This paper extends preexisting results concerning voluntary private funding of public goods. The assumption that individuals care about the magnitude of their own contributions only insofar as these contributions affect the aggregate level of expenditures is shown to have untenable implications. The analysis suggests that a reexamination of the factors that motivate individuals to make contributions is in order.

This paper analyzes a model of social interaction in which individuals care about status as well as "intrinsic" utility (which refers to utility derived directly from consumption). Status is assumed to depend on public perceptions about an individual's predispositions rather than on the individual's actions. However, since predispositions are unobservable, actions signal predispositions and therefore affect status. When status is sufficiently important relative to intrinsic utility, many individuals conform to a single, homogeneous standard of behavior, despite heterogeneous underlying preferences. They are willing to conform because they recognize that even small departures from the social norm will seriously impair their status. The fact that society harshly censures all nonconformists is not simply assumed (indeed, status varies smoothly with perceived type); rather, it is produced endogenously. Despite this penalty, agents with sufficiently extreme preferences refuse to conform. The model provides an explanation for the fact that standards of behavior govern some activities but do not govern others. It also suggests a theory of how standards of behavior might evolve in response to changes in the distribution of intrinsic preferences. In particular, for some values of the preference parameters, norms are both persistent and widely followed; for other values, norms are transitory and confined to small groups. Thus the model produces both customs and fads. Finally, an extension of the model suggests an explanation for the development of multiple subcultures, each with its own distinct norm.

This paper presents new empirical evidence in support of the view that a significant fraction of total saving is motivated by the desire to leave bequests. Specifically, I find that social security annuity benefits significantly raise life insurance holdings and depress private annuity holdings among elderly individuals. These patterns indicate that the typical household would choose to maintain a positive fraction of its resources in bequeathable forms, even if insurance markets were perfect. Evidence on the relationship between insurance purchases and total resources reinforces this conclusion.

[Weekly returns of stock portfolios exhibit substantial autocorrelation. Analytical studies suggest that nonsynchronous trading is capable of explaining from 5% to 65% of the autocorrelation. The varying importance of nonsynchronous trading in these studies arises primarily from differing assumptions regarding nontrading periods of stocks. We simulate the effects of nonsynchronous trading by sampling stock returns from a return generating process using transactions data to obtain the precise time of each stock's last trade. We find that simulated weekly portfolio returns exhibit autocorrelations that are roughly 25% that of their observed (CRSP) weekly returns.]

We propose and implement a new test of the dividend signaling hypothesis. Dividend signaling models generally imply that an increase in dividend taxation should increase the share price response per dollar of dividends (or "bang-for-the-buck"). Many other dividend-preference theories have the opposite implication. An analysis of recent variations in tax policy reveals a strong positive relation between dividend tax rates and the bang-for-the-buck. Additional evidence on the relation between the bang-for-the-buck and other variables that are related to the marginal cost of paying dividends provides further support for dividend signaling.

We criticize the view that altruism either increases the benefits of group interactions or improves the allocation of resources within families. Altruism can alter the social utility possibility frontier in surprising and sometimes unfortunate ways. Altruism also often entails exploitability and therefore causes family members to behave in ways that leave all parties worse off. In addition, altruists have difficulty enforcing agreements since they may be extremely reluctant to punish betrayals.

In his well-known analysis of the national debt, Robert Barro introduced the notion of a "dynastic family." This notion has since become a standard research tool, particularly in the areas of public finance and macroeconomics. In this paper, we critique the assumptions on which the dynastic model is predicated and argue that this framework is not a suitable abstraction in contexts in which the objective is to analyze the effects of public policies. We reach this conclusion by formally considering a world in which each generation consists of a large number of distinct individuals as opposed to one representative individual. We point out that family linkages form complex networks, in which each individual may belong to many dynastic groupings. The resulting proliferation of linkages between families gives rise to a host of neutrality results, including the irrelevance of all public redistributions, distortionary taxes, and prices. Since these results are not at all descriptive of the real world, we conclude that, in some fundamental sense, the world is not even approximately dynastic. These observations call into question all policy- related results based on the dynastic framework, including the Ricardian equivalence hypothesis.

Under certain reasonable conditions for a growth model, the path of adjustment between steady states generated by a change in an exogenous policy variable is solved for explicitly. The overall welfare effect is then shown to be a weighted average of the short- and long-run effects for a large class of social welfare functions. These results are applied to a simple neoclassical growth model for the purpose of investigating the dynamic incidence of a labor income tax. Contrary to the claims of previous investigators, the long-run effect is shown to be more important for a wide range of parameter values.

We argue that poverty can perpetuate itself by undermining the capacity for self-control. In line with a distinguished psychological literature, we consider modes of self-control that involve the self-imposed use of contingent punishments and rewards. We study settings in which consumers with quasi-hyperbolic preferences confront an otherwise standard intertemporal allocation problem with credit constraints. Our main result demonstrates that low initial assets can limit self-control, trapping people in poverty, while individuals with high initial assets can accumulate indefinitely. Thus, even temporary policies that initiate accumulation among the poor may be effective. We examine implications concerning the effect of access to credit on saving, the demand for commitment devices, the design of financial accounts to promote accumulation, and the variation of the marginal propensity to consume across income from different sources. We also explore the nature of optimal self-control, demonstrating that it has a simple and behaviorally plausible structure that is immune to self-renegotiation.