Basu and Bundick, 2017 showed an intertemporal preference volatility shock has meaningful effects on real activity in a New Keynesian model with Epstein and Zin, 1991 preferences. We show that when the distributional weights on current and future utility in the Epstein–Zin time aggregator do not sum to 1, there is an asymptote in the responses to such a shock with unit intertemporal elasticity of substitution. In the Basu–Bundick model, the intertemporal elasticity of substitution is set near unity and the preference shock only hits current utility, so the sum of the weights differs from 1. We show that when we restrict the weights to sum to 1, the asymptote disappears and preference volatility shocks no longer have large effects. We examine several different calibrations and preferences as potential resolutions with varying degrees of success.

This paper develops a theory of randomization tests under an approximate symmetry as-sumption. Randomization tests provide a general means of constructing tests that control size in finite samples whenever the distribution of the observed data exhibits symmetry under the null hypothesis. Here, by exhibits symmetry we mean that the distribution remains invariant under a group of transformations. In this paper, we provide conditions under which the same construction can be used to construct tests that asymptotically control the probability of a false rejection whenever the distribution of the observed data exhibits approximate symmetry in the sense that the limiting distribution of a function of the data exhibits symmetry under the null hypothesis. An important application of this idea is in settings where the data may be grouped into a fixed number of “clusters ” with a large number of observations within each cluster. In such settings, we show that the distribution of the observed data satisfies our ap-proximate symmetry requirement under weak assumptions. In particular, our results allow for the clusters to be heterogeneous and also have dependence not only within each cluster, but also across clusters. This approach enjoys several advantages over other approaches in these settings. Among other things, it leads to a test that is asymptotically similar, which, as shown in a simulation study, translates into improved power at many alternatives. Finally, we use our results to revisit the analysis of Angrist and Lavy (2009), who examine the impact of a cash award on exam performance for low-achievement students in Israel.

This paper disentangles the impact of schools and teachers in influencing achievement with special attention given to the potential problems of omitted or mismeasured variables and of student and school selection. Unique matched panel data from the UTD Texas Schools Project permit the identification of teacher quality based on student performance along with the impact of specific, measured components of teachers and schools. Semiparametric lower bound estimates of the variance in teacher quality based entirely on within-school heterogeneity indicate that teachers have powerful effects on reading and mathematics achievement, though little of the variation in teacher quality is explained by observable characteristics such as education or experience. The results suggest that the effects of a costly ten student reduction in class size are smaller than the benefit of moving one standard deviation up the teacher quality distribution, highlighting the importance of teacher effectiveness in the determination of school quality.

This paper begins by observing that any reflexive binary (preference) relation (over risky prospects) that satisfies the independence axiom admits a form of expected utility representation. We refer to this representation notion as the coalitional minmax expected utility representation. By adding the remaining properties of the expected utility theorem, namely, continuity, completeness, and transitivity, one by one, we find how this representation gets sharper and sharper, thereby deducing the versions of this classical theorem in which any combination of these properties is dropped from its statement. This approach also allows us to weaken transitivity in this theorem, rather than eliminate it entirely, say, to quasitransitivity or acyclicity. Apart from providing a unified dissection of the expected utility theorem, these results are relevant for the growing literature on boundedly rational choice in which revealed preference relations often lack the properties of completeness and/or transitivity (but often satisfy the independence axiom). They are also especially suitable for the (yet overlooked) case in which the decision‐maker is made up of distinct individuals and, consequently, transitivity is routinely violated. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, we show that our representation theorems allow us to answer many economic questions that are posed in terms of nontransitive/incomplete preferences, say, about the maximization of preferences, the existence of Nash equilibrium, the preference for portfolio diversification, and the possibility of the preference reversal phenomenon.

We investigate the classical Anscombe–Aumann model of decision-making under uncertainty without the completeness axiom. We distinguish between the dual traits of “indecisiveness in beliefs” and “indecisiveness in tastes.” The former is captured by the Knightian uncertainty model, the latter by the single-prior expected multi-utility model. We characterize axiomatically the latter model. Then we show that, under independence and continuity, these two models can be jointly characterized by means of a partial completeness property.

Peer Reviewed

Does individual behavior in a laboratory setting provide a reliable indicator of behavior in a naturally occurring setting? We consider this general methodological question in the context of eliciting risk attitudes. The controls that are typically employed in laboratory settings, such as the use of abstract lotteries, could lead subjects to employ behavioral rules that differ from the ones they employ in the field. Because it is field behavior that we are interested in understanding, those controls might be a confound in themselves if they result in differences in behavior. We find that the use of artificial monetary prizes provides a reliable measure of risk attitudes when the natural counterpart outcome has minimal uncertainty, but that it can provide an unreliable measure when the natural counterpart outcome has background risk. Behavior tended to be moderately risk averse when artificial monetary prizes were used or when there was minimal uncertainty in the natural nonmonetary outcome, but subjects drawn from the same population were much more risk averse when their attitudes were elicited using the natural nonmonetary outcome that had some background risk. These results are consistent with conventional expected utility theory for the effects of background risk on attitudes to risk.