<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Macroeconomics for a Modern Economy</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Edmund S.</gnm><snm>Phelps</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>543</ppf>
<ppl>561</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=1&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.543</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Relative Prices and Relative Prosperity</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Chang-Tai</gnm><snm>Hsieh</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Peter J.</gnm><snm>Klenow</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>562</ppf>
<ppl>585</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The positive correlation between real investment rates and real income levels across
countries is driven largely by differences in the price of investment relative to
output. The high relative price of investment in poor countries is due to the low price
of consumption goods in those countries. Investment prices are no higher in poor
countries. Thus, the low real investment rates in poor countries are not driven by
high tax or tariff rates on investment. Poor countries, instead, appear to be plagued
by low efficiency in producing investment goods and in producing consumer goods
to trade for them. (JEL E22, E23, O16, O47)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=2&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.562</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040953_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Shocks and Frictions in US Business Cycles: A Bayesian DSGE Approach</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Frank</gnm><snm>Smets</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Rafael</gnm><snm>Wouters</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>586</ppf>
<ppl>606</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Using a Bayesian likelihood approach, we estimate a dynamic stochastic general
equilibrium model for the US economy using seven macroeconomic time series. The
model incorporates many types of real and nominal frictions and seven types of
structural shocks. We show that this model is able to compete with Bayesian Vector
Autoregression models in out-of-sample prediction. We investigate the relative
empirical importance of the various frictions. Finally, using the estimated model, we
address a number of key issues in business cycle analysis: What are the sources of
business cycle fluctuations? Can the model explain the cross correlation between
output and inflation? What are the effects of productivity on hours worked? What
are the sources of the "Great Moderation"? (JEL D58, E23, E31, E32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=3&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.586</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20041254_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20041254_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Generalizing the Taylor Principle</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Troy</gnm><snm>Davig</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Eric M.</gnm><snm>Leeper</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>607</ppf>
<ppl>635</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The paper generalizes the Taylor principle—the proposition that central banks can
stabilize the macroeconomy by raising their interest rate instrument more than
one-for-one in response to higher inflation—to an environment in which reaction
coefficients in the monetary policy rule change regime, evolving according to a
Markov process. We derive a long-run Taylor principle which delivers unique
bounded equilibria in two standard models. Policy can satisfy the Taylor principle
in the long run, even while deviating from it substantially for brief periods or
modestly for prolonged periods. Macroeconomic volatility can be higher in periods
when the Taylor principle is not satisfied, not because of indeterminacy, but because
monetary policy amplifies the impacts of fundamental shocks. Regime change alters
the qualitative and quantitative predictions of a conventional new Keynesian model,
yielding fresh interpretations of existing empirical work. (JEL E31, E43, E52)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=4&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.607</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050277_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Timing of Monetary Policy Shocks</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Giovanni</gnm><snm>Olivei</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Silvana</gnm><snm>Tenreyro</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>636</ppf>
<ppl>663</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A vast empirical literature has documented delayed and persistent effects of monetary
policy shocks on output. We show that this finding results from the aggregation
of output impulse responses that differ sharply depending on the timing of the shock.
When the monetary policy shock takes place in the first two quarters of the year, the
response of output is quick, sizable, and dies out at a relatively fast pace. In
contrast, output responds very little when the shock takes place in the third or fourth
quarter. We propose a potential explanation for the differential responses based on
uneven staggering of wage contracts across quarters. Using a dynamic general
equilibrium model, we show that a realistic amount of uneven staggering can
generate differences in output responses quantitatively similar to those found in the
data. (JEL E23, E24, E58, J41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=5&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.636</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040541_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Job Displacement Risk and the Cost of Business Cycles</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Tom</gnm><snm>Krebs</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>664</ppf>
<ppl>686</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper analyzes the welfare costs of business cycles when workers face uninsurable
job displacement risk. The paper uses a simple macroeconomic model with
incomplete markets to show that cyclical variations in the long-term earnings losses
of displaced workers can generate arbitrarily large cost of business cycles even if
the variance of individual income changes is constant over the cycle. In addition to
the theoretical analysis, this paper conducts a quantitative study of the cost of
business cycles using empirical evidence on the long-term earnings losses of US
workers. The quantitative analysis shows that realistic variations in job displacement
risk generate sizable costs of business cycles, even though a second-moment
analysis would suggest negligible costs. (JEL E21, E24, E32, J63)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=6&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.664</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Learning Your Earning: Are Labor Income Shocks Really Very Persistent?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Fatih</gnm><snm>Guvenen</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>687</ppf>
<ppl>712</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The current literature offers two views on the nature of the labor income process.
According to the first view, individuals are subject to very persistent income shocks
while facing similar life-cycle income profiles (the RIP process, Thomas MaCurdy
1982). According to the alternative, individuals are subject to shocks with modest
persistence while facing individual-specific profiles (the HIP process, Lee A. Lillard
and Yoram A. Weiss 1979). In this paper we study the restrictions imposed by these
two processes on consumption data—in the context of a life-cycle model—to
distinguish between the two views. We find that the life-cycle model with a HIP
process, which has not been studied in the previous literature, is consistent with
several features of consumption data, whereas the model with a RIP process is
consistent with some, but not with others. We conclude that the HIP model could be
a credible contender to—and along some dimensions, a more coherent alternative
than—the RIP model. (JEL D83, D91, E21, J31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=7&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.687</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050688_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Valuing New Goods in a Model with Complementarity: Online Newspapers</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthew</gnm><snm>Gentzkow</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>713</ppf>
<ppl>744</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Many important economic questions hinge on the extent to which new goods either
crowd out or complement consumption of existing products. Recent methods for
studying new goods rule out complementarity by assumption, so their applicability
to these questions has been limited. I develop a new model that relaxes this
restriction, and use it to study competition between print and online newspapers.
Using new micro data from Washington, DC, I estimate the relationship between the
print and online papers in demand, the welfare impact of the online paper's
introduction, and the expected impact of charging positive online prices. (JEL C25,
L11, L82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=8&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.713</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050374_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alma</gnm><snm>Cohen</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Liran</gnm><snm>Einav</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>745</ppf>
<ppl>788</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a structural econometric model to estimate risk preferences from data
on deductible choices in auto insurance contracts. We account for adverse selection
by modeling unobserved heterogeneity in both risk (claim rate) and risk aversion.
We find large and skewed heterogeneity in risk attitudes. In addition, women are
more risk averse than men, risk aversion exhibits a U-shape with respect to age, and
proxies for income and wealth are positively associated with absolute risk aversion.
Finally, unobserved heterogeneity in risk aversion is greater than that of risk, and,
as we illustrate, has important implications for insurance pricing. (JEL D81, G22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=9&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.745</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050644_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050644_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Estimating the Effects of Private School Vouchers in Multidistrict Economies</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Maria Marta</gnm><snm>Ferreyra</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>789</ppf>
<ppl>817</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper estimates a general equilibrium model of school quality and household
residential and school choice for economies with multiple public school districts
and private (religious and nonsectarian) schools. The estimates, obtained through
full-solution methods, are used to simulate two large-scale private school voucher
programs in the Chicago metropolitan area: universal vouchers and vouchers
restricted to nonsectarian schools. In the simulations, both programs increase
private school enrollment and affect household residential choice. Under nonsectarian
vouchers, however, private school enrollment expands less than under
universal vouchers, and religious school enrollment declines for large nonsectarian
vouchers. Fewer households benefit from nonsectarian vouchers. (JEL H75, I21,
I22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=10&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.789</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20030801_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20030801_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alexander W.</gnm><snm>Cappelen</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Astri Drange</gnm><snm>Hole</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Erik &Oslash;</gnm><snm>S&oslash;rensen</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Bertil</gnm><snm>Tungodden</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>818</ppf>
<ppl>827</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A core question in the contemporary debate on distributive justice is how to
understand fairness in situations involving production. Important theories of distributive
justice, such as strict egalitarianism, liberal egalitarianism, and libertarianism,
provide different answers to this question. This paper presents the results
from a dictator game where the distribution phase is preceded by a production
phase. Each player's contribution is a result of a freely chosen investment level and
an exogenously given rate of return. We estimate simultaneously the prevalence of
three principles of distributive justice among the players and the distribution of the
weight they attach to fairness. (JEL D63)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=11&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.818</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050838_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050838_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Efficient Kidney Exchange: Coincidence of Wants in Markets with Compatibility-Based Preferences</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alvin E.</gnm><snm>Roth</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Tayfun</gnm><snm>S&ouml;nmez</snm></au>
<au><gnm>M. Utku</gnm><snm>&Uuml;nver</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>828</ppf>
<ppl>851</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Patients needing kidney transplants may have donors who cannot donate to them
because of blood or tissue incompatibility. Incompatible patient-donor pairs can
exchange donor kidneys with other pairs only when there is a "double coincidence
of wants." Developing infrastructure to perform three-way as well as two-way
exchanges will have a substantial effect on the number of transplants that can be
arranged. Larger than three-way exchanges have less impact on efficiency. In a
general model of type-compatible exchanges, the size of the largest exchanges
required to achieve efficiency equals the number of types. (JEL C78, I12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=12&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.828</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20051331_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20051331_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Signaling Character in Electoral Competition</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Navin</gnm><snm>Kartik</snm></au>
<au><gnm>R. Preston</gnm><snm>McAfee</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>852</ppf>
<ppl>870</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study a one-dimensional Hotelling-Downs model of electoral competition with
the following innovation: a fraction of candidates have "character" and are
exogenously committed to a campaign platform; this is unobservable to voters.
Character is desirable, and a voter's utility is a convex combination of standard
policy preferences and her assessment of a candidate's character. This structure
induces a signaling game between strategic candidates and voters, since a policy
platform affects voters' utilities not only directly, but also indirectly through
inferences about a candidate's character. The model generates a number of predictions,
starting with a failure of the median voter theorem. (JEL D72, D82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=13&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.852</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20060106_app/pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Harmonization and Side Payments in Political Cooperation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>B&aring;rd</gnm><snm>Harstad</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>871</ppf>
<ppl>889</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>For two districts or countries that try to internalize externalities, I analyze a
bargaining game under private information. I derive conditions for when it is
efficient with uniform policies across regions—with and without side payments—
and when it is efficient to prohibit side payments in the negotiations. While
policy differentiation and side payments allow the policy to better reflect local
conditions, they create conflicts between the regions and, thus, delay. The
results also describe when political centralization outperforms decentralized
cooperation, and they provide a theoretical foundation for the controversial
"uniformity assumption" traditionally used by the fiscal federalism literature.
(JEL C78, D72, D82, H77)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=14&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.871</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Meeting Strangers and Friends of Friends: How Random Are Social Networks?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthew O.</gnm><snm>Jackson</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Brian W.</gnm><snm>Rogers</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>890</ppf>
<ppl>915</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We present a dynamic model of network formation where nodes find other nodes
with whom to form links in two ways: some are found uniformly at random, while
others are found by searching locally through the current structure of the network
(e.g., meeting friends of friends). This combination of meeting processes results in
a spectrum of features exhibited by large social networks, including the presence of
more high- and low-degree nodes than when links are formed independently at
random, having low distances between nodes in the network, and having high
clustering of links on a local level. We fit the model to data from six networks and
impute the relative ratio of random to network-based meetings in link formation,
which turns out to vary dramatically across applications. We show that as the
random/network-based meeting ratio varies, the resulting degree distributions can
be ordered in the sense of stochastic dominance, which allows us to infer how the
formation process affects average utility in the network. (JEL D85, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=15&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.890</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050069_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Contracts and Technology Adoption</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Daron</gnm><snm>Acemoglu</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Pol</gnm><snm>Antr&agrave;s</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Elhanan</gnm><snm>Helpman</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>916</ppf>
<ppl>943</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a tractable framework for the analysis of the relationship between
contractual incompleteness, technological complementarities, and technology adoption.
In our model, a firm chooses its technology and investment levels in contractible
activities by suppliers of intermediate inputs. Suppliers then choose investments
in noncontractible activities, anticipating payoffs from an ex post bargaining game.
We show that greater contractual incompleteness leads to the adoption of less
advanced technologies, and that the impact of contractual incompleteness is more
pronounced when there is greater complementary among the intermediate inputs.
We study a number of applications of the main framework and show that the
mechanism proposed in the paper can generate sizable productivity differences
across countries with different contracting institutions, and that differences in
contracting institutions lead to endogenous comparative advantage differences.
(JEL D86, O33)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=16&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.916</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Leadership and Information</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Mana</gnm><snm>Komai</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Mark</gnm><snm>Stegeman</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Benjamin E.</gnm><snm>Hermalin</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>944</ppf>
<ppl>947</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>An organization makes collective decisions through neither markets nor contracts. Instead, rational agents voluntarily choose to follow a leader. In many cases, incentive problems are solved: the unique nondegenerate equilibrium achieves the first best, even
though every agent has incentives to free ride. The leader has no special talents but is distinguished by getting exclusive access to information. A crucial feature is that the leader reveals part but not all of her information. It is this maintenance of informational asymmetry that permits achieving the first best. (JEL D23, M54)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=17&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.944</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Social Interactions in High School: Lessons from an Earthquake</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Piero</gnm><snm>Cipollone</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Alfonso</gnm><snm>Rosolia</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>948</ppf>
<ppl>965</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>After an earthquake hit Southern Italy in 1980, young men from certain towns were exempted from compulsory military service. We show that the exemption raised high-school-graduation rates of boys by more than 2 percentage points. We do this by comparing high-school-graduation rates of young exempt men and older nonexempt men from the least damaged areas and men of the same age groups from nearby towns that were not hit by the quake. Similar comparisons show that graduation rates of young women in the affected areas also increased. Since in Italy women are not subject to the draft, the findings suggest the presence of spillover effects. (JEL I21, J13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=18&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.948</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040922_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Measuring Self-Control Problems</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Ameriks</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Andrew</gnm><snm>Caplin</snm></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Leahy</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Tom</gnm><snm>Tyler</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>966</ppf>
<ppl>972</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a survey instrument to measure self-control problems in a sample of highly educated adults. This measure relates in the manner that theory predicts to liquid wealth accumulation and personality measures. Yet while self-control problems are typically seen as resulting in overconsumption and low wealth, we identify a significant group who underconsume and thereby accumulate high levels of wealth. In addition, self-control problems are smaller in scale for older than for younger respondents. Those who put money aside in retirement accounts may be delaying access to a point at which self-control problems are no longer important. (JEL D12, D14)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=19&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.966</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040440_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Regulation, Capital, and the Evolution of Organizational Form in US Life Insurance</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>George</gnm><snm>Zanjani</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>973</ppf>
<ppl>983</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies the association between regulation and the organizational form of new life insurers between 1900 and 1949. The mutual form was popular in states with low initial capital requirements for mutual companies and differentially higher requirements for stock companies, but was rarely used elsewhere. This suggests that entrepreneurs took a "path of least resistance" when choosing organizational form and that the mutual's disadvantage in raising capital contributed to its decline–a decline that accelerated as states raised requirements and eliminated the aforementioned differentials. Contrary to
previous analysis, the paper finds little evidence connecting other regulations to mutual decline. (JEL G21, L51, N21, N22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=20&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.973</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040720_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040720_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Sticky-Price Models and Durable Goods</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert B.</gnm><snm>Barsky</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Christopher L.</gnm><snm>House</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Miles S.</gnm><snm>Kimball</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>984</ppf>
<ppl>998</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The inclusion of a durable goods sector in sticky-price models has strong and unexpected implications. Even if most prices are flexible, a small durable goods sector with sticky prices may be sufficient to make aggregate output react to monetary policy as though most prices were sticky. In contrast, flexibly priced durables with sufficiently long service lives can undo the implications of standard sticky price models. In a limiting
case, flexibly priced durables cause monetary policy to have no effect on aggregate
output. Our analysis suggests that durable goods prices are the most relevant data for
calibrating price rigidity. (JEL E21, E23, E31, E52)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=21&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.984</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040634_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20040634_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Trust as a Signal of a Social Norm and the Hidden Costs of Incentive Schemes</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Dirk</gnm><snm>Sliwka</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>999</ppf>
<ppl>1012</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>An explanation for motivation crowding-out phenomena is developed in a social preferences framework. Besides selfish and fair or altruistic types, a third type of agent is introduced. These "conformists" have social preferences if they believe that sufficiently many of the others do as well. When there is asymmetric information about the distribution of preferences (the "social norm"), the incentive scheme offered or autonomy granted can reveal a principal's beliefs about that norm. High-powered incentives may crowd out motivation as pessimism about the norm is conveyed. But by choosing fixed wages or granting autonomy, trust in a favorable norm may be signaled. (JEL D64, D82, J41, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=22&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.999</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Tradeoffs from Integrating Diagnosis and Treatment in Markets for Health Care</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Christopher C.</gnm><snm>Afendulis</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Daniel P.</gnm><snm>Kessler</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1013</ppf>
<ppl>1020</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>To identify the important tradeoffs in consulting a single expert for both diagnosis and treatment, we examine the costs and health outcomes of elderly Medicare beneficiaries with coronary artery disease. We compare the empirical consequences of diagnosis by cardiologists who can provide surgical treatment – "integrated" cardiologists – to the consequences of diagnosis by a nonintegrated cardiologist. Diagnosis by an integrated cardiologist leads, on net, to higher health spending but similar health outcomes. The net effect contains three components: reduced spending and improved outcomes from better allocation of patients to surgical treatment options; increased spending conditional on treatment option; and worse outcomes from poorer provision of nonsurgical care. (JEL I11, I18)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=23&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.1013</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/june07/20050655_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>ABCs (and Ds) of Understanding VARs</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jes&uacute;s</gnm><snm>Fernández-Villaverde</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Juan F.</gnm><snm>Rubio-Ram&iacute;rez</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Thomas J.</gnm><snm>Sargent</snm></au>
<au><gnm>Mark W.</gnm><snm>Watson</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1021</ppf>
<ppl>1026</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The dynamics of a linear (or linearized) dynamic stochastic economic model can be expressed in terms of matrices (A, B, C, D) that define a state space system for a vector of observables. An associated state space system (A,ˆB,C,ˆD) determines a vector autoregression for those same observables. We present a simple condition for checking when these two state space systems match up and when they do not when there are equal numbers of economic and VAR shocks. We illustrate our condition with a permanent income example. (JEL C32, E32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=24&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.1021</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Matching and Price Competition: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Fuhito</gnm><snm>Kojima</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1027</ppf>
<ppl>1031</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=25&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.1027</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Effects of Environmental and Land Use Regulation in the Oil and Gas Industry Using the Wyoming Checkerboard as a Natural Experiment: Retraction</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Shelby</gnm><snm>Gerking</snm></au>
<au><gnm>William E.</gnm><snm>Morgan</snm></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1032</ppf>
<ppl>1032</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=26&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.1032</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>97</vol>
<iss>3</iss>
<cd>June 2007</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&issue_date=June 2007</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Auditors’ Report/Audited Financial Statements</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1033</ppf>
<ppl>1041</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=97&issue=3&article=27&issue_date=June 2007</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.97.3.1033</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


