<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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>iv</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.i</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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Investment in Schooling and the Marriage Market</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Pierre-Andr&eacute;</gnm><snm>Chiappori</snm><aff>Columbia U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Murat</gnm><snm>Iyigun</snm><aff>U CO and Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Yoram</gnm><snm>Weiss</snm><aff>Tel Aviv U and IZA, Bonn</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1689</ppf>
<ppl>1713</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We present a model in which investment in schooling generates two kinds of
returns: the labor-market return, resulting from higher wages, and a marriage-market
return, defined as the impact of schooling on the marital surplus share
one can extract. Men and women may have different incentives to invest in
schooling because of different market wages or household roles. This asymmetry
can yield a mixed equilibrium with some educated individuals marrying
uneducated spouses. When the labor-market return to schooling rises, home
production demands less time, and the traditional spousal labor division norms
weaken, more women may invest in schooling than men. (JEL I21, J12, J24, J31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1689</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1689</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20061151_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20061151_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Efficient Pollution Regulation: Getting the Prices Right</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Nicholas Z.</gnm><snm>Muller</snm><aff>Middlebury College</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Robert</gnm><snm>Mendelsohn</snm><aff>Yale U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1714</ppf>
<ppl>39</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper argues for efficient environmental regulations that equate the marginal
damage of pollution to marginal abatement costs across space. The paper
estimates the source-specific marginal damages of air pollution and calculates
the welfare gain from making the current sulfur dioxide allowance trading program
for power plants more efficient. The savings from using trading ratios
based on marginal damages are between $310 and $940 million per year. The
potential savings from setting aggregate emissions efficiently and from including
more sources of air pollution are many times higher. (JEL H23, Q53, Q58)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1714</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1714</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071380_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071380_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Has Moral Hazard Become a More Important Factor in Managerial Compensation?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>George-Levi</gnm><snm>Gayle</snm><aff>Carnegie Mellon U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Robert A.</gnm><snm>Miller</snm><aff>Carnegie Mellon U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1740</ppf>
<ppl>69</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We estimate a principal-agent model of moral hazard with longitudinal data
on firms and managerial compensation over two disjoint periods spanning 60
years to investigate increased value and variability in managerial compensation.
We find exogenous growth in firm size largely explains these secular
trends in compensation. In our framework, exogenous firm size works through
two channels. First, conflicts of interest between shareholders and managers
are magnified in large firms, so optimal compensation plans are now more
closely linked to insider wealth. Second, the market for managers has become
more differentiated, increasing the premium paid to managers of large versus
small firms. (JEL D82, L25, M12, M52)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1740</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1740</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20070864_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20070864_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Selling to Overconfident Consumers</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Michael D.</gnm><snm>Grubb</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1770</ppf>
<ppl>1807</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Consumers may overestimate the precision of their demand forecasts. This
overconfidence creates an incentive for both monopolists and competitive firms
to offer tariffs with included quantities at zero marginal cost, followed by steep
marginal charges. This matches observed cellular phone service pricing plans
in the United States and elsewhere. An alternative explanation with common
priors can be ruled out in favor of overconfidence based on observed customer
usage patterns for a major US cellular phone service provider. The model can
be reinterpreted to explain the use of flat rates and late fees in rental markets,
and teaser rates on loans. Nevertheless, firms may benefit from consumers losing
their overconfidence. (JEL D12, L11, L96)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1770</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1770</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20051306_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20051306_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Risk Taking by Entrepreneurs</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Galina</gnm><snm>Vereshchagina</snm><aff>AZ State U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Hugo A.</gnm><snm>Hopenhayn</snm><aff>UCLA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1808</ppf>
<ppl>30</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Entrepreneurs bear substantial risk, but empirical evidence shows no sign of a
positive premium. This paper develops a theory of endogenous entrepreneurial
risk taking that explains why self-financed entrepreneurs may find it optimal
to invest in risky projects offering no risk premium. Consistently with empirical
evidence, the model predicts that poorer entrepreneurs are more likely to
undertake risky projects. It also finds that incentives for risk taking are stronger
when agents are impatient. (JEL G31, G32, L25, L26)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1808</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1808</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20050582_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20050582_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Adaptation and Vertical Integration in the Airline Industry</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Silke</gnm><snm>Januszewski Forbes</snm><aff>U CA, San Diego</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mara</gnm><snm>Lederman</snm><aff>U Toronto</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1831</ppf>
<ppl>49</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We explore patterns of vertical integration in the US airline industry. Major airlines
subcontract portions of their network to regional partners, which may or
may not be owned. We investigate if ownership economizes on ex post renegotiation
costs. We estimate whether airlines are more likely to use owned regionals
on city pairs with adverse weather (which makes adaptation decisions more
frequent) and on city pairs that are more integrated into the major's network
(which raises the costs of having adaptation decisions resolved suboptimally).
Our results suggest a robust empirical relationship between adaptation and
vertical integration in this setting. (JEL L14, L22, L24, L93)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1831</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1831</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20051176_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Naked Exclusion: An Experimental Study of Contracts with Externalities</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Claudia M.</gnm><snm>Landeo</snm><aff>U Alberta and Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Kathryn E.</gnm><snm>Spier</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1850</ppf>
<ppl>77</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper reports the results of an experiment on exclusive contracts. We replicate
the strategic environment described by Rasmusen, Ramseyer, and Wiley
(1991) and Segal and Whinston (2000). Our findings are as follows. First, when
the buyers can communicate, discrimination raises the likelihood of exclusion.
Second, when the incumbent seller is unable to discriminate and must make
the same offers to the buyers, communication reduces the likelihood of exclusion.
Communication also induces more generous offers when the seller cannot
discriminate, and divide-and-conquer offers when the seller can discriminate.
Third, when communication is allowed, payoff endogeneity increases the likelihood
of exclusion. (JEL C72, C91, D62, D86, K12, K21, L12, L42)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1850</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1850</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20080086_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20080086_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Relative Performance of Real Estate Marketing Platforms: MLS versus FSBOMadison.com</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Igal</gnm><snm>Hendel</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Aviv</gnm><snm>Nevo</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Fran&ccedil;ois</gnm><snm>Ortalo-Magn&eacute;</snm><aff>U WI and Toulouse School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1878</ppf>
<ppl>98</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We compare house sales on a For-Sale-By-Owner (FSBO) platform to Multiple
Listing Service (MLS) sales and find that FSBO precommission prices are no
lower, but that FSBO is less effective in terms of time to sell and probability of
a sale. We do not find direct evidence of the importance of network size as a
reason for the lower effectiveness of FSBO. We do find evidence of endogenous
platform differentiation: patient sellers use FSBO while patient buyers transact
more often on the MLS (where they avoid patient sellers). We discuss the
implications for platform competition, two-sided markets, and welfare. (JEL
L85, M31, R31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1878</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1878</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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, Social Influence, and Social Learning</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>H. Peyton</gnm><snm>Young</snm><aff>U Oxford</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1899</ppf>
<ppl>1924</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>New ideas, products, and practices take time to diffuse, a fact that is often
attributed to some form of heterogeneity among potential adopters. This paper
examines three broad classes of diffusion models -- contagion, social influence,
and social learning -- and shows how to incorporate heterogeneity into
each at a high level of generality without losing analytical tractability. Each
type of model leaves a characteristic "footprint" on the shape of the adoption
curve which provides a basis for discriminating empirically between them. The
approach is illustrated using the classic study of Ryan and Gross (1943) on the
diffusion of hybrid corn. (JEL D83, O33, Q16, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1899</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1899</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071161_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Evolution of Time Preference with Aggregate Uncertainty</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Arthur J.</gnm><snm>Robson</snm><aff>Simon Fraser U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Larry</gnm><snm>Samuelson</snm><aff>Yale U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1925</ppf>
<ppl>53</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We examine the evolutionary foundations of intertemporal preferences. When
all the risk affecting survival and reproduction is idiosyncratic, evolution selects
for agents who maximize the discounted sum of expected utility, discounting at
the sum of the population growth rate and the mortality rate. Aggregate uncertainty
concerning survival rates leads to discount rates that exceed the sum of
population growth rate and death rate, and can push agents away from exponential
discounting. (JEL D11, D81, D91)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1925</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1925</doi>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20080116_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Atila</gnm><snm>Abdulkadiro&#287;lu</snm><aff>Duke U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Parag A.</gnm><snm>Pathak</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Alvin E.</gnm><snm>Roth</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1954</ppf>
<ppl>78</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The design of the New York City (NYC) high school match involved trade-offs
among efficiency, stability, and strategy-proofness that raise new theoretical
questions. We analyze a model with indifferences -- ties -- in school preferences.
Simulations with field data and the theory favor breaking indifferences
the same way at every school -- single tiebreaking -- in a student-proposing
deferred acceptance mechanism. Any inefficiency associated with a realized
tiebreaking cannot be removed without harming student incentives. Finally,
we empirically document the extent of potential efficiency loss associated with
strategy-proofness and stability, and direct attention to some open questions.
(JEL C78, D82, I21)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1954</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1954</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20061275_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20061275_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Performance Pay and Teachers' Effort, Productivity, and Grading Ethics</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Victor</gnm><snm>Lavy</snm><aff>Hebrew U Jerusalem and Royal Holloway, U London</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1979</ppf>
<ppl>2011</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper presents evidence about the effect of individual monetary incentives
on English and math teachers in Israel. Teachers were rewarded with cash
bonuses for improving their students' performance in high-school matriculation
exams. The main identification strategy is based on measurement error
in the assignment to treatment variable that produced a randomized treatment
sample. The incentives led to significant improvements in test taking rates, conditional
pass rates, and mean test scores. Improvements were mediated through
changes in teaching methods, enhanced after-school teaching, and increased
responsiveness to students' needs. No evidence was found of manipulation of
test scores by teachers. (JEL I21, J31, J45)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.1979</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.1979</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20060532_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20060532_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>On the Possibility of Credit Rationing in the Stiglitz-Weiss Model</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Lutz G.</gnm><snm>Arnold</snm><aff>U Regensburg</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John G.</gnm><snm>Riley</snm><aff>UCLA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2012</ppf>
<ppl>21</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Contrary to what is usually assumed, the expected revenue for lenders as a
function of the loan rate cannot be globally hump-shaped in the Stiglitz-Weiss
(1981) adverse selection model with a continuum of types. This has important
implications. First, if there is credit rationing, there must be at least two equilibrium
loan rates. Second, while at the low rate loans are rationed, all those
applicants willing to pay the high rate are then served. Numerical analysis
shows that unless the joint distribution of risk class and output is rather special,
the two loan rate outcome with rationing is unlikely. (JEL D82, G21)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2012</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2012</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20040970_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20040970_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Peer-Induced Fairness in Games</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Teck-Hua</gnm><snm>Ho</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Xuanming</gnm><snm>Su</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2022</ppf>
<ppl>49</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>People exhibit peer-induced fairness concerns when they look to their peers as
a reference to evaluate their endowments. We analyze two independent ultimatum
games played sequentially by a leader and two followers. With peer-induced
fairness, the second follower is averse to receiving less than the first
follower. Using laboratory experimental data, we estimate that peer-induced
fairness between followers is two times stronger than distributional fairness
between leader and follower. Allowing for heterogeneity, we find that 50 percent
of subjects are fairness-minded. We discuss how peer-induced fairness
might limit price discrimination, account for low variability in CEO compensation,
and explain pattern bargaining. (JEL C72, D63 )</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2022</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2022</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20080107_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Theory of Demand Shocks</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Guido</gnm><snm>Lorenzoni</snm><aff>MIT</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2050</ppf>
<ppl>84</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper presents a model of business cycles driven by shocks to consumer
expectations regarding aggregate productivity. Agents are hit by heterogeneous
productivity shocks, they observe their own productivity and a noisy public
signal regarding aggregate productivity. The public signal gives rise to "noise
shocks," which have the features of aggregate demand shocks: they increase
output, employment, and inflation in the short run and have no effects in the
long run. Numerical examples suggest that the model can generate sizable
amounts of noise-driven volatility. (JEL D83, D84, E21, E23, E32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2050</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2050</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20061137_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20061137_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Mental Accounting in Portfolio Choice: Evidence from a Flypaper Effect</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>James J.</gnm><snm>Choi</snm><aff>Yale U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>David</gnm><snm>Laibson</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Brigitte C.</gnm><snm>Madrian</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2085</ppf>
<ppl>95</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Consistent with mental accounting, we document that investors sometimes choose the asset allocation for one account without considering the asset allocation of their other accounts. The setting is a firm that changed its 401(k) matching rules. Initially, 401(k) enrollees chose the allocation of their own contributions, but the firm chose the match allocation. These enrollees ignored the match allocation when choosing their own-contribution allocation. In the second regime, enrollees selected both accounts' allocations, leading them to integrate the two. Own-contribution allocations before the rule change equal the combined own- and match-contribution allocations afterward, whereas combined allocations differ sharply across regimes. (JEL G11, J32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2085</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2085</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071395_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071395_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Intra-industry Foreign Direct Investment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Laura</gnm><snm>Alfaro</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Andrew</gnm><snm>Charlton</snm><aff>Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2096</ppf>
<ppl>2119</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We use a new firm-level dataset that establishes the location, ownership, and activity of 650,000 multinational subsidiaries. Using a combination of four-digit-level information and input-output tables, we find the share of vertical FDI (subsidiaries that provide inputs to their parent firms) to be larger than commonly thought, even within developed countries. Most subsidiaries are not readily explained by the comparative advantage considerations whereby multinationals locate activities abroad to take advantage of factor cost differences. Instead, multinationals tend to own the stages of production proximate to their final production, giving rise to a class of high-skill, intra-industry vertical FDI. (JEL G11, J32)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2096</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2096</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071128_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071128_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Media Markets and Localism: Does Local News en Espanol Boost Hispanic Voter Turnout?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Felix</gnm><snm>Oberholzer-Gee</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Joel</gnm><snm>Waldfogel</snm><aff>U PA</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2120</ppf>
<ppl>28</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In the past decade Americans have increasingly turned their attention to nonlocal information sources, raising concerns about disengagement from local communities. Regulation sometimes seeks to curtail the integration of media markets through the promotion of "localism." This paper examines the role of local media. We make use of the rapid growth of Hispanic communities in the United States to test whether the presence of local television news affects local civic behavior. We find that Hispanic voter turnout increased by 5 to 10 percentage points, relative to non-Hispanic turnout, in markets where Spanish-language local television news became available. (JEL D72, J15, L82)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2120</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2120</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20060614_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Surprised by the Parimutuel Odds?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Marco</gnm><snm>Ottaviani</snm><aff>Northwestern U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Peter Norman</gnm><snm>S&oslash;rensen</snm><aff>U Copenhagen</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2129</ppf>
<ppl>34</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Empirical analyses of parimutuel betting markets have documented that market probabilities of favorites (longshots) tend to underestimate (overestimate) the corresponding empirical probabilities. We argue that this favorite-longshot bias is consistent with bettors taking simultaneous positions on the basis of private information about the likelihood of different outcomes. The ex post realization of a high market probability indicates favorable information about the occurrence of an outcome -- and the opposite is true for longshots. This explanation for the bias relies on the bettors' inability to incorporate the surprise revealed by the final odds. (JEL D81, D82, L83)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2129</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2129</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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Debt Maturity and the International Financial Architecture</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Olivier</gnm><snm>Jeanne</snm><aff>Johns Hopkins U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2135</ppf>
<ppl>48</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper presents a theory of the maturity of international sovereign debt, and derives its implications for the reform of the international financial architecture. The analysis is based on a model in which the need to roll over external debt disciplines the policies of debtor countries, but makes them vulnerable to unwarranted debt crises due to bad shocks. The paper presents a welfare analysis of several measures that have been discussed in recent debates, such as international lending-in-last-resort or the establishment of a mechanism for suspending payments on the external debt of crisis countries. (JEL F34, O19)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2135</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2135</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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Departure Times in Y-Shaped Traffic Networks with Multiple Bottlenecks</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Terry E.</gnm><snm>Daniel</snm><aff>U Alberta</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Eyran J.</gnm><snm>Gisches</snm><aff>U AZ</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Amnon</gnm><snm>Rapoport</snm><aff>U AZ</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2149</ppf>
<ppl>76</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We study the departure time decisions of commuters traversing a traffic network with the goal of arriving at a common destination at a specified time. There are costs associated with arriving either too early or too late, and with delays experienced at bottlenecks. Our main hypothesis, based on the Nash equilibrium distribution of departure times, implies that, for certain parameter values, expanding the capacity of an upstream bottleneck can increase the total travel costs in the network. We report the results of a large-group laboratory experiment, which are strongly supportive of this counterintuitive hypothesis, and we discuss the implications. (JEL D85, R41)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2149</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2149</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20070506_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20070506_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Arik</gnm><snm>Levinson</snm><aff>Georgetown U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2177</ppf>
<ppl>92</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Pollution emitted by US manufacturers declined markedly over the past several decades, even as real manufacturing output increased. I first show that most of the decline in US manufacturing pollution has resulted from changing production processes ("technology"), rather than changes in the mix of goods produced. I then show that increased net imports of polluting goods ("international trade") accounts for only a small portion of the
pollution reductions from the changing mix of goods. Together, these two findings demonstrate that shifting polluting industries overseas explains only a minor part -- less than 10 percent -- of the cleanup of US manufacturing. (JEL F18, L23, L60, O30, Q52, Q53)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2177</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2177</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071363_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Endogenous Verifiability and Relational Contracting</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ola</gnm><snm>Kval&oslash;y</snm><aff>U Stavanger</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Trond E.</gnm><snm>Olsen</snm><aff>Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2193</ppf>
<ppl>2208</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Principal-agent models usually invoke the strong assumption that the parties know for sure ex ante whether a variable is verifiable or not. This paper assumes that only the probability of verification is known, and that this probability is endogenously determined. We analyze a principal-agent relationship where the verifiability of the agent's output is determined by the principal's investment in drafting an explicit contract. The model is well suited for analyzing the relationship between explicit contracting, legal courts, trust, and relational contracting. In particular, we show how trust -- established through repeated interaction -- and legal courts may induce contractual incompleteness. (JEL D82, D86)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2193</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2193</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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Retirement Consumption Puzzle: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Approach</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Erich</gnm><snm>Battistin</snm><aff>U Padova and IRVAPP</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Agar</gnm><snm>Brugiavini</snm><aff>U Venice "Ca'Foscari"</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Enrico</gnm><snm>Rettore</snm><aff>U Padova and IRVAPP</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Guglielmo</gnm><snm>Weber</snm><aff>U Padova and IFS</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2209</ppf>
<ppl>26</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We investigate the size of the consumption drop at retirement in Italy by exploiting pension eligibility information to correct for endogenous retirement. We take a regression discontinuity approach and assume that spending would be smooth around pension eligibility if individuals did not retire. We estimate a 9.8 percent drop associated to retirement. This fall is not driven by liquidity problems for the less well off and can be accounted for by drops in work-related expenses. Retirement also induces a significant drop in the number of grown children living with their parents and this explains most of the retirement consumption drop. (JEL D91, E21, J26, J31)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2209</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2209</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071180_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20071180_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Direct Democracy and Public Employees</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>John G.</gnm><snm>Matsusaka</snm><aff>U Southern CA, Los Angeles</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2227</ppf>
<ppl>46</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In the public sector, employment may be inefficiently high because of patronage, and wages may be inefficiently high because of public employee interest groups. This paper explores whether the initiative process, a direct democracy institution of growing importance, ameliorates these political economy problems. In a sample of 650+ cities, I find that when public employees cannot bargain collectively and patronage could be a problem, initiatives appear to cut employment but not wages. When public employees bargain collectively, driving up wages, the initiative appears to cut wages but not
employment. The employment-cutting result is robust; the wage-cutting result survives some but not all robustness tests. (JEL D72, J31, J45, J52)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2227</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2227</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20070509_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Individual Behavior and Group Membership: Comment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Matthias</gnm><snm>Sutter</snm><aff>U Innsbruck and U Gothenburg</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2247</ppf>
<ppl>57</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>Charness et al. (2007b) have shown that group membership has a strong effect on individual decisions in strategic games when group membership is salient through payoff commonality. In this comment, I show that their findings also apply to nonstrategic decisions, even when no outgroup exists, and I relate the effects of group membership on individual decisions to joint decision making in teams. I find in an investment experiment that individual decisions with salient group membership are largely the same as team decisions. This finding bridges the literature on team decision making and on group membership effects. (JEL D71, D82, Z13)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2247</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2247</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20080341_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20080341_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Comment on the Economics of Labor Adjustment: Mind the Gap: Evidence from a Monte Carlo Experiment</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Christian</gnm><snm>Bayer</snm><aff>IGIER, U Commerciale L Bocconi</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2258</ppf>
<ppl>66</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This comment addresses a point raised in Russell Cooper and Jonathan Willis (2003, 2004), which discusses whether the "gap approach" is appropriate to describe the adjustment of production factors. They show that this approach to labor adjustment as applied in Ricardo J. Caballero, Eduardo Engel, and John C. Haltiwanger (1997) and Caballero and Engel (1993) can falsely generate evidence in favor of nonconvex adjustment costs, even if costs are quadratic. Simulating a dynamic model of firm-level employment decisions with quadratic adjustment costs and estimating a gap model from the simulated data, they identify two factors producing this spurious evidence: approximating dynamic adjustment targets by static ones, and estimating the static targets themselves. This comment reassesses whether the first factor indeed leads to spurious evidence in favor of fixed adjustment costs. We show that the numerical approximation of the productivity process is pivotal for Cooper and Willis's finding. With more precise approximations of the productivity process, it becomes rare to falsely reject the quadratic adjustment cost model due to the approximation of dynamic targets by static ones. (JEL E24, J3)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2258</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2258</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20060065_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>A Comment on the Economics of Labor Adjustment: Mind the Gap: Evidence from a Monte Carlo Experiment: Reply</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Russell</gnm><snm>Cooper</snm><aff>U TX and European U Institute</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jonathan L.</gnm><snm>Willis</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2267</ppf>
<ppl>76</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This note responds to Christian Bayer (2009). Cooper and Willis (2004), hereafter CW, find the aggregate nonlinearities reported in Ricardo Caballero and Eduardo Engel (1993) and Caballero, Engel, and John Haltiwanger (1997) reflect mismeasurement of the
employment gap, not nonlinearities in plant-level adjustment. Bayer concludes the CW result is not robust to alternative aggregate shock processes. We concur, but argue that the nonlinearity created by mismeasurement does not disappear. Instead, it is directly related to the level of the aggregate shock. The CW findings are robust for the natural case of unobserved gaps. (JEL E24, J23)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2267</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2267</doi>
<dataset>http://www.e-aer.org/data/dec09/20090079_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>5</iss>
<cd>December 2009</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=99&issue=5</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Shorter Papers</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Corrigendum: 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>J&ouml;rgen W.</gnm><snm>Weibull</snm><aff>Stockholm School of Economics</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>2277</ppf>
<ppl>2277</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5.2277</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/aer.99.5.2277</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


