<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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Note on Different Approaches to Index Number Theory</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthijs</gnm><snm>van Veelen</snm><aff>U Amsterdam</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Roy</gnm><snm>van der Weide</snm><aff>World Bank and U Amsterdam</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1722</ppf>
<ppl>30</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=26&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1722</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20051070_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Testing for a Reference Consumer in International Comparisons of Living Standards</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ian</gnm><snm>Crawford</snm><aff>U Oxford and IFS</aff></au>
<au><gnm>J. Peter</gnm><snm>Neary</snm><aff>U Oxford</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1731</ppf>
<ppl>32</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=27&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1731</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20080460_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>All-or-Nothing Monitoring</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Rui R.</gnm><snm>Zhao</snm><aff>U Albany, SUNY</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1619</ppf>
<ppl>28</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A principal can observe both the output and input of an agent who works at a job involving multiple tasks. We provide a simple theory that explains why it may be optimal for the principal to use only an output-based incentive contract, even though the principal can monitor the agent's actions perfectly in all but one task and knows exactly which action is optimal for each task. (JEL D82, D86, M54)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=19&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1619</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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Commitment and Conflict in Bilateral Bargaining</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Tore</gnm><snm>Ellingsen</snm><aff>Stockholm School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Topi</gnm><snm>Miettinen</snm><aff>Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1629</ppf>
<ppl>35</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Building on previous work by Schelling and Crawford, we study a model of 
bilateral bargaining in which negotiators can make binding commitments at a low positive cost c. Most of our results concern outcomes that survive iterated strict dominance. If commitment attempts never fail, there are three such outcomes. In two of them, all the surplus goes to one player. In the third, there is a high probability of conflict. If commitment attempts succeed with probability q < 1, the unique outcome that survives iterated strict dominance entails conflict with probability q2. When c = 0, analogous results hold if the requirement of iterated strict dominance is replaced by iterated weak dominance. (JEL C78, D84)
</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=20&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1629</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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Leveling the Playing Field: Sincere and Sophisticated Players in the Boston Mechanism</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Parag A.</gnm><snm>Pathak</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Tayfun</gnm><snm>Sonmez</snm><aff>Boston College</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1636</ppf>
<ppl>52</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Empirical and experimental evidence suggests different levels of sophistication among families in the Boston Public School student assignment plan. We analyze the preference revelation game induced by the Boston mechanism with sincere players who report their true preferences and sophisticated players who play a best response. We characterize the set of Nash equilibrium outcomes as the set of stable matchings of a modified economy, where sincere students lose priority to sophisticated students. Any sophisticated student weakly prefers her assignment under the Pareto-dominant Nash equilibrium of the Boston mechanism to her assignment under the recently adopted student-optimal stable mechanism. (JEL D82, I21)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=21&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1636</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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Limited Influence of Unemployment on the Wage Bargain</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert E.</gnm><snm>Hall</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Paul R.</gnm><snm>Milgrom</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1653</ppf>
<ppl>74</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>When a job-seeker and an employer meet, find a prospective joint surplus, and bargain over the wage, conditions in the outside labor market, including especially unemployment, may have limited influence. The job-seeker's only credible threat during bargaining is to hold out for a better deal. The employer's threat is to delay bargaining. Consequently, the outcome of the bargain depends on the relative costs of delays to the parties, rather than on the payoffs that result from exiting negotiations. Modeling bargaining in this way makes wages less responsive to unemployment. A stochastic model of the labor market with credible bargaining and reasonable parameter values yields larger employment fluctuations than does the standard Mortensen-Pissarides model. (JEL J22, J23, J31, J64)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=22&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1653</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060037_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Trade Policy and Loss Aversion</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Caroline</gnm><snm>Freund</snm><aff>World Bank</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Caglar</gnm><snm>Ozden</snm><aff>World Bank</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1675</ppf>
<ppl>91</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a political economy model where loss aversion and reference dependence are important in shaping people’s preferences over trade policy. The policy implications of the augmented model differ in three ways: there is a region of compensating protection, where a decline in the world price leads to an offsetting increase in protection, such that a constant domestic price is maintained; protection following a single negative price shock will be persistent; and irrespective of the extent of lobbying, there will be a deviation from free trade that favors loss-making industries.  The augmented model explains protections of the US steel industry since 1980. (JEL F13, F14, L61)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=23&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1675</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20041133_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Cyclical Behavior of Equilibrium Unemployment and Vacancies Revisited</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marcus</gnm><snm>Hagedorn</snm><aff>Institute for Empirical Research, U Zurich</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Iourii</gnm><snm>Manovskii</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1692</ppf>
<ppl>1706</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Recently, a number of authors have argued that the standard search model cannot generate the observed business-cycle-frequency fluctuations in unemployment and job vacancies, given shocks of a plausible magnitude. We propose a new calibration strategy of the standard model that uses data on the cost of vacancy creation and cyclicality of wages to identify the two key parameters –- the value of nonmarket activity and the bargaining weights. Our calibration implies that the model is consistent with the data. (JEL E24, E32, J31, J63, J64)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=24&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1692</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060403_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Thomas</gnm><snm>Chaney</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1707</ppf>
<ppl>21</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>By considering a model with identical firms, Krugman (1980) predicts that a higher elasticity of substitution between goods magnifies the impact of trade barriers on trade flows. In this paper, I introduce firm heterogeneity in a simple model of international trade. I prove that the extensive margin and the intensive margin are affected by the elasticity of substitution in exact opposite directions. When the distribution of productivity across firms is Pareto, the predictions of the Krugman model with representative firms are overturned: the impact of trade barriers on trade flows is dampened by the elasticity of substitution, and not magnified. (JEL F12, F13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=25&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1707</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20050798_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Explaining Changes in Female Labor Supply in a Life-Cycle Model</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Orazio</gnm><snm>Attanasio</snm><aff>U College London and Institute for Fiscal Studies</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Hamish</gnm><snm>Low</snm><aff>U Cambridge and Institute for Fiscal Studies</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Virginia</gnm><snm>Sanchez-Marcos</snm><aff>U Cantabria</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1517</ppf>
<ppl>52</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies the life-cycle labor supply of three cohorts of American
women, born in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We focus on the increase in labor
supply of mothers between the 1940s and 1950s cohorts. We construct a lifecycle
model of female participation and savings, and calibrate the model to
match the behavior of the middle cohort. We investigate which changes in the
determinants of labor supply account for the increases in participation early in
the life-cycle observed for the youngest cohort. A combination of a reduction
in the cost of children alongside a reduction in the wage-gender gap is needed.
(JEL D91, J16, J22, J31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=14&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1517</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20040372_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Giffen Behavior and Subsistence Consumption</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert T.</gnm><snm>Jensen</snm><aff>Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Nolan H.</gnm><snm>Miller</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1553</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper provides the first real-world evidence of Giffen behavior, i.e.,
upward sloping demand. Subsidizing the prices of dietary staples for extremely
poor households in two provinces of China, we find strong evidence of Giffen
behavior for rice in Hunan, and weaker evidence for wheat in Gansu. The data
provide new insight into the consumption behavior of the poor, who act as
though maximizing utility subject to subsistence concerns. We find that their
elasticity of demand depends significantly, and nonlinearly, on the severity of
their poverty. Understanding this heterogeneity is important for the effective
design of welfare programs for the poor. (JEL D12, O12)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=15&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1553</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20070790_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20070790_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ajay</gnm><snm>Agrawal</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Avi</gnm><snm>Goldfarb</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1578</ppf>
<ppl>90</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We report evidence that Bitnet adoption facilitated increased research collaboration between US universities. However, not all institutions benefited equally. Using panel data from seven top engineering journals, Bitnet connection records, and institution ranking data, we find that middle-tier universities were the primary beneficiaries; they benefited largely by increasing their collaboration with top-tier schools. Furthermore, we find that the magnitude of this effect is greatest for co-located pairs. Thus, the advent of Bitnet – and likely of subsequent networks – seems to have increased the role of middle-tier universities as producers of new knowledge in the national innovation system. (JEL D85, I23, O31, O33)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=16&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1578</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060092_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Cycle of Violence? An Empirical Analysis of Fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>David A.</gnm><snm>Jaeger</snm><aff>Graduate Center, CUNY and U Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>M. Daniele</gnm><snm>Paserman</snm><aff>Boston U and Hebrew U Jerusalem</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1591</ppf>
<ppl>1604</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper examines the dynamics of violence in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the Second Intifada. Using data on the daily number of fatalities between September 2000 and January 2005, we estimate reaction functions for both Israelis and Palestinians and find evidence of Granger causality from Palestinian to Israeli violence, but not vice versa.  This finding is consistent using either the incidence or level of fatalities and is robust to the specification of the lag structure and the level of time aggregation. We find no evidence that the Palestinians and Israelis are engaged in a predictable "tit-for-tat" cycle of violence. (JEL D74, H56, O17)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=17&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1591</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20051054_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20051054_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Relationship between Economic Status and Child Health: Evidence from the United States</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Simon</gnm><snm>Condliffe</snm><aff>West Chester U PA</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Charles R.</gnm><snm>Link</snm><aff>U DE</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1605</ppf>
<ppl>18</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Anne Case et al. (2002), using cross-sectional data, found a positive
relationship between children's health and income, with income's protective
effect increasing with age. Janet Currie and Mark Stabile (2003), using a
panel of Canadian children, found that low- and high-SES children respond
similarly to health shocks, but the low-SES children are subject to more
shocks as they age. Our study examines this relationship using panel data
for US children. We find some support for the latter result of Currie and
Stabile but also evidence that low- and high-SES children respond
differently to specific health shocks. (JEL D31, I12, J13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=18&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1605</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20050399_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Unequal Effects of Liberalization: Evidence from Dismantling the License Raj in India</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Philippe</gnm><snm>Aghion</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Robin</gnm><snm>Burgess</snm><aff>London School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stephen J.</gnm><snm>Redding</snm><aff>London School of Economics</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Fabrizio</gnm><snm>Zilibotti</snm><aff>Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, U Zurich</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1397</ppf>
<ppl>1412</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study whether the effects on registered manufacturing output of dismantling
the License Raj—a system of central controls regulating entry and production
activity in this sector—vary across Indian states with different labor market
regulations. The effects are found to be unequal across Indian states with different
labor market regulations. In particular, following delicensing, industries
located in states with pro-employer labor market institutions grew more quickly
than those in pro-worker environments. (JEL J50, L52,L60, O14, O15, O25)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=9&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1397</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060654_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060654_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Tracing the Impact of Bank Liquidity Shocks: Evidence from an Emerging Market</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Asim Ijaz</gnm><snm>Khwaja</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Atif</gnm><snm>Mian</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1413</ppf>
<ppl>42</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We examine the impact of liquidity shocks by exploiting cross-bank liquidity
variation induced by unanticipated nuclear tests in Pakistan. We show that
for the same firm borrowing from two different banks, its loan from the bank
experiencing a 1 percent larger decline in liquidity drops by an additional
0.6 percent. While banks pass their liquidity shocks on to firms, large firms—
particularly those with strong business or political ties—completely compensate
this loss by additional borrowing through the credit market. Small firms
are unable to do so and face large drops in overall borrowing and increased
financial distress. (JEL E44, G21, G32, L25)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=10&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1413</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060982_data.pdf</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060982_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Vincent P.</gnm><snm>Crawford</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Uri</gnm><snm>Gneezy</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Yuval</gnm><snm>Rottenstreich</snm><aff>NYU</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1443</ppf>
<ppl>58</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Since Schelling, it has often been assumed that players make use of salient
decision labels to achieve coordination. Consistent with previous work, we find
that given equal payoffs, salient labels yield frequent coordination. However,
given even minutely asymmetric payoffs, labels lose much of their effectiveness
and miscoordination abounds. This raises questions about the extent to which
the effectiveness of focal points based on label salience persists beyond the
special case of symmetric games. The patterns of miscoordination we observe
vary with the magnitude of payoff differences in intricate ways that suggest
nonequilibrium accounts based on "level-k" thinking and "team reasoning."
(JEL C72, C92)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=11&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1443</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20050181_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Optimal Contracting with Endogenous Social Norms</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Fischer</snm><aff>PA State U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Steven</gnm><snm>Huddart</snm><aff>PA State U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1459</ppf>
<ppl>75</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Research in sociology and ethics suggests that individuals adhere to social
norms of behavior established by their peers. Within an agency framework, we
model endogenous social norms by assuming that each agent’s cost of implementing
an action depends on the social norm for that action, defined to be the
average level of that action chosen by the agent’s peer group. We show how
endogenous social norms alter the effectiveness of monetary incentives, determine
whether it is optimal to group agents in a single or two separate organizations,
and may give rise to a costly adverse selection problem when agents'
sensitivities to social norms are unobservable. (JEL D23, D82, D86, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=12&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1459</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20040399_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Great Expectations and the End of the Depression</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Gauti B.</gnm><snm>Eggertsson</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of New York</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1476</ppf>
<ppl>1516</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper suggests that the US recovery from the Great Depression was driven
by a shift in expectations. This shift was caused by President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's policy actions. On the monetary policy side, Roosevelt abolished
the gold standard and—even more importantly—announced the explicit objective
of inflating the price level to pre-Depression levels. On the fiscal policy
side, Roosevelt expanded real and deficit spending, which made his policy
objective credible. These actions violated prevailing policy dogmas and initiated
a policy regime change as in Sargent (1983) and Temin and Wigmore
(1990). The economic consequences of Roosevelt are evaluated in a dynamic
stochastic general equilibrium model with nominal frictions. (JEL D84, E52,
E62, N12, N42)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=13&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1476</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20051309_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Language, Meaning, and Games: A Model of Communication, Coordination, and Evolution</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stefano</gnm><snm>Demichelis</snm><aff>U Pavia</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jorgen W.</gnm><snm>Weibull</snm><aff>Stockholm School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1292</ppf>
<ppl>1311</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Language is a powerful coordination device. We generalize the cheap-talk
approach to pre-play communication by way of introducing a meaning correspondence
between messages and actions, and by postulating two axioms
met by natural languages. Players have a lexicographic preference, second to
material payoffs, against deviating from the meaning correspondence. Under
two-sided communication in generic and symmetric nxn-coordination games,
a Nash equilibrium component in such a lexicographic communication game is
evolutionarily stable if and only if it results in the unique Pareto efficient outcome
of the underlying game. We extend the analysis to one-sided communication
in arbitrary finite two-player games. (JEL C72, C73, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=5&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1292</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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Brain as a Hierarchical Organization</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Isabelle</gnm><snm>Brocas</snm><aff>U Southern CA, Los Angeles</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Juan D.</gnm><snm>Carrillo</snm><aff>U Southern CA, Los Angeles</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1312</ppf>
<ppl>46</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Based on recent neuroscience evidence, we model the brain as a dual-system
organization subject to three conflicts: asymmetric information, temporal horizon,
and incentive salience. Under the first and second conflicts, we show that
the uninformed system imposes a positive link between consumption and labor
at every period. Furthermore, decreasing impatience endogenously emerges
as a consequence of these two conflicts. Under the first and third conflicts, it
becomes optimal to set a consumption cap. Finally, we discuss the behavioral
implications of these rules for choice bracketing and expense tracking, and for
consumption over the life cycle. (JEL D11, D74, D82, D87, D91)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=6&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1312</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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>How Strong Are Weak Patents?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Joseph</gnm><snm>Farrell</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Carl</gnm><snm>Shapiro</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1347</ppf>
<ppl>69</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study the welfare economics of probabilistic patents that are licensed without
a full determination of validity. We examine the social value of instead
determining patent validity before licensing to downstream technology users, in
terms of deadweight loss (ex post) and innovation incentives (ex ante). We relate
the value of such pre-licensing review to the patent's strength, i.e., the probability
it would hold up in court, and to the per-unit royalty at which it would be
licensed. We then apply these results using a game-theoretic model of licensing
to downstream oligopolists, in which we show that determining patent validity
prior to licensing is socially beneficial. (JEL D82, K11, L24, O34 )</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=7&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1347</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20051051_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Does Innovation Cause Stock Market Runups? Evidence from the Great Crash</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Tom</gnm><snm>Nicholas</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1370</ppf>
<ppl>96</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This article examines the stock market's changing valuation of corporate
patentable assets between 1910 and 1939. It shows that the value of knowledge
capital increased significantly during the 1920s compared to the 1910s
as investors responded to the quality of technological inventions. Innovation
was an important driver of the late 1920s stock market runup, and the Great
Crash did not reflect a significant revaluation of knowledge capital relative
to physical capital. Although substantial quantities of influential patents were
accumulated during the post-crash recovery, high technology firms did not
earn significant excess returns over low technology firms for most of the 1930s.
(JEL G14, N12, N22, O30)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=8&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1370</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20050283_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Behavioral Equilibrium in Economies with Adverse Selection</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ignacio</gnm><snm>Esponda</snm><aff>NYU</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1269</ppf>
<ppl>91</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>I propose a new solution concept—behavioral equilibrium—to study environments
with players who are naive, in the sense that they fail to account for
the informational content of other players' actions. I apply the framework to
certain adverse selection settings and show that, contrary to the existing literature,
the adverse selection problem is exacerbated when naive players fail
to account for selection. More generally, the main distinguishing feature of the
framework is that, in equilibrium, beliefs about both fundamentals and strategies
are jointly restricted. Consequently, whether a behavioral bias may arise
or not is determined endogenously in equilibrium. (JEL C70, D82, D83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=4&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1269</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20070196_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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Competition and Price Variation When Consumers Are Loss Averse</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Heidhues</snm><aff>Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms U Bonn</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Botond</gnm><snm>Koszegi</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1245</ppf>
<ppl>68</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We modify the Salop (1979) model of price competition with differentiated
products by assuming that consumers are loss averse relative to a reference
point given by their recent expectations about the purchase. Consumers' sensitivity
to losses in money increases the price responsiveness of demand—and
hence the intensity of competition—at higher relative to lower market prices,
reducing or eliminating price variation both within and between products.
When firms face common stochastic costs, in any symmetric equilibrium the
markup is strictly decreasing in cost. Even when firms face different cost distributions,
we identify conditions under which a focal-price equilibrium (where
firms always charge the same "focal" price) exists, and conditions under which
any equilibrium is focal. (JEL D11 , D43, D81, L13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=3&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1245</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>98</vol>
<iss>4</iss>
<cd>September 2008</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/issue_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&issue_date=September 2008</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Leverage Cycles and the Anxious Economy</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ana</gnm><snm>Fostel</snm><aff>George Washington U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Geanakoplos</snm><aff>Yale U and Santa Fe Institute</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1211</ppf>
<ppl>44</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We provide a pricing theory for emerging asset classes, like emerging markets,
that are not yet mature enough to be attractive to the general public. We
show how leverage cycles can cause contagion, flight to collateral, and issuance
rationing in a frequently recurring phase we call the anxious economy.
Our model provides an explanation for the volatile access of emerging economies
to international financial markets, and for three stylized facts we identify
in emerging markets and high yield data since the late 1990s. Our analytical
framework is a general equilibrium model with heterogeneous agents, incomplete
markets, and endogenous collateral, plus an extension encompassing
adverse selection. (JEL D53, G12, G14, G15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles/article_detail.php?journal=AER&volume=98&issue=4&article=2&issue_date=September 2008</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.98.4.1211</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/sept08/20060336_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


