Knowledge that Transforms

The traditional economic analysis of is based on Gary Becker's study of taste by employers, employees, and consumers. More recent work by Kenneth Arrow (1972, 1973) has attempted to interpret intergroup wage differences in an alternative framework as a rational reaction to uncertainty in labor markets. His model of statistical discrimination demonstrates that when the screening process used to determine a worker's qualifications is costly, and prior expectations of productivity differ across race or sex groups, then wage differentials may arise between workers of identical productivity. By implicitly assuming a perfect screening process, Arrow ignores a potentially important source of wage differentials, namely the fact that the screening process might be a more reliable predictor of productivity for one group than for another.' Our paper generalizes the Arrow model in two ways. First, in contrast to Arrow, we assume that all groups have identical distributions of productivity. Secondly, the screening process used by the firm to determine an applicant's productivity is biased in the sense that: a) members of various groups may pass the test in different proportions despite their identical productivity distributions; and b) the predictive power of the test might vary across groups. Our objective is to analyze the effects of these types of biases in the screening process on the wage differentials between different population groups.

Endowment payouts have become an increasingly important component of universities' revenues in recent decades. We study how universities respond to financial shocks to endowments and thus shed light on a number of existing models of endowment behavior. Endowments actively reduce payouts relative to their stated payout policies following negative, but not positive, shocks. This asymmetric behavior is consistent with “endowment hoarding,” especially among endowments whose current value is close to the benchmark value at the start of the university president's tenure. We also document the effect of negative endowment shocks on university operations, such as personnel cuts.

Recent studies argue that cross-country labor productivity differences are much larger in agriculture than in the aggregate. We reexamine the agricultural productivity data underlying this conclusion using new evidence from disaggregate sources. We find that for the world's staple grains-maize, rice, and wheat-cross-country differences in the quantity of grain produced per worker are enormous according to both micro- and macrosources. Our findings validate the idea that understanding agricultural productivity is at the heart of understanding world income inequality.

Are teachers' impacts on students' test scores (value-added) a good measure of their quality? This question has sparked debate partly because of a lack of evidence on whether high value-added (VA) teachers improve students' long-term outcomes. Using school district and tax records for more than one million children, we find that students assigned to high-VA teachers are more likely to attend college, earn higher salaries, and are less likely to have children as teenagers. Replacing a teacher whose VA is in the bottom 5 percent with an average teacher would increase the present value of students' lifetime income by approximately $250,000 per classroom.