<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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Life-Cycle Prices and Production</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Mark</gnm><snm>Aguiar</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Erik</gnm><snm>Hurst</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1533</ppf>
<ppl>1559</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use scanner data and time diaries to document how households substitute time
for money through shopping and home production. We document substantial heterogeneity
in prices paid for identical goods for the same area and time, with older
households shopping the most and paying the lowest prices. Doubling shopping frequency
lowers a good's price by 7 to 10 percent. We estimate the shopper's price of
time and use this series to estimate an elasticity of substitution between time and goods
in home production of roughly 1.8. The observed life-cycle time allocation implies a
consumption series that differs markedly from expenditures. (JEL D12, D91)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=1&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1533</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050774_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Theft, Gift-Giving, and Trustworthiness: Honesty Is Its Own Reward in Rural Paraguay</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Laura</gnm><snm>Schechter</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1560</ppf>
<ppl>1582</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In developing countries lacking legal enforcement, villagers may use implicit contracts
to minimize crime. I construct a dynamic limited-commitment model, in which
a thief cannot commit to forego stealing, but is induced to steal less by the promise of
future gifts. Combining survey data on production, theft, gifts, and trust with experiments
measuring trustworthiness, I provide supporting evidence. Farmers living near
more relatives or with plots that are difficult to steal from give fewer gifts and trust
more, and those living near more relatives also experience less theft. Giving increases
when trust is lower and the threat of theft is greater. (JEL D86, K42, O17, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=2&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1560</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050531_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Joseph J.</gnm><snm>Doyle</snm><suff>Jr.</suff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1583</ppf>
<ppl>1610</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Little is known about the effects of placing children who are abused or neglected into
foster care. This paper uses the placement tendency of child protection investigators
as an instrumental variable to identify causal effects of foster care on long-term
outcomes—including juvenile delinquency, teen motherhood, and employment—
among children in Illinois where a rotational assignment process effectively randomizes
families to investigators. Large marginal treatment effect estimates suggest
caution in the interpretation, but the results suggest that children on the margin of
placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home, especially older
children. (JEL H75, I38, J13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=3&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1583</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050982_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050982_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Mary</gnm><snm>Amiti</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Jozef</gnm><snm>Konings</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1611</ppf>
<ppl>1638</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper estimates the productivity gains from reducing tariffs on final goods and
from reducing tariffs on intermediate inputs. Lower output tariffs can increase productivity
by inducing tougher import competition, whereas cheaper imported inputs
can raise productivity via learning, variety, and quality effects. We use Indonesian
manufacturing census data from 1991 to 2001, which include plant-level information
on imported inputs. The results show that a 10 percentage point fall in input tariffs
leads to a productivity gain of 12 percent for firms that import their inputs, at least
twice as high as any gains from reducing output tariffs. (JEL F12, F13, L16, O14,
O19, O24)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=4&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1611</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050901_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Establishment Size Dynamics in the Aggregate Economy</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Esteban</gnm><snm>Rossi-Hansberg</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Mark L. J.</gnm><snm>Wright</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1639</ppf>
<ppl>1666</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper presents a theory of establishment size dynamics based on the accumulation
of industry-specific human capital that simultaneously rationalizes the economy-
wide facts on establishment growth rates, exit rates, and size distributions. The
theory predicts that establishment growth and net exit rates should decline faster
with size, and that the establishment size distribution should have thinner tails, in
sectors that use specific human capital less intensively. We establish that there is
substantial cross-sector heterogeneity in US establishment size dynamics and distributions,
which is well explained by relative factor intensities. (JEL L11 , L16, L25).</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=5&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1639</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20041226_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Demographics and Industry Returns</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stefano</gnm><snm>DellaVigna</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Joshua M.</gnm><snm>Pollet</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1667</ppf>
<ppl>1702</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>How do investors respond to predictable shifts in profitability? We consider how
demographic shifts affect profits and returns across industries. Cohort size fluctuations
produce forecastable demand changes for age-sensitive sectors, such as
toys, bicycles, beer, life insurance, and nursing homes. These demand changes are
predictable once a specific cohort is born. We use lagged consumption and demographic
data to forecast future consumption demand growth induced by changes
in age structure. We find that demand forecasts predict profitability by industry.
Moreover, forecast demand changes five to ten years in the future predict annual
industry stock returns. One additional percentage point of annualized demand
growth due to demographics predicts a 5 to 10 percentage point increase in annual
abnormal industry stock returns. However, forecasted demand changes over shorter
horizons do not predict stock returns. A trading strategy exploiting demographic
information earns an annualized risk-adjusted return of approximately 6 percent.
We present a model of inattention to information about the distant future that is
consistent with the findings. We also discuss alternative explanations, including
omitted risk-based factors. (JEL E21, G12, G32, J11, L11, L25)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=6&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1667</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050321_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Antitrust in Innovative Industries</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ilya</gnm><snm>Segal</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Michael D.</gnm><snm>Whinston</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1703</ppf>
<ppl>1730</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study the effects of antitrust policy in industries with continual innovation.
Antitrust policies that restrict incumbent behavior toward new entrants may have
conflicting effects on innovation incentives, raising the profits of new entrants, but
lowering those of continuing incumbents. We show that the direction of the net effect
can be determined by analyzing shifts in innovation benefit and supply, holding the
innovation rate fixed. We apply this framework to analyze several specific antitrust
policies. We also show that, in some cases, the tension does not arise, and policies
that protect entrants necessarily raise the rate of innovation. (JEL K21, L13, L14,
L40, O30)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=7&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1703</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050026_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Fatal Attraction: Salience, Naïveté, and Sophistication in Experimental “Hide-and-Seek” Games</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Vincent P.</gnm><snm>Crawford</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Nagore</gnm><snm>Iriberri</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1731</ppf>
<ppl>1750</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>"Hide-and-seek" games are zero-sum two-person games in which one player wins
by matching the other’s decision and the other wins by mismatching. Although such
games are often played on cultural or geographic "landscapes" that frame decisions
nonneutrally, equilibrium ignores such framing. This paper reconsiders the
results of experiments by Rubinstein, Tversky, and others whose designs model
nonneutral landscapes, in which subjects deviate systematically from equilibrium
in response to them. Comparing alternative explanations theoretically and econometrically
suggests that the deviations are well explained by a structural nonequilibrium
model of initial responses based on "level-k" thinking, suitably adapted to
nonneutral landscapes. (JEL C72, C92)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=8&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1731</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050133_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050133_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Group Reputations, Stereotypes, and Cooperation in a Repeated Labor Market</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul J.</gnm><snm>Healy</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1751</ppf>
<ppl>1773</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Reputation effects and other-regarding preferences have both been used to predict
cooperative outcomes in markets with inefficient equilibria. Existing reputation-building
models require either infinite time horizons or publicly observed identities,
but cooperative outcomes have been observed in several moral hazard experiments
with finite horizons and anonymous interactions. This paper introduces a
full reputation equilibrium (FRE) with stereotyping (perceived type correlation) in
which cooperation is predicted in early periods of a finitely repeated market with
anonymous interactions. New experiments generate results in line with the FRE
prediction, including final-period reversions to stage-game equilibrium and noncooperative
play under unfavorable payoff parameters. (JEL C72, C73, C78, J41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=9&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1751</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20041118_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20041118_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Dean</gnm><snm>Karlan</snm></au>
<au><gnm>John A.</gnm><snm>List</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1774</ppf>
<ppl>1793</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We conducted a natural field experiment to further our understanding of the economics
of charity. Using direct mail solicitations to over 50,000 prior donors of a
nonprofit organization, we tested the effectiveness of a matching grant on charitable
giving. We find that the match offer increases both the revenue per solicitation and
the response rate. Larger match ratios (i.e., $3:$1 and $2:$1) relative to a smaller
match ratio ($1:$1) had no additional impact, however. The results provide avenues
for future empirical and theoretical work on charitable giving, cost-benefit analysis,
and the private provision of public goods. (JEL D64, L31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=10&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1774</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20060421_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20060421_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Impossibility of Collusion under Imperfect Monitoring with Flexible Production</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yuliy</gnm><snm>Sannikov</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Andrzej</gnm><snm>Skrzypacz</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1794</ppf>
<ppl>1823</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show that it is impossible to achieve collusion in a duopoly when (a) goods are
homogenous and firms compete in quantities; (b) new, noisy information arrives
continuously, without sudden events; and (c) firms are able to respond to new
information quickly. The result holds even if we allow for asymmetric equilibria
or monetary transfers. The intuition is that the flexibility to respond quickly to new
information unravels any collusive scheme. Our result applies to both a simple stationary
model and a more complicated one, with prices following a mean-reverting
Markov process, as well as to models of dynamic cooperation in many other settings.
(JEL D43, L12, L13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=11&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1794</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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Sequentially Rationalizable Choice</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paola</gnm><snm>Manzini</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Marco</gnm><snm>Mariotti</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1824</ppf>
<ppl>1839</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A sequentially rationalizable choice function is a choice function that can be
retrieved by applying sequentially to each choice problem the same fixed set of
asymmetric binary relations (rationales) to remove inferior alternatives. These concepts
translate into economic language some human choice heuristics studied in
psychology and explain cyclical patterns of choice observed in experiments. We
study some properties of sequential rationalizability and provide a full characterization
of choice functions rationalizable by two and three rationales. (JEL D01).</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=12&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1824</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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Vertical Control of Price and Inventory</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Harish</gnm><snm>Krishnan</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Ralph A.</gnm><snm>Winter</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1840</ppf>
<ppl>1857</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper offers a simple approach to the theory of decentralizing inventory and
pricing decisions along a supply chain. We consider an upstream manufacturer
selling to two outlets, which compete as differentiated duopolists and face uncertain
demand. Demand spillovers between the outlets arise in the event of stockouts. The
price mechanism, in which each outlet pays a two-part price and chooses price and
inventory, virtually never coordinates incentives efficiently. Contracts that can elicit
first-best decisions include resale price floors or buy-back policies (retailer-held
options to sell inventory back to the manufacturers). (JEL D21, L13, L14, M11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=13&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1840</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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Individual Preferences for Giving</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Raymond</gnm><snm>Fisman</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Shachar</gnm><snm>Kariv</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Daniel</gnm><snm>Markovits</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1858</ppf>
<ppl>1876</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We utilize graphical representations of Dictator Games which generate rich individual-
level data. Our baseline experiment employs budget sets over feasible
payoff-
pairs. We test these data for consistency with utility maximization, and we
recover the underlying preferences for giving (trade-offs between own payoffs and
the payoffs of others). Two further experiments augment the analysis. An extensive
elaboration employs three-person budget sets to distinguish preferences for giving
from social preferences (trade-offs between the payoffs of others). And an intensive
elaboration employs step-shaped sets to distinguish between behaviors that
are compatible with well-behaved preferences and those compatible only with not
well-behaved cases. (JEL C72, D64)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=14&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1858</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050757_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050757_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Consensus Building: How to Persuade a Group</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Bernard</gnm><snm>Caillaud</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Jean</gnm><snm>Tirole</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1877</ppf>
<ppl>1900</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The paper explores strategies that the sponsor of a proposal may employ to convince
a qualified majority of members in a group to approve the proposal. Adopting
a mechanism design approach to communication, it emphasizes the need to distill
information selectively to key group members and to engineer persuasion cascades
in which members who are brought on board sway the opinion of others. The
paper shows that higher congruence among group members benefits the sponsor.
The extent of congruence between the group and the sponsor, and the size and the
governance of the group, are also shown to condition the sponsor's ability to get his
project approved. (JEL D71, D72, D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=15&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1877</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20060708_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Traders' Expectations in Asset Markets: Experimental Evidence</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ernan</gnm><snm>Haruvy</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Yaron</gnm><snm>Lahav</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Charles N.</gnm><snm>Noussair</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1901</ppf>
<ppl>1920</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We elicit traders' predictions of future price trajectories in repeated experimental
markets for a 15-period-lived asset. We find that individuals' beliefs about prices are
adaptive, and primarily based on past trends in the current and previous markets in
which they have participated. Most traders do not anticipate market downturns the
first time they participate in a market, and, when experienced, they typically overestimate
the time remaining before market peaks and downturns occur. When prices
deviate from fundamental values, belief data are informative to an observer in predicting
the direction of future price movements and the timing of market peaks. (JEL
C91, D12, D84, G11 )</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=16&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1901</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20060775_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Syngjoo</gnm><snm>Choi</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Raymond</gnm><snm>Fisman</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Douglas</gnm><snm>Gale</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Shachar</gnm><snm>Kariv</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1921</ppf>
<ppl>1938</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>By using graphical representations of simple portfolio choice problems, we generate
a very rich dataset to study behavior under uncertainty at the level of the individual
subject. We test the data for consistency with the maximization hypothesis,
and we estimate preferences using a two-parameter utility function based on Faruk
Gul (1991). This specification provides a good interpretation of the data at the individual
level and can account for the highly heterogeneous behaviors observed in
the laboratory. The parameter estimates jointly describe attitudes toward risk and
allow us to characterize the distribution of risk preferences in the population. (JEL
D11, D14, D81, G11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=17&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1921</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20060377_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20060377_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Heterogeneity and Aggregation: Implications for Labor-Market Fluctuations</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yongsung</gnm><snm>Chang</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Sun-Bin</gnm><snm>Kim</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1939</ppf>
<ppl>1956</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We demonstrate that aggregate employment and consumption can increase without a corresponding movement in productivity in a model with heterogeneous agents where the only aggregate disturbance is a productivity shock. The interaction between incomplete capital markets and indivisible labor results in a low employment-productivity correlation and creates a time-varying wedge between the marginal rate of substitution (for commodity consumption and hours) and productivity. Our results caution against viewing the measured wedge as an inefficiency due to a failure of labor-market clearing or as a fundamental driving force behind business cycles. (JEL D31, E32, J22, J24, J31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=18&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1939</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20040370_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Competitive Wages in a Match with Ordered Contracts</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Muriel</gnm><snm>Niederle</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1957</ppf>
<ppl>1969</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Following the recently dismissed antitrust lawsuit against the National Residency
Matching Program (NRMP), Jeremy Bulow and Jonathan Levin (2006) propose a simple
matching model in which firms set impersonal salaries simultaneously before matching
with workers, which leads to lower aggregate wages than any competitive outcome. I
model a feature of the NRMP, ordered contracts, that allows firms to set several contracts
while determining the order in which they try to fill them, which has different properties
than standard models with multiple contracts. Furthermore, the low wages of Bulow and
Levin are no longer an equilibrium, but competitive wages are. (JEL D86, J31, J41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=19&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1957</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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Another Look at Airport Congestion Pricing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Steven A.</gnm><snm>Morrison</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Clifford</gnm><snm>Winston</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1970</ppf>
<ppl>1977</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study alternate approaches to implement congestion pricing at US airports. Conventional formulations toll all aircraft without determining whether a plane operated by a given airline delays other planes that it operates or planes operated by other airlines. Recent work points out optimal pricing calls for carriers to be charged only for the delay they impose on other airlines. We find a small difference between the net benefits generated by the two congestion-pricing policies because the bulk of airport delays are not internalized and because the efficiency loss from pricing internalized congestion is small. (JEL L11, L93, R41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=20&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1970</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050873_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050873_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Diamonds Are Forever, Wars Are Not: Is Conflict Bad for Private Firms?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Massimo</gnm><snm>Guidolin</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Eliana</gnm><snm>La Ferrara</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1978</ppf>
<ppl>1993</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies the relationship between civil war and the value of firms in a poor, resource-abundant
country using microeconomic data for Angola. We focus on diamond mining firms and conduct an event
study on the sudden end of the conflict, marked by the death of the rebel movement leader in 2002. We find
that the stock market perceived this event as "bad news" rather than "good news" for companies holding
concessions in Angola, as their abnormal returns declined by 4 percentage points. The event had no effect
on a control portfolio of otherwise similar diamond mining companies. This finding is corroborated by
other events and by the adoption of alternative methodologies. We interpret our findings in light of
conflict-generated entry barriers, government bargaining power, and transparency in the licensing process. (JEL D74, G32, O13, O17, Q34)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=21&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1978</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20040820_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20040820_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Overconfidence, Insurance, and Paternalism</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alvaro</gnm><snm>Sandroni</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Francesco</gnm><snm>Squintani</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1994</ppf>
<ppl>2004</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>It is well known that when agents are fully rational, compulsory public insurance may
make all agents better off in the Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976) model of insurance markets.
We find that when sufficiently many agents underestimate their personal risks, compulsory
insurance makes low-risk agents worse off. Hence, behavioral biases may weaken some of the
well-established rationales for government intervention based on asymmetric information. (JEL D82, G22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=22&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.1994</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20051082_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Tomz</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Judith L.</gnm><snm>Goldstein</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Douglas</gnm><snm>Rivers</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2005</ppf>
<ppl>2018</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=23&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.2005</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20040533_data.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Andrew K.</gnm><snm>Rose</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2019</ppf>
<ppl>2025</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=24&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.2019</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20070550_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers? Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jesse</gnm><snm>Rothstein</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2026</ppf>
<ppl>2037</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=25&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.2026</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20040120_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20040120_app.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>97</vol>
<iss>5</iss>
<cd>December 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&issue_date=December 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers? Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Caroline M.</gnm><snm>Hoxby</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2038</ppf>
<ppl>2055</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=5&article=26&issue_date=December 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.5.2038</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec07/20050291_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>



