RESAM, Research institute in EconomicS & econometrics AmsterdaM
ASE - University of Amsterdam School of Economics
Roetersstraat 11, Room E 6.06
1018 WB Amsterdam
Director : Prof.dr. H. Oosterbeek
Office: Drs. M. Rottschäfer
CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...7
1.1 MISSION STATEMENT ... 7
1.2. ALLOCATING RESOURCES... 7
1.3. STRATEGY AND POLICY ... 8
1.4 ORGANISATION... 9
CHAPTER 2: INPUT ...11
2.1 RESEARCHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL... 11
2.2 RESOURCES, FUNDING AND FACILITIES... 13
CHAPTER 3: CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS ... 15
3.1 PROCESSES IN RESEARCH, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COLLABORATION... 15
3.2 ACADEMIC REPUTATION... 18
3.3 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ... 20
3.4 RELEVANCE TO SOCIETY ... 21
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS, PERSPECTIVES AND EXPECTATIONS FOR THE INSTITUTE... 23
4.1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT DIRECTOR RESAM... 23
CHAPTER 5: UVA-ECONOMETRICS... 29
5.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 29
5.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 30
5.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 32
5.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 34
5.5 OUTPUT ... 35
CHAPTER 6: OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT... 43
6.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 43
6.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 43
6.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 45
6.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 46
6.5 OUTPUT ... 47
CHAPTER 7: EQUILIBRIUM, EXPECTATIONS & DYNAMICS ... 53
7.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 53
7.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 54
7.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 55
7.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 56
7.5 OUTPUT ... 57
CHAPTER 8: ACTUARIAL SCIENCE... 67
8.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 67
8.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 67
8.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 68
8.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 69
CHAPTER 10: MINT (MACRO AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS)... 79
10.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 79
10.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 80
10.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 81
10.4 OUTPUT ... 84
CHAPTER 11: HUMAN CAPITAL ... 97
11.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 97
11.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 98
11.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 99
11.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 99
11.5 OUTPUT ... 100
CHAPTER 12: HISTORY & METHODOLOGY OF ECONOMICS: THEORIZING, MODELING AND POLICY APPLICATION ... 111
12.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 111
12.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 111
12.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 112
12.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 113
12.5 OUTPUT ... 113
CHAPTER 13: EXPERIMENTAL & POLITICAL ECONOMICS (CREED) ... 123
13.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 123
13.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 124
13.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 126
13.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 126
13.5 OUTPUT ... 127
CHAPTER 14: INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION, COMPETITION POLICIES & REGULATION.... 135
14.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 135
14.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 135
14.2 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 136
14.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 138
14.5 OUTPUT ... 138
CHAPTER 15: OTHER RESEARCH ECONOMICS ... 145
16.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 145
CHAPTER 16: SEO ECONOMIC RESEARCH... 146
16.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES... 146
16.2 PROGRAMME DESIGN ... 148
16.3 PROGRAMME EVALUATION ... 149
16.4 RESOURCES AND FUNDING ... 149
6.5 OUTPUT ... 149
CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
1.1 MISSION STATEMENT
RESAM has the following mission statement.
*RESAM aims for research results that significantly improve our understanding of the operation of economic systems, the behaviour of agents in the economy, and the effects of economic policies.
*RESAM facilitates and promotes research by faculty members of the FEB to foster the academic ideal of intertwined university research and teaching.
RESAM (Research in EconomicS and econometrics AmsterdaM) is one of the two research institutes of the Faculty of Economics & Business (FEB); the other being the research institute of the Amsterdam Business School (ABS-RI). RESAM was established in 1998 after the MUB (Wet Modernisering Universitair Bestuur (law on the modernization of university management)) came in effect. RESAM covers the wide area of economics and econometrics.
Research is organised in Research Programmes, which are directed by Programme leaders who are experts with core positions in the curriculum. Stimulating research that significantly improves our understanding of the economy is meant as a focus on fundamental research. In many cases, the inspiration for research questions derives from practical problems in business and society as well as from pressing problems for government policies, as is only natural for a social science. But the research results should primarily be reported to the international academic community and assessed against the quality standards that apply there. Such permanent quality assessment feeds back into the quality of teaching and of advice given to business and the government. Contributions to public debates should be a consequence of developing reliable knowledge about the economy rather than a primary goal.
RESAM closely co-operates with the Tinbergen Institute, where many of RESAM’s researchers are appointed as fellow. The Tinbergen Institute also acts as the graduate school for RESAM Ph.D. students.
1.2. ALLOCATING RESOURCES
The total faculty budget available in the FEB, after deducting resources for administrative positions, is divided between the two Schools, the School of Economics and the Business School. In principle time is equally allocated to teaching and to research. Schools are compensated by the research institute (RESAM for the School of Economics) and the teaching institute (OWI) for research and teaching tasks the department provides. Faculty members in the School of Economics are annually assigned time for research on the basis of their publication records in the past three years. In this way RESAM provides incentives to increase the quality and quantity of output.
Publications are graded by quality level of the outlet. For journals, RESAM distinguishes
· A: excellent, international top level
Publications in A level journals set directions for research, by approach and by method. They select topics and set standards for analytical and methodological level.
· B: good international level
Publications in B level journals meet high analytic and methodological standards but have far less influence on direction and standards for future research.
These journals satisfy the minimum norm of aiming for an international or national audience, applying blind refereeing, and publish in an accessible language. Analytical and methodological standards satisfy a generally accepted minimum level.
RESAM has drawn up a list of rankings of publication outlets (journals, publishing houses, conference proceedings, see the RESAM website http://www.medewerker.uva.nl/feb/sfr). The minimum norm for adequate research performance is formulated as 100 points over the past three years. An A-level publication counts for 100 points and a B-level counts for 50 points. C-level publications are worth no more points as of 2001. Individual authors of a publication with n authors each get a share of 2/(1+n) points of the publication. Research time assigned to individuals is related to publication points over the past three years as follows:
100 or more: 0.5 fte 50-99: 0.25 fte 1-49: 0.125 fte
0: 0 fte
For faculty members with part-time positions, norms and research time are adjusted proportionally. Fellows of the Tinbergen Institute, the graduate research school in which UvA, EUR and VU co-operate, have a five year protection period of their research time at the maximum of 0.5 of their working hours. Admission as TI Fellow is based on A- and B-level publications only (TI has its own grading of publications). New appointees are allotted the maximum research time for a period of three years.
RESAM stimulates concentration of the School’s research in Research Programmes also by other means (such as an annual budget for conference visits and other academic activities to the research programmes). Once a year RESAM hosts a meeting of the Council of Programme Leaders to discuss the results of the past year and plans for the future.
1.3. STRATEGY AND POLICY
After the VSNU Quality Assessment of Research in 1995, the Faculty started a process of realigning its research efforts by reducing the amount of research programmes. Before this assessment there were 25 programmes but in the next Quality Assessment (2001) only 14 programmes were submitted for evaluation. Several programmes in economics and econometrics were merged while research in the fields of marketing and management were discontinued. Thereafter the faculty has successfully focused its research programme even further. In 2002 the AgBS-RI (now ABS-RI) was established to stimulate research in business studies (with the three former RESAM programmes of Accounting, Organisations & Society, Corporate Finance & Financial Systems and Information Management). RESAM continued with eight research programme plus the SEO.1 In 2005 a new programme has been established: Industrial Economics, Competition and Antitrust so RESAM now has a balanced portfolio of 10 research programmes. Last year two research programmes have changed their name; Industrial Economics, Competition and Antitrust has become Industrial Organisation, Competition Policies and Regulation, and Transformation of Europe has changed into Macroeconomics and International Economics Research Group, simply MInt.
RESAM aims to reach its goals by organising, stimulating and monitoring Research Programmes. Annually, Programme performance is assessed. Means are allocated to Programmes based on performance. Research coverage is not directed and controlled by the Faculty’s management, but develops in an open competitive environment. General policy issues are discussed at the annual meeting of the Council of Programme Directors.
1 The SEO has a rather special status. It is a foundation for commercial contract research which seeks to benefit from interaction
From September 2009 onwards the Faculty of Economics and Business will celebrate the establishment of the College of Economics and Business, the Graduate School of Business and the Graduate School of Economics. From that moment the structure of the Faculty will be as shown in figure I. RESAM will become part of the Graduate School of Economics and will continue to serve as the research institute of the Amsterdam School of Economics
Box 1: Research Highlight: Roel Beetsma (MInt)
Fiscal policy is divided into two stages, a planning, or budgeting, stage and an implementation stage. In two companion papers, we investigate behaviour of the policymakers in the two stages and, in particular, we explore how and why governments deviate from their original plans during implementation. We try to explain plans and deviations from those plans by using so-called “real-time” data, that is the data as they are first published, hence without any potential revisions made later on (revised or “ex-post” data). Real-time data are closest to the information policymakers have at the moment they take their decisions. Hence, those data are more informative about policymakers’ behaviour than ex-post data.
In the first paper, based on OECD Economic Outlook data, Beetsma and Giuliodori (2008) use a panel of European Union (EU) and non-EU countries over the period 1995-2006 to explore whether discretionary fiscal policy has been pro- or counter-cyclical in the two policy stages. Discretionary fiscal policy refers to the active component of fiscal policy, in contrast to the government revenues and expenditures (in particular, unemployment benefits) changes that occur automatically as a result of changes in business cycle conditions. Fiscal policy is pro-cyclical (counter-cyclical) if it reacts with an expansion (contraction) to an improvement in the business cycle. Counter-cyclical fiscal policy is stabilising, while pro-cyclical fiscal policy is destabilising. We find marked differences in behaviour between the planning and implementation stages, as well as between fiscal policy of the EU countries and the other OECD countries. Planned fiscal policy is a-cyclical for the EU countries and counter-cyclical for the other countries. However, in the implementation stage, the EU countries react pro-cyclically to unexpected changes in the output gap, while the responses of the other OECD countries are a-cyclical. While the Europe’s Stability and Convergence Programs are mostly aimed at the planning stage, these findings suggest that the EU fiscal rules should pay more attention at the implementation of fiscal policy.
In the other paper, Beetsma et al. (2009), we use data from the Stability and Convergence Programs to establish a number of regularities. First, we find that implemented budgetary adjustment falls systematically short of planned adjustment and this shortfall increases with the projection horizon. Second, variability in the eventual fiscal outcomes is dominated by the
implementation errors. Third, there is a only limited role for politics in both fiscal stages and, fourth, most importantly, both the ambition in fiscal plans and their eventual implementation benefit from stronger national fiscal institutions. In the paper, we also emphasise the importance of credible plans for the eventual fiscal outcomes.
Beetsma, R. and M. Giuliodori (2008). Fiscal Adjustment to Cyclical Developments in the OECD: An Empirical Analysis Based on Real-Time Data, under revision. Appeared earlier as CEPR Discussion Paper, No.6692.
Beetsma, R., Giuliodori, M. and P. Wierts (2009). Budgeting versus Implementing Fiscal Policy in the EU, Paper presented at the 49th Panel Meeting of Economic Policy in Brussels.
CHAPTER 2: INPUT
Personnel policy and human resource management is the domain of the department chairs. RESAM encourages the departments to hire good researchers and to stimulate faculty to increase the quality and quantity of academic publications, it cannot exert direct influence on personnel policy. Broader strategy issues concerning hiring and firing, however, are discussed within the Amsterdam School of Economics management team and this has resulted in a document on personnel policies wherein requirements current and new staff should meet are clearly defined. In 2005 it was decided that tenured positions will only be awarded to people that meet the admission requirements for fellowship of an accredited research school (preferably the Tinbergen Institute) and that in these cases the research director will be asked for advice.
2.1 RESEARCHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL
The tables below give information on RESAM faculty. Table I shows that, the overall research capacity is declining over the last three years. This development was mainly due to the decrease in the number of Ph.D. students during 2006 and 2007. This was expected, since the outflow of students from the Tinbergen Institute research master (Mphil) was not sufficient to fill all available positions. RESAM has tried to remedy this in 2007 by attracting PhD students from outside but was only partially successful in attracting excellent students. In 2008 the outflow increased which resulted in a small increase in the total number of Ph.D. students. Another reason for the decline in research FTE can be found in the decrease in staff hired in the second flow of fund which contains the NWO grants. This included the research programmes of Human Capital and Equilibrium, Expectations and Dynamics who administer projects like Scholar, TIER and Cendef all funded by NWO grants.
Table I: Input research staff at institutional level
INPUT RESAM 2008 fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 21,60 19,73 22,60 23,12
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 11,69 12,52 13,27 7,77
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 34,36 36,97 32,49 32,93
Ph.D. students 20,54 16,48 13,95 14,75
Total Research staff 88,19 85,70 82,31 78,57
Support staff RESAM (bureau) 0,60 0,60 0,58 0,80
Total Staff 88,79 86,30 82,89 79,37
Table II shows that trends differ somewhat across research groups.
Table II: Input research staff at programme level
UvA-Econometrics fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 3,09 3,39 4,34 4,24
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,61 0,97 0,00 0,00
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,00 0,00 0,10 0,10
Ph.D. students 1,80 2,20 2,60 2,30
Total Research staff 6,50 6,56 7,04 6,64
Operations Research & Management fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 2,04 2,10 2,10 2,18
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
Ph.D. students 1,08 1,15 1,22 0,63
Table II: Input research Staff at programme level (continued)
Equilibrium, Expecatations & Dynamics fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 2,50 1,50 2,15 2,62
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,40 2,03 3,90 1,88
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,70
Ph.D. students 1,80 1,90 2,00 2,40
Total Research staff 5,70 5,43 9,05 7,60
Actuarial Science fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,95 0,95 1,09 1,36
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,19 0,39 0,00 0,00
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,46 0,52 1,84 1,84
Ph.D. students 1,21 0,72 0,93 1,46
Total Research staff 2,81 2,58 3,86 4,66
Mint fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 4,19 3,97 3,66 3,74
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,22 0,88 1,87 1,21
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,67 1,20 0,46 1,36
Ph.D. students 3,44 2,65 0,52 1,44
Total Research staff 9,52 8,70 6,51 7,75
Human Capital fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 2,21 2,18 2,46 2,69
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 3,63 3,81 3,47 1,86
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,30 2,32 1,42 1,54
Ph.D. students 5,38 4,08 2,10 1,80
Total Research staff 12,52 12,39 9,45 7,89
History & Methodology of Economics fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 2,27 2,33 2,95 2,34
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,00 1,00 0,58 0,20
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,06 0,00 0,00 0,00
Ph.D. students 0,60 0,60 0,60 0,68
Total Research staff 3,93 3,93 4,13 3,22
Experimental & Political Economcis fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,98 1,92 2,42 2,83
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 3,64 3,44 3,45 2,62
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,25 1,00 1,25 0,25
Ph.D. students 4,43 2,30 3,10 3,98
Total Research staff 10,30 8,66 10,22 9,68
Industrial Org., Competition Pol. & Regulation fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 1,57 1,39 1,19 0,88
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,15 0,00 0,30 0,90
Ph.D. students 0,00 0,00 0,45 1,08
Total Research staff 1,72 1,39 1,94 2,86
SEO fte 2005 2006 2007 2008
WP 1 (first flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,80 0,00 0,24 0,24
WP 2 (second flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
WP 3 (third flow of funds, excl. Ph.D.'s) 30,47 31,93 26,12 26,24
Ph.D. students 0,80 0,88 0,88 0,06
Most faculty are in the ranks of professor and Ph.D. student (although the number of researchers (oz) is higher than the number of Ph.D. students, but 75% of researchers in table III are working at SEO Economic Research). Overall there seems to be a healthy mix of researchers in different stages of their career, although some programmes might benefit from a more balanced spread in ranks.
Table III: Ranks at programme level Research programme
# fte # fte # fte # fte # fte # fte # fte # fte
UvA- Econometrics 6 1,72 3 0,70 3 1,42 0 0,10 2 0,40 4 2,30 0 0,00 18 6,64 Operations research 3 0,75 2 0,47 2 0,96 - - - - 2 0,63 - - 9 2,81 Equilibrium, expectations & dynamics 1 0,50 3 1,80 5 1,37 - - 4 1,53 6 2,40 4 0,00 21 7,60 Actuarial science 7 1,96 - - 2 0,71 1 0,00 1 0,53 5 1,46 - - 16 4,66 Other research quantitative economics - - 1 0,00 2 0,00 - - - 3 0,00 MInt 7 2,23 1 0,50 7^ 1,77^ - - 4 1,71 8 1,44 14 0,10 39 7,75 Human Capital 7 2,48 1 0,50 2 0,67 4 1,84 1 0,60 5 1,80 8 0,00 27 7,89 Methodology & History of Economics 4 0,16 3 1,47 2^ 0,21^ 1 0,70 - - 3 0,68 4 0,00 16 3,22 Experimental & political economics 4 1,83 1 0,50 2 0,92 4 1,45 1 1,00 9 3,98 7 0,00 26 9,68 Industrial org., Competition pol.& Regulation 1 0,10 1 0,50 3 1,18 - - - - 2 1,08 - - 7 2,86 Other research economics 1 0,20 1 0,08 2^ 0,00 1 0,80 1 1,00 1 0,45 2 0,00 9 2,53 SEO economic research 2 1,40 0 0,00 0 0,00 33 25,08 0 0,00 1 0,06 0 0,00 36 26,54
Total 43 13,33 17 6,52 21 7,23 44 29,97 14 6,77 46 16,28 39 0,10 227 82,18
Oz Pdoc Ph.D.
Hgl Uhd Ud Guest
* hgl=professor, uhd=associate professor, ud=assistant professor, oz=researcher, pdoc=postdoctoral fellow ^ Includes docent=lecturer
2.2 RESOURCES, FUNDING AND FACILITIES
As can be seen in table IV only a small part of RESAM funds is allocated to non-staff cost centres. Most of this non-staff funding goes to the Tinbergen Institute where it is used to cover the expenses of the MPhil programme, courses for Ph.D. students and the organisation of seminars. Until 2008 RESAM was subsidising SEO Economic Research and AIAS, since this year these obligations have been abolished. Instead RESAM is funding two new projects, namely TIER and ACE. A new item on the RESAM budget is the funding of the research priority area ‘Behavioural Economics’.
Besides allocating funds to fixed cost-centres to meet obligations made in the past, the remainder of RESAM non-staff funds is distributed over the research programmes. This is done on the basis of the size of the programme (fte). Programme leaders are free to use money for any research related activities of programme members, such as visiting conferences, conducting experiments and collecting data. Figures on actual expenditures of programme funds by research programmes are not very insightful: some programmes save money over several years to cover future expenses, in other programmes RESAM funding is combined with funding from other sources to pay for conference visits or experiments. Besides the direct funding of research programmes, professors who successfully deliver a Ph.D. are granted a bonus. The amount granted depends on how fast the Ph.D. Student finishes his or her dissertation. Dissertations written within 55 months (42 for Ph.Ds with a 3-year appointment) after their appointment are granted twice the standard amount. Funding for reseach programmes has increased slightly in 2009 as well as the budget for paying bonuses to promoters who successfully deliver a Ph.D.
In 2006 RESAM has made an effort to concentrate all research-related cost-centres on its budget. From 2009 onwards RESAM will not only have staff of the first flow of fund on its budget but also staff of the second and third flow. This leads to a total increase of around 1.700K in staff costs, which explains the growth of the total budget. In this way a more insightful overview of what fund is allocated to research within the School of Economics can be made.
Table IV: RESAM Budget 2008 & 2009
Code Description 2008 2009
Staff means 24200 STAFF RESAM AE € 1.995.202
24200 STAFF RESAM KE € 1.371.506 24200 VACANCIES WP RESAM AE € 183.550 24200 VACANCIES WP RESAM KE € 1.898.000 € 103.709 24200 VACANCIES POSTDOCS € 235.703 € 235.703 24202 Ph.Ds RESAM AE € 481.650 24202 Ph.Ds RESAM KE € 426.000 € 172.311 24202 Ph.D. VACANCIES AE € 24.616 24202 Ph.D. VACANCIES KE € 360.000 € 24.616
24203 SUPPORT STAFF RESAM € 73.000 € 76.000
Staff Means € 2.992.703 € 4.668.863
Activities 24201 i.a. TINBERGEN INSTITUTE € 526.000 € 526.000
24208 PROMOVENDI 3300 € 11.000 € 6.600
24210 PH.D. NETWORKS € 3.700 € 3.700
24212 DATA € 15.300 € 15.300
24213 SEMINARS € 4.000 € 4.000
24214 CONTRIBUTION CenTER TOP40/30 € 3.000 € 2.400
24214 OTHER € 3.000 € 3.000
24214 ANNUAL REPORT € 1.000 € 1.000
24215 SUBSIDY CASE - € 150.000
24215 SUBSIDY TIER - € 200.000
24200 MATCHING NWO PROJECTS € 510.000 € 115.000
24215 SUBSIDY SEO € 135.000 -
24215 SUBSIDY AIAS € 80.000 -
Activities € 1.292.000 € 1.027.000
Research means R.2420.0001 Industrial Org. , Policies & Regulation € 5.247 € 6.066
R.2420.0002 UvA - Econometrics € 16.104 € 12.715
R.2420.0003 Operations Research € 6.042 € 6.117
R.2420.0004 Actuarial Sciences € 7.018 € 14.110
R.2420.0005 Mint € 16.944 € 20.101
R.2420.0006 History and Methodology of Economics € 4.883 € 9.010
R.2420.0007 Human Capital € 15.242 € 24.060
R.2420.0008 Experimental and Political Economics € 20.420 € 22.182 C.2440.0006 Equilibrium, Expectations and Dynamics € 18.397 € 15.736 R.2420.0012 Research Priority 'Behaviour Economics' - € 250.000
24211 Promotor Bonus € 90.000 € 100.000
24214 Individual Research means € 15.000 € 13.600
Research means € 215.297 € 493.697
CHAPTER 3: CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS
3.1 PROCESSES IN RESEARCH, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COLLABORATION
As explained in previous chapters, RESAM allocates resources on the basis of past performance. RESAM stimulates and facilitates application for external funding (NWO, KNAW, EU). In general, the research institute tries to stimulate an active research environment, by organizing a weekly general seminar (see box II for all RESAM seminars), where participants from all Research Programmes meet, and it tries to assist programme members, when necessary, by providing them with information and administrative support. The overall quality of the various seminar series is good. Especially in the Tinbergen series foreign speakers are usually invited and the debates are lively.
Actual research management takes place within the Research Programmes. Decisions on research strategies, research topics, joint work, participation in international networks, publication outlets are all taken within these Programmes, sometimes by the Programme director, but mostly in an informal way by direct communication and interaction within these groups. Research groups are typically small and interaction is frequent, direct and effective.
Box II: Seminar series organised in co-operation with RESAM Economics Colloquia
Organisation: Sander Onderstal, Jeroen van de Ven, Mikail Anufriev & Aljaz Ule
DNB Macro Seminars at the Tinbergen Institute
Organisation: Wouter den Haan
Tinbergen Institute Econometrics Seminars & Workshops
Organisation: Kees Jan van Garderen & Charles Bos
KAFEE Lunch seminar
Organisation: Jona Linde, Jacopo Mazza, Saeed Mohammadian Moghayer & Markus Kirchner
CREED-Tinbergen series in Institutions and Decision Analysis
Organisation: Adrian de Groot Ruiz
PhD Lunch Seminars Amsterdam
Organisation: Zoltan Wolf & Marcelo Tyszler
Tinbergen Labour Seminar Series
Organisation: Erik Plug, Bas van der Klaauw & Pieter Gautier
AIAS lunch seminars
Organisation: Kea Tijdens
Another way in which RESAM creates a stimulating research environment is by funding and participating in the Tinbergen Institute (TI). Two other Dutch universities (Erasmus University and Free University) participate in the TI. It is their joint graduate school and facilitates exchange amongst its fellows (top researchers of the three participating faculties) by hosting seminar series and publishing a discussion paper series.
As a graduate school, the Tinbergen Institute, initiated some major changes in 2003. With the introduction of the Bachelor-Master structure in the Netherlands the TI has chosen to offer a two-year research master (Master of Philosophy in Economics). These two years are basically part of a five-year Ph.D. track. Up until 2005 year most Dutch Ph.D. students started their work after four years of university education. The first year of our Ph.D. students’ four-year term usually consisted of additional courses at the Tinbergen Institute, which left three years for actual research. The new master is an integration of this ‘old first year’ together with the last ‘normal university year’. Instead of 4-4 track (which usually was a 4-1-3 track) there has now emerged a 3-2-3 system. The advantage of this system is that the new TI-master offers students an excellent research-oriented two-year programme with good opportunities to meet top-level supervisors (TI-fellows).
In 2005 an international peer review committee consisting of prof. Dale Jorgenson, prof. David Hendry, prof. Arie Kapteyn, prof. Robert Merton and prof. Torsten Persson judged that the level of instruction in the core courses is comparable to the first-year program in leading graduate schools in economics in the UK and North America.
The number of students starting a Ph.D. training within RESAM was uneven in recent years but now seem to stabilize around an annual inflow of around ten. As can be seen from table V, there are major differences between the flows of fund. But in general we see a higher influx of externally funded Ph.Ds. The jump from 2001 to 2002 was due to postponing entry as a result of a new system of financial support2. The strong drop in 2003, 2004 and 2005 was a consequence of a financial shortage and, since all projects run at least four years, because of the high number of projects started in 2002 that are still weighing down on the budget. The last two years the outflow of students who completed their Mphil at the Tinbergen Institute was sufficient to fill in all of the vacancies, so the shortage 2005 and 2006 did not seem to persist.
Table V: Ph.D. Inflow 1998-2008 (RESAM)
Cohort 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
1st flow of fund projects 9 5 9 1,75 18 2,75 6 1 4,5 4 7 6,2 2nd flow of fund projects - - - 0,25 3 - 4 - 3 2 4 2,7 3rd flow of fund projects - - - - 0,25 2 1,5 2 - 1,4 Total projects started 9 5 9 2 21 3 10 3 9 8 11 8,2
Table VI: Ph.D. graduations by cohort (FEB)*
Cohort 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total/Average
Projects started 13 11 16 16 15 12 3 28 8 14 136
Graduated/Total 7-13 8-11 12-16 9-16 11-15 7-12 3-3 16-28 2-8 4-14 79/136
Fraction graduated from total 54% 73% 75% 56% 73% 58% 100% 57% 25% 29% 58%
Graduated within 60 months 3-7 3-8 10-12 5-9 3-11 3-7 1-3 10-16 4-4 2-2 44/79
Fraction grad. within 60 months 43% 38% 83% 56% 27% 43% 33% 63% 100% 100% 56%
Av. duration to completion in m. 67 60 58 65 69 60 65 58 50 49 60
* Including all FEB Ph.D. students (also those now under the Amsterdam Business School Research Institute)
As can be seen in table VI, on average, graduates at the FEB needed 60 months from start of the contract to actual graduation. If a thesis has been accepted by the supervisor, it easily takes four months until actual graduation (6 weeks for the committee to read and react, communication to the dean and the office of the pedel, time to print, etc). Adding queuing time for the auditorium, a lag of up to six months after the expiry date of the contract time is quite normal. Hence, average completion time of 60 months,
2 The ‘bursaal’-system was abolished in favor of the ‘AIO’-system. In the former system Ph.D. students are not employed by the
university but received a scholarship whereas in the latter system the Ph.D. students are employees with concomitant rights and legal positions.
compared to a formal minimum of some 54 months is not bad. Reason for real concern is the overall low percentage of graduations (58%). It is, however, expected that this figure will rise when the new system, in which excellent students receive a comprehensive two-year research-training programme before entering the Ph.D., will have become fully operational. If we look at the table VII we see a slightly better figure for the RESAM Ph.Ds. This is partly due to the fact that the relative weight of the most recent years is higher, since they naturally score better because part of these cohorts still has to graduate.
Table VII: Ph.D. graduations by cohort (RESAM)
Cohort 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Projects started 9 5 9 2 21 3 10
Graduated/Total 6-9 5-5 6-9 2-2 13-21 0-3 3-10
Fraction graduated from total 67% 100% 67% 100% 62% - 33%
Graduated within 60 months 4-6 2-5 2-6 0-2 9-13 0-0 3-3
Fraction grad. within 60 months 67% 40% 33% 0% 69% - 100
Av. duration to completion in m. 60 67 51 68 51 - 56 56
Total/Average 59 35/59 59% 20/35 57%
Box III: Research Highlight: Antoon Pelsser (Actuarial Science)
Many modern life-insurance policies specify minimum rate of return guarantees on the capital accumulated during the life of the contract. This and other elements of optionality, such as bonus distribution schemes and surrender possibilities, implicitly represent short positions in financial derivatives and as such are liabilities, which constitute a potential hazard to company solvency. Unfortunately, up to very recent times this hazard has remained unrecognized or ignored; with often catastrophic results for policyholders and insurance company shareholders alike (a set of such cases is given by Grosen and Jørgensen (1999) and Pelsser (2003)). Once the potentially disastrous
consequences of mismanaging the risk associated with these implicit options became obvious, the “fair valuation” of these liabilities became a focus of attention both in the insurance and the accounting professions.
In the classical actuarial approach all liabilities are valued by discounting expected payouts with a fixed interest rate. For claims depending on one or few underlying financial variables, this approach fails. Rather, an approach based on arbitrage arguments of the type pioneered by Black and Scholes (1973) is required. Hence “fair valuation” becomes “pricing by arbitrage” where the embedded options are concerned. This is, however, not simply an extension of existing valuation results. Given the very long maturity of the products under consideration, in order to be practically meaningful, prices and hedging strategies must take into account a high degree of uncertainty about the true dynamics of the underlying asset (“model risk”). In addition the standard theory of pricing derivatives operates under the assumption that financial markets are complete, i.e. the assumption is made that every payoff can be replicated by executing a (delta-hedging) trading strategy. However, many liabilities on the balance sheet of life-insurance companies and pension funds depend on risks that cannot be fully replicated in financial markets. Hence, the standard theory of derivatives pricing cannot be applied to establish the fair value of this important class of liabilities, unless additional approximations are made (see e.g. Pelsser (2003; 2004) and Pelsser-Schrager (2004)). Ballotta-Haberman (2003), Boyle-Hardy (2003) and Pelsser (2003) study the risk management of guaranteed annuity options which were sold in the UK. The unhedged risk of guaranteed annuity options caused the downfall of a large life-insurance company in the UK (Equitable Life) in 2000. However, all these papers focus on the risk management of the financial risks only, but assume that the actuarial risks are deterministic.
Recently, there has emerged a body of literature on the pricing of derivatives in an incomplete market setting. These papers have applied utility-theory to the pricing of derivative contracts on non-traded assets (see the papers by Davis (2003), Musiela-Zariphopoulou (2001; 2004a; 2004b) and Rouge-El Karoui (2000)). So far, only a few authors have applied these ideas to the fair value of insurance and pension contracts (see, Møller (2000; 2003a; 2003b), Young (2002, 2003), Chen-Pelsser-Vellekoop (2008)).
3.2 ACADEMIC REPUTATION
Econphd.net publishes rankings (that are quite substantial in scope (covering 63 journals over roughly ten years, 1993-2003)). ‘This ranking deviates from many conventional ones in that an author's entire publication history is attributed to the current affiliation, rather than the affiliation at time of publication. Hence this ranking is not a measure of department productivity over a period of time. It is a measure of current faculty resources’.3 According to these rankings the University of Amsterdam occupies the 37th position worldwide and the sixth position within Europe. For certain sub-disciplines UvA ranks even higher: for econometrics UvA’s rank is 15 worldwide, for macroeconomics is occupies the 22nd position in the world and for public economics the 24th.
A ranking based on weighted publications exploits only one dimension of research performance. A ranking of European academic institutions in 19994, based on articles published in the ten most prestigious international journals from 1991 to 1996, has FEB ranking 17th. This puts FEB ahead of all other Dutch institutions: Tilburg (19), Maastricht (37), Erasmus (42), Groningen (55), Leiden (58), Nijmegen (81), Utrecht (97) and the Free University (111). Output is not scaled by size of the institute. The top ranking institution (LSE) has published almost 400 AER (American Economic Review) equivalent pages, the top-ten all publish in excess of 140 AER equivalent pages. FEB published 86, Tilburg 80 pages, and all other Dutch institutions below 40 pages.
A ranking published in 2003, drawn up for the European Economic Association, puts the FEB at rank 10 in Europe. The ranking covers the period 1995-1999 and is based on thirty prestigious journals5. Tilburg takes up rank 1 in Europe, Erasmus is at 15, VU at 30, Maastricht at 31 and Groningen at 60. A ranking based on publication in some 650 journals in the period 1994-1998 puts UvA at rank 7 in Europe (Tilburg at 5, EUR at 8, VU at 19, Maastricht at 27 and Groningen at 29)6. According to comparisons presented in another study, using a more statistical approach and based on list of top journals, FEB held the sixth position of the top European institutes, just behind the University of Oxford7.
In 2008, CentER, the research institute in economics of Tilburg University, again drew up two rankings of Dutch economists and Institutions. First the Top 30 based on citations and secondly a Top 40 based on publications. From both rankings a Top 10 of institutions is derived. In 2008 the FEB was represented by four economists in the Top 30, one less then the year before. Subsequently the UvA fell down one position in the institutional Top 10 and came out third, behind Tilburg University and the Erasmus University Rotterdam. At the end of 2008 the Top 40 was published. In this ranking the FEB was, like in 2007, represented by four economists which all climbed a few positions. The UvA ranked fourth, two positions higher then the year before.
Another measure to assess the quality of RESAM’s academic reputation is to look at the editorial positions its staff has. Table VIII indicates that many RESAM faculty members take up many positions as editors or associate editors of international journals. Membership of editorial boards is also frequent.
4 P. Kalaitzidakis, T.P. Mamuneas & T. Stengos (1999). European economics: an analysis based on publications in the core
journals, European Economic Review, 43 (4-6), 1150-1168.
5 P. Kalaitzidakis, T. Mamuneas & T. Stengos (2003). Rankings of economic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 1, (6), 1346-1366.
7 M. Lubrano, L. Bauwens, A. Kirman & C. Protopopescu (2003). Ranking Economics Departments in Europe: A Statistical
Table VIII: Editorial positions in academic international journals
Name Editorship Journal Ranking IF
Adan, I.J.B.F. Editor Queueing Systems A 0,851
Adan, I.J.B.F. Editor Statistica Neerlandica B 0,317
Adan, I.J.B.F. Editor Mathematical Methods of Operations Research B 0,400 Beetsma, R.M.W.J. Associate editor European Economic Review A 0,944 Beetsma, R.M.W.J. Associate editor CESifo Economic Studies C 0,442 Beetsma, R.M.W.J. Associate editor Journal of Economic Literature A 3,973 Blaug, M. Member editorial board Journal of Economic Methodology B
Boumans, M.J. Member editorial board History of Political Economy A Boumans, M.J. Associate editor Journal of Economic Methodology B Boumans, M.J. Co-editor Journal of the History of Economic Thought B Burghouwt, G. Reviewer European Journal of Transport & Infrastructure Research
Davis, J.B. Co-editor Journal of Economic Methodology B Davis, J.B. Member editorial board Review of Social Economy
Dhaene, J. Associate editor Insurance: Mathematics and Economics A 0,575
Dhaene, J. Member editorial board Astin Bulletin B 0,176
Diks, C.G.H. Associate editor Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics in Econometrics B 0,593 Ellman, M.J. Associate editor Cambridge Journal of Economics B 0,700
Ewijk, C. van Editor De Economist B
Gooijer, J.G. de Editor International Journal of Forecasting B 1,409 Gooijer, J.G. de Associate Editor Empirical Economics. B 0,288 Goovaerts, M.J. Editor Insurance: Mathematics and Economics A 0,575 Goovaerts, M.J. Editor Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics B
Goovaerts, M.J. Associate editor Astin Bulletin B 0,176
Goovaerts, M.J. Associate editor Journal of Financial Economics 2,988 Haan, W.J. den Advisory editor Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control A 0,703 Haan, W.J. den Associate editor Journal of Money Credit and Banking A 0,947
Haan, W.J. den Associate editor Economica B 0,500
Hartog, J. Member editorial board Economics of Education Review B 0,557 Hinloopen, J. Member editorial board Review of Industrial Organization B 0,411
Hommes, C. Associate editor Computational Economics B
Hommes, C. Editor Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control A 0,703
Hommes, C. Associate editor Macroeconomic Dynamics B 0,453
Hommes, C. Associate editor Nonlinear Science
Hommes, C. Associate editor Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization B 0,772 Hommes, C. Associate editorial board Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination
Kaas, R. Managing editor Insurance: Mathematics and Economics A 0,575 Kiviet, J.F. Member editorial board Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Kleibergen, F.R. Associate editor Economics Letters B 0,302
Kuiper, E. Associate editor Feminist Economics B 0,541
Maas, H.B.J.B. Member editorial board History of Political Economy A Maas, H.B.J.B. Member editorial board Journal of Economic Methodology B Morgan, M.S. Member editorial board History of Political Economy A Morgan, M.S. Member editorial board Journal for the History of Economic Thought B Morgan, M.S. Member editorial board Journal of Economic Methodology B
Núñez Queija, R. Associate editor Mathematical Methods of Operations Research B 0,400 Núñez Queija, R. Associate editor Operations Research Letters B 0,517 Oosterbeek, H. Member editorial board Economics of Education Review B 0,557 Pelsser, A. Managing Editor International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance
Ploeg, F. van der Member editorial board Journal of Financial Economic Policy
Ploeg, F. van der Member editorial board Oxford Economic Papers B 0,645 Ploeg, F. van der Member editorial board Journal of Economics. B 0,377 Ploeg, F. van der Member editorial board Journal of Cultural Economics. C
Ploeg, F. van der Co-editor CESifo Economic Studies C 0,442 Praag, C.M. van Associate editor Small Business Economics B 1,168 Reuten, G.A.T.M. Corresponding editor Capital & Class C
Reuten, G.A.T.M. Member advisory board Historical Materialism C
Schram, A. Member editorial board Experimental Economics B 1,128 Sonnemans, J. Associate editor European Economic Review A 0,994 Sonnemans, J. Member editorial board Quantitative Finance B 0,824 Sonnemans, J. Member editorial board Journal of Economic Psychology B 0,900 Stel, A.J. van Member editorial board International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education
Tuinstra, J. Associate editor Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control A 0,703 Volgenant, A. Advisory editor Computers and Operations Research B
Wansbeek, T.J. Associate editor Journal of Econometrics A 1,990
Winden, F.A.A.M. van Member board Public Choice B 0,527
Wit, J.G. de Member editorial board Journal of Air Transport Management B 0,453 Wit, J.G. de Member editorial board Journal of Air Transportation C
3.3 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS
Figure II: Number of publications 2002-2008
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7y Average
A= publications in A -jounals B=publications in B - journals C=publications in C and other refereed journals B/R=refereed in/of books
Table IX: Publications 2002-2008
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7y Average
A= publications in A -jounals 30 26 23 41 32 19 32 29
B=publications in B - journals 48 63 59 49 64 64 49 57
C=publications in C and other refereed journals 31 14 23 33 34 28 43 29
B/R=refereed in/of books 39 30 37 38 27 31 44 35
Total: 148 133 142 161 157 142 168 150
Figure 2 and Table IX show a steady output of around a 150 publications per year. Although the increase in 2008 was mainly due to a higher amount of C publications and publications in/of books, RESAM was with a total of 168 publications quite successful.
The separate output of different programmes is shown in table X.
Table X: Aggregated results of the institute METIS code Research programme
Ac.nonref (ex. books) Ac.nonref (in/of book) Working & Discussion Papers Prof. publ. Pop. publ. Ph.D. Theses Fte WP 1st-3rd FoF A B C A B C
RES - EEM UvA-Econometrics 1 5 0 1 0 0 3 3 7 0 0 0 6,64
RES - OON Operations Research 6 6 3 0 0 1 3 0 13 0 0 1 2,81
RES - E&D Equilibrium, Expectations and Dynamics 4 12 2 1 1 0 0 1 21 2 4 1 7,60
RES - ACT Actuarial Science 4 4 1 2 1 0 8 0 11 7 0 0 4,66
RES - TOE Mint 4 3 9 5 2 1 1 6 27 13 20 2 7,75
RES - HUM Human Capital 1 11 9 0 2 1 5 2 20 5 32 1 7,89
RES - HME History & Methdology of Economics 3 2 3 4 11 0 5 0 4 3 26 0 3,22
RES - EXP Experimental & Political Economics 8 4 0 5 1 1 2 0 30 3 1 0 9,68
RES - ICA Industrial Org., Competition Pol. & Regulation 1 1 4 0 0 0 4 3 17 3 0 0 2,86
SEO - SEO SEO-Amsterdam Economics 0 1 12 0 0 4 72 13 2 17 7 0 26,54
RES - OVO Other Research KE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
RES - OVO Other Research AE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,53
Total 32 49 43 18 18 8 103 28 152 53 90 5 82,18 Aggregated total 124 44 82,18 Ac.ref (excl. books) Ac.ref (in/of books)
Figure III: RESAM Dissertations 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 IV III II I
*Category I: Ph.D. students who worked at FEB and graduated at FEB, II: external candidates who graduated at FEB, III: FEB staff that graduated elsewhere, IV: non-FEB students who graduated elsewhere with a FEB promotor.
In comparison to 2007 in which 16 RESAM dissertations where defended, 2008 was not such a successful year. Only 5 RESAM Ph.D. students graduated at the UvA and 2 Non-FEB Ph.D. students graduated with a RESAM promotor. The low output of 2008 was due to the very low input of 2005 (see table V) and there is no reason to suggest that this would persist in the near future.
3.4 RELEVANCE TO SOCIETY
Although the main aim of RESAM is to let its research contribute to the international academic discourse, most research done within RESAM programmes contributes in several ways to society at large. Some examples are given here but more detailed information can be found in the programme sections in part B of this report.
The Operations Research programme has initiated several projects together with other partners that yield results that are highly valuable to society including a project done together with the national railways and two projects in cooperation with an academic hospital (one on patient care and one on efficient blood storage).
The Human Capital research programme participates in TIER, an inter-university top Institute that conducts research in the field of evidence based education. The Top Institute wants to develop knowledge of ‘evidence based education’ that can be utilised by: 1) the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in policy preparation and evaluation; 2) the educational practice – for example in educational institutions – in the allocation of resources and in the decision making process when choosing between educational theories; and 3) parents and students when choosing a school or training.
Researchers from the programmes MInt and Actuarial Science have strong ties with NETSPAR (network for studies on pensions, aging and retirement) and their research results will strongly impact the ways in which government and society will deal with the problems in these areas.
In addition to the NETSPAR funding MInt has two Ph.Ds financed by De Nederlandsche Bank and one postdoc that is financed by MN Services.
Researchers at CREED, furthermore, have done various consultancy work for public and private institutions. One project, for the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) and the Ministry of Health, Well-Being and Sport (VWS) concerned the choice behavior of consumers in insurance markets for health care. Another project, commissioned by the Dutch government and the Municipality of Amsterdam concerns the design of auctions (using game theory and behavioral economics) for auctioning shares to interested parties within the so-called “Zuidas-Dok” project. Furthermore, a start was made for a new project commissioned by the Dutch Central Bank concerning the interaction between banks.
SEO Economic Research carries out contract research for ministries and public organizations, private companies and non-profit institutions, nationally and internationally. SEO distinguishes itself from other research bureaus by its analytical approach. Modern economic analysis is applied to practical issues. Empirical questions are tackled with the econometrics toolkit.
Box XX: Research Highlight: Matthijs van Veelen (CREED)
My research is divided between two rather different lines; index number theory and the evolution of good and evil.
Index number theory
Index number theory revolves around numbers that most economic research uses as its starting point. We routinely use measures of inflation and real economic growth, and we usually do so without realizing that these are not numbers that fall out of the sky, or that can only be computed in one natural and straightforward way. The same applies to international or intra-household comparisons of wealth and prices; even if there were no measurement problems, and we would have perfectly clean disaggregated data at our disposal, these comparisons can still be made in many different ways.
The aim of index number theory is to compute inflation rates and real growth figures – or in general: to compare wealth and overall price levels – in such a way that these numbers are as meaningful as possible. This also implies that once we have chosen one way of computing real growth – for instance – then index number theory points out what the limitations of those measures are.
The evolution of good and evil
I spend most of my research time on the evolution of pro- and antisocial behaviour in humans. The central question is: how did humans come to deviate from complete indifference to the fate of others? This is a question that perhaps falls within the domain of biology, but at CREED we use laboratory experiments to study the behaviour of this particular species we call our own, and for those experiments it can be helpful to realize that human behaviour also evolved by means of mutation and selection. Especially when it comes to other-regarding behaviour, it can make a lot of sense to draw our hypotheses from evolutionary models.
Having a background in econometrics and game theory turns out to be really helpful when crossing over to theoretical biology. Many of the models that are suggested in the biology literature are interesting and worth exploring as ideas already, but I firmly believe that technical rigour is the key to a deeper understanding of why and how selection works. Therefore most of my papers on these topics combine technical ingredients with conceptual issues.
In 2008 I worked mostly on a way to unite group selection models with inclusive fitness accounting, and on evolution in repeated games. Group selection is a (heatedly debated) explanation for altruism, and computing inclusive fitness is a way of making predictions that is associated with kin selection, which in turn is regularly regarded as a different type of model. Concerning the evolution of behaviour in repeated games, we found that instability is the key to understand evolution, rather than stability, which is what we game theorists usually focus on.
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS, PERSPECTIVES AND EXPECTATIONS
FOR THE INSTITUTE
4.1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT DIRECTOR RESAM Productivity
In spite of fierce international competition, output in international journals reached a new peak point in 2008 for the first time ever the total number of publications surpassed the threshold of 165 (Table IX). This is not due to an increase in the size of the staff; to the contrary: total research staff was in 2008 almost 10 FTE (12.5%) smaller than in 2005. We regard this as the result of the policy that allots research time to the researchers who are most capable to use that time to publish.
A serious threat to the high level of research productivity is the plan to increase the teaching load of members of the research staff. Currently, faculty members earning at least 100 publication points per three years period or who are fellow of the Tinbergen Institute, teach 150 hours per year. While this teaching load may considered not be too high compared to the teaching load in some other social sciences or humanities departments at the University of Amsterdam , it is high compared to teaching loads in departments that are our immediate competitors on rankings of economics departments in Europe. An even higher teaching load will have a negative impact on the research output of the current staff members because less time is left to dedicate to research. Moreover, a teaching load exceeding 150 hours, will also have adverse consequences for the retention of currently successful researchers, and for the recruitment of new faculty members. Already at the current teaching load of 150 hours, hiring committees sometimes face problems to attract good candidates, and promising young members of the research staff have been moving elsewhere. To keep our current position as one of the leading economics departments in Europe, it is therefore of great importance not to increase the current teaching loads. Research Priority Area
In the past year, the University of Amsterdam's board implemented its policy to reallocate part of the research funds towards fields in which departments excel. Within the Amsterdam School of Economics, the prime candidate to attain this special status is the field of behavioral economics. Not only is this field a very important and lively field within the discipline of economics, many of most productive researchers in the Amsterdam School of Economics conduct their research in this area. In the first year the additional budget assigned to the field of behavioral economics comes from internal reallocation. In subsequent years the research priority areas from the different departments compete for strategic funding allocated by the board of the university. A committee consisting of four members has been appointed to develop the research priority area in behavioral economics further. This committee is also in charge of the allocation of the extra funding. The committee consists of two researchers from the group of Experimental & Political Economics, one from the Human Capital group, and one from the Equilibrium, Expectations & Dynamics group. This committee has the important task to develop the research program in behavioral economics in such a way that it can be successful in competition with research priority areas from other disciplines. It is therefore important that the committee gets the full support from the dean of the faculty and from the board of the Amsterdam School of Economics.
An ongoing but yet unresolved issue concerns the MPhil/PhD program. The Tinbergen Institute offers a two-year Mphil program of outstanding quality, which - according to an evaluation committee chaired by Harvard professor Dale Jorgenson - is comparable to programs at top universities in the US and the UK. Although the number of high quality applicants to this program increases every year, it remains difficult to reach the annual inflow target of 30. The reason is that the budget available for scholarships is limited and that the number of Dutch applicants, who would not need a scholarship because they are entitled to financial support from the Dutch government, is low. The inflow of high quality Dutch students could be increased if students with a bachelor in econometrics from UvA, VU or EUR would apply to the program. From what we understand, however, econometrics students at UvA are hardly informed about the program offered by the Tinbergen Institute, and even when they know about the program, professors
and lecturers in econometrics do not encourage them to enter that program. One of the consequences of the zero inflow of students with a bachelor in econometrics in the Mphil program of the Tinbergen Institute is that the outflow of graduates from the Mphil program to the Econometrics research program of the Amsterdam School of Economics is also very low (see also the Program Evaluation of this research program).
While the total inflow into the Mphil program is still below the target level of 30, the outflow of TI-graduates towards research programs of the Amsterdam School of Economics is increasing. Some years ago we started with a disturbingly low intake of zero students from the program, whereas the inflow from this year's cohort will be eight or nine. It is important that this development continues.
With a substantial delay, the research programs of the Amsterdam School of Economics will be subject to an external examination (“onderzoeksvisitatie”). While we already had to submit our self-assessment report one year ago, an international committee will visit the Netherlands in May this year.8 The committee consists of professors Andrew Chesher (University College London; Econometrics, Microeconomics) and Guiseppe Bertola (University of Turin; Political/Macro/International/Public Economics).9 The main reason for the delay is that the organizing committee invited people one by one to be part of the international committee instead of asking a larger number of people whether they would be available. The findings of the international committee are of course of great importance for the Amsterdam School of Economics. From the perspective of benchmarking, it is important to know how the perceived quality of our programs compares to that of research programs in other Dutch economics department. But also for internal purposes it might be helpful how the different programs are judged relatively.
During the past year substantial effort has been devoted to the Tinbergen Institute (TI). In 2008, both the general director and the director of graduate studies resigned. Professor Herman K. van Dijk of Erasmus University Rotterdam has taken the position of general director, Professor Erik Plug (UvA) is the new director of graduate studies for economics, while Professor Andre Lucas (VU) has been appointed as director of graduate studies for the finance track. By having one of its most successful and internationally visible researchers appointed as director of graduate studies in economics, the Amsterdam School of Economics shows strong commitment to the graduate program of the TI.
Two other important topics relate to the cooperation of the TI with the Duisenberg School of finance (DSF). DSF is a joint initiative of the Dutch financial sector and Dutch Universities aimed at promoting the highest level of teaching in cutting edge areas of finance. TI and DSF cooperate in offering a Mphil/Phd track in finance. One topic relates to DSF's delicate financial position due to the credit crisis and its subsequent attempt to renege its financial commitment to TI. Currently, TI and DSF are in the process of renegotiation. The position of the RESAM-director (as member of TI's board) is that offering the Mphil/PhG track in finance should not harm in any way the regular economics program. The other topic relates to DSF's plan to move to the new financial center at the Zuid-as, and its demand to TI to move with them. In line with RESAM's preferences, it has now been agreed that the Amsterdam branch of TI will not move to another location unless it is on the premises of the Free University. This guarantees that TI remains located in an academic environment.
8 Only the program in Operations Research has already been examined as part of the examination of Dutch business research. No results are available yet.
9 More precisely, these are the two members with an economics background in a committee covering economics and business. Other committee members are: Prof. Catherine Casamatta, University Toulouse (Finance), Prof. Roland van Dierdonck, Ghent University (Operations Management), chairman, Prof. Matthias Jarke, RWTH Aachen (Information Management), Prof. David Otley, Lancaster University (Accounting), Prof. John Saunders, Ashton Business School (Marketing), Prof. Edward Snape, Hong Kong Polytechnic (HRM), Prof. Pierre Dussauge, HEC School of Management (Strategy and Business Policy; Innovation Management)
CHAPTER 5: UVA-ECONOMETRICS
Prof. dr J.F. Kiviet
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5
Quality: 5, Productivity: 3, Relevance: 3, Viability: 4
5.1 MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH GROUP AND RESEARCH IN FTES
Name Title Function
Total 2005 Total 2006 Total 2007 Total 2008 Dept. Funding Ariza Rojas, C. msc phd 0,60 0,60 0,60 0,50 KE 1 Ariza Rojas, C. msc oz - - - 0,10 KE 1 Bethlehem, J.G prof dr hgl 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 KE 1 Boswijk, H.P prof dr hgl - - 0,10 0,10 KE 3 Boswijk, H.P prof dr hgl 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 KE 1 Bun, M. dr ud 0,46 0,50 - - KE 2 Bun, M. dr ud - - 0,50 0,50 KE 1 Cheng, Y. msc phd 0,60 0,60 0,10 - KE 1 Cramer, J.S. prof dr hgl 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 KE 1 Gao, Z. msc phd - 0,20 0,60 0,60 KE 1
Garderen, K.J. van dr uhd 0,80 - - - KE 2
Garderen, K.J. van dr uhd - 0,50 0,50 0,50 KE 1
Giersbergen, N.P.A. van dr ud 0,42 0,48 0,42 0,42 KE 1
Gooijer, J.G. de prof dr hgl 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 KE 1 Kiviet, J.F. prof dr hgl 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 KE 1 Kleibergen, F.R. dr uhd 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 KE 1 Klein, A.A.B. dr ud 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 KE 1 Martellosio, F. dr postdoc 0,33 0,45 - - KE 2 Niemczyk, J. msc phd 0,60 0,60 0,50 - KE 1
Oomen, R.C.A. dr guest 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 KE 1
Ophem, J.C.M. van dr uhd 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,20 KE 1
Parente, P. dr postdoc - 0,30 0,80 0,40 KE 1
Stakenas, P. msc phd - - 0,20 0,60 KE 1
Wansbeek, T.J. prof dr hgl - - 0,01 0,01 MH 1
Zu, Yang msc phd - 0,20 0,60 0,60 KE 1
Total 1st flow of funds 4,89 5,59 6,94 6,54
Total 2nd flow of funds 1,61 0,97 0,00 0,00
Total 3rd flow of funds 0,00 0,00 0,10 0,10
Total 1st f.o.f. excl. Ph.D.'s 3,09 3,39 4,34 4,24
Total 1st-3rd flow of funds 6,50 6,56 7,04 6,64