourthgroupanamountof3NISperquestion.Weobservedthattheaveragenumberofquestionsansweredcor-rectlydeclinedfromslightlymorethan28intheŽrstgroupto23questionsinthesecond.Thenumberincreasedtomorethan34inthethirdgroup,andwasstableat34inthefourthgroup.Aswe ThethesiswassuggestedinDeci{1971},andfurtherdiscussedamongothersinDeci{1975},Deci,Cascio,andKrusell{1973},andKruglansky,Alon,andLewis{1972}.5Aratherlargesetofexperimentsshowedthataloweringindeedoccurred:anearlyoverviewofthisliteratureanditsexperimentalevidenceisinLepperandGreene{1978}.6.Thisisthemodelofmotivationcrowding-out,presentedinFreyandOberholzer-Gee{1997},forinstance.TheirmodelisdiscussedinSectionIVbelow.7.Aconsensusopinioninexperimentalpsychologyisfarfrombeingreached.CameronandPierce{1994}andEisenbergerandCameron{1996}haveprovidedmeta-studiesonthetopicoftheeffectofrewardsonmotivation,evaluatingmorethantwodecadesofstudiesontheissue.Theyalsoprovideausefulreviewoftheliteraturewehavediscussed.TheŽnalconclusionisstillunclear:forinstance,theyŽndanegativeeffectoftangiblerewards,andapositiveeffectofverbalrewards.8.Atthetimeoftheexperiment,NIS3.55$1.PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL793 argueinthenextsection,wherethedetailsoftheresultsarepresented,theeffectwasstatisticallysigniŽcant.Oursecondexperimentinvolvedhighschoolchildren,againinIsrael,whoweredoingvolunteerwork.Everyyear,onapredeterminedday,studentsgofromhousetohousecollectingmonetarydonationsthathouseholdsmaketosocietiesforcancerresearch,assistancetodisabledchildren,andsoon.Inourexperiment,wedivided180ofthesestudentsintothreegroups.TheŽrstservedasacontrolgroup:wesimplygaveasmallspeechtothesubjectsrecallingtheimportanceoftheactivitytheyweregoingtoperform.Tothesecondgroup,inadditiontothespeech,wemadeapromisetopay1percentofthetotalamountcollected.Tothethirdwepromisedtopay10percentoftheamountcollected.InbothcasesitwasmadeclearthatthepaymentwasŽnancedbyus,andnotbythesocieties.InthissecondtestweobservedthattheamountcollectedwassmallerinthesecondthanintheŽrstgroup.Theaverageamountforthethirdgroupwashigherthaninthesecondgroup,butstilllowerthanintheŽrst.Again,theresultswerestatisticallysigniŽcant.Sincemonetaryincentives,atlowvalues,wouldappeartohaveadetrimentaleffectonperformance,weinvestigatedwhetherthesubjectswereawareofthis.InaŽnalsetofexperimentsweaskedsubjectstodecidewhatincentivetheywouldprovidetoothersubjectsworkingontheirbehalf.Inthisexperimentsub-jectsintheŽrstgroupwerepaidaccordingtotheperformanceofthesubjectstowhomtheyweregivingtheincentive.Theycouldchoosebetweenano-rewardandalow-reward.Theincentivetheydecidedtopaywassubtractedfromtheirpayoff.Themajoritychosethelowincentive.Thisincentivewasmorecostly,andaswehaveseenwasinducingaworseperformance,soitisthewrongcontractintheprincipal-agentrelationship.Ourexperimentsfocusonperformance,amatterofcentralinterestforeconomics.Thisvariablealsoprovidesanobjective,quantitativemeasureoftheeffect.Inparticular,westudythedifferentialeffectofsmallandlargerewards.Incontrast,theexperimentalpsychologyliterature,motivatedbythedistinctionbetweenintrinsicandextrinsicmotivation,hasdifferentmea-suresoftheintrinsicmotivationtobethedependentvariable.Themeasurescommonlyusedaretheamountoftimefreelyspentontheactivityandthereportbythesubjectsonthemotivation.9Thereisaseconddifferencebetweenourstudyandthe9.ThesearethetwovariablesthatCameronandPierce{1994}andEisen-bergerandCameron{1996}considerintheirmeta-studies.QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS794 experimentsperformedinthepsychologyliterature.Psycholo-gistsstudybehaviormodiŽcationthroughconditioning(inthecaseofthebehavioristschool)orlearning(forthecognitiveschool).Wedonot.Toillustratethedifference,wemayconsidertheclassicexperimentreportedinDeci{1971}.Hehadcollegestudentsplaywithapuzzleinthreesuccessivesessions.IntheŽrstsessionparticipantswerelefttoplayfreely.Inthesecondsessionsubjectsinonegroupreceivedpaymentiftheysolvedthepuzzle,whilethecontrolgroupdidnot.Inathirdsessionthesubjectswereagainlefttoplayfreely.TheamountoftimespentonfreeactivityintheŽrstandthirdsessionwastakenasameasureofintrinsicmotivation.Decifoundthatinthethirdsessiontheexperimentalgroupspentlesstimethanthecontrolgroupplayingwiththepuzzle,andheconcludedthattherewardofferedhaddecreasedtheintrinsicmotivationofsubjectsintheŽrstgroupoverthethreesessions.Westudythebehavioralresponsetodifferentrewardsinasingle-stagesetup.Thecompari-sonisacrossindividuals,notacrosssuccessiveperiodsforthesameindividualfollowingthereward.Finally,wetestboththeeffectsoftheintroductionofreward,andtheeffectsofanincreaseinthereward.Inexperimentaleconomicsthequestionis‘‘howmuchclosertothepredictionofeconomicsandgametheorydoesanincreaseinmonetaryrewardsbringthebehaviorofsubjects?’’Thefocusisonchangesinrewards,alwayskeepingthesepositive.10Webroadenedthistoallowforastart-upeffectandshowedthattheoverallpatterncanbenonmonotonic,thusaccountingforexperimentalevidenceinpsychologythatseemedinconsistentwiththeŽndingsoftheexperimentaleconomicsliterature.II.THEEXPERIMENTS1.TheIQExperiment:DesignTheexperimentwasconductedattheUniversityofHaifa.Thesubjectswere160maleandfemaleundergraduatestudents10.FreyandcoauthorshaveconductedŽeldstudiesoftheeffectonintrinsicmotivationfromthepointofviewofeconomists.Inparticular,FreyandOberholzer-Gee{1997}studyanswerstoaquestionnaireaskingpeopleabouttheirattitudetowardanuclearwasterepositoryintheirregion.Theirstudyisbasedonstatedbehaviorinhypotheticalchoicesituations,inaninterviewfacetoface.Sincenobodylikestobeconsideredgreedy,theinconsequentialstatementsmightbebiasedbythedesiretoshowoff.Thequestionswereaskedsequentiallyofthesamesubjects.Thedependentvariablewasnotperformance,butwillingnesstoex-changetheinconveniencesofnuclearwasteagainstmoney.Intheirreview,SmithandWalker{1993}Žndthatincreasingrewardsbringsthebehaviorclosertothepredictionsofeconomictheory,andreducesthevariancearoundthemean.Inthemorerecentreview,CamererandHogarth{1999}concludethattheevidenceismorecontroversial.PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL795 fromallŽeldsofstudy,withanaverageageof23.Thesubjectstookpartintheexperimentdividedintofourdifferentgroupsof40studentseach,correspondingtofourdifferenttreatmentsthatwedescribebelow.Atthebeginningoftheexperiment,eachstudentwasprom-isedaŽxedpaymentofNIS60forparticipation.Theywerethentoldthattheexperimentwouldtake45minutes,andtheywouldbeaskedtoansweraquizconsistingof50problemstakenoutofapsychometrictestusedtoscanapplicantstotheuniversity.ThistestissimilartotheGMATexam:theparticipantsweretoldthatthiswasasortofIQtest.Theproblemsinthequizwerechosentomaketheprobabilityofacorrectanswerdependmostlyoneffort.Inparticular,emphasiswasplacedonquestionsinvolvingreason-ingandcomputationratherthangeneralknowledge.Inthefourdifferenttreatmentssubjectswerepromiseddifferentadditionalpaymentsforeachcorrectanswer.IntheŽrstgroupnomentionwasmadeofanyadditionalpayment.Inthesecondgroupsubjectswerepromisedanadditionalpaymentof10centsofaNISperquestionansweredcorrectly.Theamountpromisedwasofstep1NISand3NIS,respectively,forthethirdandfourthgroup.Aftertheintroduction,thequizwasdistributed.Participantswerenotallowedanymaterialontheirtablesexceptthequizitself,andweretoldthatonlythosewhostayeduntiltheendoftheexperimentwouldbepaid.Noclarifyingquestionsbystudentswereallowedduringthistime.Attheendoftheexperimentparticipantsweretoldwhereandwhentogotocollecttheirearnings.TheinstructionsarepresentedinAppendix1.2.TheIQExperiment:ResultsAppendix2reportsthenumberofcorrectanswersforeachsubject.SummarystatisticsarepresentedinTableI.Theaveragenumberofcorrectanswerswas28.4outof50questionsintheŽrstgroup.Theaveragewas23.07inthesecondgroup,wheresubjectsweregettinganadditional10centspercorrectanswer.Theaveragewasthenhigher,evencomparedwiththeŽrstgroup,andequalto34.7inthethirdgroup(oneNIS),and34.1inthefourthgroup(threeNIS).AnonparametricMann-WhitneyUtestbasedonrankscanbeusedtoinvestigatewhetherthesampleofcorrectanswerscamefrompopulationswiththesamedistribution.InTableIIwereporttheresultsofapairwisecomparisonofthedifferenttreatments.AQUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS796 numberintheintersectionofrowandacolumnindicates,forthecorrespondingpairoftreatments,theprobabilityofgettingatleastasextremeabsolutevaluesoftheteststatisticasweobserve,giventhatthetwosamplescomefromthesamedistribution.ThedifferencebetweenthedistributionsinthezeropaymentandinthelowpaymentissigniŽcant,ata.9levelofsigniŽcance.Thedifferencebetweenthedistributionsinthehighpayofftreatments(1NISand3NIS)isnotsigniŽcant.Finally,thedistributionsintheselattertreatmentsaresigniŽcantlyhigherthanthedistributionsinthecaseofthezeroand10centsmarginalpayoffs.Forinstance,thep-valuesforthecomparisonbetweenthe1NIStreatmentandthezeroand10centspaymentare.0687and.0004,respectively.Thedifferenceamongtreatmentspersistsifwecomparesubgroupswithsimilarperformance.Forinstance,werankedtheTABLEISUMMARYSTATISTICSFORTHEIQEXPERIMENT,FORTHEDIFFERENTTREATMENTSTheLowerFractionistheFractionofSubjectsWhoGaveaNumberofCorrectAnswersLessthan16 Nopayment10centsNIS1NIS3Average28.423.0734.734.1Standarddeviation13.9214.728.889.42Median31263737Averagetop203934.942.3541.6Standarddev.top205.256.793.634.18Averagebottom2017.811.2527.0526.6Standarddev.top2011.5610.225.076.8220thquantile4035444380thquantile2002625Lowerfraction15%27.5%0%0% TABLEIIMANN-WHITNEYUTESTSBASEDONRANKSWITHPAIRWISECOMPARISONSOFMEDIANSOFCORRECTANSWERSBYTREATMENT Nopayment10centsNIS110cents.0875——NIS1.0687.0004—NIS3.0708.0006.6964* (Prob.. z ,wherezistheteststatistic).Anasteriskindicatesthatforthatcomparisonwecannotreject(ata.9levelofsigniŽcance)thehypothesisthatthetwosamplescomefromthesamedistribution.PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL797 tophalfandthebottomhalfoftheparticipantsaccordingtoperformance,andwethentestedthesigniŽcanceofthedifferencebetweendistributions.TheresultsarepresentedinTablesIIIaandIIIb.Asimilarcomparisoncanbemadebetweenthedistributionofthetoptenparticipants.Thedifferencebetweenthe1NISand3NISisclearlynotsigniŽcant.Thedifferencebetweenthe10centsand1NISaswellas3NISissigniŽcant.Thediversityinindividualperformancemaybeduetodifferencesinseveraldifferentfactors,suchasskill,generalknowledge,andpreferencesformoneyandeffort.Ourresultsseemtoindicatethattheeffectoftheintroductionofmonetaryincentivesandtheirchangeaffectinthesamewayindividualswithdifferentcharacteristics,ashighertalent,orhigherwilling-nesstoputouteffort.4.TheDonationExperiment:DesignToillustratethenextstudyapremiseisnecessary.InIsraelafew‘‘donationdays’’takeplaceeveryyear.Eachofthesedaysisdevotedtoasocietythatcollectsdonationsfromthepublicforsomepurpose,suchascancerresearch,disabledchildren,etc.High-schoolstudentsgofromdoortodoortocollectthedonations.TABLEIIIaMANN-WHITNEYUTESTSBASEDONRANKSWITHPAIRWISECOMPARISONSOFMEDIANSOFCORRECTANSWERSBYTREATMENT,USINGTHEBEST20OBSERVATIONSOFEACHTREATMENT Nopayment10centsNIS110cents.0381——NIS1.0146.0003—NIS3.0339.0008.4222* TABLEIIIbMANN-WHITNEYUTESTSBASEDONRANKSWITHPAIRWISECOMPARISONSOFMEDIANSOFCORRECTANSWERSBYTREATMENT,USINGTHE20WORSTOBSERVATIONSOFEACHTREATMENT Nopayment10centsNIS110cents.0299——NIS1.0120.0000—NIS3.0270.0001.7552* QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS798 Normally,thestudentsareorganizedintogroupsaccordingtotheclassinwhichtheystudy,andeachgroupisthendividedintopairsofstudentswhoworktogetherasateam.Eachpairreceivesacertainnumberofcoupons,whichserveasreceiptsforthedonors.Theamountcollectedbyeachpaironthedonationdaydependsmostlyontheeffortinvested:themorehousestheyvisit,themoremoneytheycollect.Thisisespeciallytruebecausethestudentsdonothaveto‘‘sell’’thedonation,sincemostpeoplearealreadyfamiliarwithitfromtelevisionannouncementsandWehad180high-schoolstudentsaroundtheageof16participatingwiththreetreatmentlevels.Thereweretwogroupsofparticipants,eachwithŽfteencouples,foreachtreatment.EachpairreceivedcouponsamountingtoNIS500altogether.Inthediscussionthatfollowswereportjointlytheresultsforthetwogroupsateachtreatmentlevel.IntheŽrsttreatmentanexperimenterappearedbeforeeachofthegroupsandtoldthemabouttheimportanceofthedonationtheyweretocollect,andthatthesocietywishedtomotivatethemtocollectasmuchmoneyaspossible.Theyweretoldthattheresultsofthecollectionwouldbepublished,sothattheamountcollectedbyeachpairwouldbecomepublicknowledge.Thesecondtreatmentwasconductedsimilarly:butafterthesamespeech,eachpairwaspromised1percentoftheamountthatthetwoofthemcollected.Finally,inthethirdtreatmenteachpairwaspromised10percentoftheamounttheycollected.Inthesecondandthirdtreatmentsitwasmadeclearthatthepaymentwasmadefromfundsadditionaltothedonation,pro-videdbyus,andthatthesocietieswouldreceivethetotalamountofthedonationasusual.Theactivityofcollectingdonationsthenwentonasusual,accordingtotheproceduredescribedabove.5.TheDonationExperiment:ResultsThepreciseamountcollectedbyeachgroupforthethreedifferenttreatmentsisreportedinAppendix3.WereportthemostimportantsummarystatisticsinTableIV.Theaverageamountcollectedwas238.67over500forgroupsintheŽrsttreatment(withnopayment).Theaveragefellto153.67inthesecondgroup.Itwas219.33,higherthaninthesecondtreatment(butlowerthantheŽrst)inthethirdtreatment.TotestthesigniŽcanceoftheseresults,weusethenonpara-metricMann-WhitneyUtestbasedonrankstoinvestigatePAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL799 whethertheamountsofmoneydonatedcamefromthesamedistribution.TheresultsofthetestarereportedinTableV.ThedifferencebetweentheaveragecollectionintheŽrstandinthesecondgroupissigniŽcant,ata.9levelofsigniŽcance.Whenthepayoffincreasedto10percentoftheamountcollected,theaveragecollectionwas219.33.TheamountscollectedinthistreatmentweresigniŽcantlyhigherthantheamountscollectedinthe1percenttreatment,butnotsigniŽcantlyhigherthantheamountscollectedwhennopayoffwasgiven.Wecomparedthetoptencollectionsineachtreatment.Thedifferencebetweentheamountscollectedinthe1percenttreat-mentandtheamountscollectedintheothertwotreatmentswassigniŽcant.AsintheIQexperiment,thisresultindicatesthatthedifferencebetweentreatmentsisuniformamongsubjectswithhighandthosewithlowperformance.III.HOWSUBJECTSPERCEIVETHEEFFECTSOFMONETARYINCENTIVESTheevidencewehavepresentedseemstoindicatethattheeffectofmonetaryincentivescanbe,forsmallamounts,detrimen-TABLEIVSUMMARYSTATISTICSFORTHEDONATIONEXPERIMENT,FORTHEDIFFERENTTREATMENTS Nopayment1percent10percentAverage238.6153.6219.3Standarddeviation165.77143.15158.09Median200150180Averagetop20375.33272348Standarddeviationtop20111.9298.64110.46Averagebottom2010235.3390.66Standarddeviationbottom2066.1352.0863.9720thquantile10005080thquantile450250400 TABLEVMANN-WHITNEYUTESTSBASEDONRANKSWITHPAIRWISECOMPARISONSOFMEDIANSOFAMOUNTSOFMONEYCOLLECTEDBYTREATMENT Nopayment1percent1percent.0977—10percent.7054*.0515 QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS800 taltoperformance.Sinceincentivesareusuallydesignedtoaffectperformanceinanoptimalway,itisinterestingtoinvestigatewhetherthiseffectisanticipated.Toaddressthisquestion,weconductedatestbasedonboththeIQanddonationexperiments.Inbothcasessubjectswerepromisedapaymentproportionaltotheperformanceofadifferentperson(their‘‘agent’’),andtheyhadtochoosetheincentiveschemefortheagent.1.TheIQExperimentwithPrincipalandAgentsThesubjectsintheexperimentwere53studentsintheroleofprincipals.Theyweretoldthattheywouldbematchedwithanotherplayer.Theyweregivenashortintroductioninwhichtheyreceivedanexplanationofthetaskthattheir‘‘agents’’wouldperform,namely,answeringquestionsfromtheadmissiontestthatthesubjectstookintheIQexperiment.Theywerethentoldthateachoneofthemwouldbepaid1NISforeverycorrectanswergivenbyhisagent.Theprincipalshadtochoosewhetherapaymentof10centsofNISorazeropaymentwastobemadetotheiragentforeverycorrectanswer.Thispaymentwouldbepaidoutoftheamountof1NISpaidtotheprincipal.Theprincipalsweretoldthattheagentwouldknowinadvancehowmuchhewasgoingtobepaidforeverycorrectanswer,butthathewouldnotknowthattheprincipalhadtodecideŽrstwhethertopayhimnothingor10cents.Hewouldnotevenknowthataprincipalexisted.Thiswastheonlydecisiontheprincipalshadtomake.Attheendoftheexperimentparticipantsweretoldwhereandwhentogotocollecttheirearnings.Outofthe53subjects46subjects,aproportionof87percent,chosetopay10centsforeverycorrectansweroftheagent.Withthischoicetheyreducedtheirincomeintwoways:byprovidingapaymenttotheagent,andbyreducingtheperformanceoftheagentbecauseofthenegativeeffectoflowrewards.2.TheDonationExperimentwithPrincipalandAgentsInthedonationexperimentwealsohadagroupofstudentswhoplayedtheroleof‘‘principals.’’Theyweretoldthattheywouldbematchedrandomlywithonepairwhohadalreadycollectedmoney,andwouldbepaid5percentofwhatthispairhadcollected.TheprincipalshadtodecidewhethertheywantedustochoosethepairfromthegroupthatdidnotreceiveanypayofforPAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL801 fromthegroupthatreceived1percentofwhattheyhavecollected.Thepaymenttotheagentwasmadeoutofthe5percent.TheresultsconŽrmedwhatweobservedintheprevioustest.Outofthe25participants,19(thatis,aproportionof76percent)preferredtobematchedwithanagentwhowaspaid1percentoftheamounthecollected.IV.INTERPRETATIONOFTHERESULTS1.SummaryoftheResultsThefollowingfactsseemtobeclearfromtheanalysisoftheresults.Ifwecomparethetreatmentinwhichmonetarycompen-sationwasnotevenmentionedwiththeoneinwhichitwas,thenwemayconcludethatthemonetarycompensationproducesareductionintheperformance.Butinthesetoftreatmentsinwhichamonetarycompensationisoffered,ahighermonetaryincentiveproducedahigherperformance.Thisresultindicatesadiscontinuityatthezeropaymentoftheeffectofmonetaryincentive:forallpositivebutsmallenoughcompensations,thereisareductioninperformanceascomparedwiththezerocompen-sation,or,better,withthelackofanymentionofcompensation.Also,subjectsinthesamepopulationasthosewhoexhibitthisbehaviordonothaveaclearorstrongperceptionofthisdisconti-nuity.Theyseemtoindiscriminatelyapplytherule,whichisvalidintheregionofpositivecompensations,thathigherpaymentprovideshigherperformance.2.IntrinsicandExtrinsicMotivationAŽrstinterpretationoftheseresultsispossiblealongthelinesprovidedbycognitivepsychologists:theactivityhasanintrinsicmotivation,andtheintroductionofamonetaryreward,whichisanextrinsicmotivation,displacestheŽrst,andtheneteffectmaybeareductionintheactivity.WehavetoseewhetherthisexplanationisjustiŽedinthecaseofourexperiments.AŽrstversionoftheinterpretationisthatthesubjectisweightingintrinsicandextrinsicmotivation,andtheintrinsicmotivationisreduceddirectlybythemonetarycompensation.AmodelpresentingthisversionformallyisprovidedinFreyandOberholzer-Gee{1997}.Inthismodeltheagenthasautilityfunctionoftheactivityaandthemonetaryrewardr.Thefunctionhasoneterm,u(a,r),withthestandardfeatures,addedtoasecondQUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS802 termdescribingtheintrinsicmotivation,m(a,r).Thislattertermcapturesthenegativeeffectofmonetaryrewardonintrinsicmotivation,becausethederivativeofmwithrespecttorisnegative.Theoptimallevelofactivityasafunctionoftherewardristhencomputedintheusualway.Comparativestaticanalysisshowsthattheoptimalactivitymaybedecreasinginr.Thismodelisinsightful,andhasthevirtueofreducingthediscussiontoaspecialcaseofstandardeconomicanalysis.How-ever,itseemsunabletoexplainthediscontinuity:asmallchangefromzerotoaverylowpaymentshouldreduce(iftheutilityfunctionhascurvature)asmallchangeintheactivity.Asecondversionisbasedonacognitiveexplanationofthedisplacement,basedonattributiontheoryalongthelinesŽrstsuggestedinFestinger{1957}andHeider{1958}.ThisexplanationofthedisplacementispresentedinBem{1965,1967}andKelley{1967,1971}.Forinstance,Bemsuggeststhatpeopleinterprettheiractionsasanyoutsiderdoes,bylookingatthereasonsandmotivesforwhattheydo.Ifasubjectobserveshimselfdoinganactionwhennoexogenouscompensationisprovided,thenheinterpretshismotiveasanintrinsicmotivation.Ifamonetarycompensationisprovided,thenthesamesubjectwillinterprethismotiveasbeingthemonetaryreward.Inthisversionoftheinterpretationthediscontinuityisexplained:theintroductionofsmallcompensationhastheeffectofchangingtheperception,andthischangeislarge,independentoftheamount.Butthisexplanationisonlyappropriateinsequentialexperiments,whereasubjecthastheopportunityofobservinghimselfactingforsomeincentive,modifyhisself-perception,andthenchangehisbehavior.Itislessappropriateinoursingle-stagesetup.Thenextinterpretationseemstousthemostconvincing.3.IncompleteContractsThecontractdescribingtheexperimentisanincompletecontract.Allsuccessiveinstructionsgivenbytheexperimenterprovidepartialcompletionofitsterms.Whennomonetarycompensationforthecorrectanswersisprovided,thecontractisprobablyinterpretedas‘‘Apaymentof60NISisprovidedforparticipationintheexperiment,andInowknowthatthisparticipationconsistsofansweringthequestions.’’Some(butnotall)ofthesubjectsfeltthatitwastheirsideofthebargaintoanswerthosequestions.PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL803 Theintroductionofadditionalcompensationforcorrectan-swerschangestheperceptionofthecontract:‘‘SixtyNISwerepaidforshowingup.Theactivityofansweringthequestionsisnowpaidbyrate.’’Thisrateisnowthereferencepointtodecidetheappropriateintensityoftheactivity.Whentherateislow(10cents),theactivityislow:thereisnonecessaryconnectionwiththelevelofactivityprovidedinthatdifferentsituation,whereansweringquestionsis‘‘due.’’Animportantpredictiongivenbyourexplanation(butalsobythesecondversionofthepreviousinterpretation)isthatthechangeinperception,oncerealized,ishardtoreverse.ThisisindeedthecaseinarelatedŽeldstudy{GneezyandRustichini2000}thatweconductedontheeffectofpenalties.Thestudywasconductedinagroupofday-carecenters,whereparentswerecominglaterthantheduetimetocollecttheirchildren.InthetestgroupweintroducedatthefourthweekofthestudyaŽneforlatearrival.TheŽnewas10NISforadelayoftenminutesormore.TheŽnewascancelledattheseventeenthweek.TheeffectwasanincreaseinthenumberoflatearrivalsaftertheintroductionoftheŽne.InFigureIwereporttheaveragedelaysforthecontrolandthetestgroup,inthetwenty-weekperiod.Thisresultisconsistentwithashiftinperceptionofanincompletecontract,asintheinterpretationwehavejustpro-vided.Furthersupportforthisexplanationcomesfromthebehaviorofparentsaftertheseventeenthweek:thenumberofFIGUREIAverageNumberofLate-ArrivingParentsEachWeek,byGroupTypeQUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS804 latearrivalsstayedconstant,asonewouldexpectaftertheperceptionofthecontracthaschanged.AninterestingextensionoftheIQexperimentdesignedtotestthistheorywouldbetotaketheparticipantsoftheIQquizexperiment,where10centshasbeenofferedpereachquestionansweredcorrectly,andinasecondexperimentaskthemtoperformthesametask,fornocompensation.Weconjecturethattheperformancewillbeworsethantheoneofsubjectswhohavebeenofferedzerocompensationfromthestart,andofcourseworsethantheperformanceofthesameparticipantsintheŽrst4.HowSmallIsaSmallAmount?Inourexperimentsthesubjectswhowerepaid10centsfor1NISforeachrightanswergaveaworseperformancethandidthosewhowerenotgivenanypayment.Tencentsmaysoundlikeverysmallcompensation,almostinsultingandthereforethepracticalimplicationsofourŽndingsminimal;buttwoqualiŽca-tionsarenecessary.First,notallsmallcompensationsmaybeconsideredinsulting.Forexample,considerthepracticeofpayingbackasmallamountforrecyclingasoftdrinkbottle,whichiscommoninmanyEuropeancountries.Anecdotalevidencesug-geststhatpeoplearelesswillingtorecyclewhenthissmallcompensationisoffered,thantheyareinplaceswherenomoneyisoffered,andfailuretorecycleissimplyconsideredbadbehavior.Itisunlikelythattheamountofferedisconsideredinsulting.Adifferentexplanationinthiscasemightbethatpeopleareafraidoflooking‘‘cheap’’formakingtheeffortofrecyclingtocollectthesmallamount.Second,insultingcompensationsarenotnecessarilysmallcompensations.Thereasonisthattheamountofmoneyofferedchangestheperceptionthatpeoplehaveof‘‘whatthecontractisabout.’’Inparticular,itmaynotbesafetoassumethataddinganincentiveleavestheutilityoftheotherincentivesunchanged.Acertainamountofmonetarycompensationmaybeperceivedastoosmallwhencomparedwiththeotherrelevantfactors,evenifitisnottoosmallinitself.Wemaythinkofreal-lifesituationswhereanontrivialamountofmoneymaysounddisproportionatelysmallcomparedwithotherfactors.Forinstance,anincreaseinsalaryby$200permonthtoaprofessor,ascompensationforasmallerPAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL805 office,maybeworsethannocompensation.Similarly,smallhonorariaforseminarspeakersmaybecounterproductive.11Thisfactorislikelytobemoreimportantwhenfactorslikehealthorreputationareatstake.Sowhileinourexperimentsitisclearthat‘‘toosmall’’issomewherebetween10centsand1NIS,theexactdeterminationofthisquantityinexperimentalorreal-lifesituationsislikelytobedifficultandsubtle.Ourtheoryhasaninterestingimplicationforexperimentaleconomics.Itseemswidelyacceptednowthatasufficientlyhighrewardissufficienttoreducethevarianceoftheobservedbehavioraroundthemeanvalueofthebehavioraspredictedbythetheory.Theseeminglynaturalimplicationthatasmallrewardsimplyproduceshighervariancemightbefalse:atthelowendofthescaleofrewards,theremightbeparadoxicalbehavior,ofthetypeobservedinourexperiments.Infact,thebehaviorwithsmallpaymentmaybe,asitisinourexperiments,moredistantfromthepredictionthanthebehaviorwithzeroproportionalpayment.Thismaybeimportantincaseswherelargepaymentsareimpossible,forexample,becauseofethicalorlegalreasons.Therulethat‘‘asmallpaymentisbetterthannothing’’mightbeabadrule.125.TheTwoExperimentsThereisofcourseanimportantdifferencebetweenthetwoexperiments.Inthedonationstudythereisanintrinsicmotiva-tionthatisclearlyidentiŽable:thealtruisticreasonthatis,afterall,themotivationforthestudentsbeforetheybecamesubjectsinourexperiment.Thisdifference,forinstance,mayexplainasigniŽcantdifferenceinbehaviorbetweenthetwostudies.IntheIQtesttheperformancewithasubstantialpayment(1NIS)reachesalevelwellabovetheoneinthetreatmentwithzeropayment(34.7correctanswersagainst28.4).Inthedonationstudy,evenapaymentof25NISperpersondoesnotbringtheperformancebacktothelevelachievedinthezeropaymentgroup(219.3NISagainst238.67).Ofcourseanevenlargerpaymentmightbeenough.Sotheissueofasystematicdifferenceinbehaviorinthetwoenvironmentsseemsinteresting,andthepointisworthfurtherstudy.11.Wethankananonymouseditorforsuggestingthispoint.12.AsimilarpointisarguedinthereviewbyCamererandHogarth{1999}.QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS806 V.CONCLUSIONSInthispaperwehaveprovidedquantitativelypreciseevi-dence,inacontrolledenvironment,oftheeffectoftheintroductionofmonetarycompensationonperformance,whichincludesaprecisecomparisonofthecasesinwhichtherewardwasgivenindifferentquantitiesornotgivenatall.Theresulthasbeenthattheusualpredictionofhigherperformancewithhighercompensa-tion,whenoneisoffered,hasbeenconŽrmed:buttheperformancemaybelowerbecauseoftheintroductionofthecompensation.Onthebasisofthispreciseevidencewemaybeginthesearchforasatisfactoryexplanation.Furtherresearch,intheoryandexperiments,isnecessary,andwehaveindicatedsomeofthepromisingdirections.Inthemeantime,themostconvincingexplanationseemstoustobebasedoncognitivearguments:contracts,socialorprivate,areusuallyincomplete,andregulateaninteractioninasituationofincompleteinformation.TheintroductionofarewardmodiŽessomeofthetermsofthecontract,butalsoprovidesinformation.Thenewbehaviorpro-ducedbythecontractisaresponsetothecombinationofanewpayoffstructureandthenewinformation.ThedifficultyisthatthestandardBayesianupdatingofinformationseemsunsuitedforthissituation.APPENDIX1:INSTRUCTIONSFORTHEIQEXPERIMENTITheinstructionsaresimple,andifyoufollowthemcarefullyyoumayearnaconsiderableamountofmoney.Theexperimentwilltakeabout45minutes.Intheexperimentyouareaskedtoansweraquizof50problemstakenfromapsychometrictestusedtoscanapplicantstotheuniversity.ItisasortofIQtest.YouwillbepaidNIS60forshowinguptotheexperiment. Thefollowingsentencewasnotincludedintreatment1:‘‘Inaddition,youwillbepaidNIS0.1’’(intreatment2,NIS1intreatment3,NIS3intreatment4)foreverycorrectansweryougive. Themoneywillbepaidtoyou,privatelyandincash,attheendoftheexperiment.Doyouhaveanyquestions?PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL807 APPENDIX2:THENUMBEROFCORRECTANSWERSGIVENINTHEIQEXPERIMENTBYPARTICIPANTSACCORDINGTOTREATMENTS Obs.#NopaymentObs.#10centsObs#NIS1Obs.#NIS314941508149121502484244824712250348434483471234744544438446124455424540854612544642463986451264474247368744127448404835884412843937493589441294210375035904313041113751349141131411237523492411323913365332934113339143654329440134391536553195401353816355630963813638173457269738137371834582698381383719345926993813937203160261003714037213161241013414137223162231023314236233163231033314336242964221043314434252965211053114533262466211063114631272367211073014731282368191082914831292369191092914928302270131102915027312271111112815126322072811228152253320730113261532534187401142315421357750115221552036376011622156203707701172215719380780118211581939079011920159174008001201716016 QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS808 TECHNION,HAIFA,ISRAELBOSTONUNIVERSITYREFERENCESArrow,K.J.,‘‘GiftsandExchanges,’’PhilosophyandPublicAffairs,I(1972),343–362.Bem,D.J.,‘‘AnExperimentalAnalysisofSelf-Persuasion,’’JournalofExperimen-talandSocialPsychology,I(1965),199–218. ,‘‘Self-Perception:AnAlternativeInterpretationofCognitiveDissonancePhenomena,’’ PsychologicalReview, LXXIV(1967),183–200. Bewley,T.,‘‘ADepressedLaborMarketasExplainedbyParticipants,’’AmericanEconomicReview,PapersandProceedings,LXXXV(1995),250–254. ,‘‘ADepressedLaborMarketasExplainedbyParticipants,’’manuscript,DepartmentofEconomics,YaleUniversity,1997.APPENDIX3:THEAMOUNTOFMONEYCOLLECTEDBYSTUDENTSINTHEDONATIONEXPERIMENTACCORDINGTOTREATMENTS Obs.#NopaymentObs.#1%Obs.#10%10310610203206203033063204403406420580350653061003606650710037067100812038068100912039069120101304030701401115041507115012150428072150131504310073150141904412074150152004515075180162004615076200172404715077200182504818078240192504921079250203005023080250213305124081290223405224082290233505325083350244205425084380254505525085400265005630086410275005733087460285005840088500295005940089500305006050090500 PAYENOUGHORDON’TPAYATALL809 Camerer,C.F.,andR.M.Hogarth,‘‘TheEffectsofFinancialIncentivesinExperiments:AReviewandCapital-Labor-ProductionFramework,’’1999,CaliforniaInstituteofTechnologyDiscussionPaperNo.1059,in Journalof RiskandUncertainty, XIX(1999),7–42. Cameron,J.,andW.D.Pierce,‘‘Reinforcement,Reward,andIntrinsicMotivation:AMeta-Analysis,’’ ReviewofEducationalResearch, LXIV(1994),363–423. Deci,E.,‘‘EffectsofExternallyMediatedRewardsonIntrinsicMotivation,’’JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,XVIII(1971),105–115. ,IntrinsicMotivation(NewYorkandLondon:PlenumPress,1975).Deci,E.,E.L.Cascio,andJ.Krusell,‘‘SexDifferences,VerbalReinforcementandIntrinsicMotivation,’’PaperpresentedattheMeetingoftheEasternPsycho-logicalAssociation,Washington,May1973.Eisenberger,R.,andJ.Cameron,‘‘DetrimentalEffectsofReward.RealityorMyth?’’ AmericanPsychologist, LI(1996),1153–1166. Fehr,E.,S.Gachter,andG.Kirchsteiger,‘‘ReciprocityasaContractEnforcementDevice,’’LXV(1996),833–860.Fehr,E.,andS.Gachter,‘‘ReciprocityandEconomics:TheEconomicImplicationsofHomoReciprocans,’’ EuropeanEconomicReview, XLII(1998),845–859. Fehr,E.,andB.Rockenbach,‘‘TheHiddenCostsofEconomicIncentives.Contrac-tualContingenciesCrowdOutVoluntaryCooperationandReciprocity,’’Univer-sityofZurichDiscussionPaper,2000.Festinger,L.,ATheoryofCognitiveDissonance(Evanston,IL:Petersen,1957).Frey,B.S.,‘‘HowIntrinsicMotivationIsCrowdedinandout,’’ Rationalityand Society, VI(1994),334–352. Frey,B.S.,F.Oberholzer-Gee,andR.Eichenberger,‘‘TheOldLadyVisitsyourBackyard:ATaleofMoralsandMarkets,’’ JournalofPoliticalEconomy, CIV (1996),1297–1313. Frey,B.S.,andF.Oberholzer-Gee,‘‘TheCostofPriceIncentives:AnEmpiricalAnalysisofMotivationCrowding-out,’’ AmericanEconomicReview, LXXXVII (1997),746–755. Gneezy,U.,andA.Rustichini,‘‘AFineIsaPrice,’’JournalofLegalStudies,XXIX(2000),1–18.Heider,F.,ThePsychologyofInterpersonalRelations(NewYorkCity,NY:Wiley,1958).Kelley,H.H.,‘‘AttributionTheoryinSocialPsychology,’’NebraskaSymposiumonXV(1967),192–238. ,AttributioninSocialInteraction(NewYorkCity,NY:GeneralLearningPress,ModuleSeries,1971).Kohn,A.,PunishedbyRewards(Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflin,1993a). ,WhyIncentivePlansCannotWork, HarvardBusinessReview, LXXI(1993b), 54–63. Kruglansky,A.W.,S.Alon,andT.Lewis,‘‘RetrospectiveMisattributionandTaskEnjoyment,’’JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,VIII(1972),493–501.Lepper,M.R.,andD.Greene,TheHiddenCostsofReward:NewPerspectivesinthePsychologyofHumanMotivation(Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssoci-ates;NewYork:1978).Skinner,B.F.,ScienceandHumanBehavior(NewYork,NY:Macmillan,1953).Smith,V.L.,andJ.M.Walker,‘‘MoneyRewardsandDecisionCostinExperimen-talEconomics,’’EconomicInquiry,XV(1993),245–261.Titmuss,R.M.,TheGiftRelationship(London,UK:AllenandUnwin,1970). ,‘‘TheGiftofBlood,’’Trans-action,VIII(1971);nowinThePhilosophyofWelfare,SelectedWritingsbyR.M.Titmuss,B.Abel-SmithandK.Titmusseds.(London,UK:AllenandUnwin,1987).QUARTERLYJOURNALOFECONOMICS810
NTRODUCTION Accordin to standar economi reasoning an increas in th nancia incentive provide fo an activit wil improv perfor mance Thi predictio is conclusio of ver basi assumption in economi theory performanc is positivel relate to effort effor is u ID: 2501 Download Pdf
IC Quintino di Vona. Cassano d’Adda. A cosa servono i soldi?. 2. Chi stampa i soldi?. 3. Chi stampa i soldi?. 4. MARIO DRAGHI. Dove si stampano i soldi?. 5. Banca d’Italia - Roma. Banca Centrale Europea Francoforte (Germania).
E. conomics. E S S E N T I A L S O F. N. Gregory Mankiw. Premium PowerPoint Slides . by Ron Cronovich. 2. THINKING LIKE AN ECONOMIST. 1. The Economist as Scientist. Economists play two roles:. 1. .
A Thought Experiment to . Help us Envisage the . Economist of Tomorrow. Molly Scott Cato. Reader in Green Economics, Cardiff School of Management. Where we are going. The peculiar power of the economist.
Business people politicians diplomats lawyers and students in the experimental labo ratory who make use of private information do not always do so honestly This observation indicates that behavior often rejects the moral approach to deception As St
wrightrbccom Robert Hogue Senior Economist 416 9746192 roberthoguerbccom HOUSING TRENDS AND AFFORDABILITY May 2014 Rising home prices weighed on housing afforda bility in Canada in the first quarter of 2014 There was some erosion in housing affordabi
wrightrbccom Robert Hogue Senior Economist 416 9746192 roberthoguerbccom HOUSING TRENDS AND AFFORDABILITY February 2014 Homeownership becomes slig htly more affordable in Canada at the end of 2013 After two straight quarters of modest deterioration h
He is the author of the recently re leased book The Box How the Shipping Container Made the orld Smaller and the orld Economy Bigger published by Princeton University Press see page 33 This article was excerpt ed from The Box with material added for
INTERNATIONAL MONETA RY FUND 1 March 2015 SDN/15/03 I M F S T A F F D I S C U S S I ON N O T E The New Normal: A Sector - Level Perspective on Productivity Trends in Advanced Economies Era Dabla
$ saliYa p usualPente depositada eP Parcas de Pordida encontradas eP KoPictdios agress}es e outros trado eP de aPostras de saliYa depositadas e a razmo de YerossiPilKanoa das aPostras Easeada
37 ceivin I suspicion ha a silenc th hav junctio to Lor th endeavou i ne M onl th ma hav sa I enoug it forbi i the dignitie personage confes don' fro yoursel tions I mus 1 acknowledge 2 I delaye ficat
© 2021 docslides.com Inc.
All rights reserved.