<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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Speed of Learning in Noisy Games: Partial Reinforcement and the Sustainability of Cooperation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yoella</gnm><snm>Bereby-Meyer</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Alvin E.</gnm><snm>Roth</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1029</ppf>
<ppl>1042</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In an experiment, players’ ability to learn to cooperate in the repeated prisoner’s
dilemma was substantially diminished when the payoffs were noisy, even though
players could monitor one another’s past actions perfectly. In contrast, in one-time
play against a succession of opponents, noisy payoffs increased cooperation, by
slowing the rate at which cooperation decays. These observations are consistent
with the robust observation from the psychology literature that partial reinforcement
(adding randomness to the link between an action and its consequences while
holding expected payoffs constant) slows learning. This effect is magnified in the
repeated game: when others are slow to learn to cooperate, the benefits of cooperation
are reduced, which further hampers cooperation. These results show that a
small change in the payoff environment, which changes the speed of individual
learning, can have a large effect on collective behavior. And they show that there
may be interesting comparative dynamics that can be derived from careful attention
to the fact that at least some economic behavior is learned from experience. (JEL
C71, C72, C73, D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=6&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1029</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20030187_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Taxes, Cigarette Consumption, and Smoking Intensity</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>J&eacute;r&ocirc;me</gnm><snm>Adda</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Francesca</gnm><snm>Cornaglia</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1013</ppf>
<ppl>1028</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper analyses the compensatory behavior of smokers. Exploiting data on
cotinine concentration—a metabolite of nicotine—measured in a large population
of smokers over time, we show that smokers compensate for tax hikes by extracting
more nicotine per cigarette. Our study makes two important contributions. First, as
smoking a given cigarette more intensively is detrimental to health, our results
question the usefulness of tax increases. Second, we develop a model of rational
addiction where agents can also adjust their intensity of smoking, and we show that
the previous empirical results suffer from estimation biases. (JEL D12, H25, I12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=5&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1013</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040645_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marianne P.</gnm><snm>Bitler</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Jonah B.</gnm><snm>Gelbach</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Hilary W.</gnm><snm>Hoynes</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>988</ppf>
<ppl>1012</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Labor supply theory predicts systematic heterogeneity in the impact of recent welfare
reforms on earnings, transfers, and income. Yet most welfare reform research focuses
on mean impacts. We investigate the importance of heterogeneity using randomassignment
data from Connecticut’s Jobs First waiver, which features key elements of
post-1996 welfare programs. Estimated quantile treatment effects exhibit the substantial
heterogeneity predicted by labor supply theory. Thus mean impacts miss a great deal.
Looking separately at samples of dropouts and other women does not improve the
performance of mean impacts. We conclude that welfare reform’s effects are likely both
more varied and more extensive than has been recognized. (JEL D31, I38, J31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=4&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.988</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20031127_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Higher-Education Policies and the College Wage Premium: Cross-State Evidence from the 1990s</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Nicole M.</gnm><snm>Fortin</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>959</ppf>
<ppl>987</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Exploiting differences across U.S. states, this paper demonstrates that there is a
tight link between higher education policies, past enrollment rates, and recent
changes in the college wage premium among labor market entrants. The analysis
reveals, however, that this relationship is much weaker in states with high private
enrollment rates, high levels of interstate mobility, or interstate trade. The withinstate
estimates of the own-cohort relative supply effect shed some light on the extent
to which the U.S. labor market can be characterized as a single national market or
a collection of state-specific labor markets. (JEL I21, I28, J22, J24, J31, R23)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=3&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.959</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040314_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040314_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>An Astonishing Sixty Years: The Legacy of Hiroshima</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Thomas C.</gnm><snm>Schelling</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>929</ppf>
<ppl>937</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=1&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.929</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Multiple Dimensions of Private Information: Evidence from the Long-Term Care Insurance Market</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Amy</gnm><snm>Finkelstein</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Kathleen</gnm><snm>McGarry</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>938</ppf>
<ppl>958</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We demonstrate the existence of multiple dimensions of private information in the
long-term care insurance market. Two types of people purchase insurance: individuals
with private information that they are high risk and individuals with private
information that they have strong taste for insurance. Ex post, the former are higher
risk than insurance companies expect, while the latter are lower risk. In aggregate,
those with more insurance are not higher risk. Our results demonstrate that
insurance markets may suffer from asymmetric information even absent a positive
correlation between insurance coverage and risk occurrence. The results also
suggest a general test for asymmetric information. (JEL A82, G22, I11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=2&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.938</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040787_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Xavier</gnm><snm>Gabaix</snm></au>
<au><gnm>David</gnm><snm>Laibson</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Guillermo</gnm><snm>Moloche</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Stephen</gnm><snm>Weinberg</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1043</ppf>
<ppl>1068</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The directed cognition model assumes that agents use partially myopic option-value
calculations to select their next cognitive operation. The current paper tests this
model by studying information acquisition in two experiments. In the first experiment,
information acquisition has an explicit financial cost. In the second experiment,
information acquisition is costly because time is scarce. The directed
cognition model successfully predicts aggregate information acquisition patterns in
these experiments. When the directed cognition model and the fully rational model
make demonstrably different predictions, the directed cognition model better
matches the laboratory evidence. (JEL D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=7&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1043</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20030922_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Nicholas</gnm><snm>Barberis</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Ming</gnm><snm>Huang</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Richard H.</gnm><snm>Thaler</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1069</ppf>
<ppl>1090</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We argue that “narrow framing,” whereby an agent who is offered a new gamble
evaluates that gamble in isolation, may be a more important feature of decisionmaking
than previously realized. Our starting point is the evidence that people are
often averse to a small, independent gamble, even when the gamble is actuarially
favorable. We find that a surprisingly wide range of utility functions, including many
nonexpected utility specifications, have trouble explaining this evidence, but that
this difficulty can be overcome by allowing for narrow framing. Our analysis makes
predictions as to what kinds of preferences can most easily address the stock market
participation puzzle. (JEL D81, G11)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=8&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1069</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20031011_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Model of Forum Shopping</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Josh</gnm><snm>Lerner</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Jean</gnm><snm>Tirole</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1091</ppf>
<ppl>1113</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Owners of intellectual property or mere sponsors of an idea (e.g., authors, security
issuers, sponsors of standards) resort to more or less independent certifiers to persuade
potential users (buyers or adopters) of the worth of their property or idea. We analyze
the sponsor’s choices of certifier and design, social preferences regarding these choices,
and the impacts thereon of multiple categories of users, of a downstream presence of the
sponsor, and of certifier market power. Finally, we study strategic forum shopping by
sponsors of competing ideas. (JEL D82, 031, 034)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=9&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1091</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Cardinality versus Ordinality: A Suggested Compromise</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Mandler</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1114</ppf>
<ppl>1136</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>By taking sets of utility functions as primitive, we define an ordering over assumptions
on utility functions that gauges their measurement requirements. Cardinal and
ordinal assumptions constitute two levels of measurability, but other assumptions lie
between these extremes. We apply the ordering to explanations of why preferences
should be convex. The assumption that utility is concave qualifies as a compromise
between cardinality and ordinality, while the Arrow-Koopmans explanation, supposedly
an ordinal theory, relies on utilities in the cardinal measurement class. In
social choice theory, a concavity compromise between ordinality and cardinality is
also possible and rationalizes the core utilitarian policies. (JEL D01)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=10&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1114</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Self-Enforcing Voting in International Organizations</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Giovanni</gnm><snm>Maggi</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Massimo</gnm><snm>Morelli</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1137</ppf>
<ppl>1158</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Some international organizations are governed by unanimity rule, others by (simple
or qualified) majority rules. Standard voting models, which assume that the decisions
made by voting are perfectly enforceable, have a hard time explaining the
observed variation in governance mode, and in particular the widespread occurrence
of the unanimity system. We present a model whose main departure from
standard voting models is that the organization cannot rely on external enforcement
mechanisms: each country is sovereign and cannot be forced to comply with the
collective decision or, in other words, the voting system must be self-enforcing. The
model identifies conditions under which the organization adopts the unanimity rule,
and yields rich comparative-statics predictions on the determinants of the mode of
governance. (JEL D72, F53)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=11&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1137</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Speculative Growth: Hints from the U.S. Economy</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ricardo J.</gnm><snm>Caballero</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Emmanuel</gnm><snm>Farhi</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Mohamad L.</gnm><snm>Hammour</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1159</ppf>
<ppl>1192</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We propose a framework for understanding episodes of vigorous economic expansion
and extreme asset valuations. We interpret this phenomenon as a highvaluation
equilibrium with a low cost of capital based on optimism about future
funding. The key ingredient for such equilibrium is feedback from increased growth
to a decline in the long-run cost of capital. This feedback arises when an expansion
comes with technological progress in the capital sector, when fiscal rules generate
procyclical fiscal surpluses, when the rest of the world has lower expansion
potential or high saving needs, and when financial constraints are relaxed by the
expansion itself. (JEL E22, O33, O41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=12&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1159</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040445_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Shocks and Government Beliefs: The Rise and Fall of American Inflation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Thomas</gnm><snm>Sargent</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Noah</gnm><snm>Williams</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Tao</gnm><snm>Zha</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1193</ppf>
<ppl>1224</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm to estimate the parameters
of a “true” data-generating mechanism and those of a sequence of approximating
models that a monetary authority uses to guide its decisions. Gaps between
a true expectational Phillips curve and the monetary authority’s approximating
nonexpectational Phillips curve models unleash inflation that a monetary authority
that knows the true model would avoid. A sequence of dynamic programming
problems implies that the monetary authority’s inflation target evolves as its
estimated Phillips curve moves. Our estimates attribute the rise and fall of post-
WWII inflation in the United States to an intricate interaction between the monetary
authority’s beliefs and economic shocks. Shocks in the 1970s made the monetary
authority perceive a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment which ignited big
inflation. The monetary authority’s beliefs about the Phillips curve changed in ways
that account for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s conquest of U.S.
inflation. (JEL E24, E31, E52, N12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=13&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1193</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040850_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Traditional Institutions Meet the Modern World: Caste, Gender, and Schooling Choice in a Globalizing Economy</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Kaivan</gnm><snm>Munshi</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Mark</gnm><snm>Rosenzweig</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1225</ppf>
<ppl>1252</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper addresses the question of how traditional institutions interact with the
forces of globalization to shape the economic mobility and welfare of particular
groups of individuals in the new economy. We explore the role of one such
traditional institution—the caste system—in shaping career choices by gender in
Bombay using new survey data on school enrollment and income over the past 20
years. We find that male working-class—lower-caste—networks continue to channel
boys into local language schools that lead to the traditional occupation, despite the
fact that returns to nontraditional white-collar occupations rose substantially in the
1990s, suggesting the possibility of a dynamic inefficiency. In contrast, lower-caste
girls, who historically had low labor market participation rates and so did not benefit
from the network, are taking full advantage of the opportunities that became available
in the new economy by switching rapidly to English schools. (JEL I21, J16, O15, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=14&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1225</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20030775_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>$1,000 Cash Back: The Pass-Through of Auto Manufacturer Promotions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Meghan</gnm><snm>Busse</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Jorge</gnm><snm>Silva-Risso</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Florian</gnm><snm>Zettelmeyer</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1253</ppf>
<ppl>1270</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Automobile manufacturers frequently use promotions involving cash incentives.
While payments are nominally directed to either customers or dealers, the ultimate
beneficiary of the promotion depends on the outcome of price negotiation. We use
program evaluation methods to compare the incidence of these two types of
promotions. Customers obtain 70 to 90 percent of a customer rebate, but only 30 to
40 percent of a dealer discount promotion, a $500 difference for a typical promotion.
Our leading hypothesis is that pass-through rates differ because of information
asymmetries: customer rebates are well-publicized to customers, while dealer
discount promotions are not. (JEL D82, L11, L15, L62, L81, M31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=15&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1253</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20041005_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Theory of Participation in Elections</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Timothy</gnm><snm>Feddersen</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Alvaro</gnm><snm>Sandroni</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1271</ppf>
<ppl>1282</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We analyze a model of participation in elections in which voting is costly and no vote is pivotal. Ethical agents are motivated to participate when they determine that agents of their type are obligated to do so. Unlike previous duty-based models of participation, in our model an ethical agent\'s obligation to vote is determined endogenously as a function of the behavior of other agents. Our model predicts high turnout and comparative statics that are consistent with strategic behavior. (JEL D72)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=16&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1271</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>What is Discrimination? Gender in the American Economic Association, 1935-2004</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stephen G.</gnm><snm>Donald</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Daniel S.</gnm><snm>Hamermesh</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1283</ppf>
<ppl>1292</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We illustrate problems of measuring discrimination using elections to AEA offices. With a new econometric technique, we find female candidates have a much better than random chance of victory. This advantage is either reverse discrimination or reflects beliefs that women are more productive. The former interpretation could be explained by an unchanging median voter whose preferences were not satisfied by suppliers of candidates; but there was a structural change in voting behavior in the mid-1970s. The results suggest it is generally impossible to claim differences in rewards, for different groups measure the extent of discrimination or even its direction. (JEL A11, D72, J16)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=17&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1283</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040699_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Stock Prices, News, and Economic Fluctuations</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Beaudry</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Franck</gnm><snm>Portier</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1293</ppf>
<ppl>1307</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show that the joint behavior of stock prices and TFP favors a view of business cycles driven largely by a shock that does not affect productivity in the short run – and therefore does not look like a standard technology shock – but affects productivity with substantial delay – and therefore does not look like a monetary shock. One structural interpretation for this shock is that it represents news about future technological opportunities which is first captured in stock prices. This shock causes a boom in consumption, investment, and hours worked that precedes productivity growth by a few years, and explains about 50 percent of business cycle fluctuations. (JEL G12, E32, E44)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=18&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1293</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20030282_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Life-Cycle Variation in the Association between Current and Lifetime Earnings</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Steven</gnm><snm>Haider</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Gary</gnm><snm>Solon</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1308</ppf>
<ppl>1320</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Researchers in a variety of important economic literatures have assumed that current income variables as proxies for lifetime income variables follow the textbook errors-in-variables model. In our analysis of Social Security records containing nearly career-long earnings histories for the Health and Retirement Study sample, we find that the relationship between current and lifetime earnings departs substantially from the textbook model in ways that vary systematically over the life cycle. Our results can enable more appropriate analysis of, and correction for, errors-in-variables bias in any research that uses current earnings to proxy for lifetime earnings. (JEL D31, D91)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=19&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1308</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040284_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Choice Shifts in Groups: A Decision-Theoretic Basis</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Kfir</gnm><snm>Eliaz</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Debraj</gnm><snm>Ray</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Ronny</gnm><snm>Razin</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1321</ppf>
<ppl>1332</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The phenomenon of choice shifts in group decision-making has received attention in the social psychology literature. Faced with a risky group decision, individuals appear to support more extreme choices relative to those they would make on their own. This paper demonstrates that from a decision-theoretic perspective, choice shifts are intimately connected to failures of expected utility theory. In the model studied here, the Allais paradox is equivalent to a well-studied configuration of choice shifts. Thus, our results marry two well-known behavioral regularities, one in individual decision theory and another in the social psychology of groups. (JEL D71, D81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=20&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1321</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of Competition among Jurisdictions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jesse M.</gnm><snm>Rothstein</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1333</ppf>
<ppl>1350</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In a multicommunity model, high-income families cluster together in any equilibrium, and cluster near effective schools if effectiveness is an important component of community desirability. Governmental fragmentation facilitates this residential sorting. Thus, if parents prefer effective schools, income correlates with effectiveness in high-choice-market equilibrium. I examine the distribution of student background and test scores across schools within metropolitan areas that differ in the structure of educational governance. I find little indication of the “effectiveness sorting” that is predicted if parents choose neighborhoods for the efficacy of the local schools. This suggests caution about the productivity implications of school choice policies. (JEL H73, I21, R21, R23)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=21&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1333</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20031260_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20031260_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Caps on Political Lobbying: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Todd R.</gnm><snm>Kaplan</snm></au>
<au><gnm>David</gnm><snm>Wettstein</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1351</ppf>
<ppl>1354</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=22&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1351</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Caps on Political Lobbying: Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yeon-Koo</gnm><snm>Che</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Ian L.</gnm><snm>Gale</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1355</ppf>
<ppl>1360</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=23&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1355</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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Credibility of Optimal Monetary Delegation: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Driffill</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Zeno</gnm><snm>Rotondi</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1361</ppf>
<ppl>1366</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=24&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1361</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept06/20040796_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>96</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2006</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&issue_date=September 2006</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Corrigendum</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly: Corrigendum</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Chaim</gnm><snm>Fershtman</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Kenneth L.</gnm><snm>Judd</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1367</ppf>
<ppl>1367</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=96&issue=4&article=25&issue_date=September 2006</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.96.4.1367</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


