Why do cities differ so much in productivity? A long literature has sought out systematic sources, such as inherent productivity advantages, market access, agglomeration forces, or sorting. We document that up to three-quarters of the measured regional productivity dispersion is spurious, reflecting the “luck of the draw” of finite counts of idiosyncratically heterogeneous plants that happen to operate in a given location. The patterns are even more pronounced for new plants, hold for alternative productivity measures, and broadly extend to European countries. This large role for individual plants suggests a smaller role for places in driving regional differences.

The presence of pricing power in housing markets significantly impacts our understanding of the housing supply. It biases estimates of housing production functions, supply elasticities, the effects of land-use policies, and the results of quantitative spatial models. We test for the existence of pricing power in the New York City rental market. Using tax policy changes, we conduct complementary difference-in-differences and instrumental variable analyses. An idiosyncratic increase in a single building's costs leads to a proportional rent increase, holding market-level rents constant. Our findings support the existence of pricing power and challenge the prevailing perfect competition framework.

There are persistent differences in self-reported subjective well-being across US metropolitan areas, and residents of declining cities appear less happy than others. Yet some people continue to move to these areas, and newer residents appear to be as unhappy as longer-term residents. While historical data on happiness are limited, the available facts suggest that cities that are now declining were also unhappy in their more prosperous past. These facts support the view that individuals do not maximize happiness alone but include it in the utility function along with other arguments. People may trade off happiness against other competing objectives.