Firms increasingly rely on markets for technology to acquire innovations developed outside their boundaries, yet acquiring intellectual property rights alone often does not guarantee successful implementation. Many technologies depend on tacit know-how that must be supplied by the provider after the transaction is completed. This paper examines whether common ownership between a technology provider and a potential adopter mitigates this implementation problem. I develop a model in which overlapping institutional investors cause the provider to partially internalize the adopter’s gains from successful implementation, strengthening incentives to transfer tacit know-how. This mechanism operates only when know-how is unverifiable – absent this friction, common ownership leaves matching and outcomes unchanged. Under moral hazard, the model predicts that common ownership increases the likelihood of technology transfer to a given adopter, that this effect is stronger when tacit know-how is more important, and that common ownership improves post-transfer outcomes conditional on adoption. I test these predictions using U.S. patent reassignments between publicly traded firms. Using within-deal variation across competing potential adopters and plausibly exogenous variation from passive index-fund holdings, I show that common ownership increases the likelihood that a firm acquires a technology, particularly when the transferred bundle is more tacit. Common ownership predicts stronger subsequent innovation and higher future firm value, especially when ownership overlap is concentrated among investors with stronger incentives to monitor the provider. These findings show how ownership structure shapes interfirm technology transfer by affecting not only who acquires a technology, but also how much value is created.

Agency theory holds that managerial discretion over stakeholder decisions creates agency costs through altruistic redistribution. We test this claim in a principalagent experiment where agents choose effort and transfers affecting a third party under unenforceable flat-wage contracts. We find that principals set ethically constrained targets and wages that track fairness benchmarks. Agents, however, do not divert resources to stakeholders: transfers are negative on average, and prosocial traits do not increase giving. Instead, contract terms, though unenforceable, systematically shape effort, transfers, and returns. Notably, prosocial agents generate higher total returns. Prosociality appears to mitigate rather than create efficiency losses, suggesting that discretion channels norm-sensitive loyalty rather than stakeholder redistribution.

The effects of private equity buyouts on employment, productivity, and job reallocation vary tremendously with macroeconomic and credit conditions, across private equity groups, and by type of buyout. We reach this conclusion by examining the most extensive database of U.S. buyouts ever compiled, encompassing thousands of buyout targets from 1980 to 2013 and millions of control firms. Employment shrinks 12% over two years after buyouts of publicly listed firms—on average, and relative to control firms—but expands 15% after buyouts of privately held firms. Postbuyout productivity gains at target firms are large on average and much larger yet for deals executed amid tight credit conditions. A postbuyout tightening of credit conditions or slowing of gross domestic product growth curtails employment growth and intrafirm job reallocation at target firms. We also show that buyout effects differ across the private equity groups that sponsor buyouts, and these differences persist over time at the group level. Rapid upscaling in deal flow at the group level brings lower employment growth at target firms. We relate these findings to theories of private equity that highlight agency problems at portfolio firms and within the private equity industry itself.

Using the universe of high school and college admissions data in Croatia, we geocoded nearly half a million students’ residential addresses to investigate how their college and major choices are influenced by older neighbors and peers. Using an RDD to exploit time and program variation in admission cutoffs, we find that having an older neighbor who was admitted to and enrolled in a program increases a student’s probability of applying to the program by about 20%. We find that this effect consistently holds only for the closest neighbors, both in terms of distance and age difference. Female students are more likely to be influenced by older neighbors’ choices, and male older neighbors’ admission has a larger impact on both male and female students compared to female older neighbors. The effect is stronger if the student-neighbor pair lives in a region that does not have its own university, implying that the value of information in rural areas is higher. We find evidence that students don’t follow their older neighbors to less competitive programs; instead, they are more likely to apply for the same programs their older neighbors were admitted to when the program is more prestigious. Next, we utilize the variation in weight scheme of Croatia’s college study programs to show evidence, beyond college choices, of how older neighbors affect the human capital formation of their younger peers. The main channel through which we observe this effect is during high school, through specialization in the subjects needed to gain admittance to older neighbors’ college programs. These findings shed light on the intricate dynamics shaping educational decisions and underscores the significant role older neighbors play in guiding younger peers toward specific academic pathways.

How do beliefs on admission probability influence application choices? In this study, we empirically investigate whether and how admission probability is reflected in application choices in a centralized admission system. We exploit a novel setting of a dynamic deferred acceptance mechanism as employed in Croatia with hourly information updates and simultaneous application choices. This setting allows us to explore within-applicant strategic adjustments as a reaction to changing signals on admission probability. We show in an RDD analysis that applicants react to negative signals on admission probability with an increased propensity to adjust their application choices by 11-23%. Additionally, we show how application strategies evolve over time, while applicants learn about their admission probability. The group most-at-risk to remain unmatched improves their application choices by applying to programs with a higher admission probability towards the application deadline. Yet, we also identify a popular and potentially harmful strategy of applying to safer programs before applying to more risky “reach” programs. About a quarter of applicants have the potential to improve their application choices by resorting their application choices.

We document and dissect a new stylized fact about firm growth: the shift from labor to intermediate inputs. This shift occurs in input quantities, cost and output shares, and output elasticities. We establish this fact using German firm-level data and replicate it in administrative firm data from 11 additional countries. We also document these patterns in micro-aggregated industry data for 20 European countries (and, with respect to industry cost shares, for the US). We rationalize this novel regularity within a parsimonious model featuring (i) an elasticity of substitution between intermediates and labor that exceeds unity, and (ii) an increasing shadow price of labor relative to intermediates, due to monopsony power over labor or labor adjustment costs. The shift from labor to intermediates accounts for one half to one third of the decline in the labor share in growing firms (the remainder is due to wage markdowns and markups) and rationalizes most of the labor share decline in growing industries.

We document and dissect a new stylized fact about firm growth: the shift from labor to intermediate inputs. This shift occurs in input quantities, cost and output shares, and output elasticities. We establish this fact using German firm-level data and replicate it in administrative firm data from 11 additional countries. We also document these patterns in micro-aggregated industry data for 20 European countries (and, with respect to industry cost shares, for the US). We rationalize this novel regularity within a parsimonious model featuring (i) an elasticity of substitution between intermediates and labor that exceeds unity, and (ii) an increasing shadow price of labor relative to intermediates, due to monopsony power over labor or labor adjustment costs. The shift from labor to intermediates accounts for one half to one third of the decline in the labor share in growing firms (the remainder is due to wage markdowns and markups) and rationalizes most of the labor share decline in growing industries.