The prestigious and highly selective journal European Economic Review has published two articles written by our colleagues in the past few months.
The most recent volume (134, May 2021) contains an article "How puzzling is the forward premium puzzle? A meta-analysis", bringing the results of the research of our colleagues, Tomáš Havránek, Zuzana Havránková, Diana Žigraiová and Jiří Novák.
Their study uses meta-analysis to investigate why different papers report conflicting evidence on the forward premium puzzle and finds that the puzzle is much less prevalent than commonly thought.
You can access the full article here.
A key theoretical prediction in financial economics is that under risk neutrality and rational expectations a currency’s forward rates should form unbiased predictors of future spot rates. Yet scores of empirical studies report negative slope coefficients from regressions of spot rates on forward rates. We collect 3643 estimates from 91 research articles and using recently developed techniques investigate the effect of publication and misspecification biases on the reported results. Correcting for these biases yields slope coefficients in the intervals (0.23,0.45) and (0.95,1.16) for the currencies of developed and emerging countries respectively, which implies that empirical evidence is in line with the theoretical prediction for emerging economies and less puzzling than commonly thought for developed economies. Our results also suggest that the coefficients are systematically influenced by the choice of data, numeraire currency, and estimation method.
Volume 127 of the same journal brings an article from behavioural economics “Using Survey Questions to Measure Preferences: Lessons from an Experimental Validation in Kenya”, written by our colleagues Julie Chytilová, Michal Bauer and professor Edward Miguel.
The full article is available here.
Can a short survey instrument reliably measure a range of fundamental economic preferences across diverse settings? We focus on survey questions that systematically predict behavior in incentivized experimental tasks among German university students (Becker et al. 2016) and were implemented among representative samples across the globe (Falk et al. 2018). This paper presents results of an experimental validation conducted among low-income individuals in Nairobi, Kenya. We find that quantitative survey measures – hypothetical versions of experimental tasks – of time preference, attitude to risk and altruism are good predictors of choices in incentivized experiments, suggesting these measures are broadly experimentally valid. At the same time, we find that qualitative questions – self-assessments – do not correlate with the experimental measures of preferences in the Kenyan sample. Thus, caution is needed before treating self-assessments as proxies of preferences in new contexts.
Congratulations to all the authors!
Autor - Barbora Holková