Annual Review of Economics - Volume 6, 2014

This article aims to provide an introduction to empirical revealed preference (RP) and an overview of the current state of the field. We hope to give a sense of how RP methods work and the types of questions they can address and to assess the strengths and drawbacks of the approach. After briefly recapping the basics of RP theory, we review and critically assess the literature in two main areas representing the principal fields in which recent research has made significant advances: broadening the scope of RP methods and dealing with empirical issues related to bringing RP to the data. We conclude with a discussion of some future directions.

New research on the quality of care in public and private primary care facilities has significantly enriched our understanding of how health care is delivered in low- and middle-income countries. First, this article summarizes recent advances in the measurement of quality, distinguishing between measurements of provider knowledge and provider effort. Second, it looks at the determinants of practice quality variation in low-income settings, highlighting the limited role of structural constraints such as infrastructure, the supply of materials including drugs, and provider training—the mainstay of much of global health policy today. In contrast, practice quality variation is clearly linked to provider effort, an aspect of provider behavior that can be altered through a variety of means. Third, it provides a broad economic framework to interpret the findings. We look for evidence of specific market failures in the provision of primary care and emphasize that the key difficulty is (and always was) the transaction-specific nature of medical advice. Providers can do too much or too little (or both), and the extent of either depends on the specific patient and the specific disease. We document specific ways in which it is difficult for both consumers and governments to monitor every transaction to detect potentially errant behavior.

The endowment effect is among the best known findings in behavioral economics and has been used as evidence for theories of reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion. However, a recent literature has questioned the robustness of the effect in the laboratory, as well as its relevance in the field. In this review, we provide a summary of the evidence and describe recent theoretical developments that can potentially reconcile the different findings, with a focus on expectation-based reference points. We also survey recent work from psychology that provides either alternatives to or refinements of the usual loss-aversion explanation. We argue that loss aversion is still the leading paradigm for understanding the endowment effect, but given the rich psychology behind the effect, a version of the theory that encompasses multiple reference points may be required.

Standard models of fiscal federalism suggest many benefits of decentralization in developing economies, and there has been a recent push toward decentralization around the world. However, developing countries presently still have less decentralization, particularly on the revenue side, than both developed countries today and the United States and Europe historically. We consider how the trade-offs associated with fiscal federalism apply in developing countries and discuss reasons for their relatively low levels of decentralization. We also consider additional features relevant to federalism in developing economies, such as the prevalence of nongovernmental organizations and the role of social incentives in policy design.

US labor markets have experienced rising inequality over the past 30 years—as evidenced by an increased gap in wages earned by high-skill workers (e.g., college graduates) and low-skill workers (e.g., high school graduates). Empirical evidence documenting this evolution of inequality comes from studies that assess wage-education gradients at the national level. But of course people work in local labor markets that differ in important ways. We provide a theoretical framework for evaluating inequality changes when individuals work in local labor markets, and we give an empirical reassessment of inequality changes in light of the insights that emerge from our framework.

Most countries exhibit large and persistent geographical differences in wages, income, and unemployment rates. A growing class of place-based policies attempts to address these differences through public investments and subsidies that target disadvantaged neighborhoods, cities, or regions. Place-based policies have the potential to profoundly affect the location of economic activity, along with the wages, employment, and industry mix of communities. These programs are widespread in the United States and throughout the world but have only recently been studied closely by economists. We consider the following questions: Who benefits from place-based interventions? Do the national benefits outweigh the costs? What sorts of interventions are most likely to be effective? To study these questions, we develop a simple spatial equilibrium model designed to characterize the welfare effects of place-based policies on the local and the national economy. Using this model, we critically evaluate the economic rationales for place-based policies and assess the latest evidence on their effects. We conclude with some lessons for policy and directions for future research.

The premise of this article is that an understanding of psychology and other social science disciplines can inform the effectiveness of the economic tools traditionally deployed in carrying out the functions of government, which include remedying market failures, redistributing income, and collecting tax revenue. An understanding of psychology can also lead to the development of different policy tools that better motivate desired behavior change or that are more cost-effective than traditional policy tools. The article outlines a framework for thinking about the psychology of behavior change in the context of market failures. It then describes the research on the effects of a variety of interventions rooted in an understanding of psychology that have policy-relevant applications. The article concludes by discussing how an understanding of psychology can also inform the use and design of traditional policy tools for behavior change, such as financial incentives.

This article distills and extends recent research on the economics of human development and social mobility. It summarizes the evidence from diverse literatures on the importance of early life conditions in shaping multiple life skills and the evidence on critical and sensitive investment periods for shaping different skills. It presents economic models that rationalize the evidence and unify the treatment effect and family influence literatures. The evidence on the empirical and policy importance of credit constraints in forming skills is examined. There is little support for the claim that untargeted income transfer policies to poor families significantly boost child outcomes. Mentoring, parenting, and attachment are essential features of successful families and interventions that shape skills at all stages of childhood. The next wave of family studies will better capture the active role of the emerging autonomous child in learning and responding to the actions of parents, mentors, and teachers.

Firm heterogeneity and the allocation of resources across firms play a key role in determining aggregate productivity. Entry barriers and misallocation can substantially impact productivity, as evidenced in recent work. This article provides a unifying theoretical framework and a review of this literature.

We review the theory of leverage developed in collateral equilibrium models with incomplete markets. We explain how leverage tends to boost asset prices and create bubbles. We show how leverage can be endogenously determined in equilibrium and how it depends on volatility. We describe the dynamic feedback properties of leverage, volatility, and asset prices, in what we call the leverage cycle, and show how it differs from a credit cycle. We also describe some cross-sectional implications of multiple leverage cycles, including contagion, flight to collateral, and swings in the issuance volume of the highest-quality debt.

The emergence of large longitudinal data sets linking students to teachers has led to rapid growth in the study of teacher effects on student outcomes by economists over the past decade. One large literature has documented wide variation in teacher effectiveness that is not well explained by observable student or teacher characteristics. A second literature has investigated how educational outcomes might be improved by leveraging teacher effectiveness through processes of recruitment, assignment, compensation, evaluation, promotion, and retention. These two lines of inquiry are closely tied; the first tells us about the importance of individual teachers, and the second tells us how this information can be used in policy and practice. We review the most recent findings in economics on the importance of teachers and on teacher-related policies aimed at improving educational production.

Social learning is a rapidly growing field for empirical and theoretical research in economics. We encounter social learning in many economically important phenomena, such as the adoption of new products and technologies or job search in labor markets. We review the existing empirical and theoretical literatures and argue that they have evolved largely independently of each other. This suggests several directions for future research that can help bridge the gap between both literatures. For example, the theory literature has come up with several models of social learning, ranging from naïve DeGroot models to sophisticated Bayesian models whose assumptions and predictions need to be empirically tested. Alternatively, empiricists have often observed that social learning is more localized than existing theory models assume, and that information can decay along a transmission path. Incorporating these findings into our models might require theorists to look beyond asymptotic convergence in social learning.

Reciprocal behavioral has been found to play a significant role in many economic domains, including labor supply, tax compliance, voting behavior, and fund-raising. What explains individuals’ tendency to respond to the kindness of others? Existing theories posit internal preferences for the welfare of others, inequality aversion, or utility from repaying others’ kindness. However, recent evidence on the determinants of (unilateral) sharing decisions suggests that external factors such as social pressure are equally important. So far, this second wave of social preference theories has had little spillover to two-sided reciprocity environments, in which one individual responds to the actions of another. We present a novel laboratory reciprocity experiment (the double-dictator game with sorting) and show that failure to account for external motives leads to a significant overestimation of internal motives such as fairness and altruism. The experimental data illustrate the importance of combining reduced-form and structural analyses to disentangle internal and external determinants of prosocial behavior.

In this article, we revisit the relationship among institutions, human capital, and development. We argue that empirical models that treat institutions and human capital as exogenous are misspecified, both because of the usual omitted variable bias problems and because of differential measurement error in these variables, and that this misspecification is at the root of the very large returns of human capital, about four to five times greater than that implied by micro (Mincerian) estimates, found in the previous literature. Using cross-country and cross-regional regressions, we show that when we focus on historically determined differences in human capital and control for the effect of institutions, the impact of institutions on long-run development is robust, whereas the estimates of the effect of human capital are much diminished and become consistent with micro estimates. Using historical and cross-country regression evidence, we also show that there is no support for the view that differences in the human capital endowments of early European colonists have been a major factor in the subsequent institutional development of former colonies.

As countries develop, the main driver of economic growth shifts from imitation to innovation. These two sources of growth require different policies and institutions. In particular, in this article we argue that the transition from an imitation-based to an innovation-based economy calls the old welfare state model into question. It is not so much the size of the state that is at stake but rather its governance. What we need to foster economic growth in developed economies is not a reduced state but a strategic state, which acts as a catalyst using selective and properly governed support to the market-driven innovation process. This idea of a strategic state that targets its investments to maximize growth in the face of hard budget constraints departs both from the Keynesian view of a state sustaining growth through demand-driven policies and from the neoliberal view of a minimal state confined to its regalian functions.

Three important aspects of development—per capita income, state capabilities, and (the absence of) political violence—are correlated with each other at the country level. This article discusses the causes of such development clusters and highlights two explanations: common economic, political, and social drivers and complementarities (two-way positive feedbacks). It also draws out preliminary policy implications of these patterns of development and proposes topics for further research.

This article discusses the two leading views of history and political institutions. For some scholars, institutions are mainly products of historical logic, whereas for others, accidents, leaders, and decisions have a significant impact. We argue that although there is clear evidence that history matters and has long-term effects, there are not enough data to help us distinguish between the two views. Faced with this uncertainty, what is a social scientist to do? We argue that given the possibility that policy decisions indeed make a difference, it makes sense to assume they do and to try to improve policy making.