• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Of all publications in the section: 27
Sort:
by name
by year
Article
Kivinen S. Economics Letters. 2017. Vol. 154. P. 81-83.

A model of social learning and strategic network formation is developed with distance-based utility and cognitive dissonance. For intermediate costs, stable networks exhibit realistic properties and belief polarization increases with small increases in available information.

Added: Feb 20, 2019
Article
Djankov S., McLiesh C., Ramalho R. Economics Letters. 2006. No. 92(3). P. 395-401.
Added: Sep 30, 2014
Article
Schoors K., Karas A., Degryse H. Economics Letters. 2019. Vol. 182. P. 1-4.

We exploit uncertainty regarding banks’ involvement in money laundering activities as a natural experiment to study the functioning of the interbank market in uncertain times. We show that bank couples with a stronger relationship (i.e., more frequent and reciprocal interactions before the event) are more likely to continue lending to one another, and at lower interest rates. This is in line with a “helping hand” or “flight to friends” hypothesis during crisis.

Added: May 31, 2019
Article
Aleskerov F., Chistyakov V.V., Kalyagin V. Economics Letters. 2010. Vol. 107. No. 2. P. 261-262.
Added: Sep 14, 2012
Article
Makhlouf Y., Kellard N. M., Vinogradov D. Economics Letters. 2015. Vol. 136. P. 25-27.

Recent studies have challenged the view that trade openness leads to more specialization in countries’ trade. Using a panel of 116 countries over 35 years, we show that openness can be positively associated with both specialization and diversification, depending on the measure used. Moreover, for developing countries in our sample, the effect of openness on trade structure depends on the type of political regime: in autocracies openness is linked with specialization, whilst in democracies it is related to diversification via export sophistication.

Added: Jun 14, 2018
Article
Igor Bykadorov, Gorn A., Sergey Kokovin et al. Economics Letters. 2015. Vol. 129. P. 35-38.

Examining a standard monopolistic competition model with unspecified utility/cost functions, we find necessary and sufficient conditions on their elasticities for welfare losses from emerging trade or market expansion. Two numerical examples explain the losses: excessive or insufficient entry of firms can be aggravated by market enlargement (under unrealistic elasticities).

Added: Mar 3, 2015
1 2