Return models (returns regressed on scaled earnings variables) are commonly preferred to price models (stock price regressed on earnings per share). We provide a framework for choosing between these models. An economically intuitive rationale suggests that price models are better specified in that the estimated slope coefficients from price models, but not return models, are unbiased. Our empirical results confirm that price models' earnings response coefficients are less biased. However, return models have less serious econometric problems than price models. In some research contexts the combined use of both price and return models may be useful.

Using theory, case studies, and cross-country evidence, we investigate the factors behind the concentration of a nation's urban population in a single city. High tariffs, high costs of internal trade, and low levels of international trade increase the degree of concentration. Even more clearly, politics (such as the degree of instability) determines urban primacy. Dictatorships have central cities that are, on average, 50 percent larger than their democratic counterparts. Using information about the timing of city growth, and a series of instruments, we conclude that the predominant causality is from political factors to urban concentration, not from concentration to political change.

This paper considers a representative agent model of asset prices based on a recursive utility specification. A constant elasticity of intertemporal substitution is assumed but the risk-preference component of utility is restricted only by qualitative, non-parametric regularity conditions. A principal contribution is to determine the exhaustive implications of this semiparametric recursive utility model for the one-step ahead joint probability distribution for consumption growth and asset returns. It is also shown, in contrast to the claims of previous studies, that the generalization from expected utility to recursive utility contributes substantially to the resolution of the equity premium puzzle.

Recent estimates of the potential growth effects of tax reform vary wildly, ranging from zero to eight percentage points. Using an endogenous growth model, the authors assess which model features and parameter values are important for determining the quantitative impact of tax reform. The quantitative estimates in several recent papers are compared with each other and with some of the evidence from U.S. experience. The authors find that Robert Lucas's conclusion, that tax reform would have little or no impact on the U.S. growth rate, is theoretically robust and consistent with the evidence. Copyright 1995 by University of Chicago Press.