Seminar: Entrepreneurship, Organization and Economic Development
First and Second Semester, 2011
Instructor: Katsuya Takii, email: takii@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Time and Location:Oﬃce Hours: Make an appointment by e-mail.
Requirement: Decision Theory, Modern Microeconomics I and II, Modern Macroeconomics I and II,
Applied Econometrics I (Equivalent other courses are acceptable.)
Purpose: This seminar is designed for the second year students or Ph.D. students who are interested inwriting papers in this field. There are three purposes. It aims at improving three diﬀerent ability: (1) theability to find their own research topics in this field, (2) the ability to improve the ability to organize theirthought and (3) the ability to deliver their idea to other people.
Plan: In this year it is planned to study the following literature by Daron Acemoglu and David Autor(Subjected to Change).
1. “Lectures in Labor Economics:” ( http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/4689 )2. “Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings” Chapter 12 in Handbookof Labor Economics ( http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/7006 )3. “What Does Human Capital Do? A Review of Goldin and Katz’s The Race between Education andTechnology,” Journal of Economic Literature ( http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/7538 )Students are asked to present these papers. We will finish studying the subjects by September. After
that, students are also asked to present their own research paper. Students can present either in English orin Japanese. Students are asked to hand in a term paper or a research proposal at the end of this seminar.
Your report must include
1. The purpose of your research
2. Your method
3. What your results are4. Explanation for the significance of your result
5. The validity and possibility of your method for your research purpose.
Grading Policy:
ItemAttendance
P resentation
Reportpoints
1?
[10, 30]

times
15?
1T otal sum
15[25, 55][10, 30]

The presentation and report are evaluated by 6 ranks: A+ , A, B, C, D and E. When one of the presenter
receive A, I will distribute 1 point for all audience. When one of presenters receive A+ , I distribute 2 for
all audience. I hope that these points encourage team works for their presentation. The following is thestandard of evaluation.
• Presentation
1. E...Almost no preparations.
2. D...Incomplete and the lack of comprehensiveness.
3. C. The presenter might understand the contents, but audiences do not understand it at all.
4. B....The audience can understand what the presenter tries to say. However, the significance andlogic of the paper is not clear. (If the presenter thinks that the method is not proper, his/herview must be clear.)5. A...The audience can perfectly understand the significance and logic of the paper.
6. A+ . Beyond the comprehensiveness of presentation, the presenter can entertain the audience.
• Reports
1. E...Incomplete report.
2. D...The lack of comprehensiveness.
3. C. The report is consistently written.
4. B. The paper is consistent, but it is not clearly written.
5. A. The report is well-organized so we can easily understand the significance of topics and thevalidity of the method.
6. A+ ...Beyond the comprehensiveness of the paper, either the topics or the method is very creative
or/and the report is well-organized so it can attract readers of the field.

2