Sparad:
| Huvudupphovsman: | |
|---|---|
| Materialtyp: | Recurso digital |
| Språk: | |
| Publicerad: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Ämnen: | |
| Länkar: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18723498 |
| Taggar: |
Lägg till en tagg
Inga taggar, Lägg till första taggen!
|
Innehållsförteckning:
- <p><strong><span>CALCULATION METHODS OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS</span></strong></p> <p><span>A Proposed Unified Method for Transaction Value</span></p> <p><span>Farhad Aliabdali</span></p> <h1><span>Abstract</span></h1> <p><span>Economic value is studied through siloed lenses—hedonic pricing, productivity accounting, behavioral valuation under uncertainty, and transaction-cost/finance perspectives on exchange frictions and risk. This paper proposes the Calculation Methods of Economic Systems (CMES), a common algebra for bilateral transaction value that codes determinants into four composite element classes: value‑adding capacity (CEv), archived stocks/records/reputation (CEa), communication and coordination quality (CEc), and evaluative governance and risk perception (CEe).</span></p> <p><span>CMES links transaction systems via a master equation with a transformation scalar σ that is anchored, under stated competitive conditions, to comparative productivity. Reduced-form evidence from real estate and smartphones shows the four-component proxy set explains meaningful within‑market variation and remains robust under spatial dependence. A structural cross‑regime test in corporate bonds rejects the uniform‑σ restriction, isolating leverage‑driven nonlinearity in the evaluative component and thereby mapping where the linear additive baseline must be extended. The paper closes with falsifiable predictions and a reproducible coding protocol designed for pre‑registered validation across additional markets.</span></p> <p><strong><span><br>Keywords: </span></strong><span>transaction value; hedonic pricing; productivity; transaction costs; behavioral valuation; decomposition; identification</span></p> <h1><span>Notation and Abbreviations</span></h1> <p><span>The notation below is used consistently throughout the manuscript. Subscripts 1 and 2 denote the two transaction systems compared in the master equation; subscripts v, a, c, e denote the four component roles.</span></p> <table style="border-collapse: collapse;"> <tbody> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Symbol</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Meaning</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>CE</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Composite element bundle (transaction-relevant determinants of value).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>CEv</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Value-adding capacity (functional performance, productive capability).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>CEa</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Archived stocks, records & reputation (intangible capital, brand, know-how, inventories, maintenance history).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>CEc</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Communication & coordination quality (infrastructure, interoperability, matching frictions).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>CEe</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Evaluative governance & risk perception (uncertainty, guarantees, constraints, perceived losses).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Val(CE)</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Per-transaction transaction value in the accounting unit used in the master equation (observed transaction price/transfer in the empirical sections; unit cost/price in the competitive benchmark; can be linked to welfare via WTP minus transaction/implementation costs).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>NTr</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Number of transactions in the system/period.</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>σ</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Transformation scalar linking two systems (valuation/efficiency scale). Interpreted as the factor that converts System 2 total value into System 1 units; by convention σ ≥ 1 (swap labels if σ < 1).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Δ</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Value differential between two bundles or systems.</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>N</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Additive augmentation vector in the additive representation.</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>N*</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Rescaled augmentation absorbing σ: N* = σ·[Val(CE₂) − Val(CE₁)].</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>β</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Reduced-form implicit-price coefficients from hedonic estimation.</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>λ</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Loss aversion parameter (market-specific).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>γ</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Probability-weighting curvature parameters (baseline priors / sensitivity range).</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>FE</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 243.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Fixed effects controls (time, geography, issuer, etc.).</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h1><span>1. Introduction: The Fragmentation Problem</span></h1> <p><span>For over half a century, the study of value in economics has been profoundly, and perhaps unnecessarily, fragmented. Macroeconomists measure value creation as the Solow residual — a productivity gap that cannot be explained by observable factor inputs. Microeconomists estimate value as the sum of hedonic attribute prices recovered from market transactions. Behavioral economists model it as a psychologically distorted perception of gains and losses relative to a reference point. Financial economists decompose it through sensitivity vectors — the Greeks — that measure how an instrument's worth responds to each underlying parameter. Trade economists track value through constant market share decompositions. Each of these frameworks is internally coherent. Each is empirically productive. Yet they address the same underlying question — what determines the value of an exchange? — from different levels of analysis, with different units of measurement, and with no common language.</span></p> <p><span>This intellectual fragmentation has real costs. An empirical researcher studying platform economics cannot easily apply hedonic pricing tools calibrated on physical goods to digital services without theoretical guidance on which characteristics to include and why. A development economist cannot connect micro-level estimates of transaction costs to macro-level productivity differentials without a bridge framework. A financial analyst valuing an innovative technology company cannot formally incorporate behavioral risk perceptions alongside patent stocks and communication infrastructure in a single valuation model. In each case, the tools exist — but they exist in separate literatures, written for separate audiences, in separate mathematical languages.</span></p> <p><span>This paper argues that the fragmentation is not fundamental. The competing frameworks are not genuinely incompatible theories of value; they are complementary perspectives on a single underlying algebraic structure. We propose the Calculation Methods of Economic Systems (CMES) as that structure — a common language for the analysis of bilateral transaction value across all market types.</span></p> <p><span>The CMES's central claim is deliberately modest in scope: that any bilateral exchange can be characterized by four functional components — value-adding capacity (CEv), archived stocks, records, and reputation (CEa), communication quality (CEc), and evaluative risk perception (CEe) — and that the relationship between two transaction systems can be formalized through a multiplicative transformation scalar (σ) and a value differential (Δ). The master equation NTr₁·Val(CE₁) = NTr₂·Val(CE₂)·σ encodes this relationship at the most general level. We further develop and formally analyze an additive representation, NTr₁·Val(CE₁) = NTr₂·Val(CE₁ + N), that offers a complementary interpretive lens particularly suited to component-level policy accounting.</span></p> <h2><span>1.1 What This Paper Does</span></h2> <p><span>This paper makes five distinct contributions to the economics of value:</span></p> <p><span><span>•<span> </span></span></span><span>It provides a unified algebraic framework — the master equation NTr₁·Val(CE₁) = NTr₂·Val(CE₂)·σ and its additive equivalent — grounded in a four-component taxonomy of bilateral exchange.</span></p> <p><span><span>•<span> </span></span></span><span>It demonstrates how the transformation scalar σ can be calibrated from national accounts data under explicit, testable conditions, yielding σ ≈ 1.022 for competitive US markets 1987–2023.</span></p> <p><span><span>•<span> </span></span></span><span>It shows that a four-component value decomposition explains 37–61% of within-market variance hedonically across three structurally distinct markets, with all four components independently significant.</span></p> <p><span><span>•<span> </span></span></span><span>It offers rigorous axiomatic foundations for Val() that yield growth accounting, hedonic pricing, prospect theory, and transaction cost economics as structural analogs — not as special cases, but as formally analogous structures.</span></p> <p><span><span>•<span> </span></span></span><span>It sets out a research agenda organized around structural estimation, fifth-component investigation, and pre-registered cross-market tests — a foundation, not a finished edifice.</span></p> <p><span>Mechanism of integration (one paragraph). CMES integrates macro productivity, hedonic micropricing, and behavioral valuation by (i) defining a common transaction-level object Val(CE) built from four functional roles (CEv, CEa, CEc, CEe), (ii) linking heterogeneous transaction systems through a single transformation scalar σ that is anchored to comparative productivity under explicit conditions, and (iii) producing testable structure via (a) the additive Val() representation derived in Section 5 and (b) cross-equation restrictions (Axiom 7) in paired markets. The empirical sections therefore assess not whether CMES maximizes prediction, but whether this role-based partition yields stable decompositions and nontrivial restrictions consistent with the σ connector.</span></p> <h2><span>1.2 The Paper's Deliberate Middle Ground</span></h2> <p><span>A critical methodological clarification must be stated at the outset, both to frame the paper's contribution accurately and to anticipate a primary methodological critique. The paper occupies a deliberate middle ground between pure theory and structural empirics.</span></p> <p><span>On the theoretical side, the Val() function is axiomatized through seven conditions and a formal theorem derived via Debreu–Gorman separability. These are strong theoretical claims that generate falsifiable predictions. On the empirical side, the evidence consists of reduced-form hedonic regressions that demonstrate the four-component taxonomy's descriptive adequacy across diverse markets. These regressions do not constitute a structural test of the axiomatic model. They are evidence that the framework's taxonomy successfully organizes observable market data — a necessary but not sufficient condition for the structural axiomatic claims.</span></p> <p><span>The stronger claim — that hedonic estimates validate the structural model — requires dedicated structural estimation exploiting cross-equation restrictions derived from Axiom 7 (Transaction Consistency). That agenda is outlined in Section 7.4. Until that work is complete, readers should evaluate the hedonic results as evidence of descriptive adequacy, and the axioms as a theoretical contribution whose structural implications await direct testing. This honest positioning is not a weakness; it is a prerequisite for scientific integrity.</span></p> <h2><span>1.3 Relationship to Prior Work and Unification Attempts</span></h2> <p><span>CMES is not the first attempt to provide a common language for value. The characteristics approach (Lancaster, 1966) and household production/time-allocation tradition (Becker, 1965) unify heterogeneous goods by mapping them into deeper primitives, while hedonic pricing (Rosen, 1974) provides an equilibrium identification strategy for implicit prices of characteristics. In measurement, modern cost-of-living and price-index work also seeks coherent aggregation across heterogeneous items and quality change (e.g., scanner-data and multi-good price measurement; Redding and Weinstein, 2016). CMES builds on these traditions but targets a different unifying object: bilateral transaction value decomposed into a small role-based basis plus a cross-system transformation scalar.</span></p> <p><span>CMES differs in its target object and in the restrictions it aims to deliver. The goal is not primarily a new demand system, a new index-number formula, or a replacement for hedonic methods. Rather, it is a disciplined coding protocol that (i) partitions transaction-relevant determinants into a small set of functional roles, (ii) yields an additive baseline representation under explicit separability conditions, and (iii) links transaction systems through an efficiency/valuation transformation σ that becomes testable when anchored to independent evidence (e.g., productivity comparisons under Proposition 1) and when used to impose cross-equation restrictions (Axiom 7).</span></p> <p><span>Related domains. CMES also intersects with (i) quantitative spatial economics, which connects productivity, amenities, and location price schedules in tractable counterfactual models (Redding and Rossi-Hansberg, 2017), and (ii) market design and matching, which emphasizes the engineering of coordination and governance mechanisms in thick markets (Roth and Peranson, 1999; Roth, 2008; Budish, 2011). CMES does not replace these frameworks; rather, it provides a common transaction-value accounting layer that can be paired with them when transactions are shaped by spatial structure or by designed matching rules.</span></p> <p><span>This positioning implies two practical commitments that structure the remainder of the manuscript: (a) CMES claims are conditional on stated scope conditions and are treated as hypotheses until validated across additional markets; and (b) empirical performance is evaluated not only by predictive fit (R²) but also by interpretability, cross-system comparability, and whether CMES-specific restrictions (e.g., Axiom 7 cross-equation implications) survive empirical scrutiny.</span></p> <p><span>Table 1.4 extends the positioning discussion by contrasting CMES with partial-integration approaches that combine two of the three target domains (macro productivity, hedonic micropricing, behavioral valuation) but do not provide a single cross-system connector.</span></p> <table style="border-collapse: collapse;"> <tbody> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Approach</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Macro productivity link</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Hedonic transaction link</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Behavioral valuation</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Cross-system connector</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>What CMES adds</span></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Hedonic–GE hybrids (amenities/land)</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Partial</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Yes</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>No</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>No</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Role-based CE coding + σ connector beyond a single market</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Behavioral–GE models</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Yes</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>No</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Yes</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>No</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Explicit transaction-level decomposition + hedonic bridge</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>ABM / micro–macro platforms</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Yes (simulated)</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Partial</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Partial</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>No unified scalar</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Closed-form σ and testable restrictions rather than simulation-only integration</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Matching / market design models</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Partial</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Partial</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Partial</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>No</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Role interpretation of CEc/CEe and value accounting for designed markets</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><strong><span>Quantitative spatial economics</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Yes</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Yes (location price schedules)</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>No</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>No explicit σ</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 81.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;"> <p><span>Explicit σ anchoring + role partition for determinants across systems</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Tradition</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Unifying object</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Strength</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>What CMES adds</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Lancaster characteristics (1966)</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Goods as bundles of characteristics</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Deep micro foundation for heterogeneity</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Role-based taxonomy + cross-system σ connector</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Becker time allocation (1965)</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Utility from commodities produced with time/inputs</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Unifies consumption via production of 'commodities'</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Separates functional roles of determinants in market value</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Rosen hedonic pricing (1974)</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Equilibrium implicit prices of characteristics</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Identification strategy for marginal valuations</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Role-based discipline for variable coding + behavioral component CEe</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Growth accounting / Solow (1957)</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Residual productivity/technology term</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Macro link between inputs and output</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Transaction-level decomposition + explicit conditions for σ≈TFP</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><strong><span>Prospect theory (1979/1992)</span></strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Reference-dependent valuation under risk</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Behavioral realism under uncertainty</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 121.5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" colspan="2"> <p><span>Market-calibrated λ embedded as CEe specialization</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>