Guidelines Literature Exam
Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation (MSI)
October 29, 2013
1. Objectives
The purpose of the literature exam is to provide students with a broad overview of
the literature in their field and to allow them to deepen their knowledge of particular
subfields. Achieving these objectives represents an important step towards
determining which topics students wants to study and what questions they want to
address in their doctoral dissertation. Doctoral students are required to take the exam
by the end of their first year in the doctoral program.
2. Procedure
To participate in the MSI literature exam students should do the following.
1. Choose one of the following five fields of study:
1) Economics of Science, R&D and Innovation (Examiner: Reinhilde
Veugelers)
2) Industrial Organization (Examiner: Otto Toivanen)
3) Innovation Management (Examiner: Bart Van Looy)
4) International Business and Economics (Examiner: Leo Sleuwaegen)
5) Political Economy (Examiner: Christophe Crombez)
2. Meet with the field’s examiner early in the academic year to discuss
1) what your interests are,
1
2) what courses to take,
3) what material to read from the reading list, and
4) what extra material to look for.
3. Communicate their choice of field to Frederic Van Wassenhove before the
end of December.
4. Read the agreed material.
5. Attend the MSI seminars and write a report (2 to 3 pages) on one of the
seminars.
6. Participate in the exam.
3. Format
The literature exam is set-up as a take-home exam that is held over the course of two
days. Students receive the exam questions at 9 AM on day 1 of the exam and hand
them in by 6 PM on day 2. The exam takes place in late May/early June. Students
who do not pass the exam may be given an opportunity to take it again in early
August. The dates of the exam will be set early in the academic year.
In 2014 the dates for the exam will be: May 27-28 and August 7-8.
2
4. Field Specific Information (Preliminary, may be updated prior to
March 1, 2014)
4.1 Economics of Science, R&D and Innovation
Students are expected to have a good knowledge of the broader economics literature
(theories, methodologies, data, findings, implications) on Science, R&D and
Innovation. They should also have a sound familiarity with the closely related
management literature on the topics. Students are advised to discuss their PhD
courses with the contact team. The course on the Economics and Strategy of
Innovation is a default choice for students in this area.
The exam will exist of a number of questions asking to reflect on the literature and
/or a request to review critically paper results. To prepare for it, students should do
the following:
a. study the following set of material, which reviews the major areas, methodologies
and results.
Hall & Rosenberg (Eds.), 2010, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation

Chapter 1.3: Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary
processes (Dosi & Nelson)

Chapter 1.4: Empirical studies of innovative activity and performance (Cohen)

Chapter 2.1: Economics of Science (Stephan)

Chapter 2.3: Property rights and invention (Rockett)
3

Chapter 3.3: Technical innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of
enterprise level knowledge, complementarities and (dynamic) capabilities
(Teece)

Chapter 6.2: Returns to R&D and productivity (Hall, Mairesse, Mohnen)

Chapter 6.4: Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis (Mairesse,
Mohnen

Chapter 7.1: Systems of Innovation (Soete, Verspagen)
Note: Depending on the profile and the research interests of the students, other
chapters of the Handbook may also be highly recommended and further add-ons
can be discussed.
Other Innovation-Handbook material which students may consult as background
material is Stoneman, 1995, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and
Technological Change
I.O. and Strategy Theory models:

Martin, 2001, Advanced Industrial Economics, Basil Blackwell, Chapter 14 R&D:
14.1-14.6:

Tirole, 1989, The Theory of Industrial Organisation, MIT Press, Chapter 10: R&D
and the Adoption of Technologies

Cabral, L, Introduction to IO, Chapter 16: Research and Development
Patent Statistics

Jaffe, A. & M. Trajtenberg, 2000, Patents, Citations and Innovations; MIT Press,
(chapters:TBA)

Griliches, R&D and Productivity1998, Chapter 13: Patent Statistics as Economic
Indicators: A survey
4

Guellec and van Pottelsberge, 2007, The Economics of the European Patent
System, OUP, Section 1.1-1.3
Innovation Management:

Debackere. “Management of Innovation: A Synopsis of Major Findings.”
Bedrijfseconomische verhandeling 97. KULeuven.

Brown & Eisenhardt. “New Product Development: Past research, present
findings and future directions” Academy of Management Review, 1994.

Frank T. Rothaermel, Shanti D. Agung and Lin Jiang (2007) University
entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature Industrial and Corporate Change,
pp. 1 of 101
b. read a number of key articles and understand this literature, compare approaches
and results, and critically reflect on these papers. The set of key articles to be
studied will be determined by the examiner in coordination with the student
depending on his specific research interests
c. keep abreast of recent papers published in Research Policy
5
4.2 Industrial Organization
To really master the modern tools required to do research in industrial organization,
one needs to attend taught courses and do the exercises given out in those courses.
The literature exam is structured as a take-home exam where the objective is that the
student writes an essay on each of 2 articles chosen by the examiner. A good guide to
what is needed in such an essay can be found on Phil Haile’s www-site
(http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pah29/teach.htm , “Questions to guide reading of
empirical papers”). While that document is, as the name suggests, for empirical
papers, the same advice can relatively easily be translated for theoretical papers.
To allow the student to deepen his/her knowledge, the reading list is structured as a
menu. It contains 3 parts:
i.
Survey articles
ii.
Research articles chosen by the examiner
iii.
Research articles suggested by the student
The survey articles provide valuable background information on techniques and
substance. Reading them thoroughly will therefore assist the student in writing the
best possible essays. The examiner, after the discussion with the student, chooses the
background material that the student should read.
The research articles (ii. and iii.) are the menu from which the examiner chooses 2 for
the student after having had a discussion with the student on his/her interests. The
reading list provided below (ii.) is not meant to be exhaustive; rather the opposite.
6
The student is required to suggest additions to the reading list. To be able to do so,
the student should go through the last few (3-5) years’ volumes of the leading
economics journals that publish IO articles, and the forthcoming articles in these
journals. These journals include AER, JPE, QJE, REStud, Etrica, RAND and REStat.
Articles from other journals may be suggested, too. The student should suggest at
least 5 articles that, upon approval of the examiner, will be included in the menu of
articles from which the examiner chooses the articles on which the essays are written.
The menu will also include all the below mentioned research articles that are relevant
for the student; this will be decided after the discussion between the student and the
examiner.
1. Survey articles
The student should choose at least 3 survey articles from the following list. The rule
that should be followed is that the survey articles should be related to the topics of
the research articles that student wishes to cover.

Ackerberg, D., Benkard, Lanier, Berry, S. and Pakes, A., 2007, Econometric Tools
for Analyzing Market Outcomes, in Heckman, J., and Leamer, E. (eds.). Handbook
of Econometrics, vol. 6A.

Aguirregabiria, V., and Nevo, A., 2010, Recent Developments in Empirical
Dynamic Models of Demand and Competition in Oligopoly Markets, forthcoming
in (Econometric Society Monographs) on Advances in Economics and
Econometrics: Theory and Applications.

Angrist, J., and Pischke, S., 2010, The Credibility Revolution in Empirical
Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics,
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 2010, 3-30.
7

Armstrong, M., and Porter, R., 2007, Handbook of Industrial Organization vol. 3.
All chapters.

Athey, Susan and Haile, Phil, 2007, Nonparametric Approaches to Auctions, in
Heckman, J., and Leamer, E. (eds.). Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 6A.

Einav, L., and Levin. J., 2010, Empirical Industrial Organization: A Progress
Report, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 2010, 1-18.

Nevo, A., and Whinston, M., 2010, Taking the Dogma Out of Econometrics:
Structural Modeling and Credible Inference , The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Spring 2010, 69-82.

Pesendorfer, M., 2011, Estimation of (Dynamic) Games: A Discussion, forthcoming
in
(Econometric Society Monographs) on Advances in Economics and
Econometrics: Theory and Applications

Reiss, P. and Wolak, F., 2007, Structural Econometric Modeling: Rationales and
Examples from Industrial Organization, in Heckman, J., and Leamer, E. (eds.).
Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 6A.
2. Research articles
These articles are available from the journal’s www-page or the author’s www-page.
If you experience problems, contact Otto Toivanen.

Acemoglu, D. and Akcigit, U., 2011, Intellectual Property Rights Policy,
Competition and Innovation, Journal of the European Economic Association,
forthcoming.

Asker, J., 2010, A Study of the Internal Organisation of a Bidding Cartel, American
Economic Review, v100(3), 724-762, 2010.
8

Bar-Isaac,H., Caruana, G., and Cunat, V., 2011, Search, Design, and Market
Structure”, forthcoming in American Economic Review.

Biais, B. and Perotti, E., 2008, Entrepreneurs and new ideas, RAND Journal of
Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1105-1125

Cabral. L. 2011, Dynamic Price Competition with Network Effects, Review of
Economic Studies, 78, 83-111.

Crawford, G. and Shum, M., 2005, Uncertainty and Learning in Pharmaceutical
Demand, Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Jul., 2005), pp. 1137-1173.

Crawford, G. and Yurukoglu, A., 2010, The Welfare Effects of Bundling in
Multichannel Television Markets, forthcoming, American Economic Review.

Duso, T., Röller, L-H., and Seldeslachts, J., 2010, Collusion through Joint R&D: An
Empirical Assessment, WP.

Farrell, J., and Shapiro, C.,
2008, How Strong Are Weak Patents?, American
Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1347-69

Goeree, M. and Helland, E., 2010, Do Research Joint Ventures Serve a Collusive
Function?, WP., University of Zurich.

Gowrisankaran, G., and Rysman, M., 2010, Dynamics of Consumer Demand for
New Durable Goods, wp Boston University.

Hendel, I., and Nevo, A., 2006, Measuring the Implications of Sales and Consumer
Inventory Behavior, Econometrica, November 06.

Henry, E., and Ponce, C., 2011, Waiting to imitate: on the dynamic trading of
knowledge", The Journal of Political Economy, forthcoming.

Holmes, T., 2011, The Diffusion of Wal-Mart and Economies of Density,”
Econometrica, Vol. 79, No. 1 (January, 2011), 253-302.

Ho, K., Ho, J., and Mortimer, J., 2010, The Use of Full-line Forcing Contracts in the
Video Rental Industry, forthcoming, American Economic Review.
9

Hopenhayn, H., Llobet, G., and Mitchell, M., 2006, Rewarding Sequential
Innovations: Prizes, Patents and Buyouts, Journal of Political Economy, 104(6), pp.
1041-1068, 2006.

Johnson, J., and Myatt. D., 2006, On the Simple Economics of Advertising,
Marketing, and Product Design, American Economic Review, 96(3), pp 756-784,
June 2006.

Manso, G., 2011, Motivating Innovation, Journal of Finance, forthcoming.

Nocke, V., and Whinston, M., 2010, Dynamic Merger Review, Journal of Political
Economy, 2010, vol. 118(6), 1200-1251.

Nocke, V., and White, L., 2007, Do Vertical Mergers Facilitate Upstream Collusion?
American Economic Review, 2007, vol. 97(4), 1321-1339.

Ryan, S., 2011, The Costs of Environmental Regulation in a Concentrated Industry,
forthcoming, Econometrica.

Schmidt-Dengler, P., 2010, The Timing of New Technology Adoption: The Case of
MRI, manuscript, University of Mannheim.

Takahashi, Y., 2010, Estimating a War of Attrition: The Case of the US Movie
Theater Industry," University of Mannheim.

Takalo, T., Tanayama, T. and Toivanen, O., 2011, Estimating the Benefits of
Targeted R&D Subsidies, Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.
10
4.3 Innovation Management
Reading List













Nelson R. & Winter S. (1977) In search of useful theory of innovation. Research
Policy, 5,36-71.
Lavie, Dovev , Stettner, Uriel and Tushman, Michael L.(2010) 'Exploration and
Exploitation Within and Across Organizations', The Academy of Management
Annals, 4: 1, 109 — 155.
March J. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 71-87.
Brown & Eisenhardt. “New Product Development: Past research, present
findings and future directions” Academy of Management Review, 1994.
Allen T. & Katz R. (1982) Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome:
A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D
Project Groups; R&D Management, vol 12, 1, 7 - 20
Van de Ven, Andrew (1986). “Central Problems in the Management of
Innovation.” Management Science, Vol. 32,5.
Henderson, Rebecca M. and Kim Clark (1990). “Architectural Innovation: The
Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established
Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35. pp. 9-30.
Burgelman R. (1983) A process model of internal corporate venturing in the
diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 223 - 244
Teece, D. 1986 Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for
integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, Volume
15, Issue 6, December 1986, Pages 285-305
Teece D. 2006. Reflections on Profiting from Innovation. Research Policy, Volume
35, Issue 8, October 2006, Pages 1131-1146.Special issue commemorating the 20th
Anniversary of David Teece's article, "Profiting from Innovation", in Research
Policy
Hagedoorn, John. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major
trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy 31: 477-492.
Debackere. “Management of Innovation: A Synopsis of Major Findings.”
Bedrijfseconomische verhandeling 97. KULeuven
Bower, J. L., and C. M. Christensen. "Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and
the Failure of Leading Firms." Strategic Management Journal 17, no. 3 (March
1996): 197-218.
11




Frank T. Rothaermel, Shanti D. Agung and Lin Jiang (2007) University
entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature Industrial and Corporate Change,
pp. 1 – 101
Wheelright S. and Clark K. (1992). Creating project plans to focus product
development. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 70-82.
Clark K. and Wheelright S. (1992). Organizing and leading heavyweight
development teams. California Management Review, Spring, 9-28
Hall & Rosenberg (Eds.), 2010, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation
o Chapter 1.4: Empirical studies of innovative activity and performance
(Cohen)
o Chapter 2.1: Economics of Science (Stephan)
o Chapter 2.3: Property rights and invention (Rockett)
o Chapter 6.2: Returns to R&D and productivity (Hall, Mairesse, Mohnen)
o Chapter 6.4: Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis (Mairesse,
Mohnen)
12
4.4 International Business Economics
Students are expected to have a good knowledge of the broader literature on
International Business Strategy and International Business Economics. This
knowledge can be obatined by successful completion of the courses International
Business Economics or International Business Strategy, or equivalent courses, and by
mastering the material contained in the monograph of Caves (2007) and the book by
Spulber (2007):


Caves, Richard E., 2007, Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, second
edition (MIT Press, Cambridge).
Spulber, D., 2007, Global Competitive Strategy, First ed. (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge)
In addition, student should read a number of key articles in the various subdomains
of International Business (listed below) and should be able to understand this
literature, compare approaches and results, and critically reflect on these papers. It is
also recommended that students keep abreast of recent papers on the topic publisehd
in the Journal of International Business Studies, Strategic Management Journal, and
Management Science.
The exam will exist of a number of questions asking you to reflect on the literature
and /or a request to review critically a paper in one of the different domains (but not
necessarily a paper on this list).
Entry and Location Choice

Shaver JM. 1998. Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy
Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect Survival? Management Science, 44(4):
571–585.
13



Gimeno, J., R.E. Hoskisson, B.D. Beal and W.P. Wan. 2005. Explaining the
Clustering of International Expansion Moves: a critical test in the U.S.
Telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48 297-319.
Belderbos, R. van Olffen, W. and Zou, J. 2011, General and Specific Social Learning
Mechanisms in Foreign Investment Location Choice, Strategic Management Journal
32, 1309–1330, 2011.
Chen, M.X., and M.O. Moore, 2010, Location decision of heterogeneous
multinational firms, Journal of International Economics, 80, 188-199.
FDI, International R&D and Knowledge spillovers
 Griffith R., Harrison R. and Van Reenen J. (2006). How special is the special
relationship? Using the impact of US R&D spillovers on UK firms as a test of
technology sourcing. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1859-1875.
 Alcacer J. and Chung W. (2007). Location strategies and knowledge spillovers.
Management Science, 53(5), 760-776.
 Singh, J. (2007). Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host
country firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 764-786.
 Javorcik, B. S. (2004). Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of
Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers through Backward Linkages. American
Economic Review 94(3), 605-627.
 Haskel, J.E., Pereira, S., Slaughter, M., 2007. Does inward foreign direct investment
boost the productivity of domestic firms? Review of Economics and Statistics 89 2),
482–496.
FDI and Real Options
 Kogut, Bruce and Nalin Kulatilaka, 1994, Options Thinking and Platform
Investments: Investing in Opportunity, California Management Review, 52-71.
 Kouvelis, P., Axarloglou, K., & Sinha, V. 2001. Exchange rates and the choice of
ownership structure of production facilities. Management Science, 47(8): 1063-1080.

Belderbos, R.A., & Zou, J. 2009. Real options and foreign affiliate divestments: A
portfolio perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 600-620.
Trade and FDI
 Yeaple, S.R, 2009. Firm Heterogeneity and the Structure of U.S. Multinational
Activity, Journal of International Economics, 78, 206-215.
 Carr, D., Markusen, J., Maskus, K., 2001. Estimating the knowledge-capital model
of the multinational enterprise. American Economic Review 91 (3), 691–708.
 Hanson, G., R. Mataloni and M. Slaughter, 2005, Vertical Production Networks in
Multinational Firms, Review of Economics and Statistics 87(4): 664–678.
14
Multinationals and Performance
 Qian, G., Khoury, T.A., Peng, M.W., & Qian, Z. 2010. The performance
implications of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification. Strategic
Management Journal, 31: 1018-1030.


Lu, J.W., & Beamish, P.W. 2004. International diversification and firm
performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 598609.
Belderbos, R, Tong, T. And Wu, S. 2011, Multinationality and Downside Risk: The
Contingent Roles of Option Portfolio Characteristics and Organizational Factors,,
Working paper, MSI. K.U. Leuven.
International Entrepreneurship
 Jones, M.V., Coviello N., Tang Y.K., 2011. International Entrepreneurship research
(1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis, Journal of Business
Venturing, 26( 6), 625-631

Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J., Almeida, J.G. (2000), Effects of Age at Entry, Knowledge
Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth, Academy of Management
Journal, 43 (5), 909-924.

Fernhaber, Stephanie A., Gilbert, Brett Anitra and McDougall, Patricia P. (2008),
International Entrepreneurship and Geographic Location: An Empirical
Examination of New Venture Internationalization, Journal of International
Business Studies, 39(2): 267-290.
Offshoring
 Ottaviano, G.I.P, Peri, G. , Wright, G.C., Immigration, Offshoring and American
Jobs, NBER Working Paper No. 16439, Oct. 2010

Barba Navaretti, G., D Castellani and A-C Disdier, 2010. How does investing in
cheap labour countries affect performance at home? Firm-level evidence from
France and Italy, Oxford Economic Papers 62, 234-260.,

Coucke K, Sleuwaegen L, 2008, Offshoring as a survival strategy: Evidence from
firms in Belgian manufacturing, , Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 39,
no. 8, pp. 1261-1277.
15
4.5 Political Economy
Students should discuss their coursework with the examiner. Applied Game Theory
and Economics of Information are required courses. At the exam students will be
asked 2 or 3 essay questions related to the readings. One of the questions may
require the students to demonstrate some game-theoretical modeling skills. The
other questions will require the students to show a clear understanding of the
literature in particular subfields and the ability to critically analyze that literature.
To prepare for the exam students should do the following:

Read papers 1-12 from the list below.

Read about half of the papers 13-24: discuss with the examiner which ones.

Go through the last 3 years’ volumes of the following journals: American
Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, European
Union Politics, and possibly others (to be discussed with the examiner), and
determine with the examiner which of the articles in these volumes to read
(about 20).
Early Work
1. Shepsle, Kenneth. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in
Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science. 23:2760.
2. Shepsle, Kenneth, and Barry Weingast. 1984. “Political Solutions to Market
Problems.” American Political Science Review. 78: 417-34.
3. Gilligan, Thomas and Keith Krehbiel. 1987. “Collective Decision-Making and
Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment
Procedures,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 3:287-335.
4. Baron, David and John Ferejohn. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures,” American
Political Science Review, 83:1181-1206.
16
Government Formation and Electoral Systems
5. Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks, 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and
Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review. 82: 405-22.
6. Baron, David. 1993. “Government Formation and Endogenous Parties.”
American Political Science Review. 87:34-47.
7. Cox, Gary. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.”
American Journal of Political Science. 34:903-35.
8. Myerson, Roger W. and Robert Weber. 1993. “A Theory of Voting Equilibria.”
American Political Science Review 87:102-114.
EU Politics
9. Crombez, Christophe. 1996. “Legislative Procedures in the European
Community.” British Journal of Political Science. 26:199-228.
10. Crombez, Christophe. 1997. “The Codecision Procedure in the European Union.”
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22:97-119.
11. Crombez, Christophe and Simon Hix. 2011. “Treaty Reform and the
Commission’s Appointment and Policy Making Role in the European Union.”
European Union Politics, 12:291-314.
12. Crombez, Christophe and Wim Van Gestel. 2011 “The Treaty of Lisbon and
European Union Trade Policy: A Political-Economic Analysis.” Working Paper.
Other Papers
13. Grossman, Gene and Elhanan Helpman. 1996. “Electoral Competition and
Special Interest Politics.” Review of Economic Studies. 63:265-86.
14. Groseclose, Tim and James Snyder. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American
Political Science Review. 90: 303-15.
15. Alberto Alesina and Howard Rosenthal. 1996. “A Theory of Divided
Government.” Econometrica. 64:1311-41.
17
16. Carrubba, Clifford and Craig Volden. 2000. “Coalitional Politics and Logrolling
in Legislative Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science, 44: 261-77.
17. Snyder, James M., Michael M. Ting, and Stephen Ansolabehere. 2005.
“Legislative Bargaining under Weighted Voting” American Economic Review
95:981-1004.
18. Banks, Jeffrey S., and John Duggan. 2000. “A Bargaining Model of Collective
Choice,” American Political Science Review 94:73-88.
19. Gordon, Sanford C., Gregory A. Huber, and Dimitri Landa. 2007. “Challenger
Entry and Voter Learning,” American Political Science Review 101: 303-320.
20. Feddersen, Timothy J., and Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1996. “The Swing Voter’s
Curse,” American Economic Review 86:408-424.
21. Dewatripoint, Mathias and Jean Tirole. 1999. “Advocates,” Journal of Political
Economy 107:1-39.
22. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2001. “A Theory of Political
Transitions,” American Economic Review 91: 938-963.
23. Snyder, James M., and Michael M. Ting. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for
Political Parties,” American Journal of Political Science 46: 90-110.
24. Harstad, Bard. 2005. “Majority Rules and Incentives,” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 120 1535-1568.
18