<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Rethinking Social Insurance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Martin</gnm><snm>Feldstein</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>24</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=1&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828545</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Cyclical Behavior of Equilibrium Unemployment and Vacancies</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert</gnm><snm>Shimer</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>25</ppf>
<ppl>49</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper argues that the textbook search and matching model cannot generate the observed business-cycle-frequency fluctuations in unemployment and job vacancies in response to shocks of a plausible magnitude. In the United States, the standard deviation of the vacancy-unemployment ratio is almost 20 times as large as the standard deviation of average labor productivity, while the search model predicts that the two variables should have nearly the same volatility. A shock that changes average labor productivity primarily alters the present value of wages, generating only a small movement along a downward-sloping Beveridge curve (unemployment-vacancy locus). A shock to the separation rate generates a counterfactually positive correlation between unemployment and vacancies. In both cases, the model exhibits virtually no propagation. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=2&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828572</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_shimer.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Employment Fluctuations with Equilibrium Wage Stickiness</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert E.</gnm><snm>Hall</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>50</ppf>
<ppl>65</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Following a recession, the aggregate labor market is slack&ndash;employment remains below normal and recruiting efforts of employers, as measured by help-wanted advertising and vacancies, are low. A model of matching friction explains the qualitative responses of the labor market to adverse shocks, but requires implausibly large shocks to account for the magnitude of observed fluctuations. The incorporation of wage stickiness vastly increases the sensitivity of the model to driving forces. I develop a new model of the way that wage stickiness affects unemployment. The stickiness arises in an economic equilibrium and satisfies the condition that no worker-employer pair has an unexploited opportunity for mutual improvement. Sticky wages neither interfere with the efficient formation of employment matches nor cause inefficient job loss. Thus the model provides an answer to the fundamental criticism previously directed at sticky-wage models of fluctuations. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=3&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828482</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Financial Reform: What Shakes It? What Shapes It?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Abdul</gnm><snm>Abiad</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Ashoka</gnm><snm>Mody</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>66</ppf>
<ppl>88</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>What accounts for the worldwide advance of financial reforms in the last quarter century? Using a new index of financial liberalization, we find that influential events shook the policy status quo. Balance-of-payments crises spurred reforms, but banking crises set liberalization back. Falling global interest rates strengthened reformers, while new governments went both ways. The overall trend toward liberalization, however, reflected pressures and incentives generated by initial reforms that raised the likelihood of additional reforms, stimulated further by the need to catch up with regional reform leaders. In contrast, ideology and country structure had limited influence. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=4&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828699</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_abiad.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Optimal Monetary Policy with Relative Price Distortions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Tack</gnm><snm>Yun</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>89</ppf>
<ppl>109</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper analyzes optimal monetary policy in a sticky price model with Calvo-type staggered price-setting. In the paper, the optimal monetary policy maximizes the expected utility of a representative household without having to rely on a set of linearly approximated equilibrium conditions, given the distortions associated with the staggered price-setting. It shows that the complete stabilization of the price level is optimal in the absence of initial price dispersion, while optimal inflation targets respond to changes in the level of relative price distortion in the presence of initial price dispersion. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=5&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828653</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_yun.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Case for Open-Market Purchases in a Liquidity Trap</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alan J.</gnm><snm>Auerbach</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Maurice</gnm><snm>Obstfeld</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>110</ppf>
<ppl>137</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Prevalent thinking about liquidity traps suggests that the perfect substitutability of money and bonds at a zero short-term nominal interest rate renders open-market operations ineffective for achieving macroeconomic stabilization goals. We show that even were this the case, there remains a powerful argument for large-scale open market operations as a fiscal policy tool. As we also demonstrate, however, this same reasoning implies that open-market operations will be beneficial for stabilization as well, even when the economy is expected to remain mired in a liquidity trap for some time. Thus, the microeconomic fiscal benefits of open-market operations in a liquidity trap go hand in hand with standard macroeconomic objectives. Motivated by Japan's recent economic experience, we use a dynamic general-equilibrium model to assess the welfare impact of open-market operations for an economy in Japan's predicament. We argue Japan can achieve a substantial welfare improvement through large open-market purchases of domestic government debt. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=6&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828473</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_auerbach.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Bond Risk Premia</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John H.</gnm><snm>Cochrane</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Monika</gnm><snm>Piazzesi</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>138</ppf>
<ppl>160</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study time variation in expected excess bond returns. We run regressions of one-year excess returns on initial forward rates. We find that a single factor, a single tent-shaped linear combination of forward rates, predicts excess returns on one- to five-year maturity bonds with R2 up to 0.44. The return-forecasting factor is countercyclical and forecasts stock returns. An important component of the return-forecasting factor is unrelated to the level, slope, and curvature movements described by most term structure models. We document that measurement errors do not affect our central results. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=7&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828581</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_cochrane.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_app_cochrane.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Estimation and Inference of Impulse Responses by Local Projections</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>&Ograve;scar</gnm><snm>Jord&agrave;</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>161</ppf>
<ppl>182</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper introduces methods to compute impulse responses without specification and estimation of the underlying multivariate dynamic system. The central idea consists in estimating local projections at each period of interest rather than extrapolating into increasingly distant horizons from a given model, as it is done with vector autoregressions (VAR). The advantages of local projections are numerous: (1) they can be estimated by simple regression techniques with standard regression packages; (2) they are more robust to misspecification; (3) joint or point-wise analytic inference is simple; and (4) they easily accommodate experimentation with highly nonlinear and flexible specifications that may be impractical in a multivariate context. Therefore, these methods are a natural alternative to estimating impulse responses from VARs. Monte Carlo evidence and an application to a simple, closed-economy, new-Keynesian model clarify these numerous advantages. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=8&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828518</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_jorda.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Baby Boom and Baby Bust</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jeremy</gnm><snm>Greenwood</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Ananth</gnm><snm>Seshadri</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Guillaume</gnm><snm>Vandenbroucke</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>183</ppf>
<ppl>207</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>What caused the baby boom? And can it be explained within the context of the secular decline in fertility that has occurred over the last 200 years? The hypothesis is that:(a) The secular decline in fertility is due to the relentless rise in real wages that increased the opportunity cost of having children;(b) The baby boom is explained by an atypical burst of technological progress in the household sector that occurred in the middle of the last century. This lowered the cost of having children.A model is developed in an attempt to account, quantitatively, for both the baby boom and bust. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=9&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828680</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_greenwood.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>An Empirical Assessment of the Comparative Advantage Gains from Trade: Evidence from Japan</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Daniel M.</gnm><snm>Bernhofen</snm></au>
<au><gnm>John C.</gnm><snm>Brown</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>208</ppf>
<ppl>225</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We provide an empirical assessment of the comparative advantage gains from trade argument. We use Japan's nineteenth-century opening up to world commerce as a natural experiment to answer the following counterfactual: "By how much would real income have had to increase in Japan during its final autarky years of 1851&ndash;1853 to afford the consumption bundle the economy could have obtained if it were engaged in international trade during that period?" Using detailed historical data on trade flows, autarky prices, and Japan's real GDP, we obtain upper bounds on the gains from trade of about 8 to 9 percent of Japan's GDP. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=10&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828491</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_bernhofen.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Wealth as a Determinant of Comparative Advantage</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jos&eacute;</gnm><snm>Wynne</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>226</ppf>
<ppl>254</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper shows that a country's wealth can be an important determinant of comparative advantage when access to credit differs across sectors of the economy. Wealthier nations exhibit a comparative advantage toward goods produced in sectors facing more severe financial imperfections. These sectors are typically populated by small firms. Empirically this paper documents that these sectors are also labor intensive. Consequently, this theory partially offsets traditional sources of comparative advantage and offers an explanation for Trefler's missing trade mystery and the Leontief paradox. Furthermore, the theory makes the relation between trade and income distribution endogenous. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=11&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828626</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_wynne.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Extracting Inflation from Stock Returns to Test Purchasing Power Parity</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Bhagwan</gnm><snm>Chowdhry</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Richard</gnm><snm>Roll</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Yihong</gnm><snm>Xia</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>255</ppf>
<ppl>276</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Relative purchasing power parity (PPP) holds for pure price inflations, which affect prices of all goods and services by the same proportion, while leaving relative prices unchanged. Pure price inflations also affect nominal returns of all traded financial assets by exactly the same amount. Recognizing that relative PPP may not hold for the official inflation data constructed from commodity price indices because of relative price changes and other frictions that cause prices to be "sticky," we provide a novel method for extracting a proxy for realized pure price inflation from stock returns. We find strong support for relative PPP in the short run using the extracted inflation measures. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=12&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828554</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_chowdry.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Quantity and Quality of Life and the Evolution of World Inequality</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Gary S.</gnm><snm>Becker</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Tomas J.</gnm><snm>Philipson</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Rodrigo R.</gnm><snm>Soares</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>277</ppf>
<ppl>291</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>GDP per capita is usually used to proxy for the quality of life of individuals living in different countries. Welfare is also affected by quantity of life, however, as represented by longevity. This paper incorporates longevity into an overall assessment of the evolution of cross-country inequality and shows that it is quantitatively important. The absence of reduction in cross-country inequality up to the 1990s documented in previous work is in stark contrast to the reduction in inequality after incorporating gains in longevity. Throughout the post&ndash;World War II period, health contributed to reduce significantly welfare inequality across countries. This paper derives valuation formulas for infra-marginal changes in longevity and computes a "full" growth rate that incorporates the gains in health experienced by 96 countries for the period between 1960 and 2000. Incorporating longevity gains changes traditional results; countries starting with lower income tended to grow faster than countries starting with higher income. We estimate an average yearly growth in "full income" of 4.1 percent for the poorest 50 percent of countries in 1960, of which 1.7 percentage points are due to health, as opposed to a growth of 2.6 percent for the richest 50 percent of countries, of which only 0.4 percentage points are due to health. Additionally, we decompose changes in life expectancy into changes attributable to 13 broad groups of causes of death and three age groups. We show that mortality from infectious, respiratory, and digestive diseases, congenital, perinatal, and "ill-defined" conditions, mostly concentrated before age 20 and between ages 20 and 50, is responsible for most of the reduction in life expectancy inequality. At the same time, the recent effect of AIDS, together with reductions in mortality after age 50&mdash;due to nervous system, senses organs, heart and circulatory diseases&mdash;contributed to increase health inequality across countries. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=13&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828563</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_becker.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Distance, Time, and Specialization: Lean Retailing in General Equilibrium</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Carolyn L.</gnm><snm>Evans</snm></au>
<au><gnm>James</gnm><snm>Harrigan</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>292</ppf>
<ppl>313</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Transport time increases with distance traveled, and time is valuable. We show the implications of these facts for global specialization and trade: products where timely delivery is important will be produced near the source of final demand, where wages will be higher as a result. In the model, timely delivery is important because it allows retailers to respond to final demand fluctuations without holding costly inventories, and timely delivery is possible only from nearby locations. Using a unique dataset that allows us to measure the retail demand for timely delivery, we show that the sources of U.S. apparel imports have shifted in the way predicted by the model, with products for which timeliness matters increasingly imported from nearby countries. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=14&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828590</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_evans.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_app_evans.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>How to Protect Future Generations Using Tax-Base Restrictions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Antonio</gnm><snm>Rangel</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>314</ppf>
<ppl>346</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies how to protect future generations from expropriation and to induce optimal investment in intergenerational public goods (IPGs), by introducing constitutional restrictions on the tax base. The type of tax-base restrictions that we consider places limits on the tax instruments that the government can use to raise revenue, but not on the level of expenditures or debt. We show that the introduction of a constitutional amendment requiring that IPGs and debt be financed with land taxes makes intergenerational expropriation impossible and, for many cases of interest, induces optimal investment in IPGs. We also show that a weaker constitutional amendment requiring that IPGs be financed with land taxes, but imposing no restrictions on how to finance the debt, has a positive impact on IPGs, but not on expropriation. The paper also studies the political feasibility of these reforms. We show that the first reform is not politically feasible since it hurts current generations, but the weaker reform can induce a Pareto improvement. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=15&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828527</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Political Economy Model of Congressional Careers</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Daniel</gnm><snm>Diermeier</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Keane</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Antonio</gnm><snm>Merlo</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>347</ppf>
<ppl>373</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Our main goal is to quantify the returns to a career in the United States Congress. We specify a dynamic model of career decisions of a member of Congress and estimate this model using a newly collected dataset. Given estimates of the structural model, we assess reelection probabilities, estimate the effect of congressional experience on private and public sector wages, and quantify the value of a congressional seat. Moreover, we assess how an increase in the congressional wage or the imposition of term limits would affect the career decisions of politicians and the returns from a career in Congress. </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=16&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828464</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_merlo.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>In Search of the Holy Grail: Policy Convergence, Experimentation, and Economic Performance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Sharun W.</gnm><snm>Mukand</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Dani</gnm><snm>Rodrik</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>374</ppf>
<ppl>383</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=17&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828707</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_app_mukand.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Deception: The Role of Consequences</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Uri</gnm><snm>Gneezy</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>384</ppf>
<ppl>394</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=18&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828662</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Will U.S. Agriculture Really Benefit from Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic Approach</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Wolfram</gnm><snm>Schlenker</snm></au>
<au><gnm>W. Michael</gnm><snm>Hanemann</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Anthony C.</gnm><snm>Fisher</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>395</ppf>
<ppl>406</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=19&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828455</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_schlenker.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Derek</gnm><snm>Leslie</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>407</ppf>
<ppl>413</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=20&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828608</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_app_leslie.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Educational Reform, Ability, and Family Background</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Costas</gnm><snm>Meghir</snm></au>
<au><gnm>M&aring;rten</gnm><snm>Palme</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>414</ppf>
<ppl>424</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=21&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828671</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_meghir.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Sensitivity of Long-Term Interest Rates to Economic News: Evidence and Implications for Macroeconomic Models</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Refet S.</gnm><snm>G&uuml;rkaynak</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Brian</gnm><snm>Sack</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Eric</gnm><snm>Swanson</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>425</ppf>
<ppl>436</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=22&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828446</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_gurkaynak.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Why the Apple Doesn't Fall Far: Understanding Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Sandra E.</gnm><snm>Black</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Paul J.</gnm><snm>Devereux</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Kjell G.</gnm><snm>Salvanes</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>437</ppf>
<ppl>449</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=23&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828635</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_black.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Peter</gnm><snm>Thompson</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Melanie</gnm><snm>Fox-Kean</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>450</ppf>
<ppl>460</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=24&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828509</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar05_data_thompson.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Rebecca</gnm><snm>Henderson</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Adam</gnm><snm>Jaffe</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Manuel</gnm><snm>Trajtenberg</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>461</ppf>
<ppl>464</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=25&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828644</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Peter</gnm><snm>Thompson</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Melanie</gnm><snm>Fox-Kean</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>465</ppf>
<ppl>466</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=26&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828617</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Dan</gnm><snm>Levin</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>467</ppf>
<ppl>471</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=27&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828437</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>95</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2005</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&issue_date=March 2005</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Richard</gnm><snm>Engelbrecht-Wiggans</snm></au>
<au><gnm>John A.</gnm><snm>List</snm></au>
<au><gnm>David H.</gnm><snm>Reiley</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>472</ppf>
<ppl>476</ppl>
</pp>
<ab> </ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=95&issue=1&article=28&issue_date=March 2005</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/0002828053828536</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


