Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Explaining changes in the price of chicken

I just love how the simple economics we teach in ECON100 and ECON110 can explain things we see in the newspaper. The simple workhorse model of supply and demand is a pretty useful tool for this. Take this article from the New Zealand Herald last week on chicken prices:
Enjoy cheap chicken prices while they last.
That's the message consumers can take from a sharebroker's report that says a glut in New Zealand's favourite meat will shortly come to an end.
Average prices for fresh chicken pieces were 9 per cent lower in August than in March, according to the First NZ Capital research.
And whole frozen chickens were 16 per cent cheaper.
NZ poultry production rose 11 per cent year-on-year in the 12 months to June 2016, to reach 210,000 tonnes, according to the report.
First NZ said "oversupply conditions" had resulted in a build-up of frozen chicken inventory.
But the glut is expected to recede in the next few months as operators adjust production, according to the report.
And here's the simple supply and demand model at work, in the figure below. In March, the market is operating with demand D0 and supply S0, with an equilibrium price of P0 and quantity Q0. Chicken production increases, shifting the supply curve to the right (to S1). The price of chicken falls to P1 (9 per cent lower than March, according to the quote above), while the quantity of chicken traded increases to Q1.


Then, "as operators adjust production" (by reducing supply back towards S0), the price of chicken can be expected to rise (back towards P0). Nice!

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Which asylum seekers do Europeans want?

The latest issue of Science has an interesting article by Kirk Bansak, Jens Hainmueller, and Dominik Hangartner (all Stanford; Hangartner is also at London School of Economics) on the topic of European attitudes towards asylum seekers (sorry I don't see an ungated version anywhere). What caught my attention was the method employed.

Most studies of attitudes to migrants (or refugees, or asylum seekers) would simply ask a straightforward question measured on a Likert scale. Bansak et al. instead use a conjoint experiment method (which is very similar to discrete choice modelling, which I've written about before). They explain:
To provide such an assessment, we designed a conjoint experiment and embedded it in a large-scale online public opinion survey that we fielded in 15 European countries...
Conjoint experiments ask subjects to evaluate hypothetical profiles with multiple, randomly varied attributes and are widely used in marketing and, increasingly, in other social science fields to measure preferences and the relative importance of structural determinants of multidimensional decision-making... Specifically, we used a conjoint experiment to ask 18,000 European eligible voters to evaluate 180,000 profiles of asylum seekers that randomly varied on nine attributes that asylum experts and the previous literature have identified as potentially important... This design allows us to test which specific attributes generate public support for or opposition to allowing asylum seekers to stay in the host country and how this willingness varies across different groups of eligible voters, countries, and types of asylum seekers.
This is actually a very cool idea, and implemented in a very large sample size (conjoint experiments are more often run with samples in the hundreds, but here they have 18,000). The findings are many, and I encourage you to read the paper (if you have access). Here's what the authors say:
The results demonstrate that European voters do not treat all asylum seekers equally. Instead, the willingness to accept asylum seekers varies strongly with the specific characteristics of the claimant. In particular, preferences over asylum seekers appear to be structured by three main factors: economic considerations, humanitarian concerns, and anti-Muslim sentiment.
To summarise, they found that doctors, teachers, and accountants were more acceptable as asylum seekers than 'lower' occupations like cleaners, who were in term more acceptable than the unemployed. Language skills were important, with much lower acceptance of asylum seekers who had 'broken' or no host-country language skills. Asylum seekers who applied because of political, religious, or ethnic persecution were much more acceptable than those who applied because of economic opportunities. The vulnerable (e.g. torture victims) were also more acceptable as asylum seekers. Religion mattered a lot - Christians were most acceptable, agnostics less so, and Muslims least of all. Female asylum seekers were preferred over males, and younger asylum seekers were preferred over older asylum seekers. Country of origin didn't appear to matter nearly as much as the other factors above.

The results (in terms of the factors associated with asylum seeker acceptability) didn't appear to differ much between the 15 countries included in the study, nor did they vary much by education (of the survey respondents), income, or age. Those might be the most surprising results of all.

[HT: David McKenzie at Development Impact]

Read more:



Saturday, 15 October 2016

Police are not winning the P war - they need to focus on demand

Just a quick follow-up on yesterday's post, where I reviewed the excellent Tom Wainwright book, "Narconomics: How to Run a Drug Cartel". Last week, the New Zealand Herald had a front page story about the drug (read: methamphetamine, or P) war in New Zealand:
Police Association president Greg O'Connor said despite several big drug busts in recent months, anecdotal evidence from front line officers suggested the country now had a greater problem with the drug than ever before...
Police announced yesterday they had seized $17 million worth of the drug following a seven-month investigation. And in June almost $500 million worth of meth was discovered in Kaitaia - the biggest P haul in New Zealand history.
But O'Connor said despite such significant stings, they seemingly had no impact on the price - or availability - of the drug.
"We've got a major issue," he said.
"We're having a second wave now."
"The first wave was at the end of the 90s. It sort of caught New Zealand by surprise - the policies were way behind."
For those of you who read yesterday's post, or my post from back in March, or this post from 2015, this should come as no surprise. When you target sellers, you may increase the price, which simply increases profits and encourages more sellers to step into the market. At least this point doesn't appear to be totally lost on the police, with both demand-side and supply-side policies featuring in their 'wish-list':
Asked whether we had made a dent in the war against P, O'Connor replied: "It doesn't appear so."
More rehabilitation services were needed for those battling meth addiction.
A shortage of organised crime policing, particularly in the provinces, was also a problem, he said. A police spokeswoman said law enforcement agencies worldwide were facing problems with meth.
"But stamping out meth is not police's job alone. It requires law enforcement and social agencies to work together. That's what we're doing under the Prime Minister's Meth Action Plan."
She also noted work around the Government's gang action plan aimed at targeting and dismantling gang activity.
"These are all valuable multi-agency tools that help us to combat meth in NZ. We've had some great results so far, but we recognise there's still more work to be done."
That additional work had best focus on the demand side of the market.

Friday, 14 October 2016

Book review - Narconomics

Back in March I promised a review of Tom Wainwright's new book, "Narconomics: How to Run a Drug Cartel". I finished reading it last week, and although I'm not sure that it has fully equipped me to run a drug cartel, it certainly contains lots of interesting parts. Below I share some of the highlights (at least, to me).

Chapter 1 discusses the supply chain for cocaine, and simply reiterates the futility of governments targeting supply in the war on drugs. Here is one bit:
Because cartels depend on coca leaf to make their cocaine, governments have targeted coca plantations as a means of cutting off the business at its source. Since the late 1980s, the coca-producing countries of South America, backed by money from the United States, have focused their counternarcotic efforts on finding and destroying illegal coca farms. The idea is a simple economic one: if you reduce the supply of a product, you increase its scarcity, driving up its price... Governments hope that by chipping away at the supply of coca, they will force up the price of the leaf, thereby raising the cost of making cocaine. As the price of cocaine rises, they reason, fewer people in the rich world will buy it.
Wainwright then points out the main flaws in this argument. First, this is a giant game of whack-a-mole. Governments target coca producers in Peru, and production simply moves across to Colombia. When coca producers are targeted in Colombia, they move back to Peru. And so on. Second, the drug cartels are monopsonies - buyers with substantial market power. It is local farmers who grow the coca (not the cartels themselves), and since the farmers can only sell their illegal coca crop to the cartels, the cartels are able to dictate the price. So, even if coca eradication efforts are successful, they don't much affect the price that the cartels pay for the raw product. Third, even if the price of the raw material increases, it will have almost no effect on the street price of cocaine. Wainwright notes that the markup on cocaine is more than 30,000 percent (from farm-gate price to street price). So, even if government efforts managed to treble the farm-gate price of coca, the street price of cocaine would increase by only 0.6 percent - a trivial change. The takeaway is something I've noted before - targeting demand is likely to be more effective than targeting supply.

The second chapter looks at competition and collusion in the drug supply chain, and has a really interesting bit on gang tattoos:
The defining feature of El Salvador's young mareros is their head-to-toe tattoos. Like Old Lin, nearly all gang members sport body art declaring their allegiance to either the Salvatrucha or Barrio 18... Once a young man has become a member and has gotten his body covered in Salvatrucha tattoos, defecting to join Barrio 18 is out of the question, and vice versa. Even leaving the mara to start a new, noncriminal career is virtually impossible, as employers tend to be perturbed by job candidates who show up for an interview with skulls and crossbones etched on their foreheads. In economic terms, this means that whereas Mexican gangbangers are highly footloose, liable to change sides to work for whichever cartel seems to be stronger or higher paying, the labor market for Salvadoran mareros is completely illiquid.
I see this as gang tattoos acting as a form of credible commitment by the mareros. In a simultaneous game, where the marero chooses whether to be loyal or not and the gang must decide whether to trust the marero or not, the marero can make a credible commitment to be loyal by covering themselves in tattoos. Note that this is also a form of signalling - revealing private information about their loyalty to the gang - as only the truly loyal would go to the trouble of getting head-to-toe tattoos.

Chapters 3 and 4 talk about the human resource management issues of cartels, and their corporate social responsibility activities (yes, you read that right), while Chapter 5 talks about international outsourcing (or offshoring) and Chapter 6 covers franchising. I didn't find too much of particular interest in those chapters, though the chapter on franchising did raise some questions for me about whether international terror groups are also undertaking a form of franchising.

Chapter 7 covers the legal highs industry, with particular reference to New Zealand, and Chapter 8 talks about digital disruption. In the latter chapter, I found the discussion of drugs as a 'network good' of interest. Network goods are goods that can only be bought or sold if you belong to a particular network. Here's one bit:
Under these conditions, life is good for the established dealer. A key feature of network markets is that they tend to work strongly in favor of incumbents, who have had time to build up the biggest and strongest networks. Picture the stable, longtime drug dealer, who has been supplying the same city for years. He knows the importers. He has a long list of clients. He may even have contacts in the police whom he pays to turn a blind eye to his business. Now picture the young up-starts, someone who spots that the local market is uncompetitive, with watered-down drugs being sold at high prices. It ought to be easy to enter the market and win some business. But entering the drugs markets - a network economy - isn't so easy. Buying wholesale quantities of illegal drugs requires a rare set of high-level contacts. Selling them in smaller quantities requires a second, larger set of potential buyers. Without a network to buy from and sell to, the new dealer won't get far (and that is before even thinking about the possibility that the established dealer may not take kindly to someone else operating on his patch).
Of course, digital disruption means that whole new networks are being created online, and the chapter talks about the marketplaces on the 'dark web'. Chapter 9 talks about the diversification of the cartels, including from drug smuggling to people smuggling. Chapter 10 talks about the legalisation of cannabis in several U.S. states, and how that is affecting cartel business.

Wainwright concludes with what he sees as the main mistakes in official efforts to tackle the drugs industry: (1) the obsession with supply (see above); (2) saving money early on and paying for it later (prevention is much cheaper than cures, but cures win votes); (3) acting nationally against a global business (see the note on whack-a-mole above); (4) confusing prohibition with control (simply making something illegal is not a solution in and of itself).

Overall, I found this to be an excellent, well-researched book that maintained my interest throughout. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the drugs trade, and how the economics (and business management) concepts we teach in business schools applies in that industry.