Actually, the world’s most effective intervention would probably be plane tickets and visas (Michael Clemens has made a case). But since most OECD governments will not do that, maybe the effective altruists out there should be providing speedboats and life jackets. That is a cynical and over-simplistic thing to say, but utilitarian calculus is utilitarian calculus.
Out of curiosity, what are the safer ways for a non-governmental actor to promote migration?
International trade of ivory was banned in 1989, with global elephant poaching data collected by field researchers since 2003. A one-time legal sale of ivory stocks in 2008 was designed as an experiment, but its global impact has not been evaluated. We find that international announcement of the legal ivory sale corresponds with an abrupt ~66% increase in illegal ivory production across two continents, and a possible ten-fold increase in its trend.
An estimated ~71% increase in ivory smuggling out of Africa corroborates this finding, while corresponding patterns are absent from natural mortality and alternative explanatory variables. These data suggest the widely documented recent increase in elephant poaching likely originated with the legal sale.
More generally, these results suggest that changes to producer costs and/or consumer demand induced by legal sales can have larger effects than displacement of illegal production in some global black markets
Using a sample of all academics that pass through top 50 economics and finance departments between 1996 and 2014, we study whether the granting of tenure leads faculty to pursue riskier ideas. We use the extreme tails of ex-post citations as our measure of risk and find that both the number of publications and the portion that are “home runs” peak at tenure and fall steadily for a decade thereafter. Similar patterns holds for elite (top 10) institutions, for faculty with longer tenure cycles, and for promotion to Full Professorship. We find the opposite pattern among poorly-cited publications: their numbers steadily rise after tenure. The decline in both the quantity and quality of publications points to tenure incentivizing less effort in publishing rather than more risk-taking.
I can see how it’s tempting to move from the fast lane to the middle lane. I can also see how at some point you get sick of the ridiculous acrobatics and endless rounds of revisions in the top journals, and realize the opportunity cost of your time is high.
But I can also see how you diversify your output into other things: editing journals, running departments, mentoring students, policy advice, coordinating large regranting programs or research initiatives, writing more generalist books, and so on. For all these reasons, “home run” publications is not a great metric of risk-taking, let alone productivity.
As it happens, I am still keen to play the journal publications game. I get a perverse pleasure from perfecting an article. And I think home run publications have out-sized impacts. And that’s important. But I can see how that will get old in five or ten more years.
Meanwhile, I’m already making some other bets.
I would like to start spending more time in Latin America, finally get fluent in Spanish, and start to do more research there. I’d like to shake up my thinking.
Actually if I really wanted to shake up my thinking I’d do more work in East Asia. But it’s so distant from what I know, and so distant geographically, that with two small kids I’m not sure I can study anything well. But we will see.
I will continue to just say no. The only reason I still have my sanity and a semblance of a life is because I politely decline most professional invitations that are not academic talks. I see no reason to change that.
I am moving to Chicago partly to avoid getting sucked into a Clinton administration. I love the idea of President Hillary, and the quality and quantity of the development and humanitarian people around her are unmatched in the history of the country. Really. But I am not ready to get off the academic train just yet. Perhaps in a second Clinton term, but right now even that seems soon. Maybe when Chelsea beats Jenna Bush.
I have about three book outlines on my hard drive. All of them are some variation on “what I wish more people understood about development or violence”. I’m not sure I will write any of these books soon, since I’m a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to academic writing—a trait my regular readers will notice I do not carry over to my blogging.
I’d like to write a book of letters. My brother in law, Kent Annan, runs a faith-based NGO in Haiti and writes books on faith and international development. Here is his latest. We have very different reasons for getting into what we do, and we work very differently too. We’ve talked about writing a book about these different philosophies by having a conversation in letters. Maybe we’ll do it online. The problem is I want to teach a class on political philosophy/theory on this first in order to force myself to read all the books about this carefully. See the perfectionist point above.
Most of all, I’d like to read more books and write about them. I think this is the best path not just to learning but to writing my own book. Chasing tenure and toddlers has crowded that out lately. But I need a commitment device. I am thinking about starting a reading group in Chicago. And maybe even committing to writing about each of the books read. Again, we will see.
My baby step forward: I am going to give up social media for a month, and possibly for good.
Sullivan is a man of extremes, and I am not that. I’m not giving up blogging. I will still write. Maybe I will even write more. But I’m going to broadcast only.
This morning I deleted Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit from my phone. My blog posts will still get auto-posted to those feeds, but I’ll never know. I won’t read them or anyone else’s. That also means no retweets or replies or comments will reach me. I plan to keep reading the New York Times and maybe Vox. And I subscribe to a handful of blogs by email. But that will be all. The rest is books and magazines. Most of all, my beloved Kindle is loaded up. Because let’s not talk crazy: I still plan to stare into a glowing screen all the time.
Economist Deirdre McCloskey (formerly Donald), has an essay in the WSJ about transitioning publicly to being a woman at the age of 53, after already being established in her career. The moment when she knew she’d been accepted as a woman by her colleagues:
In early 1996 I was standing around with a half-dozen other economists at tolerant Erasmus University in Holland, talking about economics, as economists tend to do. I was the only woman. I made a point. The men ignored it. Two minutes later, George made the identical point. They all grew excited: “George, that’s a great point! You’ll get it into the American Economic Review! A Nobel can’t be far behind!”
Radiolab has a new podcast about the stories behind important Supreme Court cases, More Perfect, produced by my old colleague Suzie Lechtenberg, a gifted radio producer. The first episode is about the death penalty and tracks down the guy based out of a London driving school upon whom all U.S. executions depended on for a time. (Web, iTunes)
“According to the UN, of the 60 largest troop contributing countries, only 14 have not reported cases of sexual abuse committed by their forces in the past five years.”
Tom Murphy may have summarized the problem best in this headline. But even if officials don’t care about their troops’ actions (which it seems), these reports are a wonderful excuse for recalcitrant local governments to keep the U.N. out.
The GRIM (Granularity-Related Inconsistency of Means) test is an easy way to test if a researcher dropped data from summary statistics without reporting it (or made a mistake). It works for means of Likert scales or any question that requires a whole number response (say, a seven-point scale where the only options are 1,2,3,4,5,6, or 7, no 3.2’s) . If researchers report a sample size of 350, with a mean of 4.7 on a 7 point scale, it just checks if it’s possible to get a mean of 4.7 from 350 whole-number responses. When two researchers looked through 260 psych papers, they found that half contained means that didn’t pass the test, and found mistakes in all of the corresponding the data sets they were able to get. (h/t Stephanie Wykstra)
Here’s a good explanation of what the Venezuelan government did to send their country into a rapid tailspin.
For the last few years I’ve been running a study of industrial jobs, and the long run impacts on worker health and wealth. Starting this fall I’ll be running the four-year endline survey with Simon Franklin and Stefan Dercon. This is a great pre-PhD training experience. We need someone to run the show. Any nationality is welcome, but Ethiopians with relevant experience are especially encouraged to apply.
Short answer: For any given water molecule, the odds are basically negligible. But the odds that you’ve drank at least one water molecule twice are pretty much 100%.
Long answer: Think in terms of the numbers of water molecules on earth. In a cup of water there are about 1024 water molecules (100 g / 18 amu ~ 1024).
The total mass of water on earth is approximately 1024 g of water, which works out to about 1046 water molecules on earth.
So if you pick 1024 molecules out of 1046, put them back into the 1046 and mix them back up, and randomly choose another 1024, what are the odds you’ll pick at least one atom twice? We can approximate it in the same way we do the birthday problem: P = 1-e-n2 /2m where n=1024 and m=1046. Turns out this number is basically equal to 1, so the odds are almost certain that any two glasses of water will have at least one atom in common. This generalizes between every cup of water – in that cup of coffee you’re sipping right now, the odds are good that it has shared atoms with basically every person to ever live.
This question is all over my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Strangely, despite the calculating economists and political scientists that fill my feeds, I have not seen anyone give a rational or political answer.
I see three possibilities that aren’t as cynical or simplistic as “ego”, “he’s a lone wolf” and “because Hillary might go to jail”.
He just spent a year building more political influence (and small donors) than almost any other Democrat in the country. Now he’s going to spend that influence to get policy concessions from Clinton and the party. He will focus on the issues he thinks are in the best interest of the country and his supporters. Negotiations will take at least a few days.
He wants to sit down with his close advisors and friends and think hard about the best way to change the policies he cares most about. A lot of democrats think “fight to the convention and the setting of the party platform” is not the answer. But someone playing the long game might reasonably disagree, and he is taking some time to decide.
He needs time to call all his major supporters and donors and surrogates, and make them feel consulted and mollified before he concedes publicly. This way they come along with him to Clinton’s side.
None of these are mutually exclusive. And all are also consistent with “give the poor guy a night or two to sleep on it”.
I made a rental car reservation in Florida at Christmas and Thanksgiving, to visit family. Hertz gave me a price over $700 for one and $500 for the other. I reserved. But then I entered my reservation details into Autoslash, and it has been automatically emailing me as prices fall, allowing me to re-book, at about $200 in both cases. So savings of $800. The same happened last year with a New York rental (though those miracle prices took many more weeks to appear).
I have no idea how they make money. I suspect they don’t.
In case you are wondering, this is an unsolicited endorsement. I’m just ecstatic that I saved $800 for five minutes of form filling, and figure the frequent travelers that read the blog will be eager to do the same.
In the past decade, nearly 20 studies have found a strong, persistent pattern in surveys and behavioral experiments from over 40 countries: individual exposure to war violence tends to increase social cooperation at the local level, including community participation and prosocial behavior. Thus while war has many negative legacies for individuals and societies, it appears to leave a positive legacy in terms of local cooperation and civic engagement. We discuss, synthesize and reanalyze the emerging body of evidence, and weigh alternative explanations. There is some indication that war violence especially enhances in-group or “parochial” norms and preferences, a finding that, if true, suggests that the rising social cohesion we document need not promote broader peace.
A new NBER paper of mine with Michael Bauer, Julie Chytilová, Edward Miguel, Joseph Henrich, and Tamar Mitts. Coming out this summer in Journal of Economic Perspectives.
…Xi is different from Mao in important ways. He has more accurate information than Mao did, thanks to extensive, organized, and professional systems of intelligence and analysis, and thanks to what he has gathered during his travel at home and abroad. He uses inner-Party star chambers and charges of corruption rather than screaming Red Guards and accusations of revisionism to purge rivals, and the political police rather than a mass movement to repress dissidents. Mao was a thinker and literary stylist; Xi has banal ideas but is more deliberate and consistent in decision-making. His personal habits appear to be orderly, compared to Mao’s chaotic ways of spending time.
Something that makes a place like China or Ethiopia relatively stable is that power is dispersed in a party. In a Uganda or Rwanda or Turkmenistan, or even Russia, power is concentrated in a President, and I fear for stability. The most treacherous step in a dictatorship is managing transitions of power.
Nathan argues that Xi is heading in the less stable direction.
…once Xi acceded to top office he was widely expected to pursue political liberalization and market reform. Instead he has reinstated many of the most dangerous features of Mao’s rule: personal dictatorship, enforced ideological conformity, and arbitrary persecution.
…Xi has made himself in some ways more powerful than Deng or even Mao. Deng had the final word on difficult policy issues, but he strove to avoid involvement in day-to-day policy, and when forced to make big decisions he first sought consensus among a small group of senior leaders. Mao was able to take any decision he wanted regardless of the will of his senior colleagues, but he paid attention to only a few issues at a time. Xi appears to be running the whole span of important policies on a daily basis, without needing to consult senior colleagues or retired elders.
…He may go even further. There are hints that he will seek to break the recently established norm of two five-year terms in office and serve one or even more extra terms. He has had himself designated as the “core” of the leadership, a status that his immediate predecessor, Hu Jintao, did not take for himself. At this point in a leader’s first term we would expect to see one or two younger politicians emerging as potential heirs apparent, to be anointed at next year’s nineteenth Party Congress, but such signs are absent.
That aspiring sitcom about the high-pressure Nigerian immigrant family is impressively close to its kickstarter goal.
MDRC recently released its report (PDF here) on what did and didn’t work in New York City’s randomized controlled trial of conditional cash transfers (early results had been out for a while). The cash seems more effective than the conditions:
It involved 4,800 families with 11,000 children. Surveys at 18 & 42 months after payments began.
Families got on average $8,700 over three years, made in individual payments around meeting benchmarks in childrens’ education, preventative healthcare, and parents’ work & professional training.
It had significant effects on poverty reduction (poverty, hunger, housing).
Effects on education were mixed, accruing mostly to older kids who were more proficient at the start (although young siblings may have benefitted).
Effects on parents’ work were small or for some subgroups, negative.
Families were generally already getting medical checkups (one of the major health benchmarks), there were limited effects on health.
A second trial sought to improve the design, with fewer conditions aimed at a more targeted population, faster payments, and adding case management (coaching) in both New York and Memphis. Results are due out later this year.
The MacArthur Foundation announced a contest for a single $100 Million award for a solution to a “big problem.” Anybody can enter as long as it’s a problem of global social significance and there’s some evidence behind the proposed fix (must register by Sept. 2 on their site).
Leah Bevis looks at the “productivity paradox” in agriculture – why farmers with bigger plots don’t get proportionally larger yields. She and Christopher Barret find in Uganda, that farmer behavior, investing more in the parts around the visible/accessible perimeter seem to explain it (working paper here).
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is announcing new regulations on payday (and other similar short term, high interest) loans, out of fear some borrowers might get in over their heads. Jonathan Morduch thinks it won’t make much difference, Allison Schrager in Quartz thinks removing that emergency borrowing option may hurt the poor.
The CFPB is also looking for input in how to redesign the information student borrowers are given about loan payback options.
The task for the subjects is to alternately press the “a” and “b” buttons on their keyboards as quickly as possible for ten minutes. The 18 treatments attempt to motivate participant effort using i) standard incentives; ii) non-monetary psychological inducements; and iii) behavioural factors such as present-bias, reference dependence, and social preferences. Figure 1 presents, in somewhat shortened format, the phrasing of the 18 treatments and the average effort (number of button presses) per treatment.
For those of you thinking “Wait, weren’t you an Associate Professor already?” or “What are you talking about? Didn’t you graduate ages ago? Shouldn’t you be retiring by now?”: the answer is yes, Yale and Columbia have looooong tenure clocks (I started in 2008) and a peculiar non-tenured Associate stage, and I have been dwelling in that limbo for some time. But no longer.
This is exciting but bittersweet news, because I leave an amazing group of colleagues and students behind at Columbia University. There were many attractions to staying at Columbia, and it was a difficult decision to leave. But what U of C and Harris are building is simply too exciting an opportunity to pass up.
The Institute will also host The Pearson Global Forum, a huge annual global forum devoted to the study and resolution of global conflicts. As Jackson Hole is to macroeconomic policy, the Global Forum aims to be to the policy and academic forum for global security.
If I can continue the sales pitch to prospective students and hires: Harris is also an amazing place to study urban issues (it is home to the famed Crime Lab) and U.S. education, health, and labor markets. It has a incredibly strong group of labor economists and political economy scholars.
If you want to think about where to place the Harris School in the constellation of U.S. policy schools, as far as I can tell (so far) the best description is probably: the hard one. Harris believes in training undergraduates, master’s students, and PhDs in rigorous quantitative social science. I’m kind of amazed by what the students learn and can do. Dean Karlan at Yale (founder of IPA) is a graduate. People like me, Jim, Oeindrila, Ethan, and the exciting new hires to come are going to help push that in an international direction.
When you get $100 million, that also means you make a flashy video. So here is The Pearson Institute:
Happy weekend, if you’re heading out we’ve put together a list of podcasts for your summer travel, including Chris & David McKenzie on Planet Money (along with some pictures from our crew in Burkina Faso whose drive went worse than yours).
Conclusions are only as good as the data behind them. A group of researchers got together to think about how to improve the quality of data collection. One idea was taking advantage of the many studies in progress at any given time to test out multiple ways of measuring something and compare them. Berk’s summary of the meeting, and invitations to researchers from SurveyCTO & IPA.
Academics were in a tizzy over Angelina Jolie being invited to co-teach a course on women and conflict at LSE. Even The Onion got in on it. Some things to remember:
Come work with me on an amazing project in Bogota, where we are working with the police and Mayor’s office to build a platform for studying the impact of policing and city tactics to reduce crime, in real time, through repeated trial-and-error with randomized evaluation.
Here is the job ad, with IPA. (Please apply through IPA and do not email me directly, as I do not handle any of the hiring directly.)
The Research Associate will work on a highly innovative project on crime and violence reduction in Bogotá, Colombia. Principal investigators Chris Blattman, Donald Greene, Daniel Mejía, Daniel Ortega and Santiago Tobon will provide technical guidance. The person will be responsible of coordinating some aspects of the implementation with the Mayor’s Office, managing field operations and processing data.
The position is based in Bogotá and the Research Associate will report directly to the Research Coordinator.
Managing, hiring, and monitoring staff working on the project
Design and testing the surveying instruments
Organizing field logistics
Training, coordinating, and supervising the data collection team
Tracking program status and randomization compliance during roll-out
Checking quality of the data gathered
Managing relationships with the implementing partner and the rest of the research team
Assisting in the finance oversight of the project
Assisting PIs in the analysis of the data
Assisting PIs in the writing of project reports
Other responsibilities, as assigned.
A bachelor’s degree in economics, social sciences, public policy, or related fields is a must, and a Master’s degree is preferred
Candidates with developing country fieldwork experience are especially attractive
Training in development economics and familiarity with impact evaluation techniques
Strong management and organizational skills
Excellent STATA skills. Knowledge of R and GIS is a plus
Excellent verbal and written communication skills in English and Spanish, including ability to effectively communicate with internal and external partners
Proficient use of MS Office – Word and Excel
Must be able to work under pressure and meet deadlines, while maintaining a positive attitude
Ability to work independently and to carry out assignments to completion within parameters of instructions given, prescribed routines, and standard accepted practices
Meanwhile, Der Spiegel uncovered a secret deal led by Germany with other EU states to pay Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted on genocide charges, and other governments, to set up detention camps to keep refugees from reaching Europe. The program would be coordinated by GIZ, the German aid agency. (h/t Lee Crawfurd)
Congratulations to Chris Blattman on being named one of the top 100 bloggers in economics.
Uganda’s cities are growing rapidly, but they don’t have many urban planners to figure out how to lay out the sprawl well. (h/t Laura Seay)
SurveyCTO, the survey software that IPA and J-PAL use heavily, is introducing a free version for small non-profit M&E. (IPA also produced a whole series of case studies, how-to’s, and resources for M&E here)
The Kenneth Arrow award for best health economics paper was awarded to Budish, Roin, & Williams’ AER paper which found that incentives in the research process are costing a lot of lives. Cancer trials favor testing treatments for patients with late stage cancer near the end of their lives, because outcomes (lengthening life) can be measured quickly, compared to early stage cancers. The authors estimate these incentives have led to 890,000 years of life lost just to patients diagnosed in one year. (Austin Frakt summarizes it in the Upshot.)
Nigerians have been dominating Scrabble championships by practicing a contrarian strategy developed by a mathematician. After millions of simulations, he figured out that while most players memorize long dictionary words with lots of letters to rack up points, a defensive strategy using short words with unusual letters like “Yow” would make life very difficult for their opponents.
After several years of testing other people’s statistical code at the QJPS, Nick Eubank blogs:
I myself once firmly believed the fallacy that the key to preventing errors was “to be more careful.” Indeed, I fear this belief may have colored the tone of of my past work on this subject in unproductive ways. Over the last few years, however, my research has brought me into close contact with computer scientists, and I discovered that computer scientists’ mentality about programming is fundamentally different from the mental model I had been carrying around. Computer scientists assume programmers will make mistakes, and instead of chiding people to “just be careful,” they have developed a battery of practices to address the problem. These practices — often referred to as “defensive programming” — are designed to (a) minimize the probability mistakes occur and (b) maximize the probability that mistakes that do occur are caught.
He suggests a number of basic defensive programming skills: (1) building formal tests into the code; (2) never manually transcribe numbers into your article text; (4) improve your style through indenting, commenting and spacing; and (5) never manually duplicating information. This seems helpful, but I’d like to see the more advanced suggestions too.
There was no point 3, which is either subversive or ironic. There are no cures for fallibility in blogging.