<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Governance Institutions and Economic Activity</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Avinash</gnm><snm>Dixit</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>5</ppf>
<ppl>24</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.5</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.5</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Taxing Capital? Not a Bad Idea after All!</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Juan Carlos</gnm><snm>Conesa</snm><aff>U Autonoma de Barcelona</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Sagiri</gnm><snm>Kitao</snm><aff>U Southern CA</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dirk</gnm><snm>Krueger</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>25</ppf>
<ppl>48</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We quantitatively characterize the optimal capital and labor income tax in an
overlapping generations model with idiosyncratic, uninsurable income shocks
and permanent productivity differences of households. The optimal capital
income tax rate is significantly positive at 36 percent. The optimal progressive
labor income tax is, roughly, a flat tax of 23 percent with a deduction of $7,200
(relative to average household income of $42,000). The high optimal capital
income tax is mainly driven by the life-cycle structure of the model, whereas the
optimal progressivity of the labor income tax is attributable to the insurance
and redistribution role of the tax system. (JEL E13, H21, H24, H25)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.25</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.25</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060994_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Liquidity Constraints and Imperfect Information in Subprime Lending</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>William</gnm><snm>Adams</snm><aff>Citigroup Inc, New York</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Liran</gnm><snm>Einav</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jonathan</gnm><snm>Levin</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>49</ppf>
<ppl>84</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We present new evidence on consumer liquidity constraints and the credit market
conditions that might give rise to them. We analyze unique data from a large
auto sales company serving the subprime market. Short-term liquidity appears
to be a key driver of consumer behavior. Demand increases sharply during tax
rebate season and purchases are highly sensitive to down-payment requirements.
Lenders also face substantial informational problems. Default rates rise
significantly with loan size, providing a rationale for loan caps, and higher-risk
borrowers demand larger loans. This adverse selection is mitigated, however,
by risk-based pricing. (JEL D14, D82, D83, G21)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.49</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.49</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070202_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070202_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Estate Taxation, Entrepreneurship, and Wealth</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marco</gnm><snm>Cagetti</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mariacristina</gnm><snm>De Nardi</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>85</ppf>
<ppl>111</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper studies the estate tax in a quantitative framework with business
investment, borrowing constraints, estate transmission, and wealth inequality.
We find that the estate tax has little effect on the saving and investment decisions
of small businesses, but does distort the decisions of larger firms, thereby
reducing aggregate output and savings. Removing such distortions by eliminating
the estate tax does not necessarily imply that everyone would be better
off. If other taxes were raised to reestablish fiscal balance, those at the top of
the wealth distribution would experience a large welfare gain, but most of the
population would lose. (JEL D31, E21, H22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.85</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.85</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20040521_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Peers at Work</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Alexandre</gnm><snm>Mas</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Enrico</gnm><snm>Moretti</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>112</ppf>
<ppl>45</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study peer effects in the workplace. Specifically, we investigate whether,
how, and why the productivity of a worker depends on the productivity of
coworkers in the same team. Using high-frequency data on worker productivity
from a large supermarket chain, we find strong evidence of positive productivity
spillovers from the introduction of highly productive personnel into a shift.
Worker effort is positively related to the productivity of workers who see him,
but not workers who do not see him. Additionally, workers respond more to the
presence of coworkers with whom they frequently interact. We conclude that
social pressure can partially internalize free-riding externalities that are built
into many workplaces. (JEL J24, L81, M54)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.112</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.112</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060878_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Women, Wealth, and Mobility</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Lena</gnm><snm>Edlund</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Wojciech</gnm><snm>Kopczuk</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>146</ppf>
<ppl>78</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Using estate tax returns data, we observe that the share of women among the
very wealthy in the United States peaked in the late 1960s at nearly one-half
and then declined to one-third. We argue that this pattern reflects changes in
the importance of dynastic wealth, with the share of women proxying for inherited
wealth. If so, wealth mobility decreased until the 1970s and rose thereafter.
Such an interpretation is consistent with technological change driving longterm
trends in mobility and inequality, as well as the recent divergence between
top wealth and top income shares documented elsewhere. (JEL D31, J16, J62,
O33)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.146</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.146</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060527_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Class-Size Caps, Sorting, and the Regression-Discontinuity Design</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Miguel</gnm><snm>Urquiola</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Eric</gnm><snm>Verhoogen</snm><aff>Columbia U and BREAD, Duke U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>179</ppf>
<ppl>215</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper examines how schools' choices of class size and households' choices
of schools affect regression-discontinuity-based estimates of the effect of class
size on student outcomes. We build a model in which schools are subject to
a class-size cap and an integer constraint on the number of classrooms, and
higher-income households sort into higher-quality schools. The key prediction,
borne out in data from Chile's liberalized education market, is that schools
at the class-size cap adjust prices (or enrollments) to avoid adding an additional
classroom, which generates discontinuities in the relationship between
enrollment and household characteristics, violating the assumptions underlying
regression-discontinuity research designs. (JEL D12, I21, I28, O15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.179</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.179</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060758_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060758_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Taxes and Employment Subsidies in Optimal Redistribution Programs</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Paul</gnm><snm>Beaudry</snm><aff>U British Columbia</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Charles</gnm><snm>Blackorby</snm><aff>U Warwick and GREQAM</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dezs&ouml;</gnm><snm>Szalay</snm><aff>U Warwick</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>216</ppf>
<ppl>42</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper explores how to optimally set taxes and transfers when taxation
authorities are uninformed about individuals' value of time in both market and
nonmarket activities; and can observe both market-income and time allocated
to market employment. We show that optimal redistribution in this environment
involves a cutoff wage whereby workers above the cutoff are taxed as they
increase their income, while workers earning a wage below the cutoff receive
an income supplement as they increase their income. Finally, we show that the
optimal program transfers zero income to individuals who choose not to work. 1JEL D31, H21, H23, H242</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.216</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.216</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20050003_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Rare Disasters, Asset Prices, and Welfare Costs</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Robert J.</gnm><snm>Barro</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>243</ppf>
<ppl>64</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A representative-consumer model with Epstein-Zin-Weil preferences and i.i.d.
shocks, including rare disasters, accords with observed equity premia and
risk-free rates if the coefficient of relative risk aversion equals 3-4. If the intertemporal
elasticity of substitution exceeds one, an increase in uncertainty lowers
the price-dividend ratio for equity, and a rise in the expected growth rate
raises this ratio. Calibrations indicate that society would willingly reduce GDP
by around 20 percent each year to eliminate rare disasters. The welfare cost
from usual economic fluctuations is much smaller, though still important, corresponding
to lowering GDP by about 1.5 percent each year. (JEL E13, E21,
E22, E32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.243</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.243</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Cognition and Incomplete Contracts</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jean</gnm><snm>Tirole</snm><aff>Toulouse School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>265</ppf>
<ppl>94</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Thinking about contingencies, designing covenants, and seeing through their
implications is costly. Parties to a contract accordingly use heuristics and leave
it incomplete. The paper develops a model of limited cognition and examines its
consequences for contractual design. (JEL D23, D82, D86, L22)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.265</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.265</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Value of Groups</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Shaun P.</gnm><snm>Hargreaves Heap</snm><aff>U East Anglia</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Daniel John</gnm><snm>Zizzo</snm><aff>U East Anglia</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>295</ppf>
<ppl>323</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We present the results of an experiment that attempts to measure the social
value of groups. In the experiment, group membership is induced artificially:
subjects interact with insiders and outsiders in trust games and periodically
enter markets where they can trade group membership. We find that trust falls
with groups because of negative discrimination against outsiders. Against this,
however, there is evidence that group membership provides a psychological
benefit, albeit one that may induce social inertia. Overall, the welfare effects of
groups are at best neutral and could be negative. (JEL: D17, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.295</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.295</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070041_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070041_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The War on Drugs: Methamphetamine, Public Health, and Crime</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Carlos</gnm><snm>Dobkin</snm><aff>U CA, Santa Cruz</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Nancy</gnm><snm>Nicosia</snm><aff>RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>324</ppf>
<ppl>49</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In mid-1995, a government effort to reduce the supply of methamphetamine precursors
successfully disrupted the methamphetamine market and interrupted
a trajectory of increasing usage. The price of methamphetamine tripled and
purity declined from 90 percent to 20 percent. Simultaneously, amphetaminerelated
hospital and treatment admissions dropped 50 percent and 35 percent,
respectively. Methamphetamine use among arrestees declined 55 percent.
Although felony methamphetamine arrests fell 50 percent, there is no evidence
of substantial reductions in property or violent crime. The impact was largely
temporary. The price returned to its original level within four months; purity,
hospital admissions, treatment admissions, and arrests approached preintervention
levels within eighteen months. (JEL I12, K42)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.324</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.324</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20050835_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Sticky Prices and Monetary Policy: Evidence from Disaggregated US Data</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Jean</gnm><snm>Boivin</snm><aff>HEC Montreal and CIRANO</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Marc P.</gnm><snm>Giannoni</snm><aff>Columbia U and CIRANO</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Ilian</gnm><snm>Mihov</snm><aff>INSEAD, Singapore</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>350</ppf>
<ppl>84</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper shows that the recent evidence that disaggregated prices are volatile
does not necessarily challenge the hypothesis of price rigidity used in a large
class of macroeconomic models. We document the effect of macroeconomic
and sectoral disturbances by estimating a factor-augmented vector autoregression
using a large set of macroeconomic indicators and disaggregated prices.
Our main finding is that disaggregated prices appear sticky in response to
macroeconomic and monetary disturbances, but flexible in response to sectorspecific
shocks. The observed flexibility of disaggregated prices reflects the fact
that sector-specific shocks account on average for 85 percent of their monthly
fluctuations. (JEL E13, E31, E32, E52)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.350</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.350</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070033_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070033_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Mark J.</gnm><snm>Machina</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>385</ppf>
<ppl>92</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Choice problems in the spirit of Ellsberg (1961) suggest that rank-dependent
("Choquet expected utility") preferences over subjective gambles might be subject
to the same difficulties that Ellsberg's earlier examples posed for subjective
expected utility. These difficulties stem from event-separability properties that
rank-dependent preferences partially retain from expected utility, and suggest
that nonseparable models of preferences might be better at capturing features
of behavior that lead to these paradoxes. (JEL D81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.385</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.385</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Insurer-Provider Networks in the Medical Care Market</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Katherine</gnm><snm>Ho</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>393</ppf>
<ppl>430</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>I use data on the hospital networks offered by managed care health insurers to
estimate the expected division of profits between insurers and providers. I include
a simple profit-maximization framework and an additional effect: hospitals that
can secure demand without contracting with all insurers (e.g., those most attractive
to consumers and those that are capacity constrained) may demand high
prices that some insurers refuse to pay. Hospital mergers may also affect price
bargaining. I estimate that all three types of hospitals capture higher markups
than other providers. These results provide information on the hospital investment
incentives generated by bargaining. (JEL G22, G34, I11, L25)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.393</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.393</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20051180_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Group Identity and Social Preferences</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Yan</gnm><snm>Chen</snm><aff>U MI</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Sherry Xin</gnm><snm>Li</snm><aff>U TX, Dallas</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>431</ppf>
<ppl>57</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We present a laboratory experiment that measures the effects of induced group
identity on social preferences. We find that when participants are matched with
an ingroup member, they show a 47 percent increase in charity concerns and a
93 percent decrease in envy. Likewise, participants are 19 percent more likely to
reward an ingroup match for good behavior, but 13 percent less likely to punish
an ingroup match for misbehavior. Furthermore, participants are significantly
more likely to choose social-welfare-maximizing actions when matched with an
ingroup member. All results are consistent with the hypothesis that participants
are more altruistic toward an ingroup match. (JEL C91, D03, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.431</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.431</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20061107_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Excise Taxes with Multiproduct Transactions</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stephen F.</gnm><snm>Hamilton</snm><aff>CA Polytechnic State U, San Luis Obispo</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>458</ppf>
<ppl>71</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>I examine excise taxes levied on multiproduct retailers. Excise taxes reduce equilibrium output and decrease equilibrium product variety in the short run, but taxes can raise output per product in the long run and induce entry. Excise taxes are overshifted into prices in a wide range of cases, including under linear and concave demand conditions, and excise taxes shift less than one-for-one into prices only when demand is highly convex. Multiproduct transactions substantively alter the efficiency of ad valorem and specific forms of excise taxes and affect the comparison of relative tax performance over short-run and long-run time horizons. (JEL H25, H32, L11, L13, L81)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.458</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.458</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20071037_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Diversity in the Workplace</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Morgan</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Felix</gnm><snm>V&aacute;rdy</snm><aff>IMF</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>472</ppf>
<ppl>85</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study minority representation in the workplace when employers engage in optimal sequential search and minorities convey noisier signals of ability than mainstream job candidates. The greater signal noise makes it harder for minorities to change employers' prior beliefs. When employers are selective, this leads to minority underrepresentation in the workplace. Diversity improves when the cost of interviewing, the average skill level of candidates, or the opportunity cost of not hiring increases. Reducing the cost of firing also increases minority representation. When employers are sufficiently unselective, the rigidity of employers' beliefs leads to overrepresentation of minorities. (JEL D83, J15, J24, J71, M12, M51)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.472</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.472</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060844_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Indirect Effects of an Aid Program: How Do Cash Transfers Affect Ineligibles' Consumption?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Manuela</gnm><snm>Angelucci</snm><aff>U AZ</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Giacomo</gnm><snm>De Giorgi</snm><aff>Stanford U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>486</ppf>
<ppl>508</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Cash transfers to eligible households indirectly increase the consumption of ineligible households living in the same villages. This effect operates through insurance and credit markets: ineligible households benefit from the transfers by receiving more gifts and loans and by reducing their savings. Thus, the transfers benefit the local economy at large; looking only at the effect on the treated underestimates their impact. One should analyze the effects of this class of programs on the entire local economy, rather than on the treated only, and use a village-level randomization, rather than selecting treatment nd control subjects from the same community. (JEL H23, I38, O12, O15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.486</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.486</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060396_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20060396_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Political Economy at Any Speed: What Determines Traffic Citations?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael D.</gnm><snm>Makowsky</snm><aff>Towson U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Thomas</gnm><snm>Stratmann</snm><aff>George Mason U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>509</ppf>
<ppl>27</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Speeding tickets are determined not only by the speed of the offender, but also by incentives faced by police officers and their vote-maximizing principals. We hypothesize that police officers issue fines more frequently when drivers have a higher opportunity cost of contesting a ticket, and when drivers are not residents of the local municipality. We also predict that local officers are more likely to issue a ticket to out-of-town drivers when fiscal conditions are tight and legal limits prevent increases in property taxes. Using data from traffic stops in Massachusetts, we find support for our hypotheses. (JEL H76, R41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.509</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.509</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070061_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Democracy and Foreign Education</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Antonio</gnm><snm>Spilimbergo</snm><aff>IMF</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>528</ppf>
<ppl>43</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Despite the large amount of private and public resources spent on foreign education, there is no systematic evidence that foreign-educated individuals foster democracy in their home countries. Using a unique panel dataset on foreign students starting in the 1950s, I show that foreign-educated individuals promote democracy in their home country, but only if the foreign education is acquired in democratic countries. The results are robust to several estimation techniques, to different definitions of democracy, and to the inclusion of a variety of control variables, including democracy in trading partners, neighboring countries, level of income, and level and stock of education. (JEL D72, I21, O15, O17, P26)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.528</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.528</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070061_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Dan</gnm><snm>Ariely</snm><aff>Duke U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Anat</gnm><snm>Bracha</snm><aff>Tel Aviv U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stephan</gnm><snm>Meier</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>544</ppf>
<ppl>55</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper experimentally examines image motivation--the desire to be liked and well regarded by others--as a driver in prosocial behavior (doing good), and asks whether extrinsic monetary incentives (doing well) have a detrimental effect on prosocial behavior due to crowding out of image motivation. Using the unique property of image motivation--its dependency on visibility--we show that image is indeed an important part of the motivation to behave prosocially, and that extrinsic incentives crowd out image motivation. Therefore, monetary incentives are more likely to be counterproductive for public prosocial activities than for private ones. (JEL D64, L31, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.544</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.544</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070958_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/mar09/20070958_app.zip</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>0002-8282</issn>
<jrnti>American Economic Review</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>99</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>March 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>vi</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


