This paper explores a monetary-policy model with habit formation for consumers, in which consumers' utility depends in part on current consumption relative to past consumption. The empirical tests developed in the paper show that one can reject the hypothesis of no habit formation with tremendous confidence, largely because the habit-formation model captures the gradual hump-shaped response of real spending to various shocks. The paper then embeds the habit-consumption specification in a monetary-policy model and finds that the responses of both spending and inflation to monetary-policy actions are significantly improved by this modification. (JEL D12, E52, E43)

The Finance Committee of the American Economic Association met at the Chicago Club, Chicago, IL, at 12:30 P.M. on December 9, 1998. Present were John Cochrane, Robert Dederick, Robert Hamada, C. Elton Hinshaw (Chair) , and John Siegfried (Secretary of the Association ) ; Representing Stein Roe & Farnham, investment counsel for the Association, were Robert McNeill, Scott W. Vogg, and Debbie Jansen. In 1987, the Committee reviewed recommendations presented by the AEA Committee on indexing Association funds concerning the long-term allocation of the Association’s investment assets. As a result of that recommendation, it was agreed that the Association’s portfolio comprise a combination of an S&P 500 Index Fund, Stein Roe & Farnham’s specialty equity mutual funds, and a bond portion managed by Stein Roe & Farnham. This restructuring took place at the end of June 1988. The current portfolio includes holdings in the Vanguard Index Trust Fund, as well as several special Growth Funds and an International Fund, under the supervision of Stein Roe & Farnham (SRF) . The Fixed Income portion of the portfolio is currently invested in SRF’s Intermediate Term Government and Corporate taxable funds. With respect to the calendar-year 1998 performance of the Association’s portfolio, the total return including cash, bonds, and equity holdings was approximately 17.2 percent. The benchmark, which consisted of 5 percent cash, 25 percent Lehman G/C Intermediate Bond Index, 60 percent S&P 500 Index, and 10 percent EAFE index returned 16.7 percent. The returns from the AEA portfolio have now outperformed the benchmark portfolio for six years in a row. The Committee discussed a change to the allocation of the portfolio and the benchmark. It was approved that the benchmark portfolio would become 0 percent cash, 25 percent Lehman G/C Intermediate Bond Index, 60 percent S&P 500 index, 5 percent Russell 2000 index, and 10 percent EAFE index. Additionally, it was agreed to move 5 percent of the assets in the S&P 500 Index Fund into the bond portion of the portfolio immediately. Members can obtain a list of the assets in the portfolio by writing the Treasurer.

The proposed budget for 2000 in Table 1 projects an operating loss of $736 thousand, investment income of $598 thousand, and an overall deficit for the year of $138 thousand.Net

Abstract This paper examines the effect of book‐tax differences on the probability that a transaction is audited and the probability that additional taxes are collected. It constructs a stylized model in which the taxpayer reports both financial accounting income and taxable income. The government observes both reports before deciding whether to conduct an audit. The analysis of the equilibrium yields two hypotheses. First, the probability that the government will audit a transaction is higher if the transaction generates a positive book‐tax difference (e.g., an expenditure that is deducted for tax purposes but capitalized for financial reporting purposes) than if the transaction generates no book‐tax difference. Second, conditional on being selected for audit, transactions with and without book‐tax differences are equally likely to have detected understatements of tax liability. These hypotheses are tested using Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data from the Coordinated Examination Program. The empirical tests are consistent with the predictions of the strategic tax compliance model.

We estimate the employment effects of federal minimum wage increases using monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) data from 1979 through 1997. We find that the empirical differences in the new minimum wage literature based on CPS data primarily can be traced to alternative methods of controlling for macroeconomic conditions. We argue that the macroeconomic controls commonly included in models where no employment impact is found are inappropriate. We consistently find a significant but modest negative relationship between minimum wage increases and teenage employment using alternative controls or allowing employer responses to the policy to occur with some delay.

The discrete-time dynamic investment model, using only historical data in various asset-allocation settings, often produces significant abnormal returns. However, the model does not choose the diversified portfolios that theory suggests it should. Therefore, in this paper, we compare the investment policies and returns of the model with and without constraints on the mix of risky assets. The constraints lead to appreciably more diversification and less realized risk, but only at the cost of less realized return. Visual comparisons of compound return—standard deviation plots and statistical comparisons of Jensen’s alpha suggest that the reduction in return is not worth the reduction in risk. For more risk-averse investors, ex post utility and certainty equivalent returns suggest that it is. The results, however, illustrate the problems associated with using ex post utility to measure performance.

I identify the effects of class size on student achievement using longitudinal variation in the population associated with each grade in 649 elementary schools. I use variation in class size driven by idiosyncratic variation in the population. I also use discrete jumps in class size that occur when a small change in enrollment triggers a maximum or minimum class size rule. The estimates indicate that class size does not have a statistically significant effect on student achievement. I rule out even modest effects (2 to 4 percent of a standard deviation in scores for a 10 percent reduction in class size).