U.S. NARROW MONEY FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

This study focuses on sweep programs in establishing conceptually appropriate and reliable measures of narrow money. We propose the aggregates M1RS = M1 + holdings of funds swept in retail sweep programs, and M1S = M1RS + holdings of funds swept in commercial demand deposit sweep programs. Based on quarterly observations from 1959:1–2002:4, cointegration tests indicate the existence of long-run relationships between the velocity of M1S and the corresponding opportunity cost of holding money, using either short-term or long-term interest rates. Tests find weaker evidence for M1RS and little support for MZM. (JEL E41 , G21 )     

What Makes a Good Decision? Robust Satisficing as a Normative Standard of Rational Decision Making

Most decisions in life involve ambiguity, where probabilities can not be meaningfully specified, as much as they involve probabilistic uncertainty. In such conditions, the aspiration to utility maximization may be self‐deceptive. We propose “robust satisficing” as an alternative to utility maximizing as the normative standard for rational decision making in such circumstances. Instead of seeking to maximize the expected value, or utility, of a decision outcome, robust satisficing aims to maximize the robustness to uncertainty of a satisfactory outcome. That is, robust satisficing asks, “what is a ‘good enough’ outcome,” and then seeks the option that will produce such an outcome under the widest set of circumstances. We explore the conditions under which robust satisficing is a more appropriate norm for decision making than utility maximizing.     

Violations of Present-Value Maximization in Income Choice

We report results of an experiment testing for present-value maximization in intertemporal income choice. Two-thirds of subjects did not maximize present value. Through a series of experimental manipulations that impose costs on non-present value maximizers, we are able to reduce the level of violations substantially. We find, however, that a sizeable proportion of subjects continue to systematically violate present-value principles. Our interpretation is that these subjects either cannot or choose not to distinguish between t income and t expenditure in making their choices. Self-management, bounded rationality, and sequence preference are suggested as possible explanations for such behavior.     

Subjects' Access to Cognitive Processes: Demand Characteristics and Verbal Report

The present paper examines the arguments and data presented by Nisbett and Wilson (1977a; 1977b; Wilson & Nisbett, 1978) relevant to their thesis that subjects do not have access to their own cognitive processes. It is concluded that their review of previous research is selective and incomplete and that the data they present in behalf of their thesis does not withstand a demand characteristics analysis. Furthermore, their use of observer-subject similarity as evidence of subjects' inability to access cognitive processes makes tests of their hypothesis confounded and, at the same time, reveals limitations in the application of the pre-inquiry quasi-control to research on social behavior. Problems with postexperiment questionnaires, such as the demand characteristics of the inquiry procedure are also considered. Although there are difficulties in assessing subjects' cognitive processes, many of these may be overcome through the application of novel techniques and research conducted on more traditional methods. In contrast to the view that subjects have limited access to cognitive processes and that their verbal reports are not valid, it is concluded that subjects' verbalizations are a rich source of psychological data which must be pursued if we are to tap their cognitive processes and are to gain an adequate understanding of human behavior.     

Post-Marxism and the new social movements

Cette communication jette un regard critique sur plusieurs tendances du néo-marxisme et du post-marxisme ainsi que sur les tentatives de théoriser les nouveaux mouvements sociaux. L'auteur estime qu'on a trop vite fait de laisser tomber une bonne partie des principes fondamentaux de l'économie politique en analysant les nouveaux mouvements sociaux, alors qu'on évoque ces měmes mouvements comme confirmation des certains aspects problématiques de la théorie marxiste. Les problèmes découlent en partie du fait qu'on a voulu tirer des généralisations à partir d'observations très partielles d'un nombre limité de mouvements. Or, le travail d'analyse théorique doit tenir compte de l'économie politique de ces mouvements tout en s'enrichissant des analyses produites par les mouvements eux-měmes. The paper offers a critique of several theoretical trends in neo-and post-Marxism and of new social movement theory, contending that many of the central tenets of political economy have been too quickly abandoned in analysing the new social movements and that, at the same time, these movements have too often been used to shore up other problematic areas of Marxian analysis. Some of these problems arise from generalizations made from very partial views of only certain movements. Theoretical work needs to include the political economy of these movements and at the same time learn from the analyses generated by these movements themselves.