We show that individuals who have experienced a systemic banking crisis are 11 percentage points less likely to use banks in the U.S. than otherwise similar individuals who emigrated from the same country but did not live through a crisis. This finding is robust to controlling for exposure to other macroeconomic events and to various methods for addressing potential bias due to migrant self-selection. Consistent with the view that personal experience plays an important role in decision-making, the effects are larger for individuals who were older and more likely to have had wealth entrusted to the banking system at the time of the crisis and for people who experienced crises in countries without deposit insurance.

We investigate the impact of institutions on financial development by analyzing the financial behavior of immigrants in the United States. We find that immigrants from countries with institutions that more effectively protect private property are more likely to own stock in the United States. The effect of home-country institutions is persistent and absorbed early in life. The impact of institutions is amplified for immigrants who live in metropolitan areas with many other immigrants from the same country. These findings are robust to alternative measures of institutional effectiveness and to various methods of controlling for unobserved individual characteristics, including specifications with country fixed effects.

The main goal of this paper is to analyze the differences between immigrant and native households in their volunteer contributions and private transfer behavior, as well as their receipt of assistance from nongovernment sources. In addition, we examine how the immigrant-native differences evolve over time as immigrant households accumulate US experience. Finally, we examine the voluntary contribution behavior of second generation immigrants and children in immigrant households to gain insight into the long-term impact of immigration. We do not find evidence that immigrant households free ride more than native-born households. First, immigrant households, when compared to similar native-born households, are less likely to receive assistance from nongovernment sources. Second, immigrant status has no statistically significant impact on monetary contributions toward public good provision. We also find that the immigrant-native differences in monetary and time contributions tend to diminish over time as immigrants acquire US experience. Finally, we find no significant differences between the second generation of immigrants and third or higher generations of Americans in their voluntary contributions of money and time. We obtain similar results for children in immigrant households: they are not significantly different from children in native households in their time contribution and in their enrollment in federal meal programs. The results are robust to various income and wealth controls. Do Immigrants and Their Children Free Ride More Than Natives?

The Nigerian civil war of 1967-70 was precipitated by secession of the Igbo-dominated south-eastern region to create the state of Biafra. It was the first civil war in Africa, the predecessor of many. We investigate the legacies of this war four decades later. Using variation across ethnicity and cohort, we identify significant long-run impacts on human health capital. Individuals exposed to the war at all ages between birth and adolescence exhibit reduced adult stature and these impacts are largest in adolescence. Adult stature is portentous of reduced life expectancy and lower earnings.