Farmers make pest and disease management decisions without facing the social costs derived from their input choices. But given the sizable externalities involved, there is a rationale for government intervention. We model the profit-maximizing problem of a representative farmer by specifying a functional form for the damage function that incorporates the biological impact of the pathogen-vector system on yield as well as the abating impact of insecticides on the vector population. We use citrus greening disease in Florida as a case study because farmers there adopted an insecticide program that caused toxicity per acre to increase by 472%. Our simulation results show that a tax rate based on toxicity provides farmers with a strong incentive to substitute highly toxic chemicals with less toxic alternatives. Such a tax is also more efficient relative to a quantity-based tax that achieves a similar reduction in toxicity because it results in a significantly lower reduction in farmers’ yield and profit.

We investigate the Baron-Ferejohn (The American Political Science Review 83(4): 1181–1206, 1989) model of legislative bargaining with cheap talk between the designated proposer and potential coalition partners. Communication results in substantially increased proposer power close to the stationary subgame perfect equilibrium prediction. This is achieved primarily through voters competing with each other to get the proposer to include them in the winning coalition, while arguing for a zero allocation for redundant voters. Voters typically follow through on their stated reservation shares, but proposers often fail to partner with voters making excessively low offers, as these are more likely to be reneged on.

We analyse the money-financed fiscal stimulus implemented in Venice during the famine and plague of 1629–31, which was equivalent to a ‘net-worth helicopter money’ strategy – a monetary expansion generating losses to the issuer. We argue that the strategy aimed at reconciling the need to subsidize inhabitants suffering from containment policies with the desire to prevent an increase in long-term government debt, but it generated much monetary instability and had to be quickly reversed. This episode highlights the redistributive implications of the design of macroeconomic policies and the role of political economy factors in determining such designs.

Applying benefit-cost analysis in the White House regulatory oversight process served as a basic mission of the Council on Wage and Price Stability (CWPS) during its seven-year lifespan (1974–1981). This paper reviews that CWPS experience, which involved filing comments in over 300 proceedings at more than 25 federal regulatory agencies. The paper draws on those CWPS public comments (filings), identifying persistent and pervasive deficiencies in the economic analysis regulators then and now often use as support for new regulation. CWPS filings fostered greater acceptance of benefit-cost analysis in regulatory decisions; such analysis is now required by executive order.

How do pension fund trustees deal with demographic and economic shocks? We examine this issue by using a vignette study among pension fund trustees in the Netherlands. Trustees show asymmetric reactions to shocks in the level of reserves of pension funds. Pension premiums are upwardly flexible but trustees are reluctant to decrease premiums. Asymmetries are also revealed by choices regarding the inflation indexation of benefits and changing real (defined) benefits. Asymmetry is not visible in the policy responses to demographic shocks: increases in life expectancy are reflected by taking structural measures for a defined benefit contract: raising pension premiums and the pension age. Furthermore, trustees allow their choices to be affected by the forces of social comparison: the reserve position of their fund compared to the position of other funds has a significant influence in choosing pension fund policy instruments.

Notre contribution défend la thèse selon laquelle le paradoxe libéral-parétien de Sen plaide en faveur de l'élaboration d'un nouveau formalisme en termes de métaclassement des préférences. Il s'agit d'enrichir la structure traditionnelle des préférences par la prise en considération des motivations et des valeurs individuelles comme vise à le prouver l'analyse des tentatives de résolution du conflit Pareto-liberté que nous opérons tout d'abord. Puis, après avoir montré que le fait de tenir compte des motivations individuelles justifie un recours au concept de métaclassement des préférences, nous suggérons une solution au paradoxe libéral-parétien intégrant cette notion.