<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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter (& Dale T. Mortensen: Distinguished Fellow 2008)</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>iii</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.i</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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Can News about the Future Drive the Business Cycle?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Nir</gnm><snm>Jaimovich</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Sergio</gnm><snm>Rebelo</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1097</ppf>
<ppl>1118</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Aggregate and sectoral comovement are central features of business cycles, so
the ability to generate comovement is a natural litmus test for macroeconomic
models. But it is a test that most models fail. We propose a unified model that
generates aggregate and sectoral comovement in response to contemporaneous
and news shocks about fundamentals. The fundamentals that we consider are
aggregate and sectoral total factor productivity shocks as well as investment-specific
technical change. The model has three key elements: variable capital
utilization, adjustment costs to investment, and preferences that allow us to
parameterize the strength of short-run wealth effects on the labor supply. (JEL
E13, E20, E32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1097</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1097</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060931_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Portfolio Claustrophobia: Asset Pricing in Markets with Illiquid Assets</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Francis A.</gnm><snm>Longstaff</snm><aff>UCLA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1119</ppf>
<ppl>44</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Many classes of assets are illiquid or nonmarketable in that they cannot always
be traded immediately. Thus, a portfolio position in these becomes at least temporarily
irreversible. We study the asset-pricing implications of this type of
illiquidity in an exchange economy with heterogeneous agents. In this market,
one asset is always liquid. The other asset can be traded initially, but then not
again until after a "blackout" period. Illiquidity has a dramatic effect. Agents
abandon diversification and choose polarized portfolios instead. The value of
liquidity can represent a large portion of the equilibrium price of an asset. (JEL
G11, G12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1119</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1119</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060445_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Raj</gnm><snm>Chetty</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Adam</gnm><snm>Looney</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Kory</gnm><snm>Kroft</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1145</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Using two strategies, we show that consumers underreact to taxes that are not
salient. First, using a field experiment in a grocery store, we find that posting
tax-inclusive price tags reduces demand by 8 percent. Second, increases in taxes
included in posted prices reduce alcohol consumption more than increases in
taxes applied at the register. We develop a theoretical framework for applied
welfare analysis that accommodates salience effects and other optimization
failures. The simple formulas we derive imply that the economic incidence of
a tax depends on its statutory incidence, and that even policies that induce no
change in behavior can create efficiency losses. (JEL C93, D12, H25, H71)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1145</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1145</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071103_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071103_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Decentralized Organizational Learning: An Experimental Investigation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Andreas</gnm><snm>Blume</snm><aff>U Pittsburgh</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Duffy</snm><aff>U Pittsburgh</aff></au>
<au><gnm>April M.</gnm><snm>Franco</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1178</ppf>
<ppl>1205</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We experimentally study decentralized organizational learning. Our objective
is to understand how learning members of an organization cope with the confounding
effects of the simultaneous learning of others. We test the predictions of
a stylized, rational agent model of organizational learning that provides sharp
predictions as to how learning members of an organization might cope with the
simultaneous learning of others as a function of fundamental variables, e.g.,
firm size and the discount factor. While the problem of learning while others are
learning is quite difficult, we find support for the comparative static predictions
of the model's unique symmetric equilibrium. (JEL C72, D23, D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1178</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1178</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20070495_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Think Locally, Act Locally: Spillovers, Spillbacks, and Efficient Decentralized Policymaking</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Hikaru</gnm><snm>Ogawa</snm><aff>Nagoya U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>David E.</gnm><snm>Wildasin</snm><aff>U KY</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1206</ppf>
<ppl>17</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We analyze models with interjurisdictional spillovers among heterogeneous
jurisdictions, such as CO2 emissions that affect the global environment. Each
jurisdiction's emissions depend upon the local stock of capital, which is interjurisdictionally
mobile and subject to local taxation. In important cases,
decentralized policy-making leads to efficient resource allocation, even in the
complete absence of corrective interventions by higher-level governments or
coordination of policy through Coasian bargaining. In particular, even when
the preferences and production technologies differ among the agents, the decentralized
system can result in globally efficient allocation. (JEL D62, H23, H73,
H87, Q58)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1206</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1206</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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Origins of State Capacity: Property Rights, Taxation, and Politics</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Timothy</gnm><snm>Besley</snm><aff>London School of Economics and CIFAR</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Torsten</gnm><snm>Persson</snm><aff>Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm U and CIFAR</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1218</ppf>
<ppl>44</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Economists generally assume that the state has sufficient institutional capacity
to support markets and levy taxes. This paper develops a framework where
"policy choices" in market regulation and taxation are constrained by past
investments in legal and fiscal capacity. It studies the economic and political
determinants of such investments, demonstrating that legal and fiscal capacity
are typically complements. The results show that, among other things, common
interest public goods, such as fighting external wars, as well as political stability
and inclusive political institutions, are conducive to building state capacity.
Some correlations in cross-country data are consistent with the theory. (JEL
D72, E62, H11, H20, P14)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1218</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1218</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071354_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Spousal Control and Intra-household Decision Making: An Experimental Study in the Philippines</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Nava</gnm><snm>Ashraf</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1245</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>I elicit causal effects of spousal observability and communication on financial
choices of married individuals in the Philippines. When choices are private,
men put money into their personal accounts. When choices are observable,
men commit money to consumption for their own benefit. When required to
communicate, men put money into their wives' account. These strong treatment
effects on men, but not women, appear related more to control than to gender:
men whose wives control household savings respond more strongly to the treatment
and women whose husbands control savings exhibit the same response.
Changes in information and communication interact with underlying control to
produce mutable gender-specific outcomes. (JEL D13, D14, J12, J16, O15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1245</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1245</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060880_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060880_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Oriana</gnm><snm>Bandiera</snm><aff>London School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Andrea</gnm><snm>Prat</snm><aff>London School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Tommaso</gnm><snm>Valletti</snm><aff>Imperial College London and U Rome "Tor Vergata"</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1278</ppf>
<ppl>1308</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We propose a distinction between active and passive waste as determinants of
the cost of public services. Active waste entails utility for the public decision
maker, whereas passive waste does not. We analyze purchases of standardized
goods by Italian public bodies and exploit a policy experiment associated
with a national procurement agency. We find that: (i) some public bodies pay
systematically more than others for equivalent goods; (ii) differences are correlated
with governance structure; (iii) the variation in prices is principally due
to variation in passive rather than active waste; and (iv) passive waste accounts
for 83 percent of total estimated waste. (JEL H11, H57, H83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1278</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1278</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20070928_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20070928_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>One Chance in a Million: Altruism and the Bone Marrow Registry</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Theodore C.</gnm><snm>Bergstrom</snm><aff>U CA, Santa Barbara</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Rodney J.</gnm><snm>Garratt</snm><aff>U CA, Santa Barbara</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Damien</gnm><snm>Sheehan-Connor</snm><aff>Wesleyan U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1309</ppf>
<ppl>34</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Stem cell transplants save lives of many patients with blood diseases. Donation
is painful, but rarely has lasting adverse effects. Patients can accept transplants
only from donors with compatible immune systems. Those lacking a sibling
match must seek donations from the general population. The probability that
two unrelated persons are compatible is less than 1/10,000. Health authorities
maintain a registry of several million genetically tested potential donors who
agree to donate if asked. We find that the benefits of adding registrants of every
race exceed costs. We also explore the peculiar structure of voluntary public
good provision that faces potential donors. (JEL D64, H41, I11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1309</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1309</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071004_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071004_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Institution Formation in Public Goods Games</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Kosfeld</snm><aff>Johann Wolfgang Goethe U Frankfurt and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Akira</gnm><snm>Okada</snm><aff>Hitotsubashi U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Arno</gnm><snm>Riedl</snm><aff>Maastricht U and CESifo, Munich</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1335</ppf>
<ppl>55</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Sanctioning institutions are of utmost importance for overcoming free-riding
tendencies and enforcing outcomes that maximize group welfare in social
dilemma situations. We investigate, theoretically and experimentally, the
endogenous formation of institutions in public goods provision. Our theoretical
analysis shows that players may form sanctioning institutions in equilibrium,
including those governing only a subset of players. The experiment confirms
that institutions are formed and that it positively affects cooperation and group
welfare. However, the data also shows that success is not guaranteed. Players
are unwilling to implement equilibrium institutions in which some players have
the opportunity to free ride. Our results emphasize the role of fairness in the
institution formation process. (JEL C72, D02, H41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1335</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1335</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060885_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060885_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Tax Changes and Asset Pricing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Clemens</gnm><snm>Sialm</snm><aff>U TX</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1356</ppf>
<ppl>83</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The tax burden on equity securities has varied substantially over time and
remains a source of continuing policy debate. This paper investigates whether
investors were compensated for the tax burden of equity securities over the
period between 1913 and 2006. Taxes on equity securities vary over time due to
changes in dividend and capital gains tax rates and due to changes in corporate
payout policies. Equity taxes also vary across firms due to persistent differences
in propensities to pay dividends. The results indicate an economically plausible
and statistically significant tax capitalization over time and cross-sectionally.
(JEL G10, G12, H22, H24, N21, N22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1356</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1356</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051100_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051100_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Effects of High Stakes High School Achievement Awards: Evidence from a Randomized Trial</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Joshua</gnm><snm>Angrist</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Victor</gnm><snm>Lavy</snm><aff>Hebrew U Jerusalem and Royal Holloway, U London</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1384</ppf>
<ppl>1414</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The Israeli matriculation certificate is a prerequisite for most postsecondary
schooling. In a randomized trial, we attempted to increase certification rates
among low-achievers with cash incentives. The experiment used a school-based
randomization design offering awards to all who passed their exams in treated
schools. This led to a substantial increase in certification rates for girls but had
no effect on boys. Affected girls had a relatively high ex ante chance of certification.
The increase in girls' matriculation rates translated into an increased
likelihood of college attendance. Female matriculation rates increased partly
because treated girls devoted extra time to exam preparation. (JEL I21, I28,
J16)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1384</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1384</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20060796_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Monetary Policy Analysis with Potentially Misspecified Models</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marco</gnm><snm>Del Negro</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of New York</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Frank</gnm><snm>Schorfheide</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1415</ppf>
<ppl>50</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Policy analysis with potentially misspecified dynamic stochastic general equilibrium
(DSGE) models faces two challenges: estimation of parameters that
are relevant for policy trade-offs, and treatment of the deviations from the
cross-equation restrictions. Using post-1982 US data, we study the robustness
of the policy prescriptions from a state-of-the-art DSGE model with respect to
two approaches to model misspecification pursued in the recent literature: (i)
adding shocks to the DSGE model and/or generalizing the processes followed
by these shocks; and (ii) explicit modeling of deviations from cross-equation
restrictions (DSGE-VAR). (JEL C51, E13, E43, E52, E58)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1415</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1415</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051010_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051010_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Technological Revolutions and Stock Prices</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>&#x13D;ubo&scaron;</gnm><snm>P&aacute;stor</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Pietro</gnm><snm>Veronesi</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1451</ppf>
<ppl>83</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a general equilibrium model in which stock prices of innovative
firms exhibit "bubbles" during technological revolutions. In the model, the
average productivity of a new technology is uncertain and subject to learning.
During technological revolutions, the nature of this uncertainty changes from
idiosyncratic to systematic. The resulting bubbles in stock prices are observable
ex post but unpredictable ex ante, and they are most pronounced for technologies
characterized by high uncertainty and fast adoption. We find empirical
support for the model's predictions in 1830-1861 and 1992-2005 when the
railroad and Internet technologies spread in the United States. (JEL G12, L86,
L92, N21, N22, N71, N72)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1451</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1451</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051277_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051277_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Hindsight, Foresight, and Insight: An Experimental Study of a Small-Market Investment Game with Common and Private Values</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Asen</gnm><snm>Ivanov</snm><aff>VA Commonwealth U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dan</gnm><snm>Levin</snm><aff>OH State U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>James</gnm><snm>Peck</snm><aff>OH State U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1484</ppf>
<ppl>1507</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We experimentally test an endogenous-timing investment model in which subjects
privately observe their cost of investing and a signal correlated with the
common investment return. Subjects overinvest, relative to Nash. We separately
consider whether subjects draw inferences, in hindsight, and use foresight to
delay profitable investment and learn from market activity. In contrast to Nash,
cursed equilibrium, and level-k predictions, behavior hardly changes across
our experimental treatments. Maximum likelihood estimates are inconsistent
with belief-based theories. We offer an explanation in terms of boundedly rational
rules of thumb, based on insights about the game, which provides a better fit
than quantal response equilibrium. (JEL C72, D82, D83, G11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1484</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1484</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20070475_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20070475_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthew</gnm><snm>Rabin</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Georg</gnm><snm>Weizsacker</snm><aff>DIW Berlin</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1508</ppf>
<ppl>43</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show that any decision maker who "narrowly brackets" (evaluates decisions
separately) and does not have constant-absolute-risk-averse preferences
will make a first-order stochastically dominated combined choice in some
simple pair of independent binary decisions. We also characterize the preference-contingent monetary cost from this mistake. Empirically, in a real-stakes
laboratory experiment that replicates Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) experiment,
28 percent of participants choose dominated combinations. In a representative
survey eliciting hypothetical large-stakes choices, higher proportions
do so. Violation rates vary little with personal characteristics. Average preferences
are prospect-theoretic, with an estimated 89 percent of people bracketing
narrowly.
(JEL D12, D81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1508</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1508</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071131_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071131_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Why Do Sellers (Usually) Prefer Auctions?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jeremy</gnm><snm>Bulow</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Klemperer</snm><aff>Nuffield College, U Oxford</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1544</ppf>
<ppl>75</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We compare the most common methods for selling a company or other asset
when participation is costly: a simple simultaneous auction, and a sequential
process in which potential buyers decide in turn whether to enter the bidding.
The sequential process is always more efficient. But preemptive bids transfer
surplus from the seller to buyers. Because the auction is more conducive to
entry -- precisely because of its inefficiency -- it usually generates higher expected
revenue. We also discuss the effects of lock-ups, matching rights, break-up fees
(as in takeover battles), entry subsidies, etc. (JEL D44, G34, L13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1544</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1544</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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Learning about the Future and Dynamic Efficiency</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alex</gnm><snm>Gershkov</snm><aff>U Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Benny</gnm><snm>Moldovanu</snm><aff>U Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1576</ppf>
<ppl>87</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study an allocation problem where a set of objects needs to be allocated to agents arriving over time. The basic model is of the private, independent values type. The dynamically efficient allocation is implementable if the distribution of agents' values is known. Whereas lack of knowledge about the distribution is inconsequential in the static case, endogenous informational externalities arise if the designer gradually learns about the distribution by observing present values. These externalities may prevent the implementation of the dynamically efficient allocation. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the efficient allocation to be implementable. (JEL D11, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1576</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1576</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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Bank Runs and Institutions: The Perils of Intervention</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Huberto M.</gnm><snm>Ennis</snm><aff>U Carlos III de Madrid and Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Todd</gnm><snm>Keister</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of New York</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1588</ppf>
<ppl>1607</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study ex post efficient policy responses to a run on the banking system and the ex ante incentives these responses create. We show that the efficient response to a run is typically not to freeze all remaining deposits, since doing so imposes heavy costs on some individuals. Instead, once a run is underway, (benevolent) government institutions would allow additional deposit withdrawals, placing further strain on the banking system. When depositors anticipate these extra withdrawals, their incentive to participate in the run increases. In fact, ex post efficient interventions can generate the conditions necessary for a self-fulfilling run to occur. (JEL G21, G8)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1588</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1588</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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Expectation Damages, Divisible Contracts, and Bilateral Investment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Susanne</gnm><snm>Ohlendorf</snm><aff>U Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1608</ppf>
<ppl>18</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper examines the efficiency of expectation damages as a breach remedy in a bilateral trade setting with renegotiation and relationship-specific investment by the buyer and the seller. As demonstrated by Edlin and Reichelstein (1996), no contract that specifies only a fixed quantity and a fixed per-unit price can induce efficient investment if marginal cost is constant and deterministic. We show that this result does not extend to more general payoff functions. If both parties face the risk of breaching, the first best becomes attainable with a simple price-quantity contract. (JEL D86, K12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1608</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1608</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20061292_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Field Centipedes</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ignacio</gnm><snm>Palacios-Huerta</snm><aff>London School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Oscar</gnm><snm>Volij</snm><aff>Ben-Gurion U Negev</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1619</ppf>
<ppl>35</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In the centipede game, all standard equilibrium concepts dictate that the player who decides first must stop the game immediately. There is vast experimental evidence, however, that this rarely occurs. We first conduct a field experiment in which highly ranked chess players play this game. Contrary to previous evidence, our results show that69 percent of chess players stop immediately. When we restrict attention to Grandmasters, this percentage escalates to 100 percent. We then conduct a laboratory experiment in which chess players and students are matched in different treatments.  When students play against chess players, the outcome approaches the subgame-perfect equilibrium. (JEL C72, C93)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1619</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1619</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071095_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071095_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>VAR Analysis and the Great Moderation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Luca</gnm><snm>Benati</snm><aff>European Central Bank</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Paolo</gnm><snm>Surico</snm><aff>Bank of England</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1636</ppf>
<ppl>52</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Most analyses of the US Great Moderation are based on structural VARs, and point toward good luck as the main explanation for the recent macroeconomic stability. Based on an estimated New-Keynesian model where the only source of change is the move from passive to active monetary policy, we show that (i) the theoretical VAR innovation variances for all series decrease across regimes; (ii) VAR-based counterfactuals assign a minor role to improved policy; and (iii) VAR impulse-response functions to a monetary shock exhibit little variation across regimes. Our analysis suggests that existing VAR evidence is also compatible with the "good policy" hypothesis. (JEL C32, C52, E13, E52, N12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1636</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1636</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20061138_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Art as an Investment and Conspicuous Consumption Good</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Benjamin R.</gnm><snm>Mandel</snm><aff>U CA, Davis</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1653</ppf>
<ppl>63</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper provides a simple and empirically plausible model of artworks as investment vehicles. It reconciles the observation that average financial returns for collectibles are low and volatile with the theory of consumption-based asset pricing. Art assets are appealing both for their ability to transfer consumption over time and for their use as signals of wealth, as in the literature on the demand for luxuries. Adding art value to utility, returns also reflect this "conspicuous consumption" dividend; as a result, average financial returns are low. Risk premia for artworks are predicted to be modest or even negative. (JEL G11, Z11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1653</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1653</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071294_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071294_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Offshoring and Volatility: Evidence from Mexico's Maquiladora Industry</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul R.</gnm><snm>Bergin</snm><aff>U CA, Davis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Robert C.</gnm><snm>Feenstra</snm><aff>U CA, Davis</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Gordon H.</gnm><snm>Hanson</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1664</ppf>
<ppl>71</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies the second-moment properties of offshoring, the arrangement whereby firms carry out particular stages of production abroad. It documents a new empirical regularity: maquiladora industries in Mexico that are associated with US offshoring experience fluctuations in employment that are twice as volatile as the corresponding industries in the United States. This finding is not attributable simply to higher volatility in the overall Mexican economy, nor to the smaller size of Mexico's industries compared to US counterparts. (JEL F14, F23, L24, L25, L60, O14)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1664</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1664</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20070436_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Gibrat's Law for (All) Cities: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Moshe</gnm><snm>Levy</snm><aff>Hebrew U Jerusalem</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1672</ppf>
<ppl>75</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Jan Eeckhout (2004) reports that the empirical city size distribution is lognormal, consistent with Gibrat's Law. We show that for the top 0.6 percent of the largest cities, the empirical distribution is dramatically different from the lognormal, and follows a power law. This top part is extremely important as it accounts for more than 23 percent of the population. The empirical hybrid lognormal-power-law distribution revealed may be characteristic of other key distributions, such as the wealth distribution and the income
distribution. This distribution is not consistent with a simple Gibrat proportionate effect process, and its origin presents a puzzle yet to be answered. (JEL R11, R12, R23)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1672</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1672</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20051005_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>99</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=4</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Gibrat's Law for (All) Cities: Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jan</gnm><snm>Eeckhout</snm><aff>U PA and ICREA, U Pompeu Fabra</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1676</ppf>
<ppl>83</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This reply refutes the objection raised by Levy (2009) about the fit of the upper tail of the city size distribution in Eeckhout (2004). I show that the method on which his conclusion is based is unsubstantiated. The visual interpretation of the fit on log-log plots is misleading. In addition, the methodology used to estimate a truncated subsample of the distribution while testing its significance against a distribution with prespecified parameters is ill-founded. The main conclusion is that Gibrat's law holds: city sizes follow proportionate growth, thus giving rise to a lognormal size distribution, tail included. (JEL R11, R12, R23)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.4.1676</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.4.1676</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept09/20071478_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>



