voting for Buchanan, when you ment to vote for Gore

Kelly Shue and Erzo Luttmer (both at Harvard) consider the role of "misvoting" in elections. Apparantly, not everyone is capable of going into the voting booth and casting a vote for the candidate they intend to support. The study uses data from the 2003 California recall election, in which there was "quasi-random variation in candidate name placement on ballots." The authors show that "minor candidate's vote shares almost double when their names are adjacent to the names of major candidates."

This is evidence that voters routinely make mistakes when submitting their ballots. What's more, the authors find evidence that these mistakes are larger is precincts with more poorly educated and poor voters. Therefore, "a major candidate that disproportionally attracts voters from such [undereducation or poor] preceincts faces an electoral disadvantage."

The article is forthcoming in the American Economic Journal: Policy. Read the article.

deer hunting regulations and safety externalities

State governments often place limits on the types of game that may be hunted. For example, to limit the averse affects that hunting can have on deer population, hunters may only be allowed to shoot adult male deer. Such regulations can help protect the deer population, and as Michael Conlin (Michigan State), Stacy Dickert-Conlin (Michigan State), and John Pepper (Virginia) show in a recent working paper, they can also impact hunter safety.

Why is this? Because the regulations require the a hunter excercise more caution when pulling the trigger, to make sure that he is about to shoot a buck, rather than a doe. This added caution also makes it less likely that someone mistakes his hunting buddy for a deer.

Read the paper.

money and happiness

It turns out that money can buy happiness, but you get more of a bang for your buck if you spend your money when you're young -- before your health deteriorates and you become less able to enjoy that night on the town or that barefoot cruise through the Caribbean. These are the findings of a new working paper by Amy Finkelstein (MIT), Erzo Luttmer (Harvard) and Matthew Notowidigdo (MIT). Finally, some evidence in favor of spending our money now, rather than investing it until retirement.

Read the article in Slate.

Download the paper.

foster care and adult crime

Joseph Doyle (MIT) studies the impact of foster care on child outcomes -- namely whether they commit crimes as adults. To do so, Doyle first shows that whether a child ends up in foster care often depends on the identity of his or her case worker. Some case workers are more likely than others to place children in foster care. Because case workers are randomly assigned to cases, whether a child ends up in foster care (for marginal cases) is random. This randomness can be used to measure the effects of foster care. Do children assigned to a foster-care prone case worker tend to have different outcomes than children assigned to a case worker that is less likely to place them in foster care?

From the abstract:

Children on the margin of placement are found to be two to three times more likely to enter the criminal justice system as adults if they were placed in foster care. One innovation describes the types of children on the margin of placement, a group that is more likely to include African Americans, girls, and young adolescents.

Read the paper

does movie violence increase violent crime?

In a forthcoming QJE paper, Gordon Dahl (UCSD) and Stefano DellaVigna (Berkeley) test whether violence in the movies influence violence in real life. Using data on cinema releases and attendance, the authors look for correlation between violent-movie attendance and violent crime.

Intuitively, we might imagine that violent movies spur violence. When one leaves the a movie with a lot of fighting, that person might go looking for a fight, right? Surprisingly, the paper finds that violent movie attendance actually causes violent crime to decrease. This may be because those who commit violent crimes like to watch violent movies. When a new movie comes out, they go to the cinema instead of on their "crime spree" (or instead of going to the bar, which otherwise would result in them getting drunk which makes them more likely to commit a violent crime).

They estimate that a violent movie results in 1000 fewer assaults on any given weekend. Admittedly, however, the authors are unable to test for long-run affects of violent movies. Although a violent movie results in less crime in the short run, could increased violence on the big screen result in a more violent society over the course of many years?

Link to the paper on the NBER site
Or, try to download a PDF directly

impact of universal child care

In a recent Journal of Political Economy paper, Michael Baker (Toronto), Jonathan Gruber (MIT), and Kevin Milligan (British Columbia) study the effects of a universal child care program in Quebec. Unsurprisingly, they find that the program significantly increases maternal labor supply--more moms return to work and/or work more after the birth of a child. What's surprising is that the program appears to make children worse off on a variety of dimensions.

...the evidence suggests that children are worse off by measures ranging from aggression to motor and social skills to illness. We also uncover evidence that the new child care program led to more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse parental health, and lower-quality parental relationships.

Why would this be? Does this mean that childcare in general could be causing these affects? Not necessarily. First, they cannot rule out that these negative aspects result from a short-term adjustment process, as families adjust to using childcare. Second, I speculate that universal childcare likely changes the composition of children at daycare centers, which may have similar results as changing the composition of inmates at a juvenile detention center (see the earlier post).

Read the paper

blonde and brunette fundraisers

When someone shows up on our doorstep looking for a charitable donation, does our potential donation depend on how attractive the fundraiser is? Does it depend on their hair color?

In a cute little paper published in Economics Letters, Michael Price shows that donations do depend on these factors. The better looking the fundraiser, the more we are likely to contribute. (That result isn't so surprising, given that a number of other papers have found a correlation between earnings and beauty.) He also shows that blondes bring in more than brunettes--even controlling for one's physical attractiveness. This means that the benefits of being beautiful are more significant for blondes than for brunettes. This blonde advantage is driven entirely from the donations of Caucasian households (non-white households display no blond preference).

Download the paper