<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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Iceberg Theory of Campaign Contributions: Political Threats and Interest Group Behavior</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marcos</gnm><snm>Chamon</snm><aff>IMF</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Ethan</gnm><snm>Kaplan</snm><aff>U MD</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>31</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We present a model where special interest groups condition contributions on the receiving candidate's support and also her opponent's. This allows interest groups to obtain support from contributions as well as from threats of contributing. Out-of-equilibrium contributions help explain the missing money puzzle. Our framework contradicts standard models in predicting that interest groups give to only one side of a race. We also predict that special interest groups will mainly target lopsided winners, whereas general interest groups will contribute mainly to candidates in close races. We verify these predictions in FEC data for US House elections from 1984-1990. (JEL D72)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.1</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Let Them Have Choice: Gains from Shifting Away from Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance and toward an Individual Exchange</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Leemore</gnm><snm>Dafny</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Kate</gnm><snm>Ho</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mauricio</gnm><snm>Varela</snm><aff>U AZ</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>32</ppf>
<ppl>58</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Most nonelderly Americans purchase health insurance through
their employers, which sponsor a limited number of plans. Using
a panel dataset representing over ten million insured lives, we estimate employees' preferences for different health plans and use the
estimates to predict their choices if more plans were made available
to them on the same terms, i.e., with equivalent subsidies and at
large-group prices. Using conservative assumptions, we estimate a
median welfare gain of 13 percent of premiums. A proper accounting
of the costs and benefits of a transition from employer-sponsored
to individually-purchased insurance should include this nontrivial
gain. (JEL G22, I13, J32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.32</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.32</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Effects of Terms of Trade Gains and Tariff Changes on the Measurement of US Productivity Growth</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert C.</gnm><snm>Feenstra</snm><aff>U CA, Davis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Benjamin R.</gnm><snm>Mandel</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of New York</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Marshall B.</gnm><snm>Reinsdorf</snm><aff>US Bureau of Economic Analysis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Matthew J.</gnm><snm>Slaughter</snm><aff>Dartmouth College</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>59</ppf>
<ppl>93</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The acceleration in US productivity growth since 1995 is often attributed to declining prices for information technology (IT ) goods, and therefore enhanced productivity growth in that sector. We investigate an alternative explanation for these IT price movements: gains in the US terms of trade and tariff reductions, especially for IT products, which led to greater gains than shown by official indexes. We do not, however, investigate the indexes used to deflate the domestic absorption components of GDP, and if upward biases are present in those indexes that could offset some of the effects of mismeasured export and import indexes. (JEL C43, E23, F13, F14, J24)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.59</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.59</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Political Price Cycles in Regulated Industries: Theory and Evidence</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Rodrigo M. S.</gnm><snm>Moita</snm><aff>Insper Institute, Sao Paulo</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Claudio</gnm><snm>Paiva</snm><aff>CA State U, Channel Islands</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>94</ppf>
<ppl>121</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The early work of Stigler (1971) treats the regulatory process as the
arbitration of conflicting economic and political interests rather than
a pure welfare-maximizing effort. This paper builds on these ideas
and models the regulatory process as a game where the industry-lobby, consumers-voters, and a regulator-politician interact to define the regulated price, in alternating electoral and non-electoral periods. The equilibrium that emerges consists of a fully rational political price cycle in a regulated industry. Using monthly data for regulated gasoline and electricity prices from Brazil, we find strong evidence pointing towards the existence of electoral price cycles in both markets. (JEL D72, L51, L71, L78, L94, L98, O14)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.94</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.94</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Long-Term Impacts of Individual Development Accounts on Homeownership among Baseline Renters: Follow-Up Evidence from a Randomized Experiment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michal</gnm><snm>Grinstein-Weiss</snm><aff>Washington U in St Louis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Sherraden</snm><aff>Washington U in St Louis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>William G.</gnm><snm>Gale</snm><aff>Brookings Institution</aff></au>
<au><gnm>William M.</gnm><snm>Rohe</snm><aff>U NC</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mark</gnm><snm>Schreiner</snm><aff>Washington U in St Louis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Clinton</gnm><snm>Key</snm><aff>U NC</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>122</ppf>
<ppl>45</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We examine the long-term effects of a 1998-2003 randomized experiment in Tulsa, Oklahoma with Individual Development Accounts
that offered low-income households 2:1 matching funds for housing
down payments. Prior work shows that, among households who
rented in 1998, homeownership rates increased more through 2003
in the treatment group than for controls. We show that control group
renters caught up rapidly with the treatment group after the experiment ended. As of 2009, the program had an economically small and statistically insignificant effect on homeownership rates, the number of years respondents owned homes, home equity, and foreclosure activity among baseline renters. (JEL D14, H75, R21, R31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.122</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.122</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Demand for Food of Poor Urban Mexican Households: Understanding Policy Impacts Using Structural Models</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Manuela</gnm><snm>Angelucci</snm><aff>U MI and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Orazio</gnm><snm>Attanasio</snm><aff>U College London</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>146</ppf>
<ppl>78</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use Oportunidades, a conditional cash transfer to women, to
show that standard demand models do not represent the sample's
behavior: Oportunidades increases eligible households' food budget
shares, despite food being a necessity; demand for food and high-protein food changes over time only in treatment areas; the treatment effects on food and high-protein food consumption are larger than the prediction from the Engel curves at baseline; and the curves do not change in eligible households with high baseline bargaining power for the transfer recipient. Thus, handing transfers to women is a likely determinant of the observed nutritional changes. (JEL D12, H23, J16, O12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.146</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.146</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Public Transfers and Domestic Violence: The Roles of Private Information and Spousal Control</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Gustavo J.</gnm><snm>Bobonis</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Melissa</gnm><snm>Gonz&aacute;lez-Brenes</snm><aff>Cove Strategy, Somerville, MA</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Roberto</gnm><snm>Castro</snm><aff>Regional Center for Multidisciplinary Research, UNAM</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>179</ppf>
<ppl>205</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study whether transfer programs in which funds are targeted to
women decrease the incidence of spousal abuse. We examine the
impact of the Mexican Oportunidades program on spousal abuse
rates and threats of violence using data from a specialized survey.
Beneficiary women are 40 percent less likely to be victims of physical
abuse, but are more likely to receive violent threats with no associated
abuse. This evidence is consistent with a model of decision-makers'
interactions with asymmetric information in the male partner's gains
to marriage, who can then use threats of violence to extract rents
from their female partners. (JEL D82, J12, J16, K42, O15, O17)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.179</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.179</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Targeting with Agents</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Niehaus</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Antonia</gnm><snm>Atanassova</snm><aff>Nielsen Co, New York, NY</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Marianne</gnm><snm>Bertrand</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Sendhil</gnm><snm>Mullainathan</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>206</ppf>
<ppl>38</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Targeting assistance to the poor is a central problem in development.
We study the problem of designing a proxy means test when
the implementing agent is corruptible. Conditioning on more poverty
indicators may worsen targeting in this environment because of
a novel tradeoff between statistical accuracy and enforceability. We
then test necessary conditions for this tradeoff using data on Below
Poverty Line card allocation in India. Less eligible households pay
larger bribes and are less likely to obtain cards, but widespread rule
violations yield a de facto allocation much less progressive than the
de jure one. Enforceability appears to matter. (JEL D12, I32, I38,
O12, O15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.206</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.206</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Price Effects of a Large Merger of Manufacturers: A Case Study of Maytag-Whirlpool</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Orley C.</gnm><snm>Ashenfelter</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Daniel S.</gnm><snm>Hosken</snm><aff>US Federal Trade Commission</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Matthew C.</gnm><snm>Weinberg</snm><aff>Drexel U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>239</ppf>
<ppl>61</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Many experts speculate that US antitrust policy towards horizontal
mergers has been too lenient. We estimate the price effects of
Whirlpool's acquisition of Maytag to provide new evidence on this
debate. We compare price changes in appliance markets most affected
by the merger to markets where concentration changed much less or
not at all. We estimate price increases for dishwashers and relatively
large price increases for clothes dryers, but no price effects for refrigerators or clothes washers. The combined firm's market share fell
across all four affected categories, and the number of distinct appliance products offered for sale fell. (JEL G34, K21, L11, L41, L68)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.239</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.239</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Unemployment in an Interdependent World</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Gabriel J.</gnm><snm>Felbermayr</snm><aff>U Munich and GEP, U Nottingham</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mario</gnm><snm>Larch</snm><aff>U Bayreuth and CESifo, Munich</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Wolfgang</gnm><snm>Lechthaler</snm><aff>IfW, Kiel</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>262</ppf>
<ppl>301</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>How do changes in labor market institutions, like more generous
unemployment benefits in one country, affect labor market outcomes
in other countries? We set up a two-country Armingtonian trade
model with frictions on the goods and labor markets. Contrary to the
literature, higher labor market frictions increase unemployment at
home and abroad. The strength of the spillover depends on the relative size of countries and on trade costs. It is exacerbated when real wages are rigid. Using panel data for 20 rich OECD countries, and
controlling for institutions as well as for business cycle comovement,
we confirm our theoretical predictions. (JEL E24, F16, J64, J65)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.262</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.262</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Cigarette Tax Salience and Regressivity</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jacob</gnm><snm>Goldin</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Tatiana</gnm><snm>Homonoff</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>302</ppf>
<ppl>36</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Recent evidence suggests consumers pay less attention to commodity
taxes levied at the register than to taxes included in a good's posted
price. If this attention gap is larger for high-income consumers than
for low-income consumers, policymakers can manipulate a tax's
regressivity by altering the fraction of the tax imposed at the register.
We investigate income differences in attentiveness to cigarette taxes,
exploiting state and time variation in cigarette excise and sales
tax rates. Whereas all consumers respond to taxes that appear in
cigarettes' posted price, our results suggest that only low-income
consumers respond to taxes levied at the register. (JEL D12, H22,
H25, H71, L66)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.302</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.302</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>5</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=POL&volume=5&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>vi</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.5.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/pol.5.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


 