Recent Publications
Teacher Quality Policy When Supply Matters
Rothstein, Jesse. American Economic Review 105(1), January 2015. p.p. 100-130.
2015-01-01Do E-Verify Mandates Improve Labor Market Outcomes of Low-Skilled Native and Legal Immigrant Workers
Bohn, Sarah; Lofstrom, Magnus and Steven Raphael (2015) “Do E-Verify Mandates Improve Labor Market Outcomes of Low-Skilled Native and Legal Immigrant Workers?" Southern Economic Journal, 81(4): 960-979.
2015-01-01Public Sector Unions and the Costs of Government
Anzia, Sarah F., and Terry M. Moe. 2015. "Public Sector Unions and the Costs of Government." Journal of Politics 77 (1): 114-127.
2015-01-01Public sector unions are major interest groups in American politics, but they are rarely studied. New research would not only shed much-needed light on how these unions shape government and politics, but also broaden the way scholars think about interest groups generally: by highlighting interests that arise inside governments, drawing attention to long-ignored types of policies and decision arenas, and underlining the importance of groups in subnational politics. Here we explore the effects of public sector unions on the costs of government. We present two separate studies, using different datasets from different historical periods, and we examine several outcomes: salaries, health benefits, and employment. We find that unions and collective bargaining increase the costs of government, and that the effects are substantively significant. We view this analysis as an opening wedge that we hope will encourage a more extensive line of new research—and new thinking about American interest groups.
Suspect Race: Causes and Consequences of Racial Profiling
Glaser, J. (2014). Suspect Race: Causes and Consequences of Racial Profiling. New York: Oxford University Press.
2014-12-05Race Bias and Public Policy
Glaser, J., Spencer, K.B., & Charbonneau, A. (2014). Racial bias and public policy. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 88-94.
2014-10-01Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Comparative Discrete Choice Analysis
Makoto Tanaka, Takanori Ida, Kayo Murakami, and Lee Friedman, "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Comparative Discrete Choice Analysis between the U.S. and Japan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 70, 2014, pp. 194-209.
2014-09-30This paper conducts a comparative discrete choice analysis to estimate consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) on the basis of the same stated preference survey carried out in the US and Japan in 2012. We also carry out a comparative analysis across four US states. We find that on average US consumers are more sensitive to fuel cost reductions and alternative fuel station availability than are Japanese consumers. With regard to the comparative analysis across the four US states, consumers’ WTP for a fuel cost reduction in California is considerably greater than in the other three states. We use the estimates obtained in the discrete choice analysis to examine the EV/PHEV market shares under several scenarios. In a base case scenario with relatively realistic attribute levels, conventional gasoline vehicles still dominate both in the US and Japan. However, in an innovation scenario with a significant purchase price reduction, we observe a high penetration of alternative fuel vehicles both in the US and Japan. We illustrate the potential use of a discrete choice analysis for forward-looking policy analysis, with the future opportunity to compare its predictions against actual revealed choices. In this case, increased purchase price subsidies are likely to have a significant impact on the market shares of alternative fuel vehicles.
A Revolution in Poverty Policy: The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Well-Being of American Families
Pathways Magazine, Stanford Universty, Summer 2014.
2014-08-01Reconciling climate-conflict meta-analyses: reply to Buhaug et al.
Burke, M., S.M. Hsiang, E. Miguel, Climatic Change (2014)
2014-07-17A comment by Buhaug et al. attributes disagreement between our recent analyses and their review articles to biased decisions in our meta-analysis and a difference of opinion regarding statistical approaches. The claim is false. Buhaug et al.’s alteration of our metaanalysis misrepresents findings in the literature, makes statistical errors, misclassifies multiple studies, makes coding errors, and suppresses the display of results that are consistent with our original analysis. We correct these mistakes and obtain findings in line with our original results, even when we use the study selection criteria proposed by Buhaug et al. We conclude that there is no evidence in the data supporting the claims raised in Buhaug et al.