Achtung! Das Lehrangebot ist noch nicht vollständig und wird bis Semesterbeginn laufend ergänzt.
040246 SE VCEE: Seminar in Experimental Economics (MA) (2025S)
Prüfungsimmanente Lehrveranstaltung
Labels
VOR-ORT
As this course is based on the research seminar of the Vienna Center for Experimental Economics (VCEE) which will be attended by researchers from universities located in Vienna, the number of students that can be admitted for grade and ECTS points purposes is limited.In accordance with this being a research seminar, preference will be given to PhD students. Note that this seminar is planned to be offered every semester. So in case a student is not admitted for a given semester, a new application will be considered in the next seminar.
Details
max. 20 Teilnehmer*innen
Sprache: Englisch
Lehrende
Termine (iCal) - nächster Termin ist mit N markiert
note that the meetings on 17.3. and 24.3. do not take place in the usual lecture hall (HS5 at OMP)
- N Montag 03.03. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 10.03. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 17.03. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 7 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 1.Stock
- Montag 24.03. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 12 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 2.Stock
- Montag 31.03. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 28.04. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 05.05. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 12.05. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 19.05. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 26.05. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 02.06. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 16.06. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
- Montag 23.06. 11:30 - 13:00 Hörsaal 5 Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1 Erdgeschoß
Information
Ziele, Inhalte und Methode der Lehrveranstaltung
Art der Leistungskontrolle und erlaubte Hilfsmittel
Grading:
a) Classroom discussion (25%). Active participation and critical thinking is rewarded. You must not miss more than two sessions.b) Referee report (50%). We coordinate who writes a report on which paper in the first session. A referee report can be written by an individual student or by a team of two students (both get same grade). Read the guidelines on writing referee reports below carefully. Writing good reports is difficult (especially for novices). Students can hand in several referee reports. Best shot counts.c) Commented questions (25%). Each student can submit max. 2 questions per paper. Students can only submit questions on papers to which they do not submit a report. A commented question can be similar to a substantive point or a “main concern” formulated in a referee report (e.g., raise issues of identification, interpretation of results, validity, robustness, etc.). Ideally, the comment explains why the “concern” is relevant and how it could be addressed. A commented question can range from 1 paragraph to 1 page. Alternatively, students can also suggest a commented proposal for a follow-up experiment (explain why your proposal is interesting and sketch how it could be implemented, max. 2 pages). The speakers are asked to rate proposals for follow-ups and questions (A, B, C), and to address top (A-rated) questions during the research seminar. Two A-ratings earn a student the top grade in this part.Deadline for b) and c): Tuesdays preceding the research seminar at 18h (e.g., hand in Tues 11.3. at 18h for the seminar held on Mon, 17.3.).
a) Classroom discussion (25%). Active participation and critical thinking is rewarded. You must not miss more than two sessions.b) Referee report (50%). We coordinate who writes a report on which paper in the first session. A referee report can be written by an individual student or by a team of two students (both get same grade). Read the guidelines on writing referee reports below carefully. Writing good reports is difficult (especially for novices). Students can hand in several referee reports. Best shot counts.c) Commented questions (25%). Each student can submit max. 2 questions per paper. Students can only submit questions on papers to which they do not submit a report. A commented question can be similar to a substantive point or a “main concern” formulated in a referee report (e.g., raise issues of identification, interpretation of results, validity, robustness, etc.). Ideally, the comment explains why the “concern” is relevant and how it could be addressed. A commented question can range from 1 paragraph to 1 page. Alternatively, students can also suggest a commented proposal for a follow-up experiment (explain why your proposal is interesting and sketch how it could be implemented, max. 2 pages). The speakers are asked to rate proposals for follow-ups and questions (A, B, C), and to address top (A-rated) questions during the research seminar. Two A-ratings earn a student the top grade in this part.Deadline for b) and c): Tuesdays preceding the research seminar at 18h (e.g., hand in Tues 11.3. at 18h for the seminar held on Mon, 17.3.).
Mindestanforderungen und Beurteilungsmaßstab
Participation in the organization session of March 3, is mandatory. Students who do not show up for the first session are deregistered from the course.Grading: The final grade results from the (rounded) weighted results of the three components classroom discussion (25%), referee report (50%), commented question (25%)Requirements: The seminar addresses advanced students. A maximum of 25 students can be admitted. PhD students in economics are given first priority. Master students who have taken classes providing an introduction into the field like “Principles of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (UK 040110)”, “Behavioral and Experimental Economics (UK 040832)”, or equivalent classes (submit handout and grade of classes taken elsewhere before the first session) are prioritized.
Prüfungsstoff
See information provided under "Art der Leistungskontrolle".
Literatur
The list of papers below is preliminary. The list is to be discussed is finalized and announced in the first session.
A continuously updated syllabus is available my webpage: https://homepage.univie.ac.at/jean-robert.tyran/teaching-materials.htmlHere is some preliminary information:
Information about the speakers and their papersSpeaker 1: Sebastian Fehrler (U Bremen)
Webpage: http://sebastianfehrler.bplaced.net/wordpress/
Paper 1: Social Norms and Female Labor Force Participation in Bangladesh: The Role of Social Expectations and Reference Networks (with L. Bellani, K. Biswas, P. Marx, S. Sabarwal, and S.R. Al-Zayed)
https://docs.iza.org/dp16006.pdfSpeaker 2: Oliver Hauser (U Exeter)
Webpage: https://www.oliverhauser.org/
Paper 2: How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US (with A. Jaroszewicz, J. M. Jachimowicz and J. Jamison)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4154000Speaker 3: Robert Böhm (U Vienna)
Webpage: https://robertboehm.info/index.html
Paper 3: tbaSpeaker 4: Dietmar Fehr (U Stuttgart) (tbc)
Webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/dietmarfehr/
Paper 4: Misperceiving Economic Success: Experimental Evidence on Meritocratic Beliefs and Inequality Acceptance (with M. Vollmann)
https://www.cesifo.org/en/publications/2022/working-paper/misperceiving-economic-success-experimental-evidence-meritocraticSpeaker 5: Biljana Meiske (EUI Florence)
Webpage: http://biljanameiske.com/
Paper 5: Queen Bee Immigrant: The Effects of Status Perceptions on Immigration Attitudes
http://biljanameiske.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Queen-Bee-Immigrant_Biljana-Meiske_20241130.pdfSpeaker 6: Nicola Lacetera (U Bologna)
Webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/nicolacetera/
Paper 6: Social support for legal medical assistance in dying: The role of moral and economic considerations (with F. Schneider and R. Weber).
(link tba)
Readings
Here is some advice and guidelines on how to write a referee report.1. Berk, J.B., Harvey, C.R. and Hirshleifer, D. (2017): How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(1): 231-244.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.31.1.231
2. Bellemare, M. (2012): 20 rules for refereeing https://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/5542
3. Passalacqua, A. (2019): Guidelines to Write a Referee Report. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/apassalacqua/files/refguidelines_tepe.pdf
4. Sadoulet, E. (2004): Guidelines for referee reports. https://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE251/2004/assignments/RRGuidelines.pdf
5. Zhuravskaya, E. (2011): Very short note on refereeing. http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.com/zhuravskaya-ekaterina/teaching/2011_fall/Report_Outline.pdfComplementary readings on the publication process in economics6. Bansak, C. and Zebedee, A.A. (2023): Getting Yourself Published: Steps and Strategies from Journal Editors. American Economist 68(1): 156-162.
7. Bellemare, M.F. (2022): Doing Economics: What You Should Have Learned in Grad School―But Didn’t. MIT Press.
8. Creedy, J. (2006): From Manuscript to Publication: A Brief Guide for Economists. Australian Economic Review 39(1): 103-113.
9. Galiani, S. and Panizza, U. (eds, 2020): Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics. CEPR Press. https://cepr.org/publications/books-and-reports/publishing-and-measuring-success-economics
10. Weisbach, M.S. (2021): The Economist’s Craft: An Introduction to Research, Publishing, and Professional Development. Princeton Univ. Press. (video)
A continuously updated syllabus is available my webpage: https://homepage.univie.ac.at/jean-robert.tyran/teaching-materials.htmlHere is some preliminary information:
Information about the speakers and their papersSpeaker 1: Sebastian Fehrler (U Bremen)
Webpage: http://sebastianfehrler.bplaced.net/wordpress/
Paper 1: Social Norms and Female Labor Force Participation in Bangladesh: The Role of Social Expectations and Reference Networks (with L. Bellani, K. Biswas, P. Marx, S. Sabarwal, and S.R. Al-Zayed)
https://docs.iza.org/dp16006.pdfSpeaker 2: Oliver Hauser (U Exeter)
Webpage: https://www.oliverhauser.org/
Paper 2: How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US (with A. Jaroszewicz, J. M. Jachimowicz and J. Jamison)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4154000Speaker 3: Robert Böhm (U Vienna)
Webpage: https://robertboehm.info/index.html
Paper 3: tbaSpeaker 4: Dietmar Fehr (U Stuttgart) (tbc)
Webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/dietmarfehr/
Paper 4: Misperceiving Economic Success: Experimental Evidence on Meritocratic Beliefs and Inequality Acceptance (with M. Vollmann)
https://www.cesifo.org/en/publications/2022/working-paper/misperceiving-economic-success-experimental-evidence-meritocraticSpeaker 5: Biljana Meiske (EUI Florence)
Webpage: http://biljanameiske.com/
Paper 5: Queen Bee Immigrant: The Effects of Status Perceptions on Immigration Attitudes
http://biljanameiske.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Queen-Bee-Immigrant_Biljana-Meiske_20241130.pdfSpeaker 6: Nicola Lacetera (U Bologna)
Webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/nicolacetera/
Paper 6: Social support for legal medical assistance in dying: The role of moral and economic considerations (with F. Schneider and R. Weber).
(link tba)
Readings
Here is some advice and guidelines on how to write a referee report.1. Berk, J.B., Harvey, C.R. and Hirshleifer, D. (2017): How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(1): 231-244.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.31.1.231
2. Bellemare, M. (2012): 20 rules for refereeing https://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/5542
3. Passalacqua, A. (2019): Guidelines to Write a Referee Report. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/apassalacqua/files/refguidelines_tepe.pdf
4. Sadoulet, E. (2004): Guidelines for referee reports. https://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE251/2004/assignments/RRGuidelines.pdf
5. Zhuravskaya, E. (2011): Very short note on refereeing. http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.com/zhuravskaya-ekaterina/teaching/2011_fall/Report_Outline.pdfComplementary readings on the publication process in economics6. Bansak, C. and Zebedee, A.A. (2023): Getting Yourself Published: Steps and Strategies from Journal Editors. American Economist 68(1): 156-162.
7. Bellemare, M.F. (2022): Doing Economics: What You Should Have Learned in Grad School―But Didn’t. MIT Press.
8. Creedy, J. (2006): From Manuscript to Publication: A Brief Guide for Economists. Australian Economic Review 39(1): 103-113.
9. Galiani, S. and Panizza, U. (eds, 2020): Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics. CEPR Press. https://cepr.org/publications/books-and-reports/publishing-and-measuring-success-economics
10. Weisbach, M.S. (2021): The Economist’s Craft: An Introduction to Research, Publishing, and Professional Development. Princeton Univ. Press. (video)
Zuordnung im Vorlesungsverzeichnis
Letzte Änderung: Do 16.01.2025 20:25
Method and organization of the course: The seminar is organized around six VCEE research seminar presentations by invited speakers. These seminars are open to the scientific community, i.e., are attended by researchers at U Vienna and at other institutions (e.g., WU Vienna, CEU).
Each invited speaker submits an unpublished manuscript (“working paper”) at least three weeks before it is presented in the VCEE research seminar. Students read the paper to be presented at the VCEE research seminar and discuss the paper in class usually one week before the VCEE research seminar. Students submit questions and referee reports to the speakers shortly after the preparatory class such that the speakers can respond to them during the seminar.
The VCEE research seminar proceeds as follows: Speakers give a short presentation of about 30 minutes (only to be interrupted by requests for clarification). The speaker then addresses some of the questions raised by the students, and students are welcome to react to the responses of the speaker (max. 30 minutes). The remaining time (at least 30 minutes) is devoted to questions from the audience. We invite open discussion, and participants are welcome to raise broader, more general issues.