<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>EconStor Collection:</title>
    <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101454</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 20:10:41 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2026-05-01T20:10:41Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Die Seignorage-Kosten des Euro für Deutschland: Eine Kritik an Sinn und Feist</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101468</link>
      <description>Title: Die Seignorage-Kosten des Euro für Deutschland: Eine Kritik an Sinn und Feist
Authors: Läufer, Nikolaus K. A.
Abstract: Mit der EWU ist ein Seignorage-Gewinn/Verlust-Pooling verbunden, aufgrund dessen Deutschland Verluste durch Netto-Transferzahlungen in den Seignorage-Pool erzielen kann. Mit der Einführung des Euro verliert Deutschland vor allem seinen Wettbewerbsvorsprung auf dem internationalen Geldbasismarkt. Das allein schon verursacht, auch ohne jedes Seignoragepooling, Seignorage-Kosten (Verluste an Seignorage-Gewinnen). Der Verlust an Wettbewerbsvorsprung kann sogar so stark sein, dass Deutschland deshalb Zahlungen aus dem Seignorage-Pool der EWU empfängt und trotzdem einen Netto-Verlust an Seignorage-Gewinn erzielt. Sinn und Feist führen die deutschen Verluste allein auf das Pooling der Seignorage-Gewinne zurück. ("Ohne Pooling keine Verluste!") Durch geschickte Fehlerkombination gelangen sie gleichwohl zu einem numerischen Ergebnis, welches beide Verlustquellen umfasst.1 In diesem Zusammenhang spielt auch die künftige Qualität des Euro eine wichtige Rolle.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101468</guid>
      <dc:date>1997-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Constant relative risk aversion and form equivalence classes</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101540</link>
      <description>Title: Constant relative risk aversion and form equivalence classes
Authors: Battermann, Harald L.; Broll, Udo; Wahl, Jack E.
Abstract: We derive a class of utility functions that are equivalent with respect to a well-defined functional form. We apply a general view of constant relative risk aversion to investigate on different equivalence relations. Then we compare our results with standard applications in economics and finance.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101540</guid>
      <dc:date>1997-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Taxes in an efficiency wage economy</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101566</link>
      <description>Title: Taxes in an efficiency wage economy
Authors: Goerke, Laszlo
Abstract: Various taxes influence wage and employment outcomes in efficiency wage models. These findings are extended by incorporating more comprehensive tax functions, additional tax parameters, union-firm wage bargaining, and balanced budget restrictions. Moreover, the  importance of different effort functions is evaluated. It is shown that higher marginal tax rates, holding constant the level of taxes, reduce wages and increase employment. Higher level of taxes on income, labour cost and value-added can raise unemployment.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101566</guid>
      <dc:date>1997-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Circumventing multiple integration: A comparison of GMM and SML estimators for the panel probit model</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101663</link>
      <description>Title: Circumventing multiple integration: A comparison of GMM and SML estimators for the panel probit model
Authors: Inkmann, Joachim
Abstract: The paper compares two approaches to the estimation of panel probit models: the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) and the Simulated Maximum Likelihood (SML) technique. Both have in common that they circumvent multiple integrations of joint density functions without the need to impose restrictive variance-covariance specifications on the error term distribution. Particular attention is paid to a three-stage GMM estimator based on nonparametric estimation of optimal instruments. A Monte Carlo study reveals slight efficiency gains from SML when the underlying model is correctly specified. GMM turns out to be more robust than SML when heteroskedasticity over time is ignored as well as in the presence of multiplicative heteroskedasticity. An application to the product innovation activities of German manufacturing firms is presented.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/101663</guid>
      <dc:date>1997-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

