Environmental Economics

"Thoughts on the violation of AER's editorial policy?"

That was the question I received via twitter in response to this post: "Economists go wild over overlooked citations in [AER] preprint on prenatal stress." My comment was:

While I'm not discounting the fact that there may have been some selective non-citation, the bros at EJMRs are over the top. Anonymity provides the courage to reveal your ignorance and worse. Janet Currie said it well “It just shows how clueless the Econ Job Rumors people can be.”

So, I read the comments at Retraction Watch and, indeed, it does sound like there is a problem at the AER. This comment from "Econ Prof" seems to sum it up best for me:

The claims by defenders of the paper that this is an issue of a few missing citations are inaccurate and unhelpful. If this were a paper making a significant contribution that simply failed to note some of the relevant literature, the furor would have died down days ago when the citations were added.

The issue is that
1. The paper makes no significant contribution to the literature,
2. The papers left uncited were precisely those that addressed the exact same questions, making this paper little more than a replication on a topic that is well-trodden ground in the medical literature, and
3. In light of 1 and 2, the paper clearly doesn’t represent a contribution worthy of AER, but no action is being taken to e.g. assign new referees and reassess its acceptance.

Additionally, while the focus by defenders of the paper and this article has been on a gender-based motive for this controversy, surveying the thread makes it clear that most of the vitriol is directed at elitism (perfectly captured in Currie and Hoynes’ condescending responses), nepotism, and clubbiness in the economics profession. People are angry because this is merely an unusually clear-cut example of well-connected researchers leveraging their professional networks to publish low quality work at the expense of less connected scholars, a longstanding source of frustration in the profession, and this paper is still being pushed forward and aggressively defended even in light of overwhelming evidence that it does not belong in a top journal.

While EJMRs can be a cesspool, in this case it seems that the EJMRs bros have made an especially worthy contribution (i.e., I doubt if the paper had been published if the authors were from "Appalachian Podunk State"). In retrospect, my comment would have been improved without the quote from Janet Currie. 

I like the idea, but I think renaming it 'Caribbean Butterfish' would speed the process

On April 30, 2012, I wrote:

Here is my solution to any aquatic invasive specie problem. Have the government start a covert marketing campaign designed to convince the public that the invasive specie is in fact a delicacy. They can even rename the specie to make it sound appetizing (think Toothfish to Chilean Sea Bass). But here's the catch... once the public is convinced of the delectable nature of the new exotic seafood, fail to regulate the fishery. As demand increases, prices will rise and the tragedy of the commons will eradicate the invaders.

Although they didn't rename it, Whole Foods seems to have heeded my suggestion for the invasive Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Lionfish:

Lionfish with their distinctive venomous spines are an invasive species that has thrived in U.S. coastal waters because they have no natural predators -- until now.

Whole Foods stores in Florida are selling the "white, buttery meat" of the fish, which the grocery chain says is suitable for ceviche or a "simple pan sauté."

The U.S. government, eager to stop the lionfish from preying on native fish and shellfish, gives the meal five stars.

"If we can't beat them, why not eat them?" says the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration in a PSA video. "Why wait? Get them on your plate."

The lionfish are native to the Pacific and Indian oceans, but can also be found in the Atlantic and Caribbean, where it is considered an invasive species, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The government blames the aquarium trade for introducing the fish to the U.S. in the 1980s, and encourages Americans to catch and eat them.

Here's the PSA:

If the government really wanted to speed the process they could subsidize the catch of Lionfish (er, Caribbean Butterfish) for food, thus speeding the tragedy of the commons (and lowering the price to consumers).  A problem might arise if consumers develop a taste for Lionfish and start demanding the government regulate the stock.  But that's a ways down the road. 

 

The Onion perfectly illustrates my growing resistance to attending academic conferences

From the Onion:

Following what they deemed to be a peculiar interaction with a number of possible implications, the nation’s top overthinkers gathered for an intensive three-day symposium this week to determine what that’s supposed to mean.

Thousands of overthinkers from across the country, who were seen furrowing their brows and squinting intently, convened in the auditorium at the New York Hilton in Midtown Manhattan in an effort to closely scrutinize the words that had been said and ascertain what—if anything—had been the actual intention behind the exchange in question.

Your daily reminder ...

... that I'm a very famous sports economist*:

This study shows that fans and people living in the region of 28 Football Bundesliga teams from all three divisions are willing to support their team financially. Survey respondents were asked for their willingness-to-pay to avoid a negative outcome (e.g., relegation) and to achieve a positive outcome (e.g., promotion). Fan bonds are applied as an alternative payment vehicle within the contingent valuation method. The results show that different factors affect the decision to support the team and the actual amount of willingness-to-pay—for attendees and nonattendees. Public goods are particularly relevant for reporting a positive willingness-to-pay. (JEL Z23, L83, H41)

Wicker, P., Whitehead, J. C., Johnson, B. K. and Mason, D. S. (2016), WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR SPORTING SUCCESS OF FOOTBALL BUNDESLIGA TEAMS. Contemporary Economic Policy, 34: 446–462. doi: 10.1111/coep.12148

via onlinelibrary.wiley.com

One of my favorite quotes from the Western meetings is that "the CVM is like Wal Mart...." I forget the rest but it kind of says it all, right?

*And athlete, here I am draining a three in the High Country Senior Games 3v3 basketball on Wednesday night. The without-their-big-man High Country 50+ lost to the Ashe Panthers 55+ by a handful of points. Three of us fouled out (huh?) and we finished the game with only two guys on the court. You gotta have a big man in Senior Games. 

My Memorial Day weekend post (via RFF)

Margaret Walls:

As Memorial Day approaches and the National Park Service’s 100th anniversary draws near, I’ve been looking back at a pair of 2009 reports on America’s “great outdoors.” An RFF report that I coauthored reviewed the status of public lands, demand for outdoor recreation, and conservation funding trends. The study was in support of the Outdoor Resources Review Group, a 17-member bipartisan commission comprising conservation, public lands, and parks experts. US Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) were honorary co-chairs, and the commission was created by two long-time elder statesmen in the field, noted environmental lawyer Henry Diamond and Conservation Fund Chair Emeritus Patrick Noonan. The commission released its own report (published by RFF) with a set of recommendations, many of which formed the basis for President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, launched in April 2010.

Although the two reports are now seven years old, many of the findings still resonate. Here’s a brief summary—some food for thought as we approach the summer outdoor recreation season. ...

What’s happened in the seven years since these reports were published? The recession, which was just hitting the US economy as the reports were completed, had a devastating effect on state and local government budgets. In many states, the first agencies to see cuts were parks and natural resources agencies. State parks saw huge budget cuts and many of them have not fully recovered. The same is true of the federal land management agencies. The National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog has ballooned to nearly $12 billion. The state conservation programs funded by dedicated revenue sources were hit hard and legislatures in many states diverted what money there was to other programs. Some of those programs are starting to recover but some of the diversions have remained in place. The LWCF [Land and Water Conservation Fund] Act came up for reauthorization in October 2015 and, after much debate, was renewed for only three years. While the LWCF maintains some bipartisan support in Congress, a minority group of conservative lawmakers wants to stop funding land acquisitions altogether and sell off federal lands to the states. These disputes continue, leaving the LWCF—and support for land conservation more broadly—in limbo.

All of this means we’re a long way from adopting the primary recommendation put forward by the Outdoor Resources Review Group in the commission’s report: Establishing a new, independent trust operating outside of the confines of the congressional appropriations process, with $3.2 billion of dedicated annual LWCF funding (an amount equal to the $900 million authorized in the 1970s adjusted for inflation) serving as base support.

Both of these reports stand the test of time. The RFF report and the numerous background studies that RFF researchers undertook or oversaw are a treasure trove of information about our country’s outdoor resources. If you’re interested in learning more, all of these publications can be found on the RFF project page.

via www.rff.org

"Economists go wild over overlooked citations in [AER] preprint on prenatal stress"

Retraction Watch:

Citation omissions in an economics preprint have set off a wave of recrimination and speculation on a widely read economics discussion board.

Commenters accuse the authors of purposely omitting citations that would have undermined the paper’s claims to novelty and contributions to the field, leveling acrimony and personal attacks. Economists Petra Persson at Stanford and Maya Rossin-Slater at the University of California, Santa Barbara told us they hadn’t been familiar with the omitted papers at the time they first posted their preprint, but their work remains distinct from these previous studies. Nevertheless, the two quickly updated the preprint of their paper – accepted by the top-tier economics journal American Economic Review – to include additional citations. An editor at the journal said it’s not unusual for authors to request such changes before publication, and dismissed the accusations made on the discussion board, calling the site “not a legitimate source of information.”

The study, “Family Ruptures, Stress, and the Mental Health of the Next Generation,” used data from Swedish national databases to compare mental health outcomes of people born to women who lost a relative while pregnant and women who lost a relative in the first year after giving birth. In their manuscript, Persson and Rossin-Slater write that their study is the “first to document a causal link between fetal stress exposure and mental health later in life.” ...

The response has been acrimonious, with online commenters accusing the two authors of everything from deliberate omissions to outright plagiarism of study design and datasets. At the Economics Job Market Rumors site, the related discussion thread — which extended well past 1400 comments at the time of this writing — veers from sober analysis toward the offensive. Less constructive comments run the gamut from berating Persson and Rossin-Slater for being successful women in their field to rating them based on their attractiveness. The accusations have extended beyond the two authors to encompass journal co-editor Hilary Hoynes, professor of public policy and economics at UC Berkeley, and four anonymous reviewers whom the authors thank in their most recent draft of the paper. ...

While I'm not discounting the fact that there may have been some selective non-citation, the bros at EJMRs are over the top. Anonymity provides the courage to reveal your ignorance and worse. Janet Currie said it well “It just shows how clueless the Econ Job Rumors people can be.”

Friday Dancing Economist Post

I figure since John put it on Facebook, I can put it here...

 

Sherry Larkin describes the BP oil spill "economic loss research for the state of Florida" in the May AERE Newsletter

The AERE Newsletter is available here: http://www.aere.org/newsletters/documents/AERE%20Newsletter%20May%202016%20%20FINAL.pdf

A presidential candidate that doesn't make me even a little uncomfortable

Richard G. Newell named next president of RFF:

Resources for the Future (RFF) today announced the appointment of Richard G. Newell of Duke University as its next president.

He will succeed current RFF president and former US congressman Phil Sharp, who will retire at the end of June after 11 years at RFF’s helm. Dr. Newell’s term begins on September 1, 2016.

From 2009–2011, Dr. Newell served by presidential appointment as Administrator of the US Energy Information Administration, the agency responsible for official US government energy statistics and analysis. He also served as Senior Economist for Energy and Environment on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during 2005–2006.

At Duke University, Dr. Newell is the Gendell Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics at the Nicholas School of the Environment, Professor of Economics, and Professor of Public Policy. During 2011–2016, he was Founding Director of the Duke University Energy Initiative. ...

via www.rff.org

I'm updating my vita to land that sweet new job opening at Duke.

Daily Demand and Supply: The law of demand illustrated in low-wage labor markets

Law of Demand: As prices go up, the amount demanded goes down, and vice-versa.

Impact: As prices rise two things happen, people demand less of that which costs more, and people will switch to what are now relatively cheaper substitutes

Illustration:

And Andy Puzder, CEO of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, told Business Insider that 'government driving up the cost of labor (is) driving down the number of jobs,' promising 'automation not just in airports and grocery stores, but in restaurants.' 

A remaining question:  How sensitive is the amount demanded to higher prices?