The impact of testosterone on wages

Men earn more than women, this is still rue despite much effort over the past decades. The difference in wages, of course, needs to be measured ceteribus paribus, which means we need to take into account any observable characteristic so that we really compare men and women with the same characteristics doing the same job. This could mean that there is some unobservable characteristic that still matters. Men have more testosterone, and maybe this brings an increase in productivity they are rewarded for. But we typically do not measure that in labor force surveys.

Anne Gielen, Jessica Holmes and Caitlin Myers find a way around this difficulty by looking at twins. Indeed, females with a male twin have been exposed to more testosterone than all-female twin pairs. And males with a female twin got less. Using administrative data from the Netherlands with 80,000 twins, they find that this proxy for testosterone levels has a positive impact on hourly wages for males, but not for females. This new "observable" allows thus to better explain wage dispersion among males, but cannot explain the still remaining male-female wage gap.

Ethnic ghettos and unemployment

Both in Europe and the United States, minorities face significantly higher unemployment rates. In addition, they live in places that are farther from work than others, or at least their commuting options make it more difficult to get to work. Are the two linked? Obviously, if you do not live where the jobs are, unemployment gets more prevalent. But one could also move, and this may be more difficult for minorities, for various reasons. But before going there, one needs to determine how much of the unemployment rate is due to this spatial mismatch.

Laurent Gobillon, Peter Rupert and Etienne Wasmer pick up on a previous paper of the latter two, which I discussed here. In this spatial search-and-matching model, commuting time acts as a friction, but can only explain a fraction of the unemployment rate gap between "majorities" and "minorities". So other factors are clearly at play. The fact that minorities are de facto confined to particular areas certainly plays a role here.

Height and labor market outcomes among twins

Yesterday, I mentioned some research on the link between height and labor market outcomes. Let me continue on the theme. It is not entirely clearly why height would matter. There are many confounding variables that could come into play. One way to sort some of them out is to use twins. Unlike many other twin studies, in this case you want to use twins who have not been separated, thus they have the same genetic material and life environment. They may thus only differ by height, social skills and cognitive abilities.

Petri Böckerman and Jari Vainiomäki use such data from Finland and find that there is no significant height premium for employment. However, looking at total income over a 15-year period, they find a premium for women, but not men. For the latter, it must thus be social or cognitive skills only that differentiates them. For women, the authors conclude that it must be discrimination that leads to the height premium, as health variable do not seems to explain it. I wonder whether this has to do with the fact that taller women are better negotiators, but somehow this does not seem to work for men.

The impact of bullying

If you do not manage to be part of the clique of "popular" people in school, or even worse are bullied, the conventional wisdom reassures you telling you that it is going to be all downhill from here on for the popular people, and that the bullied ones are going to be significantly more successful after school. I think the reason is that after high school, people split into the circles they really belong to, do not have to suffer other people they have nothing in common with and can really deploy their talents. The bulliers and popular people have lost their only edge, particular social interactions, once they get into the labor force and cannot progress.

Nick Drydakis tries to bring some empirical analysis to all this by using the Greek Behavioral Study dataset, which includes information about recollection about bullying, including frequency and intensity. It shows that at least part of the conventional wisdom (or at least how I perceived it) is wrong. Being bullied is associated with lower labor market outcomes, and it is hypothesized this is due to lower self-esteem which has also translated in lower academic achievement while in school (before age 18) and is perpetuated once in the labor force. Thus those whose mental health has been affected by bullying suffer significantly, and they seem to be more common than those who manage to brush it off and go on with life. However, the bullied ones achieve more human capital as measured by computer or English skills and higher degrees, but it looks like they do not managed to turn this into more employment or higher wages. The Greek labor market may be in part responsible for this. For example, the impact of bullying is particularly strong for homosexuals, and all those may not have a fair shot in the Greek labor market either. One should not read too much into a causality from bullying to outcomes here, as the author is careful to highlight. The study has nothing to say, however, about the bulliers and the popular people.

Why so much policy focus on home ownership?

Some have blamed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for the too risky lending to US homeowners during the house price run-up. Actual evidence for this is hard to come by, though. In this previous post, I discuss that there was indeed more risk taken, but it is not clear whether that additional risk was priced in or not. And were we to blame CRA, it would show in banks giving loans to neighborhoods that should not have received them for economic reasons, only to satisfy CRA.

Patrick Bayer, Fernando Ferreira and Stephen Ross look at the history of mortgages that they can link to credit scores and demographic characteristics. They find that for the same credit score, blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to run into mortgage trouble. While the authors do not mention this, the CRA was clearly targeting neighborhoods with such populations, and banks had to lend more there to comply. This would indicate that there is at least some truth to the CRA blaming. The authors frame this result rather by writing that this is evidence that favoring homeownership is not a good way to reduce wealth disparities. I would agree, but also because owning a home is very poor diversification, especially when this is all the wealth you can have. And there is no evidence that homeownership is good anyway, to the contrary.

How efficient is net neutrality?

Net neutrality, the fact tat no one has priority over the use of the Internet, may sound very democratic, but it is also potentially inefficient. A Skype communication, which cannot afford much latency, has the same priority as an email, which can definitely afford to wait a few seconds. The obvious solution is market based: let people pay if they want less latency. This should also make the broadband hogs who need to watch videos absolutely everywhere realize how they are affecting the Internet use of others. But that would give up the ideal that the Internet is free for all and whichever way you use it.

Nicolas Curien points out that net neutrality does not imply that Internet use should remain free, both for end users and content providers. It only implies that the price does not discriminate in any way. Curien goes on to formalize in a rather convoluted way neutrality and efficiency, showing that the most efficient outcome in many situations implies some imperfection in neutrality. This is hardly surprising. Maybe more interesting is the discussion in the conclusion, unfortunately not backed up by formal analytics, that competition makes neutrality easier to enforce, and thus Europe is in a better position in this respect than the United States. I am curious whether is true.

Gender discrimination on the labor market in China

China is a country of contradictions. While its communist ideals dictate that all people are equal, genders are quite obviously treated differently. The country's leadership is more male-based than most (23 of 25 in the politburo) and parents routinely practice gender selection for their children, which leads to the ticking bomb of a large male population surplus (more here). Is such discrimination also practiced on the labor market in China?

Xiangyi Zhou, Jie Zhang and Xuetao Song went through the trouble of sending about 20,000 fake employment applications on various major Internet bulletin boards and analyzed the responses they got. The results are damning. There is signification discrimination, but in surprising ways. State-owned enterprises tend to prefer males. Foreign and private firms go the other way and tend to prefer females. The public sector is rigid and follows rules, so it seems deeply ingrained to privilege men despite all the rhetoric. The private sector is more flexible and, I suppose, takes opportunities where they are, and hiring discriminated women seems to be the way to go. On more lesson on how free markets can be powerful adjusters.

Is the CRA responsible for the crisis?

An important component, if not reason, of the last recession has been the run-up in sub-prime mortgages until 2007. There has been much speculation what could have triggered this, for example distorted incentives in the supply of mortgages, poor evaluation of risk, or predatory lending practices. Also mentioned has been the Community Reinvestment Act, which was implemented to reduce discrimination of lending in poorer neighborhoods and, as its title indicates, encourage mortgage holding in these areas. Could the CRA be the big culprit?

Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman and Amit Seru claim the CRA did lead to more risky lending. This is based on the fact that mortgages given around the time of CRA examinations were 15% more likely to default. That is not that much a surprise as poorer neighborhoods do have riskier mortgage holders and banks had incentives to lend more during those exam periods. The real question is whether the risk was assessed and priced correctly.

The paper is still of interest. It shows that the effect was the strongest among the large banks (those that got bailouts...) and was more important while mortgage securitization was booming. Banks thus are not clean here.

Obese self-discriminators

Minorities, ugly, fat and "different" people are discriminated against, there is no question about it. It is very unfortunate, and laws (and education) try to correct this. Unfortunately, those that are discriminated may not be helping their cause by not doing enough to promote themselves.
think if it like they conceded defeat against discrimination.

What is the evidence? Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonios Proestakis ran some experiments where people were supposed to declare how much they feel they should be compensated to fill the experiment questionnaire. It turns out that obese people were asking significantly less frequently (-5%) for money, and when they ask for some they ask for much less (-20%). What is most important here is that they self-diagnose themselves as obese, less whether they actually. Seeing this, my first reaction was that they ask for less because their opportunity cost is lower, as they do earn less. But the authors take account of the wage. So it must be that obese have such low self-esteem that they cannot be ambitious in what they ask for.

Women's rights and economic growth

Women have few rights in poor economies. They enjoy much more rights in rich economies. There is no doubt the correlation is positive, but what is the causation? Asking this question puts you on a slippery slope, as advocates of women's emancipation are quick to dismiss any hint that underlying economic forces could be the origin of new rights for women, rather than an exogenous political push. What does the literature have to say about this? Luckily, two surveys came out within a week of each other, with contrasting views.

Matthias Doepke, Michèle Tertilt and Alessandra Voena start from two observations consistently documented in the literature. 1) Giving women more rights refocuses private and public spending towards children, in particular health and education. Both lead to more growth. 2) Technological progress increased the costs of a male-dominated society and encourage females to join the labor force. Both lead to women's emancipation. And not put 1) and 2) together, and you have a theory of growth with female empowerment, where males are willing to step back for their own good. If technological progress initiates this virtuous cycle, it is actually not necessary once the cycle started spinning, and we have endogenous growth.

The other survey is due to Esther Duflo, who does not see anything self-sustaining in this cycle. In particular, one needs a constant exogenous push for women's equal rights to keep it going. While the paper above looks at long trends, the second focuses on natural and artificial experiments where the analysis is rather short-term. It is thus not clear to me whether it is really about growth or development. I am thus more convinced by the first paper and hopeful that the virtuous cycle will continue feeding itself.

More on the long term consequence of slavery in Africa

Since the start of this blog, one of the most popular posts has been one that analyzes the long-term costs of slavery in Africa. Of course, it is about the consequences in regions where slaves were taken from. There is also a region where they have been taken to, that is South Africa. What has been the impact there?

Johan Fourie writes that farmers taking slaves prospered thanks to economies of scale of specialization, to the point that they were considered by some to be the richest in the world at the time. But this advantage did not last long, as the use of slave labor discouraged further immigration from Europe. And as education opportunities were limited to (free) whites, large inequalities were maintained through a period where human capital became more important. These inequalities and the large fraction of poorly educated citizens, even after emancipation and the end of apartheid, stills drags the South African economy down, because institutions emerged to perpetuate these inequities.

This persistent impact of inequality in human capital is consistent with evidence from the US, as I reported in a previous post, with a recent update by the same authors just published recently. Graziella Bertocchi and Arcangelo Dimico expand on their use of US panel data. In short, they find that the education gap between whites and blacks at the county level today is determined by the initial gap in 1940, with only little convergence since. And the initial gap is largely explained by prevalence of slavery in earlier years.

Anonymous applications on the Economics PhD market. Really?

There is unfortunately still some discrimination left in labor markets. Literature has shown that in particular race and gender may matter in some cases, as well as beauty. While this is usually demonstrated by looking at the significance of some characteristic dummies that should not matter in hiring or wage decisions, another way to test for discrimination, at least in hiring, is to compare anonymous job applications to open ones. This is costly to do, and it may infringe some ethical issues, hence this is a rare exercise.

Annabelle Krause, Ulf Rinne and Klaus Zimmermann did this for applications of Economics PhDs to a position in a European institution. I am really puzzled what they expected to learn from such a peculiar market. Indeed, part of the recruitment pool was anonymized before being submitted to the recruitment team. This is very difficult to do properly, as CV, papers and reference letter have plenty of mentions of names and gender. And how to hide that when a candidate has published or is previously known to recruiters? And of course, this can only test up to the selection for the live interview, which is very early in the recruitment process.

In addition, it is very unlikely to find discrimination in such a specialized market. One, recruiting in an academic environment is usually closely scrutinized for discrimination. In fact I have been highly annoyed by the burden it takes to prove one has not discriminated. Two, I would even argue there is reverse discrimination, as recruitment committees are often under strong pressure to hire from "under-represented" groups. Three, the institution that agrees for this exercise is not discriminating consciously, or it is very foolish.

The results are not surprising. No discrimination is found, except a little reverse discrimination for women. It is impossible to generalize the results, as the sample is so small and so specific to this recruiting institution. I really do not see the point of this paper.

Job referrals can be more efficient than open search

I a perfect world with heterogeneous workers and jobs, the matches are those that maximize efficiency. But when information about the quality of either is private and cannot be revealed credibly, the economy quickly looses efficiency. The solution is then to make hiring and firing easy, so that good matches can be found by trial and error. Employers also try to gather information about their potential employees, and their socio-demographic characteristics are certainly among them. While this looks like discrimination, it is OK if it is only statistical discrimination. But one can improve on this.

Christian Dustmann, Albrecht Glitz, and Uta Schönberg study job referrals from co-workers. They find that typically shunned minority workers are more likely to be hired the more other minority workers are already present, a clear sign of job referral. In addition, these workers earn on average higher wages and are more likely to stay in such firms. In some sense, this shows that job search networks can be better than open competition under some circumstances. One could even stretch the argument to claim that favoritism could be beneficial.

Obesity on the German labor market

Being obese makes you a social outcast, especially in countries were obese people are relatively rare. This can have consequences on the labor market, as there is plenty of evidence that handsomeness matters, for example. So are obese people discriminated against on the labor market?

Marco Caliendo and Wang-Sheng Lee look at newly employed people in Germany and find that there is not much evidence of discrimination there. Only obese (but not overweight) women may be suffering in the land of beer and wurst. Of course, one may question the validity of a study that must be relying on very few observations for a subgroup of the sample. Yet, surprisingly, half of the men and 37% of the women are considered overweight or obese, proportions I would never have imagined from walking around German towns. And with sample ages averaging in the thirties, they are relatively young too. As the survey sample is based on people who have been unemployed, I wonder whether the discrimination is rather in unemployment rather than employment.

The curse of the more trustworthy gender

It sucks to be a female entrepreneur. You are more likely to repay your loan, but you still keep getting smaller loans. As a consequence, your business is smaller than that of your male counterparts. Of course, all this could be due to some common correlates that cause women to be more trustworthy and yet get smaller loans. Or it could be just plain and simple discrimination.

Isabelle Agier and Ariane Szafarz test the latter hypothesis using rich data from microfinance in Brazil. The idea is to verify whether women are discriminated against in the loan application process. Testing for discrimination is not easy as apparent inequities may make economic sense. But if across to populations a lower or equal loan default rate is associated to a higher or equal loan denial rate, then we have an ethical issue. This what Agier and Szafarz test. Sadly, the news are not good. There is significant discrimination and despite being better creditors, they get smaller loans. Even worse, repeat applicants who could thus prove their trustworthiness get even more discriminated. Of course, there could still be some unobserved variable explaining all this, but I cannot imagine what that could be.

Affirmative action and stereotypes

The ghetto culture is a very strong absorbing point. Once you are there, it is very difficult to get out, and your children will also have a very hard time. The problem with the ghetto culture is that is harbors values that a very different from mainstream culture, in particular regarding work habits. Those values are instilled by your environment (family, neighbors, community) and when you grow up around peers with poor work habits, it is difficult to acquire better habits.

Maria Sáez-Martí and Yves Zenou make this point and add that even when parents are forward-looking and care about their offspring, they will not make the investment to teach their children good habits if employers take the cultural environment of a potential employee as a signal of work habits. They discriminate, and because they discriminate they turn out to be correct. That is a vicious circle that is difficult to beat, but initiatives like affirmative action can overcome this. The condition is that quotas be high enough.

Affirmative action can be implemented in two ways, imposing quotas on good jobs, and imposing quotas in the majority group (putting some of the ghetto in the mainstream group of applicants). Low quotas are also improving work habits in the ghetto in the second case, but are detrimental in the first case. This is because the advantage of better work habits is absent, wages of good workers are lower and parents put less effort in educating their kids. With the second case, wages of good workers remain high, and parents will help their kids who have then a chance to prove themselves. An alternative policy, integration is only beneficial to the ghetto, and obviously the others will resist integration because it hurts their work habit.

On the wisdom of Groupon

For those who are just coming back from their sabbatical in the middle of the Amazon forest, Groupon is an obnoxious coupon provider that recruits members by validating coupons only when a predefined number of users promise to use them. Also, users prepay and obtain vouchers for the purchased good. The scheme seems remarkably popular among consumers, and Groupon recently turned down a US$6 billion buyout offer from Google. While it is successful among buyers, what about sellers? There is at least anecdotal evidence that some retailers regret participating in the scheme, for example when they get swamped by vouchers.

Benjamin Edelman, Sonia Jaffe and Scott Duke Kominers analyze why businesses would want to participate. First, as for any coupon, there needs to be a reason to discriminate between customers, that is, those that consistently looks for good deals from those who do not bother. Second, it is a good way to get a new business known, and thus accept temporary losses on those deals (if you are patient enough). Third, as those coupons are primarily increasing sales, it is important that the marginal cost of the product be rather low. You do not want to be in Groupon to sell personalized cakes. And I would add that you need to either cap the number of available vouchers or be ready to increase capacity in a moment's notice. You cannot reject customers with a voucher, while you could those with only a coupon.

On the consequences of slavery

I reported now long ago on the consequences of slavery in Africa, where it is shown that countries where more slaves were taken still have lower levels of development. It is quite amazing that this can have an impact on average income for so long. But what about the receiving end of the slave trade?

Graziella Bertocchi and Arcangelo Dimico look at county data for the US and find that current average incomes are not related to the inflow of slaves. However, income inequality is. Why would that be? It could be because slave could not own land, and this still has an impact today. Or it could be because of discrimination. Or it could be because of persistent differences in human capital.

Now using a panel data set, Bertocchi and Dimico find the last one is the most likely one. The education gap between blacks and whites has never recuperated, and segregation was certainly part of it. But this strongly persistent effect means that affirmative action still has a reason to be.

Homosexuals and savings

Do homosexuals save more or less than heterosexuals. As gays typically do not have children, one may think that they care less about the future and that this leads to lower savings. This is a prevalent intuition that even brought Hans-Herrmann Hoppe trouble over academic freedom with his administration. But is this idea true?

Brighita Negrusa and Sonia Oreffice claim it is true based on an analysis of the 2000 US census, showing that homosexuals couples accumulate significantly more retirement and social security savings. They save more than heterosexual co-habiting couples, who themselves save more than heterosexual married couples. The same can be concluded from mortgage to house value ratios.

Note that savings are not directly measured in those datasets. retirement and social security savings are inferred from retirement and social security income for retirees, and household wealth is inferred from the share of mortgage payments to the house value. And homosexual couples are also inferred by have to same gender adults in the same household. But even with all the measurement errors involved, the results are pretty clear and should at least give us to rethink some unfounded intuitions.

So why would homosexuals save more? The fact that they have fewer children, which would have accounted for the lack of altruistic bequests, may also mean that they cannot count on support from descendants. This is consistent with unmarried couples (who have less children) saving more than married couples. But why then do homosexual (unmarried, this is the year 2000) couples save more than unmarried heterosexual couples? The authors rule out discrimination on credit markets. An open question.

Women's rights and development

It is sometimes puzzling when someone in power relinquishes it, especially when this person can take advantage of institutions to stay in power. One such case is when males, who were the only ones to have property rights, gave property rights to females. Why would they allow this, given that males had monopoly on votes and government?

Raquel Fernández comes up with an elegant story. The important trade-off is between appropriating all rights to oneself and how descendants, who include daughters, get. Looking at history, there are two major effects. The first is a decline of fertility, which under a patriarchal system allows fathers to bequeath more per son. But this increases the disparity between sons and daughters, and thus reduces the advantage over equal distribution, through the concavity of utility. The second effect comes from the general increase in wealth, with a similar logic.

In both cases the father becomes better off sacrificing some wealth to his wife in order to force sons-in-law to be more generous with his daughters. The prediction is then that lower fertility and more advanced economic development both force earlier adoption of female property rights, something Fernández finds across US states, which have adopted such laws at various times between 1846 and 1920 (and four states still missing by then). And the theoretical prediction is obtained without assuming changes in altruism towards children, which I find remarkable.