<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Pitfalls of Participatory Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Education in India</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Abhijit V.</gnm><snm>Banerjee</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Rukmini</gnm><snm>Banerji</snm><aff>Pratham-ASER, Mumbai</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Esther</gnm><snm>Duflo</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Rachel</gnm><snm>Glennerster</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stuti</gnm><snm>Khemani</snm><aff>World Bank</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>30</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Participation of beneficiaries in the monitoring of public services is
increasingly seen as a key to improving their quality. We conducted
a randomized evaluation of three interventions to encourage beneficiaries'
participation to India: providing information on existing
institutions, training community members in a testing tool for children,
and training volunteers to hold remedial reading camps. These
interventions had no impact on community involvement, teacher
effort, or learning outcomes inside the school. However, in the third
intervention, youth volunteered to teach camps, and children who
attended substantially improved their reading skills. This suggests
that citizens face constraints in influencing public services. (JEL
H52, I21, I28, O15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.1</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/data/2008-0073_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/app/2008-0073_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Tagging and Income Taxation: Theory and an Application</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Helmuth</gnm><snm>Cremer</snm><aff>Toulouse School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Firouz</gnm><snm>Gahvari</snm><aff>U IL</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jean-Marie</gnm><snm>Lozachmeur</snm><aff>Toulouse School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>31</ppf>
<ppl>50</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We derive a set of analytical results for optimal income taxation with
tags using quasilinear preferences and a Rawlsian social welfare
function. Secondly, assuming a constant elasticity of labor supply
and log-normality of the skills distribution, we analytically identify
the winners and losers of tagging. Third, we prove that if the skills
distribution in one group first-order stochastically dominates the
other, tagging calls for redistribution from the former to the latter
group. Finally, we calibrate our model to the US workers using gender
as tag. Welfare implications are dramatic. Only male high-wage
earners lose. Everyone else gains, some substantially. (JEL H21,
H23, H24)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.31</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.31</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Input Constraints and the Efficiency of Entry: Lessons from Cardiac Surgery</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>David M.</gnm><snm>Cutler</snm><aff>Littauer Center, Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Robert S.</gnm><snm>Huckman</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jonathan T.</gnm><snm>Kolstad</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>51</ppf>
<ppl>76</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Prior studies suggest that with elastically supplied inputs free entry
may lead to an inefficiently high number of firms in equilibrium.
Under input scarcity, however, the welfare loss from free entry is
reduced. Further, free entry may increase use of high-quality inputs,
as oligopolistic firms underuse these inputs when entry is constrained.
We assess these predictions by examining how the 1996
repeal of certificate-of-need (CON ) legislation in Pennsylvania
affected the market for cardiac surgery in the state. We show that
entry led to a redistribution of surgeries to higher quality surgeons,
and that this entry was approximately welfare neutral. (JEL I11, L13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.51</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.51</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/data/2008-0032_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Tax Competition for Heterogeneous Firms with Endogenous Entry</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ronald B.</gnm><snm>Davies</snm><aff>U College Dublin</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Carsten</gnm><snm>Eckel</snm><aff>U Bamberg</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>77</ppf>
<ppl>102</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper models tax competition for mobile firms that are differentiated
by their productivities. Because taxes affect the distribution
of firms, they affect wages, prices, and the number of firms. From
the social planner's perspective, optimal taxes efficiently distribute
income between private and public consumption and are harmonized,
providing the optimal number of firms. This is not a Nash
equilibrium. As is common in such models, equilibrium taxes are
inefficiently low. Furthermore, there is no pure strategy equilibrium
with equal taxes resulting in too many firms. This illustrates a new
distortion from tax competition and a new benefit from harmonization.
(JEL H21, H25, H87)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.77</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.77</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Time Is Money: Choosing between Charitable Activities</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Naomi E.</gnm><snm>Feldman</snm><aff>Ben-Gurion U Negev</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>103</ppf>
<ppl>30</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper analyzes the impact of a preferential tax-price for monetary
donations on the joint decision to donate time (volunteer) and
money. The methodological approach takes into account that consumption
of each charitable good affects consumption of the other.
Using data from a national survey on household charitable giving,
the results show that donations of time and money are substitutes.
However, a decrease in the tax-price of monetary donations also has
a positive effect on donations of time that acts outside the change in
relative prices. This more than offsets the substitution effect leading
to an overall positive correlation between the two charitable goods.
(JEL D64, H24, H31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.103</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.103</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/data/2008-0055_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Playing with Fire: Cigarettes, Taxes, and Competition from the Internet</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Austan</gnm><snm>Goolsbee</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Michael F.</gnm><snm>Lovenheim</snm><aff>Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Joel</gnm><snm>Slemrod</snm><aff>U MI</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>131</ppf>
<ppl>54</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper documents the rise of the Internet as a source of state tax-free
cigarettes and its impact on taxed sales elasticities. Using data
on cigarette tax rates, taxable cigarette sales and individual smoking
rates by state from 1980 to 2005 merged with data on Internet
penetration, this paper documents that there has been a substantial
increase in the sensitivity of taxable cigarette sales to state tax rates
that is correlated with the rise of Internet usage within states. The
estimates imply that the increased sensitivity from cigarette smuggling
over the Internet has lessened the revenue generating potential
of cigarette tax increases significantly, although states are still far
from the revenue-maximizing tax rates. (JEL D12, H25, H31, H71,
L66)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.131</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.131</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/data/2007-0030_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Optimal Taxation of Height: A Case Study of Utilitarian Income Redistribution</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>N. Gregory</gnm><snm>Mankiw</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Matthew</gnm><snm>Weinzierl</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>155</ppf>
<ppl>76</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Should the income tax include a credit for short taxpayers and a
surcharge for tall ones? The standard utilitarian framework for tax
analysis answers this question in the affirmative. Moreover, a plausible
parameterization using data on height and wages implies a substantial
height tax: a tall person earning $50,000 should pay $4,500
more in tax than a short person. One interpretation is that personal
attributes correlated with wages should be considered more widely
for determining taxes. Alternatively, if policies such as a height tax
are rejected, then the standard utilitarian framework must fail to
capture intuitive notions of distributive justice. (JEL D64, H21, H23,
H24, J11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.155</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.155</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/data/2008-0107_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Is the EITC as Good as an NIT? Conditional Cash Transfers and Tax Incidence</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jesse</gnm><snm>Rothstein</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>177</ppf>
<ppl>208</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The EITC is intended to encourage work. But EITC-induced
increases in labor supply may drive wages down. I simulate the economic
incidence of the EITC. In each scenario that I consider, a
large portion of low-income single mothers' EITC payments is captured
by employers through reduced wages. Workers who are EITC
ineligible also see wage declines. By contrast, a traditional Negative
Income Tax (NIT) discourages work, and so induces large transfers
from employers to their workers. With my preferred parameters, $1
in EITC spending increases after-tax incomes by $0.73, while $1
spent on the NIT yields $1.39. (JEL H22, H23, H24, H31, J22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.177</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.177</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/data/2008-0114_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/pol/app/2008-0114_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7731</issn>
<issn_online>1945-774X</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-pol/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>2</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2010</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=2&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>ii</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.2.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


