To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
1149 results

Exorbitant Privilege Gained and Lost: Fiscal Implications

Journal of Political Economy 2025 133(12), 3713-3761
We study three centuries of fiscal history. Dominant safe asset suppliers issue more debt than future primary surpluses can justify, even after accounting for seigniorage revenue from convenience yields. This pattern holds for the Dutch Republic (seventeenth to eighteenth centuries), the United Kingdom (eighteenth to nineteenth centuries), and the United States (twentieth to twenty-first centuries). When Dutch and UK fiscal fundamentals deteriorated, they lost their dominant position as the safe asset supplier, and their debt became fully backed by primary surpluses. Exorbitant privilege stems from issuing overpriced debt in the early stage, followed by bondholder losses and financial repression in the later stage.

Measuring Cash Flows: A Guide for Researchers

The Accounting Review 2025 100(6), 61-86 open access
Cash flows play an important role in the accounting and finance literature. They are a major component of earnings, serve as a benchmark for earnings and accruals, and are an input to firm valuation. Although accrual measurement has been extensively studied, research on cash flow measurement remains limited. We review cash flow proxies researchers use in prior literature and highlight the importance of (1) identifying and defining the cash flow construct of interest based on the underlying research question and other constructs of interest and (2) selecting a cash flow proxy that minimizes measurement error and maps well into its construct. We also examine the challenges researchers face in measuring cash flows and demonstrate how measurement choices can affect the magnitude of coefficient estimates and statistical inferences. Finally, our study provides a framework researchers can follow to strengthen the construct validity of cash flow proxies.

Corporate Governance and Tax Avoidance: Evidence from U.S. Cross-Listing

The Accounting Review 2022 97(7), 49-78
Using a sample of firms from 51 countries and a difference-in-differences approach that exploits corporate governance shocks induced by cross-listing in the U.S., we find that firms tend to engage in less tax avoidance after cross-listing. This effect is more pronounced for firms that experience significant improvements in corporate governance, and for firms from countries with weaker shareholder protection and disclosure requirements. Taken together, the results indicate that cross-listing in the U.S. helps align the interests of managers and shareholders and reduces managerial diversion. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources indicated in the text.

Digital Lending and Financial Well-Being: Through the Lens of Mobile Phone Data

The Accounting Review 2025 100(4), 135-159 open access
To mitigate information asymmetry about borrowers in developing economies, digital lenders use machine-learning algorithms and nontraditional data from borrowers’ mobile devices. Consequently, digital lenders have managed to expand access to credit for millions of individuals lacking a prior credit history. However, short-term, high-interest digital loans have raised concerns about predatory lending practices. To examine how digital credit influences borrowers’ financial well-being, we use proprietary data from a digital lender in Kenya that randomly approves loan applications that would have otherwise been rejected based on the borrower’s credit profile. We find that access to digital credit improves borrowers’ financial well-being across various mobile-phone-based well-being measures, including monetary transactions and balances, mobility, and social networks as well as borrowers’ self-reported income and employment. We further show that this positive impact is more pronounced when borrowers have limited access to credit, take loans for business purposes, and obtain more credit.

Are There Externalities of Private Firm News Disclosure? Evidence from Public Firms’ Investment

The Accounting Review 2025 100(5), 103-130
This study examines whether and how voluntary news disclosure made by private firms affects investment sensitivities of public peer firms. Analyzing data from U.S. public firms from 1996 to 2018, we discover that public firms’ investment sensitivities intensify in industries with active private firm disclosures; a one standard deviation increase in private firm news disclosure raises public firms’ investment sensitivities by 14.5–17.6 percent. To mitigate endogeneity, we employ instrumental-variable methods, leveraging the staggered implementation of prudent investor rules and enforceability of noncompete agreements. Our results show that these effects are magnified in industries marked by the higher expected industry return volatility and less local newspaper coverage. We find that news from private firms significantly enhances public firms’ investment sensitivities, regardless of its sentiment. This research highlights the crucial role of private firm disclosures in influencing public firms’ investment decisions, enhancing our understanding of information spillovers in corporate disclosure.

Getting Dynamic Implementation to Work

Journal of Political Economy 2023 131(2), 285-387 open access
We develop a new class of two-stage mechanisms, which fully implement any social choice function under initial rationalizability in complete information environments. We show theoretically that our Simultaneous Report (SR) mechanisms are robust to small amounts of incomplete information about the state of nature. We also highlight the robustness of the mechanisms to a wide variety of reasoning processes and behavioral assumptions. We show experimentally that a SR mechanism performs well in inducing truth-telling in both complete and incomplete information environments and that it can induce efficient investment in a two-sided hold-up problem with ex-ante investment. The SR mechanism also outperforms a variety of other mechanisms proposed in the literature in terms of both efficiency and truth-telling rates and individuals are willing to use the mechanism when given the choice.

In-Group Bias in the Indian Judiciary: Evidence from 5 Million Criminal Cases

The Review of Economics and Statistics 2025
We study judicial in-group bias in Indian criminal courts using newly collected data on over 5 million criminal case records from 2010–2018. After classifying gender and religious identity with a neural network, we exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to judges to determine whether judges favor defendants with similar identities to themselves. In the aggregate, we estimate tight zero effects of in-group bias based on shared gender or religion, including in settings where identity may be especially salient, such as when the victim and defendant have discordant identities. Proxying caste similarity with shared last names, we find a degree of in-group bias, but only among people with rare names; its aggregate impact remains small.

Curriculum and Ideology

Journal of Political Economy 2017 125(2), 338-392 open access
We study the causal effect of school curricula on students? political attitudes, exploiting a major textbook reform in China between 2004 and 2010. The sharp, staggered introduction of the new curriculum across provinces allows us to identify its causal effects. We examine government documents articulating desired consequences of the reform and identify changes in textbooks reflecting these aims. A survey we conducted reveals that the reform was often successful in shaping attitudes, while evidence on behavior is mixed. Studying the new curriculum led to more positive views of China?s governance, changed views on democracy, and increased skepticism toward free markets.

Nonstandard Errors

Albert J. Menkveld; Anna Dreber; Felix Holzmeister; Jürgen Huber; Magnus Johannesson; Michael Kirchler; SEBASTIAN NEUSÜß; Michael Razen; Utz Weitzel; DAVID ABAD-DÍAZ; Menachem Abudy; Tobias Adrian; Yacine Aït-Sahalia; Olivier Akmansoy; Jamie Alcock; Vitali Alexeev; Arash Aloosh; LIVIA AMATO; Diego Amaya; James J. Angel; ALEJANDRO T. AVETIKIAN; AMADEUS BACH; EDWIN BAIDOO; GAETAN BAKALLI; LI BAO; Andrea Barbon; OKSANA BASHCHENKO; Parampreet Christopher Bindra; Geir Høidal Bjønnes; Jeffrey R. Black; Bernard S. Black; DIMITAR BOGOEV; SANTIAGO BOHORQUEZ CORREA; Oleg Bondarenko; CHARLES S. BOS; Ciril Bosch-Rosa; ELIE BOURI; Christian T. Brownlees; ANNA CALAMIA; Viet Nga Cao; Gunther Capelle-Blancard; LAURA M. CAPERA ROMERO; Massimiliano Caporin; Allen Carrion; TOLGA CASKURLU; Bidisha Chakrabarty; Jian Chen; Mikhail Chernov; WILLIAM CHEUNG; LUDWIG B. CHINCARINI; Tarun Chordia; SHEUNG-CHI CHOW; BENJAMIN CLAPHAM; Jean-Edouard Colliard; Carole Comerton-Forde; EDWARD CURRAN; THONG DAO; WALE DARE; Ryan J. Davies; RICCARDO DE BLASIS; GIANLUCA F. DE NARD; Fany Declerck; OLEG DEEV; Hans Degryse; SOLOMON Y. DEKU; CHRISTOPHE DESAGRE; Mathijs A. van Dijk; Chukwuma Dim; Thomas Dimpfl; YUN JIANG DONG; PHILIP A. DRUMMOND; Tom L. Dudda; TEODOR DUEVSKI; Ariadna Dumitrescu; Teodor Dyakov; Anne Haubo Dyhrberg; Michał Dzieliński; ASLI EKSI; Izidin El Kalak; Saskia ter Ellen; Nicolas Eugster; Martin D. D. Evans; Michael Farrell; ESTER FELEZ-VINAS; Gerardo Ferrara; EL MEHDI FERROUHI; Andrea Flori; JONATHAN T. FLUHARTY-JAIDEE; Sean Foley; Kingsley Y. L. Fong; Thierry Foucault; TATIANA FRANUS; Francesco A. Franzoni; Bart Frijns; MICHAEL FRÖMMEL; SERVANNA M. FU; Sascha Füllbrunn; BAOQING GAN; GE GAO; Thomas Gehrig; ROLAND GEMAYEL; DIRK GERRITSEN; Javier Gil-Bazo; Dudley Gilder; Lawrence R. Glosten; THOMAS GOMEZ; Arseny Gorbenko; Joachim Grammig; Vincent Grégoire; Ufuk Güçbilmez; Björn Hagströmer; JULIEN HAMBUCKERS; ERIK HAPNES; Jeffrey H. Harris; Lawrence Harris; SIMON HARTMANN; JEAN-BAPTISTE HASSE; Nikolaus Hautsch; XUE-ZHONG (TONY) HE; Davidson Heath; SIMON HEDIGER; Terrence Hendershott; Ann Marie Hibbert; Erik Hjalmarsson; Seth A. Hoelscher; Peter Hoffmann; Craig W. Holden; Alex R. Horenstein; Wenqian Huang; DA HUANG; Christophe Hurlin; KONRAD ILCZUK; ALEXEY IVASHCHENKO; Subramanian R. Iyer; Hossein Jahanshahloo; NAJI JALKH; Charles M. Jones; SIMON JURKATIS; Petri Jylhä; ANDREAS T. KAECK; GABRIEL KAISER; ARZÉ KARAM; Egle Karmaziene; BERNHARD KASSNER; Markku Kaustia; EKATERINA KAZAK; Fearghal Kearney; Vincent van Kervel; SAAD A. KHAN; MARTA K. KHOMYN; Tony Klein; OLGA KLEIN; Alexander Klos; Michael Koetter; Aleksey Kolokolov; Robert A. Korajczyk; Roman Kozhan; Jan P. Krahnen; PAUL KUHLE; Amy Kwan; QUENTIN LAJAUNIE; F. Y. Eric C. Lam; Marie Lambert; Hugues Langlois; JENS LAUSEN; Tobias Lauter; Markus Leippold; VLADIMIR LEVIN; YIJIE LI; HUI LI; CHEE YOONG LIEW; THOMAS LINDNER; Oliver Linton; JIACHENG LIU; Anqi Liu; Guillermo Llorente; Matthijs Lof; ARIEL LOHR; FRANCIS LONGSTAFF; Alejandro Lopez-Lira; Shawn Mankad; NICOLA MANO; ALEXIS MARCHAL; Charles Martineau; Francesco Mazzola; Debrah Meloso; MICHAEL G. MI; Roxana Mihet; Vijay Mohan; Sophie Moinas; DAVID MOORE; Liangyi Mu; Dmitriy Muravyev; Dermot Murphy; GABOR NESZVEDA; CHRISTIAN NEUMEIER; Ulf Nielsson; Mahendrarajah Nimalendran; Sven Nolte; LARS L. NORDEN; Peter O’Neill; Khaled Obaid; BERNT A. ØDEGAARD; Per Östberg; EMILIANO PAGNOTTA; Marcus Painter; Stefan Palan; IMON J. PALIT; Andreas Park; Roberto Pascual; Paolo Pasquariello; Ľuboš Pástor; VINAY PA℡; Andrew J. Patton; Neil D. Pearson; Loriana Pelizzon; MICHELE PELLI; Matthias Pelster; Christophe Pérignon; CAMERON PFIFFER; Richard Philip; TOMÁŠ PLÍHAL; PUNEET PRAKASH; OLIVER-ALEXANDER PRESS; TINA PRODROMOU; Marcel Prokopczuk; Talis Putnins; YA QIAN; GAURAV RAIZADA; David Rakowski; Angelo Ranaldo; Luca Regis; Stefan Reitz; Thomas Renault; REX W. RENJIE; Roberto Renò; Steven J. Riddiough; Kalle Rinne; PAUL RINTAMÄKI; Ryan Riordan; THOMAS RITTMANNSBERGER; IÑAKI RODRÍGUEZ LONGARELA; Dominik Roesch; LAVINIA ROGNONE; Brian Roseman; Ioanid Roşu; Saurabh Roy; NICOLAS RUDOLF; STEPHEN R. RUSH; Khaladdin Rzayev; ALEKSANDRA A. RZEŹNIK; Anthony Sanford; Harikumar Sankaran; Asani Sarkar; Lucio Sarno; Olivier Scaillet; STEFAN SCHARNOWSKI; KLAUS R. SCHENK-HOPPÉ; ANDREA SCHERTLER; MICHAEL SCHNEIDER; FLORIAN SCHROEDER; Norman Schürhoff; Philipp Schuster; MARCO A. SCHWARZ; Mark S. Seasholes; Norman J. Seeger; Or Shachar; Andriy Shkilko; JESSICA SHUI; MARIO SIKIC; Giorgia Simion; Lee A. Smales; Paul Söderlind; Elvira Sojli; Konstantin Sokolov; JANTJE SÖNKSEN; Laima Spokeviciute; Denitsa Stefanova; Marti G. Subrahmanyam; BARNABAS SZASZI; Oleksandr Talavera; Yuehua Tang; Nick Taylor; Wing Wah Tham; Erik Theissen; Julian Thimme; Ian Tonks; Hai Tran; Luca Trapin; Anders B. Trolle; M. ANDREEA VADUVA; Giorgio Valente; Robert A. Van Ness; Aurelio Vasquez; Thanos Verousis; Patrick Verwijmeren; ANDERS VILHELMSSON; Grigory Vilkov; Vladimir Vladimirov; SEBASTIAN VOGEL; Stefan Voigt; Wolf Wagner; THOMAS WALTHER; Patrick Weiss; Michel van der Wel; Ingrid M. Werner; P. Joakim Westerholm; Christian Westheide; HANS C. WIKA; Evert Wipplinger; Michael Wolf; Christian C. P. Wolff; LEONARD WOLK; WING-KEUNG WONG; Jan Wrampelmeyer; Zhen-Xing Wu; Shuo Xia; Dacheng Xiu; KE XU; CAIHONG XU; Pradeep K. Yadav; JOSÉ YAGÜE; Cheng Yan; Antti Yang; Woongsun Yoo; WENJIA YU; YIHE YU; Shihao Yu; Bart Z. Yueshen; Darya Yuferova; MARCIN ZAMOJSKI; Abalfazl Zareei; STEFAN M. ZEISBERGER; LU ZHANG; S. Sarah Zhang; Xiaoyu Zhang; LU ZHAO; Zhuo Zhong; Z. IVY ZHOU; CHEN ZHOU; XINGYU S. ZHU; Marius Zoican; REMCO ZWINKELS
Journal of Finance 2024 79(3), 2339-2390 open access
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data‐generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence‐generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty—nonstandard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for more reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer‐review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants.