Environmental Economics

Advice for a student

From the inbox:

I was recently thinking of majors of study, and was wondering what field of Science would compliment economics? I am considering either Ecology or Earth Sciences. I see Earth Sciences the obvious path to go down ..., but I like the idea of trying to price a polar bear or something. Would you have any insight into which would be better internationally?

I don't really know but my guess is that ecology would be the best major to pair with economics if you want to value a polar bear (or do any bioeconomic stuff). Earth Sciences would be great to better help understand the economic theory of the mine, Hotelling's Rule, land use and hedonic housing markets but it seems the mining companies would want to assign a $0 value to the polar bear.

Any better answers from commenters?

Economist's View takes the baton on the AER author prestige issue

Mark Thoma: 

It was awhile ago, but I once discovered an error in a paper in the AER (the author used the level of the price level rather than the log). When I pointed out the error, the author -- who is very well known (and now the Fed chair) -- wrote a letter to the editor of the AER arguing that it didn't materially affect the results, and subsequently our note pointing out the error was rejected (much like Reinhart and Rogoff argue that their results are not materially affected by their error, but I think the error mattered as it weakens the case in the Bernanke and Blinder paper, but even if it doesn't wrong results should be corrected -- the results cannot be replicated based on the information in the paper). The prestigious author won out over lowly me, and to this day there is a wrong result in a table in a influential paper in the debate over how to conduct monetary policy. The only place I know of where the error is noted is in a footnote to a (relatively obscure) paper of mine (along with Jo Anna Gray). The footnote says:

Table 1 of Bernanke and Blinder [1992 ] reports marginal significance levels for the federal funds rate that are dramatically higher than those for M2. There are numerous differences between our studies, most of which are inconsequential. However, this discrepancy in results is due to a computational error in the Bernanke and Blinder study. While the error significantly affects some of the F-statistics reported by Bernanke and Blinder, it has little effect on the corresponding variance decompositions reported in the paper. We thank Ben Bernanke for providing assistance that allowed us to confirm and correct the error

Again, whether or not is materially affects the results is debatable. The F-statistics changed quite a bit, the IRFs less so, but in any case results containing computational errors should be corrected, especially in papers as influential as this one turned out to be. (Update: This also shows that the profession cares very little about making it easy to replicate results.)

We will never be a science so long as this crap persists.

The lesson is that a prestigious author's published mistakes are inconsequential while a less than prestigious authors mistakes gets the paper reject.

And I agree with the last line.

Here is Tim's scoop on this one, he beat me by 1.5 hours. 

"We will never be a science so long as this crap persists"

MarkThoma at Economist's View takes the AER to task for basing article selection on prestige and for failing to publish corrections to flawed articles--if they are written by the current Chair of the Fed.

It was awhile ago, but I once discovered an error in a paper in the AER (the author used the level of the price level rather than the log). When I pointed out the error, the author -- who is very well known (and now the Fed chair) -- wrote a letter to the editor of the AER arguing that it didn't materially affect the results, and subsequently our note pointing out the error was rejected (much like Reinhart and Rogoff argue that their results are not materially affected by their error, but I think the error mattered as it weakens the case in the Bernanke and Blinder paper, but even if it doesn't wrong results should be corrected -- the results cannot be replicated based on the information in the paper). The prestigious author won out over lowly me, and to this day there is a wrong result in a table in a influential paper in the debate over how to conduct monetary policy.

via economistsview.typepad.com

Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me

Who says economists aren't cool?

An e-mail conversation between the co-authors of this paper (that you should really be downloading) resulted in the exchange of the following pictures of advisor and former student:

Advisor (circa 1986 or so--that's me with the mullet on drums):

Former Student--now assistant professor at Mississippi State--Matt Interis (circa 2004?):

New Appstate working paper

Ash is doing better about reducing the length of his titles:

Measuring the Impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from a Natural Experiment

O. Ashton Morgan, John C. Whitehead, William L. Huth, Gregory S. Martin and Richard Sjolander

No 13-11, Working Papers from Department of Economics, Appalachian State University

Abstract: A natural experiment setting is exploited to develop a unique dataset of oyster consumer actual and anticipated behavior immediately prior to and following the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Using data from a repeat sample of oyster consumers, a pre and post-spill revealed and stated preference model allows both a short and longer-term response to the spill to be investigated. Findings indicate that, as expected, the BP spill had a negative impact on oyster demand in terms of short-run actual behavior, although spill effects show signs of dissipating several months following the spill. However, by accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in the sample, findings further indicate that short and longer-term spill responses differ across consumer groups. For the larger consumer groups, the negative spill effects continue over the longer-term horizon, while other groups are either non-responsive or increase consumption following news of the spill.

Key Words: Consumer behavior, BP oil spill, revealed and stated preference, latent class analysis

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/aplwpaper/13-11.htm

We're still thinking about whether this paper would have a chance at the AER. What do you think?

Where is the love?

Our latest download figures for:

From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation, Timothy C. Haab, Matthew G. Interis, Daniel Ryan Petrolia and John C. Whitehead, Working Papers from Department of Economics, Appalachian State University

 

Don't you all know that John and I have egos that need continuous inflation? 

How are we ever going to get into AER if we can't get our best work downloaded more than 40 times in a month?

Again...the paper can be downloaded here.

Don't make me tell you again.

The AER editorial board would do the profession a service by explicitly spelling out the sort of prestige that allows one to be taken seriously by the AER

From the inbox:

Dear AEA Member:

Our records indicate that your membership will lapse on Jul 31, 2013, and we invite you to renew your membership at this time.

AEA membership provides a number of important benefits including the ability to access all seven AEA journals online, preview pre-publication accepted articles for AEA journals, access EconLit for Members, sign up for update alerts by JEL code and quarterly AEA virtual field journals, and include yourself in the Directory of Members. ...

We look forward to continuing your membership in the American Economic Association.

Sincerely,

Peter L. Rousseau
Secretary-Treasurer

But, sorry fella, no need to submit your paper to the AER. Shouldn't there be a tiered fee structure? I would propose lower membership fees for less prestigious members (e.g., those at the piddly schools, ag econ departments, fields in environmental/resources, etc)? Or, the more prestigious members of the AEA might propose higher fees to get rid of some of the riff raff.

When does +2.2% = -0.1%? er, never?

More negative space from Greg Mankiw's Blog ("Stevenson-Wolfers on Reinhart-Rogoff"):

They write:

In the end, all the corrections advocated by the critics shift the average GDP growth for very-high-debt nations to 2.2 percent, from a negative 0.1 percent in Reinhart and Rogoff’s original work. The finding remains that economic growth is lower in very-high-debt countries (see chart). It has been disappointing to watch those on the left seize on the embarrassing Excel errors but ignore this bigger picture.

 

via gregmankiw.blogspot.com

But still, isn't there a big difference between +2.2% and -0.1% growth? With +2.2% growth income will double in 30 years or so. With -0.1% growth income will never double. Plus, there is still the issue of causality: does slow growth cause debt or does debt cause slow growth?

I guess it has been disappointing to watch some argue that the R/R mistakes don't really matter. 

So, how can I get my students to read my facebook page?

I thought mixing social media with your students was considered creepy (especially if you are a middle-aged male):

Those who worry about the reading habits of today's college students can take heart: They may be reading more than is commonly thought.

However, more than 40 percent of the time they spend reading is on social media, and that reading often happens during class, a new study reveals.

"We need to be aware of students' reading habits because they have changed," said SuHua Huang, author of "Reading Habits of College Students in the United States," which was presented on Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

"As professors," she said, "we have to update our teaching methods and integrate technology and use social media in the lecture." ...

Students said in interviews that reading textbooks was "tedious" and "time-consuming." Some said they did not read the textbooks if they did not need them for examinations.

via chronicle.com

Ah, I remember my college years. Even back then reading textbooks was tedious and time consuming. But, somehow we survived. 

Work is often tedious and time consuming too!

Everyone has the same chance at the AER, right?

Wrong:

We spoke with Virginia economics professor William R. Johnson, who edited the edition of the Review in which the [Reinhart and Rogoff] paper first appeared. 

This annual edition, "Papers and Proceedings," differs from all others in that the papers come out of presentations made at the yearly meeting of the American Economic Association, he said.

The papers are personally selected by the AEA's president-elect, in consultation with a  committee.

As a result of these unusual circumstances, Johnson said, the editing of "Proceeding" papers is less rigorous.

"Normal peer review doesn't happen for these papers in the way of other issues of the AER." ...

But author prestige also comes into play, Johnson said, adding that that was true for all AER papers, not just the ones that appear in "Proceedings."

via www.businessinsider.com

We all knew this but it is a little surprisingly to see its admission.