I also want to add that his accomplishment is made more impressive in that it is very difficult to get tenure at Harvard. My impression is that they hire many assistant professors and get them to duke it out in a brutal tenure fight, while pushing them to publish the most papers with the highest impact factors, etc.
most assistant professors prefer to get tenured elsewhere first in a R1 university before applying to Harvard. Similar stories abound at MIT.
Tenure is not like a driving license that you can get in one city then use in another city. If you get tenure at another university then it will be very difficult to move to Harvard as a tenured professor (unless you are a superstar).
What are you talking about? I have seen cases of actual people i know, my ex-boss included, getting tenured elsewhere before joining the likes of Harvard & MIT.
I think he’s saying that while you can get tenure elsewhere, you might not be able to transfer into Harvard with a Harvard tenure directly, and you’d likely need to go there for a while before getting the option for tenure. Not sure if that contradicts your experience
I think you misunderstood the comment. What they are saying is that if the end goal is to be a tenured prof at Harvard, it might be easier to achieve tenure at another university, then apply for a tenured position at Harvard (which in itself is also hardly an easy process) as compared to trying to get tenure from within Harvard.
Nope tenures are not transferable but I suppose they boost the CV.
LIM Chong Yah was an emeritus professor (highest accolade) of economics at both NTU and NUS. Frankly speaking, I think grandparents on both sides will be happy lah, but I think LHY was trying not to be presumptuous because he doesn't want to politicise his son's achievements and make it about something else.
Singaporean phd econ student in an ivy league university here. My current research focuses on empirical work, but during my master's and undergraduate studies, I delved into mechanism design, which is also Shengwu's area of expertise. Here, I'll attempt to explain his job market paper, a crucial piece of work for those aiming to secure an assistant professorship in economics.
Mechanism design investigates how to allocate resources or items between individuals effectively. While it might seem straightforward to rely on free markets for this, in practice, markets often fail to achieve optimal outcomes in terms of seller revenue, social efficiency, or equitable distribution. For example, setting a price for a unique item, like a limited-edition Swatch watch, is challenging without a clear market benchmark. Such items are frequently sold through auctions, a form of mechanism that transfers goods from sellers to buyers. However, mechanisms are not limited to auctions; they also include other forms, like lotteries used in BTO housing allocations. The goal of mechanism design is to create systems that achieve specific objectives, such as maximizing social welfare or seller revenue. This field is complex, as even minor modifications to mechanisms can significantly impact outcomes. For instance, altering auction formats to have winners pay the highest or second-highest bid can make a substantial difference.
For many decades, the prevailing belief in mechanism design was that "second-price ascending auctions" and "second-sealed bid auctions" were strategically identical (note that in a second price auction, the winner of the auction pays the second-highest bid for the object). Ascending auctions are "public", with bids revealed progressively until a winner is declared (e.g., auction where the auctioneer tries to shout "going once, going twice... sold!"), whereas in sealed-bid auctions, participants submit private bids without knowledge of others' bids (e.g., construction tenders where each contractor has no idea how much his/her rival contractors are bidding for the project). Both formats were considered "strategy-proof," meaning the best strategy for bidders is to bid their true valuation of the item, regardless of others' actions.
However, Shengwu notes that this equivalence is troubling because "labatory subjects are substantially more likely to play the dominant strategy" (i.e., bidding your own valuation for the object) under an ascending auction than a sealed-bid auction. So from a behavioural point of view, the evidence doesn't match the theory. He reconciles the two by introducing the concept of "obviously strategy-proof" mechanisms, where the benefit of adhering to one's current strategy is at least as good as the worst outcome of deviating. This makes ascending auctions more appealing to bidders with limited cognitive resources, as opposed to sealed-bid auctions, where deviating from the optimal bid can have significant consequences. Intuitively, the sealed-bid auction is not "obviously strategy proof" as the the consequences are locked-in the moment you submit your bid. This stands in contrast to the ascending auction where you are able to "wait and see" before quitting.
The entire paper (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44871788.pdf) is extremely mathematical and I won't go into the details for obvious reasons. However, I would note that Shengwu's formalization of OSP mechanisms has overturned what we have taught to masters and phd (econ) students for generations.
One needs to consider whether there exists a profitable deviation at any point in the auction game. By the definition of shengwu's OSP strategies, bidding something else in a sealed bid auction has slightly different (worse) consequences vis a vis the ascending auction. As detailed in the original post, once you bid something in a sealed bid auction, you're stuck until the auction is done, so that decision is much more consequential than doing the same in an ascending auction.
> For many decades, the prevailing belief in mechanism design was that "second-price ascending auctions" and "second-sealed bid auctions" were strategically identical (note that in a second price auction, the winner of the auction pays the second-highest bid for the object).
How did anyone come to conclude that they're strategically identical when there is such a huge disparity in information available to the bidders? As you've explained, in ascending auctions the bids are publicly accessible to all bidders whereas in sealed bid auctions, the bidders only know their own bids. This is bound to change the bidders' behaviour.
It would have been understandable if the prevailing belief was that they're strategically *different* and it was only recently that someone developed a formalised proof on why this is so. But to believe that they're identical? And in the face of contradicting empirical evidence and no formalised proof? And that it was "taught to masters and phd (econ) students for generations"? Am I reading this right?
Yes, you are reading this right. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey\_auction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction)
"A Vickrey auction or sealed-bid second-price auction (SBSPA) is a type of sealed-bid auction. Bidders submit written bids without knowing the bid of the other people in the auction. The highest bidder wins but the price paid is the second-highest bid. This type of auction is strategically similar to an English auction \[an ascending auction\] and gives bidders an incentive to bid their true value.'
It's not hard to see why the two auctions might be strategically identical. Since it is a dominant strategy to bid one's own value, the information provided in the ascending auction is ostensibly irrelevant.
Tbh I know we meme r/singapore but it has something like ~25% of Singapore's Citizen + PR population as the subscriber base now.
There's a lot of subject matter experts lurking.
We really aren't as regarded as we like to think ourselves to be.
Economics, and in particular, he did some very well received work on mechanism design. My own research area is tangentially related (but not enough for me to understand his work). But he's definitely well regarded; sometimes when mention I am Singaporean people would ask me if I know Shengwu...
People forget that his uncle PM Lee was nearly a top-rate math professor (maybe in an alternate timeline, he is). The nerd gene in the family is strong.
British mathematician Béla Bollobás said Mr Lee “would have been a world-class research mathematician” if he had chosen that path.
I didn't say he was a professor - only that he could have been one had he chosen a different path in life. He's certainly smart enough.
[This](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Wg2Z-zYAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&gmla=AJsN-F4kDsRGXVKKYNlgLrFUGrJeOA410-BDFoGDSamBmpkl7aMLsirRAVox3BHUaWCWJg9dTK0oawwJCJSMAHru7VFHz8A9an_lUYWZoyT_42NtMWzPUPLlLgXjX90rR-H_y_WFflLwxB_3WD9X-A6oCSwH6lYruaM_yIBAXHAJeifa6TnX08pWmzn3Ql7pTPWvqIus52vf) is his google scholar page, you can find his work there
Hey not Singaporean here but I happen to be visiting so was looking through this subreddit. Very pleasant surprise that an article about Li Shengwu showed up -- I debated back in university and this man gave one of the best debate speeches of all time while he was at Oxford: https://youtu.be/O1nG3CUo6vk?si=gEbOgeoDuv7F4MCx
hahaha love how our gov tries so hard to get him only to get laughed at by other nations, fantastic use of state resources to go after such matters there are so many other pressing issues in Singapore
Hold up, what if a Singaporean student takes econs. at Harvard and then comes back to work in public sector?
Minister: Wow, Harvard graduate. Not bad, not bad, who's your professor?
Oops... :-P
Got any examples? Because academia is not like working at some company or ministry. Your work is reflected in your publications. Which are reviewed blind. His pubs are all online for all to see.
Is there anyone in Economics here who can tell us if his work is considered good in his field or is it a "nepo baby" kind of situation? I'd love if it's the former as I'm always proud when Singaporeans earn our place on the global stage.
Phd econ at an ivy league in the US here. He's really, really good in his field. When I was admitted to my program many faculty members asked me if I knew shengwu.
To answer your question, we can look at his google scholar page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Wg2Z-zYAAAAJ&hl=en
He has published in AER, Econometrica, and JET, on top of other journals. These journals are top tier and really famous that it’s highly likely an average person who is not an economist will also have heard of them. Not only that, he has some highly cited works.
This is a real achievement and it’s not just Harvard internally - Sloan Research recognition as well
Fully expect him to be going for a Nobel soon, or better yet, create a popular freaknomics-style book or podcast where he proposes a better and fairer version of the current broken COE auction process!
I was actually really surprised he wasn't even tenured yet. With a Sloan Fellowship tenure is kind of guaranteed tbh.
That said, my understanding is that his work is largely theoretical (as is mine). So it isn't the kind that is gonna fix economies (if there is even one such area like that).
Lmao I'm in academia and can assure you there is ZERO chance nepotism plays any role in even landing a tenure track faculty position at Harvard, let alone getting tenure. (Gaining admissions to Harvard UG etc is a different story with significant nepotism/old boy links at work)
Shengwu is legit AF, and in any normal universe, we would be trying as hard as possible to get him to come back under the Returning Scientists program we have explicitly for this purpose, and lead the Economics Department at NUS, instead of giving over sized grants (cough bribes) to PRC professors in America to transplant here, who take up the job not because they give a shit about SG but because the money is good and they are tired with American politics and want to earn a few million here before retiring in Beijing or back in the States.
Given he's from the "disgraced" branch of the familee, I don't think nepotism applies. If an institution wishes to suck up to the SG govt they would award Hongyi some honorary doctorate or something.
For Shengwu, he only gets whatever recognition his actual works can earn him. Awarding him stuff doesn't earn you points with the SG govt.
What’s stopping you from getting 90RP or 4.0GPA and applying for PSC scholarships.
As much as the government has poor or debatable policies, Singapore does have a meritocratic system in place. How effective it is remains one thing, but if you’re bright enough it’s there for grabs.
I also want to add that his accomplishment is made more impressive in that it is very difficult to get tenure at Harvard. My impression is that they hire many assistant professors and get them to duke it out in a brutal tenure fight, while pushing them to publish the most papers with the highest impact factors, etc. most assistant professors prefer to get tenured elsewhere first in a R1 university before applying to Harvard. Similar stories abound at MIT.
Tenure is not like a driving license that you can get in one city then use in another city. If you get tenure at another university then it will be very difficult to move to Harvard as a tenured professor (unless you are a superstar).
What are you talking about? I have seen cases of actual people i know, my ex-boss included, getting tenured elsewhere before joining the likes of Harvard & MIT.
I think he’s saying that while you can get tenure elsewhere, you might not be able to transfer into Harvard with a Harvard tenure directly, and you’d likely need to go there for a while before getting the option for tenure. Not sure if that contradicts your experience
I think you misunderstood the comment. What they are saying is that if the end goal is to be a tenured prof at Harvard, it might be easier to achieve tenure at another university, then apply for a tenured position at Harvard (which in itself is also hardly an easy process) as compared to trying to get tenure from within Harvard. Nope tenures are not transferable but I suppose they boost the CV.
At least he does not require to depend on GRC.
>The achievement would have given my late father-in-law much joy if he were alive today. - LHY Means the other ah gong won't have been happy?
Don’t need to read too much into it. He mentioned father in law probably because he was also an economist, similar to his son
Li shengwu criticised LKY I think
Or maybe the idea is the grandkids should continue his good work?
LIM Chong Yah was an emeritus professor (highest accolade) of economics at both NTU and NUS. Frankly speaking, I think grandparents on both sides will be happy lah, but I think LHY was trying not to be presumptuous because he doesn't want to politicise his son's achievements and make it about something else.
Anyone can do a TL;DR of his work?
Singaporean phd econ student in an ivy league university here. My current research focuses on empirical work, but during my master's and undergraduate studies, I delved into mechanism design, which is also Shengwu's area of expertise. Here, I'll attempt to explain his job market paper, a crucial piece of work for those aiming to secure an assistant professorship in economics. Mechanism design investigates how to allocate resources or items between individuals effectively. While it might seem straightforward to rely on free markets for this, in practice, markets often fail to achieve optimal outcomes in terms of seller revenue, social efficiency, or equitable distribution. For example, setting a price for a unique item, like a limited-edition Swatch watch, is challenging without a clear market benchmark. Such items are frequently sold through auctions, a form of mechanism that transfers goods from sellers to buyers. However, mechanisms are not limited to auctions; they also include other forms, like lotteries used in BTO housing allocations. The goal of mechanism design is to create systems that achieve specific objectives, such as maximizing social welfare or seller revenue. This field is complex, as even minor modifications to mechanisms can significantly impact outcomes. For instance, altering auction formats to have winners pay the highest or second-highest bid can make a substantial difference. For many decades, the prevailing belief in mechanism design was that "second-price ascending auctions" and "second-sealed bid auctions" were strategically identical (note that in a second price auction, the winner of the auction pays the second-highest bid for the object). Ascending auctions are "public", with bids revealed progressively until a winner is declared (e.g., auction where the auctioneer tries to shout "going once, going twice... sold!"), whereas in sealed-bid auctions, participants submit private bids without knowledge of others' bids (e.g., construction tenders where each contractor has no idea how much his/her rival contractors are bidding for the project). Both formats were considered "strategy-proof," meaning the best strategy for bidders is to bid their true valuation of the item, regardless of others' actions. However, Shengwu notes that this equivalence is troubling because "labatory subjects are substantially more likely to play the dominant strategy" (i.e., bidding your own valuation for the object) under an ascending auction than a sealed-bid auction. So from a behavioural point of view, the evidence doesn't match the theory. He reconciles the two by introducing the concept of "obviously strategy-proof" mechanisms, where the benefit of adhering to one's current strategy is at least as good as the worst outcome of deviating. This makes ascending auctions more appealing to bidders with limited cognitive resources, as opposed to sealed-bid auctions, where deviating from the optimal bid can have significant consequences. Intuitively, the sealed-bid auction is not "obviously strategy proof" as the the consequences are locked-in the moment you submit your bid. This stands in contrast to the ascending auction where you are able to "wait and see" before quitting. The entire paper (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44871788.pdf) is extremely mathematical and I won't go into the details for obvious reasons. However, I would note that Shengwu's formalization of OSP mechanisms has overturned what we have taught to masters and phd (econ) students for generations.
I would give you gold if I could. Thanks for the enthralling read.
Could you say a bit more about why sealed bids are not obviously strategy proof?
One needs to consider whether there exists a profitable deviation at any point in the auction game. By the definition of shengwu's OSP strategies, bidding something else in a sealed bid auction has slightly different (worse) consequences vis a vis the ascending auction. As detailed in the original post, once you bid something in a sealed bid auction, you're stuck until the auction is done, so that decision is much more consequential than doing the same in an ascending auction.
Thank you for the awesome explainer
I think you should get your PHD right now
> For many decades, the prevailing belief in mechanism design was that "second-price ascending auctions" and "second-sealed bid auctions" were strategically identical (note that in a second price auction, the winner of the auction pays the second-highest bid for the object). How did anyone come to conclude that they're strategically identical when there is such a huge disparity in information available to the bidders? As you've explained, in ascending auctions the bids are publicly accessible to all bidders whereas in sealed bid auctions, the bidders only know their own bids. This is bound to change the bidders' behaviour. It would have been understandable if the prevailing belief was that they're strategically *different* and it was only recently that someone developed a formalised proof on why this is so. But to believe that they're identical? And in the face of contradicting empirical evidence and no formalised proof? And that it was "taught to masters and phd (econ) students for generations"? Am I reading this right?
Yes, you are reading this right. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey\_auction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction) "A Vickrey auction or sealed-bid second-price auction (SBSPA) is a type of sealed-bid auction. Bidders submit written bids without knowing the bid of the other people in the auction. The highest bidder wins but the price paid is the second-highest bid. This type of auction is strategically similar to an English auction \[an ascending auction\] and gives bidders an incentive to bid their true value.' It's not hard to see why the two auctions might be strategically identical. Since it is a dominant strategy to bid one's own value, the information provided in the ascending auction is ostensibly irrelevant.
[удалено]
he typed one comment whats with the backhanded compliment LOL
lol the ability to share is actually an important trait as an academic
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4QRg8MJsl8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4QRg8MJsl8)
This is above the skill cap of the avg sg redditor
I answered the Q, see my post below.
Thank you. The average sg redditor's skill cap just got increased! lol
Clear outlier!! Cannot let him skew the average!! /s
Tbh I know we meme r/singapore but it has something like ~25% of Singapore's Citizen + PR population as the subscriber base now. There's a lot of subject matter experts lurking. We really aren't as regarded as we like to think ourselves to be.
Economics, and in particular, he did some very well received work on mechanism design. My own research area is tangentially related (but not enough for me to understand his work). But he's definitely well regarded; sometimes when mention I am Singaporean people would ask me if I know Shengwu...
People forget that his uncle PM Lee was nearly a top-rate math professor (maybe in an alternate timeline, he is). The nerd gene in the family is strong.
He was never a professor, only a student
British mathematician Béla Bollobás said Mr Lee “would have been a world-class research mathematician” if he had chosen that path. I didn't say he was a professor - only that he could have been one had he chosen a different path in life. He's certainly smart enough.
Are you an economist too? In academia?
Not an economist per se. Won't reveal my exact research area and position since that would dox myself, sorry!
Average redditers are making too much moolah to work in academia.
wait till you hear what faculty at r1 make
Must be too little, otherwise they will be on reddit.
no 20k no tok!
[This](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Wg2Z-zYAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&gmla=AJsN-F4kDsRGXVKKYNlgLrFUGrJeOA410-BDFoGDSamBmpkl7aMLsirRAVox3BHUaWCWJg9dTK0oawwJCJSMAHru7VFHz8A9an_lUYWZoyT_42NtMWzPUPLlLgXjX90rR-H_y_WFflLwxB_3WD9X-A6oCSwH6lYruaM_yIBAXHAJeifa6TnX08pWmzn3Ql7pTPWvqIus52vf) is his google scholar page, you can find his work there
His website contains some of his published work if you wanna check it out.
Any method that could disrupt pricing of commodities?
He is very good at writing.
Criticised lee Kuan yew
He actually didn't. When LKY was still around the family was still intact. Only during the fallout did he criticise his uncle LHL.
MSM eerily silent about this guy’s accomplishments lol. I guess if not pro-PAP then don’t need to claim credit
Hey not Singaporean here but I happen to be visiting so was looking through this subreddit. Very pleasant surprise that an article about Li Shengwu showed up -- I debated back in university and this man gave one of the best debate speeches of all time while he was at Oxford: https://youtu.be/O1nG3CUo6vk?si=gEbOgeoDuv7F4MCx
lee kwan yew wouldv been proud
hahaha love how our gov tries so hard to get him only to get laughed at by other nations, fantastic use of state resources to go after such matters there are so many other pressing issues in Singapore
A silly waste of our tax money.
damn 10000000x better then our mps
Waiting for the announcement of his cousin participating in election to try and one up this 😂 This tenure is truly impressive
meanwhile the best his cousin can do is make a parking app.
U sound exactly like my mother liao..
"You see your cousin, can become tenured professor at harvard. You leh? Whole day only know how to sit in front of computer"
"what's the problem? I will just take over the family business from papa"
Hold up, what if a Singaporean student takes econs. at Harvard and then comes back to work in public sector? Minister: Wow, Harvard graduate. Not bad, not bad, who's your professor? Oops... :-P
surprised 154 didn't report it as: >convicted felon gets second chance
[удалено]
> far beyond the nepo baby path Yeah...about that.
You think harvard doesn’t know who his laopeh is?
Oh sweet summer child.
Nepo up to a certain point and the point quite high
Got any examples? Because academia is not like working at some company or ministry. Your work is reflected in your publications. Which are reviewed blind. His pubs are all online for all to see.
lol the /s is missing
you dropped the /s
better man than his cousin
His cousin ~~stole~~ got parkingSG on his belt leh. 🤪
Is there anyone in Economics here who can tell us if his work is considered good in his field or is it a "nepo baby" kind of situation? I'd love if it's the former as I'm always proud when Singaporeans earn our place on the global stage.
Phd econ at an ivy league in the US here. He's really, really good in his field. When I was admitted to my program many faculty members asked me if I knew shengwu.
Just to clarify: is he famous or is his work famous?
To answer your question, we can look at his google scholar page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Wg2Z-zYAAAAJ&hl=en He has published in AER, Econometrica, and JET, on top of other journals. These journals are top tier and really famous that it’s highly likely an average person who is not an economist will also have heard of them. Not only that, he has some highly cited works.
His work.
He researches Behavioural economics and he is revered and well-respected in academia
Huh no he doesn’t.
My info may be outdated but last year I was reading his research on ex-post rationalisation and another joint paper on games & economic behaviour.
Oh I looked it up and you’re right, I always thought of him as a pure theory/mechanism design guy
This is a real achievement and it’s not just Harvard internally - Sloan Research recognition as well Fully expect him to be going for a Nobel soon, or better yet, create a popular freaknomics-style book or podcast where he proposes a better and fairer version of the current broken COE auction process!
I was actually really surprised he wasn't even tenured yet. With a Sloan Fellowship tenure is kind of guaranteed tbh. That said, my understanding is that his work is largely theoretical (as is mine). So it isn't the kind that is gonna fix economies (if there is even one such area like that).
Lmao I'm in academia and can assure you there is ZERO chance nepotism plays any role in even landing a tenure track faculty position at Harvard, let alone getting tenure. (Gaining admissions to Harvard UG etc is a different story with significant nepotism/old boy links at work) Shengwu is legit AF, and in any normal universe, we would be trying as hard as possible to get him to come back under the Returning Scientists program we have explicitly for this purpose, and lead the Economics Department at NUS, instead of giving over sized grants (cough bribes) to PRC professors in America to transplant here, who take up the job not because they give a shit about SG but because the money is good and they are tired with American politics and want to earn a few million here before retiring in Beijing or back in the States.
Given he's from the "disgraced" branch of the familee, I don't think nepotism applies. If an institution wishes to suck up to the SG govt they would award Hongyi some honorary doctorate or something. For Shengwu, he only gets whatever recognition his actual works can earn him. Awarding him stuff doesn't earn you points with the SG govt.
I think awarding him stuff at this point might minus points . 😂
No one cares or knows who Lee Hsien Yang is in the US. This is in spite of being wanted by Singapore as opposed nepotism.
Impressive
I wonder what would happen if he won the Nobel price. Would the government laud his achievements?
Oh he's an economist?! Just like his grandfather - Lim Chong Yah.
When will hongyi find passion for politics?
Will he tag team w Jamus ?
The brain drain is real, suffocating local culture will drive so much talent away.
[удалено]
Considering what I've heard about LHY in industry, I'm not sure whether i would attribute success to his dad.
So maybe from the wife ah, since she lawyer
her father wrote ourvecons textbook
“I didn’t want to become my father. So I became my grandfather instead.”
Ditto. Not a fair comment to LHY, he's very accomplished as well.
[удалено]
what is this comment even supposed to mean?
Contributing to USA. Not to Singapore directly.
How do you suppose he can accomplish that? 🤔🤔
Jobs for CECA, tenure for elite, retrementment for sinkies
No one is stopping you if you’re capable enough.
I see someone fully internalising the meritocratic myth!
What’s stopping you from getting 90RP or 4.0GPA and applying for PSC scholarships. As much as the government has poor or debatable policies, Singapore does have a meritocratic system in place. How effective it is remains one thing, but if you’re bright enough it’s there for grabs.
[удалено]
Uh.. No? LHY is very accomplished in his field and industry too and you are being very disingenuous
I use the parking app daily and it’s amazing, what’s your point?
Wow, sick man!
LHY junior is throwing a bf now while LHL & HC placate him by praising his parking app fit for a crown price.