<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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The 'Out of Africa' Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Quamrul</gnm><snm>Ashraf</snm><aff>Williams College</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Oded</gnm><snm>Galor</snm><aff>Brown U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>46</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This research advances and empirically establishes the hypothesis
that, in the course of the prehistoric exodus of Homo sapiens out of
Africa, variation in migratory distance to various settlements across
the globe affected genetic diversity and has had a persistent hump-shaped effect on comparative economic development, reflecting the trade-off between the beneficial and the detrimental effects of diversity on productivity. While the low diversity of Native American populations and the high diversity of African populations have been detrimental for the development of these regions, the intermediate levels of diversity associated with European and Asian populations have been conducive for development. (JEL N10, N30, N50, O10, O50, Z10)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.1</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Pandering to Persuade</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yeon-Koo</gnm><snm>Che</snm><aff>Columbia U and YERI, Yonsei U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Wouter</gnm><snm>Dessein</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Navin</gnm><snm>Kartik</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>47</ppf>
<ppl>79</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>An agent advises a principal on selecting one of multiple projects or
an outside option. The agent is privately informed about the projects'
benefits and shares the principal's preferences except for not internalizing her value from the outside option. We show that for moderate outside option values, strategic communication is characterized by pandering: the agent biases his recommendation toward "conditionally better-looking" projects, even when both parties would be better off with some other project. A project that has lower expected value can be conditionally better-looking. We develop comparative statics and implications of pandering. Pandering is also induced by an optimal mechanism without transfers. (JEL D23, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.47</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.47</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Parag A.</gnm><snm>Pathak</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Tayfun</gnm><snm>S&ouml;nmez</snm><aff>Boston College</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>80</ppf>
<ppl>106</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In Fall 2009, Chicago authorities abandoned a school assignment
mechanism midstream, citing concerns about its vulnerability to
manipulation. Nonetheless, they asked thousands of applicants to
re-rank schools in a new mechanism that is also manipulable. This
paper introduces a method to compare mechanisms by their vulnerability to manipulation. Our methodology formalizes how the old
mechanism is at least as manipulable as any other plausible mechanism, including the new one. A number of similar transitions took place in England after the widely popular Boston mechanism was
ruled illegal in 2007. Our approach provides support for these and
other recent policy changes. (JEL C78, D82, H75, I21, I28)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.80</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.80</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Coercive Contract Enforcement: Law and the Labor Market in Nineteenth Century Industrial Britain</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Suresh</gnm><snm>Naidu</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Noam</gnm><snm>Yuchtman</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>107</ppf>
<ppl>44</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>British Master and Servant law made employee contract breach a
criminal offense until 1875. We develop a contracting model generating equilibrium contract breach and prosecutions, then exploit
exogenous changes in output prices to examine the effects of labor
demand shocks on prosecutions. Positive shocks in the textile, iron,
and coal industries increased prosecutions. Following the abolition
of criminal sanctions, wages differentially rose in counties that
had experienced more prosecutions, and wages responded more to
labor demand shocks. Coercive contract enforcement was applied in
industrial Britain; restricted mobility allowed workers to commit to
risk-sharing contracts with lower, but less volatile, wages. (JEL J31,
J41, K12, K31, N33, N43)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.107</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.107</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Price Discrimination and Bargaining: Empirical Evidence from Medical Devices</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthew</gnm><snm>Grennan</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>145</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Many important issues in business-to-business markets involve price
discrimination and negotiated prices, situations where theoretical
predictions are ambiguous. This paper uses new panel data on buyer-supplier transfers and a structural model to empirically analyze
bargaining and price discrimination in a medical device market.
While many phenomena that restrict different prices to different
buyers are suggested as ways to decrease hospital costs (e.g.,
mergers, group purchasing organizations, and transparency), I find
that: (i) more uniform pricing works against hospitals by softening
competition; and (ii) results depend ultimately on a previously
unexplored bargaining effect. (JEL C78, L13, L14, L64)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.145</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.145</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Selection on Moral Hazard in Health Insurance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Liran</gnm><snm>Einav</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Amy</gnm><snm>Finkelstein</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stephen P.</gnm><snm>Ryan</snm><aff>U TX</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Schrimpf</snm><aff>U British Columbia</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mark R.</gnm><snm>Cullen</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>178</ppf>
<ppl>219</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use employee-level panel data from a single firm to explore the
possibility that individuals may select insurance coverage in part
based on their anticipated behavioral ("moral hazard") response
to insurance, a phenomenon we label "selection on moral hazard."
Using a model of plan choice and medical utilization, we present
evidence of heterogenous moral hazard as well as selection on it,
and explore some of its implications. For example, we show that,
at least in our context, abstracting from selection on moral hazard
could lead to overestimates of the spending reduction associated
with introducing a high-deductible health insurance option. (JEL
D82, G22, I13, J32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.178</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.178</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Are Consumers Myopic? Evidence from New and Used Car Purchases</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Meghan R.</gnm><snm>Busse</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Christopher R.</gnm><snm>Knittel</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Florian</gnm><snm>Zettelmeyer</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>220</ppf>
<ppl>56</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We investigate whether car buyers are myopic about future fuel
costs. We estimate the effect of gasoline prices on short-run equilibrium prices of cars of different fuel economies. We then compare the implied changes in willingness-to-pay to the associated changes in expected future gasoline costs for cars of different fuel economies in order to calculate implicit discount rates. Using different assumptions about annual mileage, survival rates, and demand elasticities, we calculate a range of implicit discount rates similar to the range of interest rates paid by car buyers who borrow. We interpret this as showing little evidence of consumer myopia. (JEL D12, H25, L11, L62, L71, L81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.220</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.220</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Impact of Medical Liability Standards on Regional Variations in Physician Behavior: Evidence from the Adoption of National-Standard Rules</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Frakes</snm><aff>Cornell U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>257</ppf>
<ppl>76</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>I explore the association between regional variations in physician
behavior and the geographical scope of malpractice standards of
care. I estimate a 30-50 percent reduction in the gap between state
and national utilization rates of various treatments and diagnostic
procedures following the adoption of a rule requiring physicians
to follow national, as opposed to local, standards. These findings
suggest that standardization in malpractice law may lead to greater
standardization in practices and, more generally, that physicians may
indeed adhere to specific liability standards. In connection with the
estimated convergence in practices, I observe no associated changes
in patient health. (JEL I11, I18, J44, K13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.257</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.257</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Innovation and Institutional Ownership</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Philippe</gnm><snm>Aghion</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Van Reenen</snm><aff>CEP, London School of Economics and Political Science</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Luigi</gnm><snm>Zingales</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>277</ppf>
<ppl>304</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We find that greater institutional ownership is associated with
more innovation. To explore the mechanism, we contrast the "lazy
manager" hypothesis with a model where institutional owners
increase innovation incentives through reducing career risks. The
evidence favors career concerns. First, we find complementarity
between institutional ownership and product market competition,
whereas the lazy manager hypothesis predicts substitution. Second,
CEOs are less likely to be fired in the face of profit downturns
when institutional ownership is higher. Finally, using instrumental
variables, policy changes, and disaggregating by type of institutional
owner, we argue that the effect of institutions on innovation is causal.
(JEL G23, G32, L25, M10, O31, O34)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.277</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.277</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Cross-Country Differences in Productivity: The Role of Allocation and Selection</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Eric</gnm><snm>Bartelsman</snm><aff>Free U Amsterdam and Tinbergen Institute</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Haltiwanger</snm><aff>U MD and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stefano</gnm><snm>Scarpetta</snm><aff>OECD and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>305</ppf>
<ppl>34</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper investigates the effect of idiosyncratic (firm-level) policy
distortions on aggregate outcomes. Exploiting harmonized firm‑level
data for a number of countries, we show that there is substantial
and systematic cross‑country variation in the within-industry
covariance between size and productivity. We develop a model in
which heterogeneous firms face adjustment frictions (overhead labor
and quasi-fixed capital) and distortions. The model can be readily
calibrated so that variations in the distribution of distortions allow
matching the observed cross-country moments. We show that the
differences in the distortions that account for the size-productivity
covariance imply substantial differences in aggregate performance.
(JEL D24, L25, O47)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.305</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.305</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Making Sense of Nonbinding Retail-Price Recommendations</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stefan</gnm><snm>Buehler</snm><aff>Institute of Economics, U St Gallen</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dennis L.</gnm><snm>G&auml;ertner</snm><aff>U Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>335</ppf>
<ppl>59</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We model retail-price recommendations (RPRs) as a communication
device in vertical supply relations with private manufacturer information on production costs and consumer demand. With static trade, RPRs are irrelevant, and the equilibrium outcome is inefficient. With repeated trade, RPRs can become part of a relational contract, communicating private information from manufacturer to retailer that is indispensable for maximizing joint surplus. We show that this contract is self-enforcing if the retailer's profit is independent of production costs and punishment strategies are chosen appropriately. The predictions of our analysis are consistent with the available empirical evidence. (JEL D21, D24, L11, L14, L22, L60, L81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.335</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.335</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Entropy and the Value of Information for Investors</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Antonio</gnm><snm>Cabrales</snm><aff>U Carlos III de Madrid</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Olivier</gnm><snm>Gossner</snm><aff>Paris School of Economics and London School of Economics and Political Science</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Roberto</gnm><snm>Serrano</snm><aff>Brown U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>360</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Consider an investor who fears ruin when facing investments that
satisfy no-arbitrage. Before investing he can purchase information
about the state of nature as an information structure. Given his prior,
information structure &alpha; investment dominates information structure &beta; if, whenever he is willing to buy &beta; at some price, he is also willing to buy &alpha; at that price. We show that this informativeness ordering is complete and is represented by the decrease in entropy of his beliefs, regardless of his preferences, initial wealth, or investment problem. We also show that no prior-independent informativeness ordering based on similar premises exists. (JEL D14, D81, D83, G11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.360</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.360</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Technological Diversification</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Mikl&oacute;s</gnm><snm>Koren</snm><aff>Central European U, Budapest</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Silvana</gnm><snm>Tenreyro</snm><aff>CEP, London School or Economics and Political Science</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>378</ppf>
<ppl>414</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Economies at early stages of development are frequently shaken by
large changes in growth rates, whereas advanced economies tend
to experience relatively stable growth rates. To explain this pattern,
we propose a model of technological diversification. Production
makes use of input-varieties that are subject to imperfectly correlated
shocks. Endogenous variety adoption by firms raises average
productivity and provides diversification benefits against variety-specific shocks. Firm-level and aggregate volatility thus decline as a
by-product of the development process. We quantitatively assess the
model's predictions and find that it can generate patterns of volatility
and development consistent with the data. (JEL D21, D24, E23,
O33, O47)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.378</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.378</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Dictating the Risk: Experimental Evidence on Giving in Risky Environments</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>J. Michelle</gnm><snm>Brock</snm><aff>European Bank of Reconstruction and Development</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Andreas</gnm><snm>Lange</snm><aff>U Hamburg</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Erkut Y.</gnm><snm>Ozbay</snm><aff>U MD</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>415</ppf>
<ppl>37</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study if and how social preferences extend to risky environments.
We provide experimental evidence from different versions of dictator
games with risky outcomes and establish that preferences that are
exclusively based on ex post or on ex ante comparisons cannot generate the observed behavioral patterns. The more money decision-makers transfer in the standard dictator game, the more likely they are to equalize payoff chances under risk. Risk to the recipient does, however, generally decrease the transferred amount. Ultimately, a utility function with a combination of ex post and ex ante fairness concerns may best describe behavior. (JEL C72, D63, D64, D81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.415</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.415</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Children's Resources in Collective Households: Identification, Estimation, and an Application to Child Poverty in Malawi</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Geoffrey R.</gnm><snm>Dunbar</snm><aff>Simon Fraser U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Arthur</gnm><snm>Lewbel</snm><aff>Boston College</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Krishna</gnm><snm>Pendakur</snm><aff>Simon Fraser U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>438</ppf>
<ppl>71</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The share of household resources devoted to children is hard to
identify because consumption is measured at the household level
and goods can be shared. Using semiparametric restrictions on
individual preferences within a collective model, we identify how
total household resources are divided up among household members
by observing how each family member's expenditures on a single
private good like clothing vary with income and family size. Using
data from Malawi we show how resources devoted to wives and
children vary by family size and structure, and we find that standard
poverty indices understate the incidence of child poverty. (JEL I31,
I32, J12, J13, O12, O15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.438</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.438</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Cultural Change as Learning: The Evolution of Female Labor Force Participation over a Century</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Raquel</gnm><snm>Fern&aacute;ndez</snm><aff>NYU and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>472</ppf>
<ppl>500</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper develops a learning model of cultural change to investigate why women's labor force participation (LFP) and attitudes toward women’s work both changed dramatically. In the model, women's beliefs about the long-run payoff from working evolve endogenously via an intergenerational learning process. This process generically generates the data's S-shaped LFP curve and introduces a novel role for wage changes via their effect on the speed of intergenerational learning. The calibrated model does a good job of replicating the evolution of female LFP in the United States over the last 120 years and finds that the new role for wages was quantitatively significant.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.472</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.472</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Christopher</gnm><snm>Cotton</snm><aff>U Miami</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>501</ppf>
<ppl>09</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Both submission fees and response times enable editors to maintain an acceptable refereeing burden by discouraging the submission of articles with low probability of acceptance. When authors differ in their ability or willingness to pay submission fees and deal with delays, journal quality is maximized under a combination of moderate fees and moderate delays.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.501</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.501</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents' Field Behavior</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthias</gnm><snm>Sutter</snm><aff>U Innsbruck and U Gothenburg</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Martin G.</gnm><snm>Kocher</snm><aff>U Munich and U Gothenburg</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Daniela</gnm><snm>Gl&auml;tzle-R&uuml;etzler</snm><aff>U Innsbruck</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stefan T.</gnm><snm>Trautmann</snm><aff>U Tilburg</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>510</ppf>
<ppl>31</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study risk attitudes, ambiguity attitudes, and time preferences of 661 children and adolescents, aged ten to eighteen years, in an incentivized experiment and relate experimental choices to field behavior. Experimental measures of impatience are found to be significant predictors of health-related field behavior, saving decisions, and conduct at school. In particular, more impatient children and adolescents are more likely to spend money on alcohol and cigarettes, have a higher body mass index, are less likely to save money, and show worse conduct at school. Experimental measures for risk and ambiguity attitudes are only weak predictors of field behavior.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.510</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.510</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Preferences for Truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within Individuals</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Rajna</gnm><snm>Gibson</snm><aff>Swiss Finance Institute and U Geneva</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Carmen</gnm><snm>Tanner</snm><aff>U Zurich</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Alexander F.</gnm><snm>Wagner</snm><aff>U Zurich and Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>532</ppf>
<ppl>48</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We conduct an experiment assessing the extent to which people trade off the economic costs of truthfulness against the intrinsic costs of lying. The results allow us to reject a type-based model. People's preferences for truthfulness do not identify them as only either "economic types" (who care only about consequences) or "ethical types" (who care only about process). Instead, we find that preferences for truthfulness are heterogeneous among individuals. Moreover, when examining possible sources of intrinsic costs of lying and their interplay with economic costs of truthfulness, we find that preferences for truthfulness are also heterogeneous within individuals.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.532</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.532</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Fairness and Redistribution: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Rafael</gnm><snm>Di Tella</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Juan</gnm><snm>Dubra</snm><aff>U Montevideo</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>549</ppf>
<ppl>53</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We provide an example that shows that in the Alesina and Angeletos (2005) model one can obtain multiplicity even if luck plays no role in the economy. Thus, it is not critical that the noise to signal ratio be increasing in taxes, or that desired taxes are increasing in the noise to signal ratio.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.549</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.549</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Fairness and Redistribution: Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alberto</gnm><snm>Alesina</snm><aff>Harvard U and IGIER</aff></au>
<au><gnm>George-Marios</gnm><snm>Angeletos</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Guido</gnm><snm>Cozzi</snm><aff>U St Gallen</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>554</ppf>
<ppl>61</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper responds to the comment of Di Tella and Dubra (2013). We first clarify that the model of Alesina and Angeletos (2005) admits two distinct types of multiplicity: one that is at the core of their contribution, and a separate one that is at work in Di Tella and Dubra's example. We then proceed to show how Alesina and Angeletos's results are robust to alternative specifications of the voting mechanism.</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.554</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.554</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>103</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>February 2013</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=103&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>vi</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.103.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.103.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


 