Applying the Coase Theorem to marital bargaining suggests that shifting from consent to unilateral divorce laws will not affect divorce rates. I show that existing evidence suggesting large effects of divorce laws on divorce rates reflect a failure to explicitly model the dynamic response of divorce rates to a shock to the legal regime. When accounting for these dynamics, I find that unilateral divorce spiked following the adoption of unilateral divorce laws, but that this rise largely reversed itself within a decade. Overall, these changes in family law explain very little of the rise in divorce over the past half-century.

A new field of “forensic economics” has begun to emerge, applying price-theoretic models to uncover evidence of corruption in domains previously outside the purview of economists. By emphasizing the incentives that yield corruption, these approaches also provide insight into how to reduce such behavior. This paper contributes to this agenda, highlighting how the structure of gambling on college basketball yields pay-offs to gamblers and players that are both asymmetric and nonlinear, thereby encouraging mutually beneficial effort manipulation through “point shaving.” Initial evidence suggests that point shaving may be quite widespread. The incentives for gambling-related corruption derive from the structure of basketball betting. To highlight a simple example, the University of Pennsylvania played Harvard on March 5, 2005, and was widely expected to win. Rather than offering short odds on Penn winning the game, bookmakers offered an almost even bet (bet $11 to win $10) on whether Penn would win relative to a “spread.” In this example, the spread was 14.5, meaning that a bet on Penn would win only if Penn won the game by 15 or more points, while a bet on Harvard would be successful if Harvard either won, or lost by 14 or fewer points. The incentive for corruption derives directly from the asymmetric incentives of players, who care about winning the game, and gamblers, who care about whether a team beats (or covers) the spread. Indeed, the example above is ripe for corruption: the outcome that maximizes the joint surplus of the Penn players and the gambler occurs when Penn wins the game, but fails to cover the spread (and the gambler has bet on Harvard). The contract required to induce this outcome simply involves the gambler offering a contingent payment to the player, with the contingency being that he pays only if Penn fails to cover the spread. Given the player’s (approximate) indifference over the size of the winning margin, even small bribes may dominate his desire to increase the winning margin above 14 points, and this, in turn, yields large profits for the gambler who has bet accordingly. The betting market offers a simple technology for the gambler to commit to paying this outcomecontingent bribe: he can simply give the player the ticket from a $1,000 bet on his opponent not covering the spread. Such attempts to shave the winning margin below the point spread are colloquially referred to as “point shaving” and form the focus of my inquiry. I start by outlining the type of corruption that theory suggests will be most prevalent:

Over the past thirty years changes in divorce law have significantly increased access to divorce.The different timing of divorce law reform across states provides a useful quasi-experiment with which to examine the effects of this change.We analyze state panel data to estimate changes in suicide, domestic violence, and spousal murder rates arising from the change in divorce law.Suicide rates are used as a quantifiable measure of wellbeing, albeit one that focuses on the extreme lower tail of the distribution.We find a large, statistically significant, and econometrically robust decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce.No significant effect is found for men.Domestic violence is analyzed using data on both family conflict resolution and intimate homicide rates.The results indicate a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women in states that adopted unilateral divorce.We find suggestive evidence that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data revealed no discernible effects for men murdered.In sum, we find strong evidence that legal institutions have profound real effects on outcomes within families.

This paper exploits the variation occurring from the different timing of divorce law reforms across the United States to evaluate how unilateral divorce changed family violence and whether the option provided by unilateral divorce reduced suicide and spousal homicide. Unilateral divorce both potentially increases the likelihood that a domestic violence relationship ends and acts to transfer bargaining power toward the abused, thereby potentially stopping the abuse in extant relationships. In states that introduced unilateral divorce we find a 8–16 percent decline in female suicide, roughly a 30 percent decline in domestic violence for both men and women, and a 10 percent decline in females murdered by their partners.

Many scholars have argued that once “basic needs” have been met, further rises in income are not associated with further increases in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of “basic needs” and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly log-linear and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it.

We document that trust in public institutions—and particularly trust in banks, business and government—has declined over recent years. US time series evidence suggests that this partly reflects the pro-cyclical nature of trust in institutions. Cross-country comparisons reveal a clear legacy of the Great Recession, and those countries whose unemployment grew the most suffered the biggest loss in confidence in institutions, particularly in trust in government and the financial sector. Finally, analysis of several repeated cross-sections of confidence within US states yields similar qualitative patterns, but much smaller magnitudes in response to state-specific shocks.

The favorite–long shot bias describes the long-standing empirical regularity that betting odds provide biased estimates of the probability of a horse winning: long shots are overbet whereas favorites are underbet. Neoclassical explanations of this phenomenon focus on rational gamblers who overbet long shots because of risk-love. The competing behavioral explanations emphasize the role of misperceptions of probabilities. We provide novel empirical tests that can discriminate between these competing theories by assessing whether the models that explain gamblers’ choices in one part of their choice set (betting to win) can also rationalize decisions over a wider choice set, including compound bets in the exacta, quinella, or trifecta pools. Using a new, large-scale data set ideally suited to implement these tests, we find evidence in favor of the view that misperceptions of probability drive the favorite–long shot bias, as suggested by prospect theory.

We assess whether men and women are treated differently when presenting their economics research. We collected data across thousands of seminars, job market talks, and conference presentations, leveraging human judgment and audio-processing algorithms to measure the number, tone, and type of interruptions. Within a seminar series, women are interrupted more than men. This holds when controlling for characteristics of the presenter, paper, and audience. Interruptions that are negative in tenor or tone or cut off the presenter mid-sentence increase for women presenters. We also find greater engagement of female audience members with female presenters, suggesting a potential role model effect. (JEL A11, C45, J16, J44)