Giving specific presents as holiday gifts is inefficient, because recipients could satisfy their preferences much better with cash.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
the choice of the gift giver is a signal of intensity of search effiort
|
||||
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Cash is more efficient in a narrow sense, but holiday gift exchanges are about interpersonal relationships.
|
||||
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
Clearly true if one ignores the pleasure one may get in choosing or receiving specific gifts. Only in some cases are these factors minimal.
|
||||
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Are you serious? Presents serve multiple interpersonal purposes. Revealed preference indicates that income transfer is not the primary one.
|
||||
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
Depends on goal: may have goal (like create emotional connection through item - as if economists had emotions!) not achievable with cash.
|
||||
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Giving a present gives one an occssion to think about the recipient. The effort one puts into buying can be an important signal as well.
|
||||
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
it's the thought (identifying the right present) that matters! In addition money lacks the surprise element.
|
||||
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Of course does not consider receiver's joy of giving, etc:
|
||||
Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
Gifts serve many functions such as signalling regard and demonstrating social ties with the recipient. Cash transfers don't do this as well
|
||||
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
I don't want to be a scrooge!
|
||||
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
This is the sort of narrow view that rightly gives economics bad name.
|
||||
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
A large benefit is the pleasure of choosing something special for the receiver. Maybe one's hand-knit socks are more fun to give than cash!
|
||||
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
"It is the thought that counts" has more truth than some allow. Gifts are more than things.
|
||||
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
Implications of a specific gift (signal it sends, behavioral impact) may give additional utility to either the giver or receiver.
|
||||
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
The act of giving or receiving gifts can add value to the gifts.
|
||||
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
Instead of proposing to your wife w/diamond ring, you offer a gift card of equal value. Efficient--if you don't count your hospital bills.
|
||||
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
generally agree but exposes neoclassical econ limitations bc it excludes utility from gift giver or recipient choosing/receiving a gift.
|
||||
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Giver informs receiver of novel experience. And (John Solow) giver can't enjoy directly, but only with participation of receiver (jewelry)
-see background information here |
||||
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
An assistant might prefer cash. For a friend a present that shows that you have thought about what matters to them might mean much more.
|
||||
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Recipients often want to know that the giver spent time thinking about the gift and acquiring it. Giving cash is too easy in their eyes.
|
||||
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
In some cases, non-pecuniary values are important, but in general, the statement is true.
|
||||
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
Motivation for the present has to be non-monetary -- but try giving your spouse cash!
|
||||
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
I know the argument (see link), but a costly signal can be worthwhile.
-see background information here |
||||
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
Only an economist could think like this.
|
||||
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Disagree because the value is the thought behind selecting the present, not the cash involved. So true for thoughtless presents.
|
||||
Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
The judgment would seem to depend on the giver's motivation.
|
||||
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Gift giving is a form of communication. Comparing the gift to what the recepient would purchase with cash misses the esssence of gifts.
|
||||
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
Generally, of course. But shopping takes time, and some gifts you would never have shopped for turn out to satisfy unsuspected preferences.
|
||||
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
Balderdash. This narrow notion of "efficiency" -- and what life is about -- gives economists a bad name. Here's to the winter solstice.
|
||||
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
Many reasons why gifts may be better than cash. Signaling thoughtfulness. Specialized knowledge of giver. Gifts from travels...
|
||||
Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
For many (most?) gifts, "efficiency" is not the point.
|
||||
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
Is this a trivial price theory quiz or an interesting behavioral question.? To test price theory, try a cash gift next Valentine's day.
|
||||
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
Bah, humbug. Such a claim takes an oversimplified model too seriously. Gifts can serve many purposes.
|