Drawing on confidential Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, we examine whether privately held corporations are more aggressive tax planners than their publicly held peers. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find no consistent evidence that private firms are more aggressive tax planners. We then examine whether private firms’ tax planning differs from that of public firms more generally. We find that private firms engage in more conforming tax planning (planning that also reduces pretax accounting income). However, tests of nonconforming tax planning reveal that private firms generally engage in the same or less planning relative to their public peers. Overall, our findings cast doubt on the belief that private firms are generally more aggressive tax planners than are public firms, but confirm that they engage in more of some forms of general (i.e., conforming) planning. Data Availability: The IRS provided confidential tax information to Michele S. Mullaney pursuant to an Intragovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (IPA) agreement through the Statistics of Income (SOI) Joint Statistical Research Program (JSRP).

We provide a set of comparable estimates for the rates of inflow to and outflow from unemployment using publicly available data for fourteen OECD economies. Using a novel decomposition that allows for deviations of unemployment from its flow steady state, we find that fluctuations in both inflow and outflow rates contribute substantially to unemployment variation within countries. Anglo-Saxon economies exhibit approximately a 15:85 inflow-outflow split to unemployment variation, while continental European and Nordic countries display closer to a 45:55 split. In all economies, increases in inflows lead increases in unemployment, whereas outflows lag a ramp-up in unemployment.

We investigate whether firm-level political connections affect the allocation of exemptions from tariffs imposed on $US 550 billion of Chinese goods imported to the United States annually beginning in 2018. Evidence points to politicians not only rewarding supporters but also punishing opponents: Past campaign contributions to the party controlling (in opposition to) the executive branch increase (decrease) approval likelihood. Our findings point to quid pro quo arrangements between politicians and firms, as opposed to the “information” channel linking political access to regulatory outcomes.

Asset market interconnectedness can give rise to significant contagion risks during periods of financial crises that extend beyond the risks associated with changes in volatilities and correlations. These channels include the transmission of shocks operating through changes in the higher order comoments of asset returns, including changes in coskewness arising from changes in the interaction between volatility and average returns across asset markets. These additional contagion channels have nontrivial implications for the pricing of options through changes in the payoff probability structure and more generally, in the management of financial risks. The effects of incorrectly pricing risk has proved to be significant during many financial crises, including the subprime crisis from mid 2007 to mid 2008, the Great Recession beginning 2008 and the European debt crisis from 2010. Using an exchange options model, the effects of changes in the comoments of asset returns across asset markets are investigated with special emphasis given to understanding the effects on hedging risk during financial crises. The results reveal that by not correctly pricing the risks arising from higher order moments during financial crises, there is significant mispricing of options, while hedged portfolios during noncrisis periods become exposed to price movements in times of crises.

This paper analyzes the effectiveness of different government policies to prevent the emergence of banking crises. In particular, we study the impact on welfare of using taxpayers money to recapitalize banks, government injection of money into the banking system through credit lines, the creation of a buffer and taxes on financial transactions (the Tobin tax). We illustrate the trade-off between these policies and derive policy implications.

We study the role of banking relationships in IPO underwriting. When a firm in Japan goes public, it can engage an investment bank that is related through a common main bank, or can select an alternative investment bank. The main bank relationship can be an efficient way for the investment bank to acquire information generated by the main bank, but may give rise to conflicts of interest. We find that main bank relationships give small issuers increased access to equity capital markets, but that issuers of large IPOs often switch to non-related investment banks that are capable of managing large offerings. While investment banks seek to exploit bargaining power with related issuers, issuers respond to expected high issue cost by switching to non-related investment banks. The net result is that total issue costs through related and non-related investment banks are similar. With respect to aftermarket performance and use of proceeds, we find no evidence of conflict of interest or self-dealing for either the main bank or the investment bank.

How do collateral requirements impact consumer borrowing behavior? Using administrative loan application and performance data from the U.S. Federal Disaster Loan Program, we exploit a loan amount threshold above which households must post their residence as collateral. Our bunching estimates suggest that the median borrower is willing to give up 40% of their loan amount to avoid posting collateral. Exploiting time variation in the threshold, we estimate collateral causally reduces default rates by 36%. Finally, we structurally estimate households' attachment to their homes, net of any equity, and find a median value of $11,000. Attachment creates a wedge between lender and borrower valuation of collateral of 15%. Our results explain high perceived default costs in the mortgage market, and document the importance of collateral for reducing moral hazard in consumer credit markets.

The Role of Labor Market Intermittency in Explaining Gender Wage Differentials by Julie L. Hotchkiss and M. Melinda Pitts. Published in volume 97, issue 2, pages 417-421 of American Economic Review, May 2007

Yeon-Koo Che and Ian Gale (1998) studied the impact of imposing a cap on lobbying expenditures. They showed that a cap may lead to (1) greater expected aggregate expenditures and (2) a less efficient allocation of a political prize. In their comment, Todd Kaplan and David Wettstein (2005) show that if the cap is not rigid (i.e., its effect on the cost of lobbying is continuous) it has no effect.

Academic journal publishing has evolved rapidly in the past two decades. Prices, ownership concentration, the number of journals, and the means of distribution have all changed dramatically. Substantial price increases have been the norm. Average prices have risen severalfold over this period, with prices climbing the most at forprofit journals, where these prices are now as much as 500 percent higher than nonprofits (Gail Yokote, 2003). The price difference between forprofit and nonprofit academic journals is particularly striking, given that these journals are generally similar in format and editorial processes, and that for-profit journals do not appear to be of higher quality (Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001 p. 183). Increased concentration provides one possible explanation for why prices of for-profit journals are so high. To take one example, measured by revenue, in 2001 Elsevier Science had a 22.9percent share of the Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM) industry, with Kluwer at 11.7 percent, and Thomson at 10.7 percent. But concentration offers at best only a partial answer. Bundling offers another, potentially more significant explanation, particularly for recent increases. The prices of for-profit journals could not be high and increasing without significant structural barriers to entry. Recently, however, a new strategic barrier has emerged. Major publishers have been offering libraries packages of journals that are bundled across journals and across print and electronic versions. The exact terms have varied from publisher to publisher, but a contract (sometimes called a “Big Deal” by librarians) typically involves a library entering into a long-term arrangement to get access to a large electronic library of journals at a substantial discount, in exchange for a promise not to cut print subscriptions (whose prices will increase over time); in this sense print and electronic are bundled. Since the electronic library becomes much less expensive when ordered in quantity, there is likewise bundling across electronic journals. Bundling can be seen as a device that erects a strategic barrier to entry. At a simple level of analysis, the Big Deal contracts leave libraries few budgetary dollars with which to purchase journals from new entrants. Looking one level deeper, we see that bundling entails average prices that exceed marginal prices, and this creates a barrier to entry if entrants compete with the marginal journal. Other things equal, bundling practices are likely to be anticompetitive to the extent that they allow for the maintenance of supracompetitive average prices that limit usage of academic journals by scholars and/or distort library choices between journals and monographs and books. There are, however, pro-competitive benefits associated with bundling. Recent deals have provided scholars with extra access to journals; moreover, when electronic databases contain journals not included in the libraries’ print collections, the collections expand. Finding an economic approach that analyzes a range of bundling practices and evaluates them by appropriately balancing benefits and costs † Discussants: V. Kerry Smith, North Carolina State University; Robert Hall, Stanford University.