100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Summary EC325 Exam Relevant Class Reading Notes $20.85   Add to cart

Summary

Summary EC325 Exam Relevant Class Reading Notes

 211 views  2 purchases
  • Course
  • Institution

This contains concise summaries of exam relevant readings that were set for class presentations (12 pages) covering both MT & LT. I achieved a solid first class using these notes that I made.

Preview 2 out of 14  pages

  • October 2, 2017
  • 14
  • 2016/2017
  • Summary
avatar-seller
LECTURE 3 – EXTERNALITIES
Does Air Quality Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market [Chay & Greenstone, 2005]

OBJECTIVE:
Estimate the willingness to pay for changes in air quality by looking at how house prices change in response to
changes in air quality driven by the Clean Air Act

Clean Air Act Amendments (1970):
Legislation imposing strict regulations on polluters in ‘nonattainment’ counties, defined by concentrations of TSPs
that exceed a federally set ceiling
 Nonattainment counties have more stringent restrictions on polluters than attainment counties

WHY FOCUS ON TSPs?
 It had the most harmful effects of all pollutants regulated by CAAAs
 Including other air pollutants would have severely restricted the sample size of the data

METHOD:
Hedonic price method was used to estimate the economic value of clear air (a non­market amenity) to individuals
 It predicted that air pollution will be negatively correlated with housing prices (all other characteristics held
constant)
CAAA approach = non­attainment status used as an IV for ΔTSPs in the first differenced equations for
Δ house prices

BASIC FRAMEWORK:
 House Price a ,t =β 0+ β1 Amenity a ,t + X a ,tγ + ε a , t
ΔHouse Price
 Willingness¿ Pay=β 1=
ΔAmenity
o Gives us elasticity of house prices wrt pollution

RESULTS:
 Regulations in nonattainment counties were successfully enforced following the CAAAs
 HEDONIC APPROACH: TSPs levels only led to a small property values
o Resulting in small marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities
o β 1=¿ ­0.04 to ­0.07
o This was due to OVB & heterogeneity across individuals tastes for clean air
 Leads to individuals self­selecting into locations
 Self­selection bias was small relative to influence of OVB
 Improvements in air quality induced by TSPs nonattainment designations can be associated with a $45bn
aggregate increase in housing values in nonattainment counties
o BUT net welfare effect is unknown since reliable estimates of social costs/regulations are
unavailable
 CAAA APPROACH: Individuals place a higher value on clean air than previously recognised
o Pollution level by 1% = price levels by 36 percentage points
 Overall quite large magnitude
 PROBLEM: we’re assuming people perfectly perceive the changes in amenities that
they’re exposed to

RELIABILITY OF THE DATA USED:
 TSPs attainment/nonattainment designations:
o Reasonable approximation to EPA’s actual selection rule was used
o There could be some room for error & imprecision
 Housing values:
o CCDBs used are comprehensive, reliable & complete with info for every US county
o Census data contained fewer variables on characteristics of homes & neighbourhoods than was
ideal
o Existence of a national housing market was assumed

,  Unable to explore the degree of within­county taste heterogeneity & sorting
 Could lead to results understating individual­level dispersion in MWTP
o Income & other similar variables are generally excluded
 Direct test of validity of exclusion restriction unavailable
o Hedonic approach was original an individual level model
 Aggregation to county level may induce some biases

LECTURE 4 – PUBLIC GOODS [Gneezy, Uri and Rustichini, 2000]
A Fine is a Price

THE STUDY:
10 day­care centres were observed over 20 weeks (Israel, 1991­1992)
 In the 1st 4 weeks  only the no. parents who arrived late were observed
 Beginning of 5th week  a monetary fine was introduced to 6 day­care centres on those who arrived 10+
mins late (other 4 day­care centres served as a control group)
o The fine of NIS 10 was relatively small but not insignificant
 Beginning of 7th week  the fine was removed

METHOD:
 Control: initial 4 weeks
 Treatment group was selected randomly
o There was no significant difference in the behaviour of the test group & control group in the initial 4
weeks
o No significant trend in the test group in the initial 4 weeks
 All day­care centres were located in the same part of town with no important differences among them
 RDD  exogenous variation from average class size falling after every multiple of 40


THE RESULTS:
 The no. late­coming parents increased significantly after the fine was introduced
o Almost doubled in the level of the rate of delay
 At the end of the adjustment period after the fine was introduced (lasting 2­3 weeks)  the no. late coming
parents remained stable @ a higher rate than in the no­fine period
 After the fine was removed  no reductions occurred in the level of the rate of delay for the treatment group
 The results contradicted the deterrence hypothesis
o Deterrence hypothesis: predicts that the introduction of a penalty that leaves everything else
unchanged will reduce the occurrence of the behaviour subject to the fine

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
 The results contradicted the deterrence theory for 2 possible reasons:
o A “large enough” fine would eventually reduce the behaviour
o The introduction of a fine can change the perception of the obligation to arrive on time
 ∴ The assumption that “everything else is left unchanged” didn’t hold
 Contract was previously incomplete  parents didn’t know how bad it was to be late (as
there was no price on being late)
 Intrinsic motivation for being a good person is removed
o People don’t want to seem greedy for money

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller imblanc. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $20.85. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

76800 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$20.85  2x  sold
  • (0)
  Add to cart