More Like this

1. The interesting case of special and extraordinary items: What are they and how do they influence municipal government finances?

   https://doi.org/10.1111/pbaf.12357  

   Ke, Laiyang; Jimenez, Benedict S (June 2024, Public Budgeting & Finance)

   One‐shot revenue shocks influence government budget decisions and service provision. However, how governments respond to transitory income remains a theoretical and empirical puzzle. The permanent income hypothesis posits that governments save windfalls to smooth expenditures, while other models predict spending increases. Empirical findings are inconclusive as the focus has been on revenues that are not truly transitory. The case of special and extraordinary gains allows us to investigate the effects of transitory resources. Taking advantage of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's requirement that governments report such gains in their financial statements, this study examines the effects of gains on expenses for a sample of cities across 10 years. Using a staggered adoption event study design, we find that gains stimulate spending and that the size of gains matters before one observes the stimulatory effects. These results have substantial implications for budgetary transparency and fiscal sustainability in municipal governments. 

   more » « less
2. The long-run impacts of banning affirmative action in US higher education

   https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grae034  

   Antman, Francisca M; Duncan, Brian; Lovenheim, Michael (November 2024, Oxford Review of Economic Policy)

   Abstract This paper estimates the long-run impacts of banning affirmative action on men and women from under-represented minority (URM) racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Using data from the US Census and American Community Survey, we use a difference-in-differences framework to compare the college degree completion, graduate degree completion, earnings, and employment of URM individuals to non-URM individuals before and after affirmative action bans went into effect across several US states. We also employ event study analyses and alternative estimators to confirm the validity of our approach and discuss the generalizability of the findings. Results suggest that banning affirmative action results in a decline in URM women’s college degree completion, earnings, and employment relative to non-Hispanic White women, driven largely by impacts on Hispanic women. Thus, affirmative action bans resulted in an increase in racial/ethnic disparities in both college degree completion and earnings among women. Effects on URM men are more ambiguous and indicate significant heterogeneity across states, with some estimates pointing to a possible positive impact on labour market outcomes of Black men. These results suggest that the relative magnitude of college quality versus mismatch effects vary for URM men and women and highlight the importance of disaggregating results by gender, race, and ethnicity. We conclude by discussing how our results compare with others in the literature and directions for future research. 

   more » « less
3. Inference on Winners

   https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad043  

   Andrews, Isaiah; Kitagawa, Toru; McCloskey, Adam (September 2023, The Quarterly Journal of Economics)

   Abstract Policy makers, firms, and researchers often choose among multiple options based on estimates. Sampling error in the estimates used to guide choice leads to a winner’s curse, since we are more likely to select a given option precisely when we overestimate its effectiveness. This winner’s curse biases our estimates for selected options upward and can invalidate conventional confidence intervals. This article develops estimators and confidence intervals that eliminate this winner’s curse. We illustrate our results by studying selection of job-training programs based on estimated earnings effects and selection of neighborhoods based on estimated economic opportunity. We find that our winner’s curse corrections can make an economically significant difference to conclusions but still allow informative inference. 

   more » « less
4. Some Taxes Are Better Than Others: An Economic Experiment Analyzing Groundwater Management in a Spatially Explicit Aquifer

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026426  

   Duke, Joshua M.; Liu, Zhongyuan; Suter, Jordan F.; Messer, Kent D.; Michael, Holly A. (July 2020, Water Resources Research)

   Abstract This paper develops a coupled hydrologic‐economic model that estimates the effects of six tax institutions that theory predicts will lead to equal amounts of aquifer withdrawal. That said, the distributive effects of the tax institutions are expected to differ because each involves different combinations of tax thresholds and side payments (returned tax revenue). The tax policies can lead to groundwater users being worse off than they would be using an unmanaged aquifer. This study explores whether the distributive impacts of specific policies that have equal marginal incentives lead to differences in the behavior of participants in an experiment involving a common pool groundwater resource. The results reveal that each of the tax policies results in approximately the same reduction in resource use but affects participants' earnings and opinions regarding the policies differently. A tax imposed on groundwater use above a threshold and without a side payment is most effective in increasing the net social benefit associated with using the aquifer; participant earnings under that scheme are almost equal to earnings from an unmanaged aquifer (1.04% less), and overall social efficiency is greater (4.34%). Unfortunately, participants tend to prefer an unmanaged aquifer and tax policies with high side‐payments—treatments that led to lower overall social efficiency. The evidence suggests that aquifer management may require a two‐fold approach: (1) a carefully selected threshold that can make water users financially indifferent between a managed and unmanaged aquifer and (2) education to increase the political acceptability of the managed aquifer policy. 

   more » « less
5. Who Profits from Patents? Rent-Sharing at Innovative Firms*

   https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz011  

   Kline, Patrick; Petkova, Neviana; Williams, Heidi; Zidar, Owen (March 2019, The Quarterly Journal of Economics)

   Abstract This article analyzes how patent-induced shocks to labor productivity propagate into worker compensation using a new linkage of U.S. patent applications to U.S. business and worker tax records. We infer the causal effects of patent allowances by comparing firms whose patent applications were initially allowed to those whose patent applications were initially rejected. To identify patents that are ex ante valuable, we extrapolate the excess stock return estimates of Kogan et al. (2017) to the full set of accepted and rejected patent applications based on predetermined firm and patent application characteristics. An initial allowance of an ex ante valuable patent generates substantial increases in firm productivity and worker compensation. By contrast, initial allowances of lower ex ante value patents yield no detectable effects on firm outcomes. Patent allowances lead firms to increase employment, but entry wages and workforce composition are insensitive to patent decisions. On average, workers capture roughly 30 cents of every dollar of patent-induced surplus in higher earnings. This share is roughly twice as high among workers present since the year of application. These earnings effects are concentrated among men and workers in the top half of the earnings distribution and are paired with corresponding improvements in worker retention among these groups. We interpret these earnings responses as reflecting the capture of economic rents by senior workers, who are most costly for innovative firms to replace. 

   more » « less