Alex Tabarrok

The Battle over Junk DNA

by on May 24, 2013 at 7:23 am in Economics, Science | Permalink

Last year the ENCODE Consortium, a big-data project involving 440 scientists from 32 laboratories around the world, announced with great fanfare that 80% of the human genome was functional or as the NYTimes put it less accurately but more memorably ”at least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed.” What the NYTimes didn’t say was that this claim was highly controversial to the point of implausibility. A fascinating, sharply-worded critique, On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE has recently been published by Graur et al. Here is some of the flavor:

This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, chiefly (1)
by employing the seldom used “causal role” definition of biological function and
then applying it inconsistently to different biochemical properties, (2) by committing
a logical fallacy known as “affirming the consequent,” (3) by failing to appreciate
the crucial difference between “junk DNA” and “garbage DNA,” (4) by using
analytical methods that yield biased errors and inflate estimates of functionality, (5)
by favoring statistical sensitivity over specificity, and (6) by emphasizing statistical
significance rather than the magnitude of the effect. Here, we detail the many logical
and methodological transgressions involved in assigning functionality to almost
every nucleotide in the human genome. The ENCODE results were predicted by one
of its authors to necessitate the rewriting of textbooks. We agree, many textbooks
dealing with marketing, mass-media hype, and public relations may well have to be
rewritten.

Graur et al. make a number of key points. ENCODE essentially defined “functional” as sometimes involved in a specified set of biochemical reactions (I am simplifying!). But every microbiological system is stochastic and sooner or later everything is involved in some kind of biochemical reaction even if that reaction goes nowhere and does nothing. In contrast, Graur et al. argue that “biological sense can only be derived from evolutionary context” which in this case means that functional is defined as actively protected by selection.

There are a variety of ways of identifying whether a sequence is actively protected by selection. One method, for example, looks for sequences that are highly similar (conserved) across species. Once evolution has hit on the recipe for hemoglobin, for example, it doesn’t want that recipe messed with–thus the chimp and human DNA that blueprints hemoglobin is very similar and not that different from that of dogs. In other areas of the genome, however, even closely related species have different sequences which suggests that that portion of the DNA isn’t being selected for, it’s randomly mutating because there is no value to its conservation. When functional is defined using selection, most human DNA does not look functional.

It’s also interesting to note that the size of the genome varies significantly across species but in ways that appear to have little to do with complexity. The human genome, for example, is about 3GB, quite a  bit more than the fruit fly at 170MB, But the onion is 17GB! (One of the reasons that onions are used in a lot of science labs, by the way, is that the onion genome is so big it makes onion nuclei large enough so that you can easily see them with low-powered microscopes.) Now one could argue that this lack of correlation between genome size and complexity is simply a result of an anthropocentric definition of complexity. Maybe an onion really is complex. Two points counter this view, however. First, similar species can have very different genome sizes. Second, we know why the genome of some species is really large. It’s filled with transposons, so-called jumping genes, sometimes analogized to viruses, that cut and paste themselves into the genome. Some of these transposons, like Alu in humans, are short sequences that repeat themselves millions of times. It’s very difficult to believe that these boring repetitions are functional (n.b. this is not to say that they don’t have an effect.) The fact that it’s this kind of repetitious, not-conserved DNA that accounts for a large fraction of the differences in genome size is highly suggestive of non-functionality.

Why discuss such an esoteric (for economists) paper on a (nominally!) economics blog? The Graur et al. paper is highly readable, even for non-experts. It’s even funny, although I laughed somewhat sheepishly since some of the comments are unnecessarily harsh. Many of the critiques, such as the confusion between statistical and substantive significance, arise in economics and many other fields. The Graur paper also makes some points which are going to be important in economics. For example they write:

“High-throughput genomics and the centralization of science funding have enabled Big Science to generate “high-impact false positives” by the truckload…”

Exactly right. Big data is coming to economics but data is not knowledge and big data is not wisdom.

Finally, the Graur paper tells us something about disputes in economics. Economists are sometimes chided for disagreeing about the importance of such basic questions as the relative role of aggregate demand and aggregate supply but physicists can’t even find most of the universe and microbiologists don’t agree on whether the human genome is 80% functional or 80% junk. Is disagreement a result of knaves and fools? Sometimes, but more often disagreement is just the way the invisible hand of science works.

Hat tip: Monique van Hoek.

54 comments

The ABCs of Bitcoin Secrets

by on May 21, 2013 at 10:20 am in Current Affairs, Science | Permalink

You may perhaps have heard of the intriguing mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki who has produced an alleged proof of an important theorem that is so difficult and involves the creation of so much original mathematics and notation that no one is sure whether the proof is valid. Here is one description:

On August 31, 2012, Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted four papers on the Internet.

The titles were inscrutable. The volume was daunting: 512 pages in total. The claim was audacious: he said he had proved the ABC Conjecture, a famed, beguilingly simple number theory problem that had stumped mathematicians for decades.

Then Mochizuki walked away. He did not send his work to the Annals of Mathematics. Nor did he leave a message on any of the online forums frequented by mathematicians around the world. He just posted the papers, and waited.

…The problem, as many mathematicians were discovering when they flocked to Mochizuki’s website, was that the proof was impossible to read. The first paper, entitled “Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I: Construction of Hodge Theaters,” starts out by stating that the goal is “to establish an arithmetic version of Teichmuller theory for number fields equipped with an elliptic curve…by applying the theory of semi-graphs of anabelioids, Frobenioids, the etale theta function, and log-shells.”

This is not just gibberish to the average layman. It was gibberish to the math community as well.

“Looking at it, you feel a bit like you might be reading a paper from the future, or from outer space,” wrote Ellenberg on his blog.

“It’s very, very weird,” says Columbia University professor Johan de Jong, who works in a related field of mathematics.

Mochizuki had created so many new mathematical tools and brought together so many disparate strands of mathematics that his paper was populated with vocabulary that nobody could understand. It was totally novel, and totally mystifying.

But there may be more secrets, secrets upon secrets because Ted Nelson has recently argued that this same mathematician, Shinichi Mochizuki, is also the elusive Satoshi Nakamoto who unleashed bitcoin on the world and then disappeared. Now this is almost too delicious to be true so take it with more than a grain of salt. Mochizuki, for example, has bona fides as a mathematician but he does not appear to have a record of sophisticated software creation. But if true, this would be awesome.

Hat tip: Barry Klein

21 comments

The Man of System

by on May 17, 2013 at 7:31 am in Economics, Education, Philosophy, Uncategorized | Permalink

One sometimes hears arguments for busing or against private schools that say we need to prevent the best kids from leaving in order to benefit their less advantaged peers. I find such arguments distasteful. People should not be treated as means. I must confess, therefore, that I took some pleasure at the findings of a recent paper by Carrell, Sacerdote, and West:

We take cohorts of entering freshmen at the United States Air Force Academy and assign half
to peer groups designed to maximize the academic performance of the lowest ability students.
Our assignment algorithm uses nonlinear peer eff ects estimates from the historical pre-treatment
data, in which students were randomly assigned to peer groups. We find a negative and signi ficant treatment eff ect for the students we intended to help. We provide evidence that within our
“optimally” designed peer groups, students avoided the peers with whom we intended them to
interact and instead formed more homogeneous sub-groups. These results illustrate how policies
that manipulate peer groups for a desired social outcome can be confounded by changes in the
endogenous patterns of social interactions within the group.

I was reminded of Adam Smith’s discussion of exactly this issue in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

Do note that this discussion is not a critique of the paper which is very well done.

109 comments

Red Lights for Profit

by on May 14, 2013 at 1:13 pm in Economics, Law, Political Science | Permalink

TAMPA BAY, Florida — A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida’s rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state’s policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

…Red light cameras generated more than $100 million in revenue last year…with 52.5 percent of the revenue going to the state. The rest is divided by cities, counties, and the camera companies….”Red light cameras are a for-profit business between cities and camera companies and the state,” said James Walker, executive director of the nonprofit National Motorists Association. “The (FDOT rule-change) was done, I believe, deliberately in order that more tickets would be given with yellows set deliberately too short.”

See Buchanan and Brennan’s The Power to Tax for an analytic approach and Benson, Rasmussen and Sollars for another example of bureaucratic revenue maximization.

Hat tip: Radley Balko.

49 comments

Private Schools in Developing Countries

by on May 13, 2013 at 7:04 am in Data Source, Economics, Education, Uncategorized | Permalink

Tina Rosenberg has an excellent piece on private schooling in developing countries at the NYTimes blog:

In the United States, private school is generally a privilege of the rich. But in poorer nations, particularly in Africa and South Asia, families of all social classes send their children to private school….

BRAC used to be an acronym for Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, but now the letters stand alone. It was founded in 1972 to provide relief after Bangladesh’s war of liberation. Although you’ve probably never heard of it, BRAC is the largest nongovernmental organization in the world, with some 100,000 employees, and it services reach 110 million people.

…And since 1985, it has run schools… BRAC has more than 1.25 million children in its schools in Bangladesh and six other countries, and it is expanding.

BRAC students, in fact, do better than their public-school counterparts….BRAC students are more likely to complete fifth grade — in 2004, 94 percent did, as opposed to 67 percent of public school students. (The BRAC number is now about 99 percent.)  On government tests, BRAC students do about 10 percent better than public school students  — impressive, given that their population is the most marginalized. (emphasis added).

In my own work on private schools in India I also found suggestive evidence that private schools–mostly very small, urban slum schools–produced better outcomes than their public counterparts (paper (pdf), video).

26 comments

Bundling

by on May 11, 2013 at 7:20 am in Economics, Sports, Television | Permalink

John McCain has introduced a bill to “encourage the wholesale and retail unbundling of programming by distributors and programmers.” Would a la carte pricing result in lower prices and greater consumer welfare or would it raise prices and result in less investment in television media? Time to take a look at the economics of bundling. In this video from our MRUniversity course on media economics I review the theory of bundling and then apply it to cable TV.

38 comments

Sodomy and Usury

by on May 10, 2013 at 7:31 am in Economics, History, Religion | Permalink

Aristotle thought that usury and sodomy were related because in both cases there was attempted reproduction in an unnatural way. (Yeah, I don’t get it either. The argument would have been better as an argument against cloning. No matter, the argument was influential).

In a very good piece, Jeet Heer contrasts the ancients with Adam Smith and the liberal, free market tradition:

Aristotle’s linkage of non-procreative sex with usury profoundly influenced Christian thinkers. Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica codified the fusion of Aristotle with Christianity, argued that sodomy and usury were both “sins against nature, in which the very order of nature is violated, an injury done to God himself, who sets nature in order.” Echoing Aquinas, Dante placed sodomites and usurers in the same circle of Hell in the Divine Comedy. In his 1935 tract “Social Credit,” Ezra Pound, whose obsession with crackpot economics took him down many historical byways, argued that “usury and sodomy, the Church condemned as a pair, to one hell, the same for one reason, namely that they are both against natural increase.”

There is a flipside to this tradition of seeing sodomy as the enemy of the natural economy of the household: The counter-tradition of liberal economics founded by Adam Smith challenged the household model by seeing economics as rooted in the free trade of goods between households and nations. Precisely because Smith was more receptive to previously condemned or taboo economic activities like trade and manufacturing, he was also more open to sexual liberalism.

Smith’s friend Alexander Dalrymple is now thought to have written an anonymous tract, Thoughts of an Old Man (1800), recalling that the founder of modern economics believed that “sodomy was a thing in itself indifferent”—a radical thing to say even in private at a time when sodomy was a capital offence, condemned by church and state.

…Smith’s new and somewhat inchoate ideas were pushed further by Bentham, who in an unpublished essay observed that sodomy “produces no pain in anyone” but “on the contrary it produces pleasure.”

…It’s no accident that in 1787 Bentham wrote a “Defence of Usury,” which tried to convince Adam Smith to take a more benevolent view of the hitherto morally sanctioned economic activity. On the subject of both usury and sodomy, Bentham’s inclination was to take Smith’s liberal impulses to their logical end. Bentham was in favour of consensual adult acts (be they sexual or economic) that led to greater happiness, whether they violated pre-existing taboos or not.

It was, of course, also no accident that Tyler posted on Bentham last week. Here is a good extract of Bentham on usury.

Hat tip: The Browser.

71 comments

The Public Choice Outreach Conference 2013!

by on May 10, 2013 at 7:29 am in Economics, Education | Permalink

Students are invited to apply to the Public Choice Outreach Conference. The Conference is an intensive lecture series on public choice and constitutional economics that has “graduated” some of the leading lights in economics and political science over the past thirty years. The conference will be held at George Mason University from Friday August 16 to Sunday August 18.

Graduate students and advanced undergraduates majoring in economics, history, international studies, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, public administration, religious studies, and sociology have attended past conferences. Applicants unfamiliar with Public Choice and students from outside of George Mason University are especially encouraged. A small stipend is available and meals and rooms will be provided by the conference (for non-locals). Space, however, is very limited.

Applications are due June 21. You can find more information here. Contact Lisa Hill-Corley if you have further questions about applications.

2 comments

The Open Borders Movement

by on May 7, 2013 at 7:30 am in Economics, Law, Uncategorized | Permalink

I spoke on The 180, a Canadian radio show on CBC, on the open borders movement. Ironically, the streaming version appears not to be available to Americans. You can listen to the podcast, however. The interview starts at about 3:18. Jim Brown, the interviewer, was very gracious in letting me speak and I thought we covered a lot. Here are two lightly transcribed bits:

The problem with poverty is not that people don’t have skills it is that they are imprisoned in countries where their political or geographic institutions prevent them from making a living. When people move to the U.S. or Canada they are perfectly capable of making a decent living. It’s not that there is something wrong with the people in other countries. The poverty is the fault of the governments under which they live and the unfortunate fact that some people are just unlucky and they happen to be born in a barren region and because of the policies of other countries they can’t leave that barren region. I think that is wrong.

When someone with low skills comes into Canada that benefits people in Canada who have high skills as it helps them to focus on what they do best. As I like to put it, a gardener who works for a particle physicist is indirectly helping to unlock the secrets of the universe.

See OpenBorders.info for a superb resource on all aspects of this question.

135 comments

More on Apprenticeships

by on May 6, 2013 at 6:03 am in Current Affairs, Economics, Education | Permalink

A very good piece on apprenticeships from Stuart E. Eizenstat and Robert I. Lerman:

…firms interested in investing in the United States are finding too few workers with the skills needed to achieve the productivity and quality required in today’s globally competitive industries. The skills gap is real… U.S. unemployment remains at 7.5 percent, and only one out of two African American men in their early 20s has a job. A survey of employers published last year revealed that about 600,000 jobs go unfilled because of a lack of skilled labor….The central answer to the mismatch between jobs and employment is a 21st-century apprenticeship program.

…Although apprenticeships yield significant earnings gains for workers, this country has too few programs, partly because of the massive bias in public spending toward a college-only approach. Government spending on colleges and universities tops $300 billion per year; outlays to apprenticeship programs total less than $40 million annually. A public-private initiative could increase competitiveness and youth employment, upgrade skills and wages, achieve positive returns for employers and workers, and reduce government spending if companies played a larger role in skills development.

As I said in Tuning in to the Dropping Out:

Why should a major in English literature be subsidized with room and board on a beautiful campus with Olympic-size swimming pools and state-of-the-art athletic facilities when apprentices in nursing, electrical work, and new high-tech fields like mechatronics are typically unsubsidized (or less subsidized)? College students even get discounts at the movie theater; when was the last time you saw a discount for an electrical apprentice?

81 comments

American Austerity (and Growth)

by on May 3, 2013 at 1:06 pm in Current Affairs, Data Source, Economics | Permalink

Austeritygraph

The red line in the chart above is Paul Krugman’s preferred measure of austerity, the ratio of overall government expenditure to potential GDP. The idea of potential GDP has plenty of problems and biases but I want to be more than fair. In his post on American Austerity Krugman warns:

 the truth is that federal stimulus is years behind us, while state and local governments have cut back, so the overall story is one of fiscal contraction that’s smaller than in Europe, but not by that much.

…Spending is down to what it was before the recession, and also significantly lower than it was under Reagan. Bear in mind that in the years since the recession began we’ve seen a significant number of boomers reach retirement age, which would ordinarily have led to rising spending, not to mention the effects of rising health care costs. Bear in mind also that the private sector is still deleveraging, which means that government should be spending more to help sustain the economy. So this is actually a picture of very bad policy. (emphasis added)

I assume that by very bad policy what Krugman means is a policy that is likely to have very bad effects. Hence, I have added to Krugman’s graph the growth rate of real gdp (annual rate). I don’t see the very bad effects. In the 1990s growth was strong even while “austerity” was increasing (falling red line) [as this sentence appears to be driving people mad do note that it is a factual description of the data from which I do not draw a conclusion]. More recently, we have seen a big increase in austerity according to Krugman and his measure but although there has been no boom, growth has remained modest. As Justin Wolfers tweeted this morning with the strong jobs report, “the recovery has been remarkably persistent, and resilient,” albeit not rapid. Scott Sumner argues that this is bye, bye Keynesian multiplier as monetary policy stands triumphant (also here) which is one possible interpretation.

106 comments

Interpreting Statistical Evidence

by on May 2, 2013 at 7:31 am in Data Source, Economics, Science | Permalink

Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers offer six principles to separate lies from statistics:

1. Focus on how robust a finding is, meaning that different ways of looking at the evidence point to the same conclusion.

In Why Most Published Research Findings are False I offered a slightly different version of the same idea

Evaluate literatures not individual papers.

SWs second principle:

2. Data mavens often make a big deal of their results being statistically significant, which is a statement that it’s unlikely their findings simply reflect chance. Don’t confuse this with something actually mattering. With huge data sets, almost everything is statistically significant. On the flip side, tests of statistical significance sometimes tell us that the evidence is weak, rather than that an effect is nonexistent.

That’s correct but there is another point worth making. Tests of statistical significance are all conditional on the estimated model being the correct model. Results that should happen only 5% of the time by chance can happen much more often once we take into account model uncertainty not just parameter uncertainty.

3. Be wary of scholars using high-powered statistical techniques as a bludgeon to silence critics who are not specialists. If the author can’t explain what they’re doing in terms you can understand, then you shouldn’t be convinced.

I am mostly in agreement but SW and I are partial to natural experiments and similar methods which generally can be explained to the lay public while other econometricians (say of the Heckman school) do work that is much more difficult to follow without significant background and while being wary I also wouldn’t reject that kind of work out of hand.

4.  Don’t fall into the trap of thinking about an empirical finding as “right” or “wrong.” At best, data provide an imperfect guide. Evidence should always shift your thinking on an issue; the question is how far.

Yes, be Bayesian. See Bryan Caplan’s post on the Card-Krueger minimum wage study for a nice example.

5. Don’t mistake correlation for causation.

Does anyone still do this? I know the answer is yes.  I often find, however, that the opposite problem is more common among relatively sophisticated readers–they know that correlation isn’t causation but they don’t always appreciate that economists know this and have developed sophisticated approaches to disentangling the two. Most of the effort in a typical empirical paper in economics is spent on this issue.

6. Always ask “so what?” …The “so what” question is about moving beyond the internal validity of a finding to asking about its external usefulness.

Good advice although I also run across the opposite problem frequently, thinking that a study done in 2001 doesn’t tell us anything about 2013, for example.

Here, from my earlier post, are my rules for evaluating statistical studies:

1)  In evaluating any study try to take into account the amount of background noise.  That is, remember that the more hypotheses which are tested and the less selection which goes into choosing hypotheses the more likely it is that you are looking at noise.

2) Bigger samples are better.  (But note that even big samples won’t help to solve the problems of observational studies which is a whole other problem).

3) Small effects are to be distrusted.

4) Multiple sources and types of evidence are desirable.

5) Evaluate literatures not individual papers.

6)  Trust empirical papers which test other people’s theories more than empirical papers which test the author’s theory.

7)  As an editor or referee, don’t reject papers that fail to reject the null.

95 comments

The Value of a Community College

by on May 1, 2013 at 6:04 am in Economics, Education | Permalink

Technical degree holders from [a] state’s community colleges often earn more their first year out than those who studied the same field at a four-year university.

Take graduates in health professions from Dyersburg State Community College. They not only finish two years earlier than their counterparts at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, but they also earn $5,300 more, on average, in their first year after graduation.

In Virginia, graduates with technical degrees from community colleges make $20,000 more in the first year after college than do graduates in several fields who get bachelor’s degrees. Yet high-school seniors are regularly told that community colleges are for students who can’t hack it on a four-year campus.

…Colleges don’t like being measured by the earnings of their graduates. Defining value in such a narrow way, they argue, obscures the broader benefits of higher education. They point out that first-year salaries often have no bearing on earnings later in life. It’s true that those with bachelor’s degrees typically earn more over a lifetime than those with a two-year degree, but that’s little consolation to those who are discouraged from going to community colleges and end up dropping out of a four-year school without a degree.

… As the researchers themselves admit, the data would be more useful if they included more than the first-year salaries of those graduates who remain in state to work. But improving these tools has been slow going, largely because the higher-education lobby has fought federal efforts to create a “unit-record” system that could work across state lines to link students’ educational and employment histories.

From Jay Selingo writing at the WSJ, he has a book coming out, College Unbound, that looks promising.

Hat tip: Daniel Lippman.

46 comments

Apple Diversity has Grown

by on April 30, 2013 at 7:31 am in Economics, Food and Drink, History | Permalink

Mother Jones has a fun piece on apple hunters, people who track down long-forgotten apple varieties, sometimes to a single, ancient tree which they then clone in order to resurrect its unique apples. It’s a fun, human-interest story but Mother Jones also repeats a number of errors about apple diversity. Most notably:

In the mid-1800s, there were thousands of unique varieties of apples in the United States, some of the most astounding diversity ever developed in a food crop. Then industrial agriculture crushed that world. The apple industry settled on a handful of varieties to promote worldwide, and the rest were forgotten. They became commercially extinct—but not quite biologically extinct.

Mother Jones is tame compared to The New Internationalist which really ramps up the imagery:

Lincoln was assassinated. So were Washington and Jefferson. In fact all three Lincolns were wiped out. In the end it wasn’t so much an assassination as a massacre, with 6,121 of the 7,098 American apple varieties that blossomed last century now extinct….In less than a century, market pressures for uniformity have slaughtered crop diversity.

All of this is highly misleading at best. The innovative Paul Heald and co-author Sussanah Chapman show that the diversity of the commercial apple has increased over time not decreased (pdf). It is true, that in 1905 W.H. Ragan published a catalog of apples with some 7000 varieties. Varieties of apples come and go, however, like rose varieties or fashions and Ragan’s catalog listed any apple that had ever been grown during the entire 19th century. (Moreover, most varieties are neither especially good nor especially unique). At the time Ragan wrote, Heald and Chapman estimate that the commercially available stock was not 7000 but around 420 varieties. What about today?

The Fruit, Berry and Nut Inventory for 2000 lists 1469 different varieties of apples, a massive gain in terms of what growers can easily find for sale. The Plant Genetic Resources Unit of the USDA, in Geneva, New York, maintains orchards containing an additional 980 apple varieties that are not currently being offered in commercial catalogs. Scions from these trees are typically available to anyone who wishes to propagate their variety. The USDA numbers bring the total varieties of apples available to 2450.

In fact, there are more than 500 varieties of apples from the 19th century commercially available today–thus there are more 19th century apples available today than probably at any time in the 19th century!

It is true, of course, that when you go to a typical supermarket there aren’t hundreds of varieties of apples for sale but neither were there hundreds of varieties for sale in the past. In fact, I strongly suspect that the average consumer today has more choices of apple than ever before. I stopped in at Whole Foods last night and counted seven varieties of apple for sale, that’s amazing. Over the year, Whole Foods probably sells 15 varieties. Moreover, I likely also consume other varieties in pies, juice and cider. A few more varieties are available a short drive from my home.  Indeed, with all these choices it’s a wonder that Barry Schartz isn’t complaining about information overload and choice exhaustion.(Isn’t it interesting how critics of markets always find something to complain about? Either the market is overloading us with choices or tyrannizing us with too few choices.)

It is true that in a large and diverse country such as the United States there were probably more apple varieties grown in significant numbers in the 19th century but that confuses geographic diversity with what we actually care about which is consumption diversity or option availability. I explained this idea in my post, What is New Trade Theory? on Paul Krugman’s Nobel prize.

Consider the simplest model (based on Krugman 1979).  In this model there are two countries.  In each country (or region), consumers have a preference for variety but there is a tradeoff between variety and cost, consumers want variety but since there are economies of scale – a firm’s unit costs fall as it produces more – more variety means higher prices.  Preferences for variety push in the direction of more variety, economies of scale push in the direction of less.  So suppose that without trade country 1 produces varieties A,B,C and country two produces varieties X,Y,Z.  In every other respect the countries are identical so there are no traditional comparative advantage reasons for trade.

Nevertheless, if trade is possible it is welfare enhancing.  With trade the scale of production can increase which reduces costs and prices.  Notice, however, that something interesting happens.  The number of world varieties will decrease even as the number of varieties available to each consumer increases.  That is, with trade production will concentrate in say A,B,X,Y so each consumer has increased choice even as world variety declines.

Increasing variety for individuals even as world variety declines is a fundamental fact of globalization.  In the context of culture, Tyler explains this very well in his book, Creative Destruction; when people in Beijing can eat at McDonald’s and people in America can eat at great Chinese restaurants the world looks increasingly similar even as each world resident experiences an increase in variety.

Thus it may well be the case that more apples varieties were grown in large quantities in the 19th century but there are both more varieties commercially available today (our stock of genetic diversity is higher) and individual consumers have low-cost access to more apple varieties than ever before.

82 comments

Judge Trims Patent Thicket

by on April 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm in Economics, Law | Permalink

In Launching the Innovation Renaissance I wrote:

In the software, semiconductor and biotech sectors, for example, a new product can require the use of hundreds or even thousands of previous patents, giving each patent owner veto-power over innovation. Most of the owners don’t want to actually stop innovation of course, they want to use their veto-power to grab a share of the profits. So in theory patent owners could agree to a system of licenses from which everyone would benefit. In practice, however, licensing is costly, time-consuming and less likely to work the more parties are involved. It’s easy for a bargain to break down when five owners each want 25 percent of the profits. It’s almost impossible for a bargain to work when hundreds of owners each want 10 percent of the profits.

The just decided Microsoft v. Motorola decision illustrates the problem and what judges can do to help resolve the problem. The case concerned two standards-essential patents (SEPs) which must be licensed to other parties at a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) rates. Motorola, however, was claiming that a reasonable fee required Microsoft to pay over $4 billion annually. The court decided, however, that a truly reasonable free was about $1.8 million a year. Quite the discount. The decision by US District Judge James Robart is admirably clear:

When the standard becomes widely used, the holder of SEPs obtain substantial leverage to demand more than the value of their specific patented technology. This is so even if there were equally good alternatives to that technology available when the original standard was adoped. After the standard is widely implemented, switching to those alternatives is either no longer viable or would be very costly….The ability of a holder of an SEP to demand more than the value of its patented technology and to attempt to capture the value of the standard itself is referred to as patent “hold-up.”…Hold-up can threaten the diffusion of valuable standards and undermine the standard-setting process.

…In the context of standards having many SEPs and products that comply with multiple standards, the risk of the use of post-adoption leverage to exact excessive royalties is compounded by the number of potential licensors and can result in cumulative royalty payments that can undermine the standards…The payment of excessive royalty to many different holders of SEPs is referred to as “royalty stacking.”…a proper methodology for determining a RAND royalty should address the risk of royalty stacking by considering the aggregate royalties that would apply if other SEP holders made royalty demands of the implementer.

Judges made patent law what it is today and they are beginning to remake it. The decision impacts not just Microsoft and Motorola but the value of future patents and the value of future patent litigation.

20 comments

← Previous Entries