Saturday, June 18, 2022

Conference on Mechanism and Institution Design July 11th to 15th, 2022 National U. of Singapore, online.

 Here's the announcement:

2022 Conference on Mechanism and Institution Design July 11th to 15th, 2022 

Department of Economics, National University of Singapore

Keynote Speakers: Fuhito Kojima, Dan Kovenock, Alessandro PavanRakesh Vohra

"The theme of the conference is on mechanism and institution design, interpreted in a general sense. The conference welcomes papers in all areas of economics, finance, information system, and politics, etc., which are related to mechanisms and institutions. The topics include but are not limited to game theory and foundations, asymmetric information, mechanism design, market design, information design, market and equilibrium, assignments, auctions, contests, bargaining, matching, college admission, election schemes, political institutions, sustainability, public good provision, nonlinear pricing, law and litigation, voting, sports, economic reform, comparative economics, regulation, taxation schemes, school choice, governance, corporate finance, cryptocurrency, financial institutions, capital structure, incentives in labor market, social choice, information and learning, decision theory, platform, network, etc. Papers can be theoretical, empirical, experimental, or historical. Young economists including senior PhD students are encouraged to submit their papers.

"Based on the feedback from the session organizers and individual submitters, we decide to hold the conference fully online this time."

Friday, June 17, 2022

ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC’22), June 28th through July 15th

 Nicole Immorlica sends this announcement:

The Twenty-Third ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC’22) is taking place virtually and physically from June 28th through July 15th and includes many events of interest, including some targeted to students and early-career researchers. Virtual registration is priced to make the conference broadly accessible (just $10 or free with ACM SIGecom membership for students). Register and join us for:

 

·  Virtual Conference Tutorials and Contributed Poster Session: June 28-July 1, 2022: tutorials on market design, search, crypto, and learning, as well as a selection of contributed research posters.

·  Virtual Preview Day, July 6, 2022: posters and lightning talks of accepted conference papers.

·  Virtual Mentoring Workshop: July 7, 2022: how-to talks, job market panels, and several small group and social activities.

·  In-Person Opening Reception: 6:00-8:30 PM MT, July 11, 2022

·  Hybrid In-Person & Virtual Conference Technical Program: July 12-July 14, 2022

·  Hybrid In-Person & Virtual Conference Workshops: July 15, 2022: workshops on contract design, market design, and revenue management.

 

We look forward to seeing you at EC’22! 

 Please reach out to sigecom-ge...@googlegroups.com with questions.


Thursday, June 16, 2022

Behavioral economics and market design are quite different -- Nick Chater and George Loewenstein reflect

 Experimental economics is one of the empirical foundations of what we now call behavioral economics.  Market design sometimes depends on experiments, and is sometimes behavioral.  And when behavioral economists talk about "choice architecture" there is a clear connection with market design, although market design focuses more directly on the 'rules of the game' than on the psychology of human behavior.  Despite the connections, the two fields always felt quite different.

Here's a new working paper by two eminent behavioral scientists, one trained as a psychologist and one as an economist, saying that behavioral economics is oriented to individual level behavior, which is quite different from system level design and behavior, and that it can be costly to mistake one for the other.

The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on Individual-Level Solutions Has Led Behavioral Public Policy Astray  by Nick Chater and George Loewenstein

Abstract: An influential line of thinking in behavioral science, to which the two authors have long subscribed, is that many of society’s most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which individuals operate. Along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both academic and policy communities, we now believe this was a mistake. Results from such interventions have been disappointingly modest. But more importantly, they have guided many (though by no means all) behavioral scientists to frame policy problems in individual, not systemic, terms: to adopt what we call the “i-frame,” rather than the “s-frame.” The difference may be more consequential than those who have operated within the i-frame have understood, in deflecting attention and support away from s-frame policies. Indeed, highlighting the i-frame is a long-established objective of corporate opponents of concerted systemic action such as regulation and taxation. We illustrate our argument, in depth, with the examples of climate change, obesity, savings for retirement, and pollution from plastic waste, and more briefly for six other policy problems. We argue that behavioral and social scientists who focus on i-level change should consider the secondary effects that their research can have on s-level changes. In addition, more social and behavioral scientists should use their skills and insights to develop and implement value-creating system-level change.

**********

updated reference: Chater N, Loewenstein G. The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav Brain Sci. 2022 Sep 5:1-60. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22002023. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36059098.

**********

This is not the first time that G.L. has warned of this. Here's his 2010 NYT op-ed:

Economics Behaving Badly By GEORGE LOEWENSTEIN and PETER UBEL, July 14, 2010

"As policymakers use it to devise programs, it’s becoming clear that behavioral economics is being asked to solve problems it wasn’t meant to address. Indeed, it seems in some cases that behavioral economics is being used as a political expedient, allowing policymakers to avoid painful but more effective solutions rooted in traditional economics."

************

Here's a recent Social Science Bites podcast  in which GL is interviewed by David Edmonds. It touches on some of Loewenstein's vast accomplishments (he pioneered many of the most important topics in behavioral economics before they were widely recognized as important...). It focuses on the "empathy gap" that we exhibit when we fail to appreciate how we'll behave when we're in a different affective state. He also answers questions about where his ideas come from, and eclectic research methods.

George Loewenstein on Hot and Cold Affect

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

An unusual Argentine presidential candidate supports a monetary market for kidneys

 The right-wing Argentine politician,  Javier Milei, who describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist (but who the Washington Post thinks has a chance of becoming Argentina's next president, supports the sale of kidneys for transplantation. (The Buenos Aires Times describes him in general as an "outspoken provocateur.") While the election is only in 2023, this is the first time I have heard of this issue entering any sort of political campaign.

Here's the story in La Nacion, with some excerpts in rough translation by Google:

Javier Milei se manifestó a favor de la venta de órganos tras apoyar la compra libre de armas y denunciar a periodistas: “Es un mercado más”  2 de junio de 2022

"Javier Milei spoke out in favor of the sale of organs after supporting the free purchase of weapons and denouncing journalists: “It is one more market”

"In a week full of controversy for having denounced journalists and supported the free purchase of arms , the national deputy Javier Milei expressed another controversial opinion this morning: he declared himself in favor of the sale of organs . “It is one more market,” said the libertarian, who has already declared himself a presidential candidate for 2023.

"Asked about his position regarding this practice prohibited by law in Argentina, Milei said: “It is one more market and you could think of it as a market. The problem is why everything has to be regulated by the State.

...

"Later, he said that "there is probably something" that leads someone to decide to market their organs and under the assumption that this reason could be, for example, poverty, Milei indicated: "Then we are going to put it in other terms: if not you end up buying that organ, you end up starving and you don't even have a life."

*******

HT: Julio Elias

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

MR on repugnance for compensating blood donors, carried to an absurd conclusion

 Alex Tabarrock had a great post at MR the other day, via Peter Jaworski, called A Bloody Waste.

Here's how it began:

A Bloody Waste

"Hemochromatosis is a disorder in which extra iron builds up in the body. A potential treatment is phlebotomy so patients with hemochromatosis want to donate blood and donate regularly. The American Red Cross, however, does not permit people with hemochromatosis to donate blood. Why not? The blood is safe and effective. The blood of these patients doesn’t have much, if any, extra iron (the iron builds up in the body not so much in the blood per se). The “problem” is that people with hemochromatosis benefit themselves by giving blood and for this reason their blood is considered tainted by the American Red Cross."

Monday, June 13, 2022

Price gouging laws are unpopular with economists

 Chicago Booth's Initiative on Global Markets recently polled their panel of academic economists in the U.S. on whether a new law banning price gouging would be useful. Almost no one thought that would be a good idea:




Sunday, June 12, 2022

Who Benefits from Meritocracy? by Diana Moreira & Santiago Pérez

 Exams for U.S. civil service positions apparently started for some positions in 1883, and here's an NBER working paper that looks at the difference that made in the composition of people hired, by socioeconomic status.

Who Benefits from Meritocracy?  by Diana Moreira & Santiago Pérez

NBER WORKING PAPER 30113 DOI 10.3386/w30113 June 2022

Does screening applicants using exams help or hurt the chances of lower-SES candidates? Because individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds fare, on average, worse than those from richer backgrounds in standardized tests, a common concern with this "meritocratic" approach is that it might have a negative impact on the opportunities of lower-SES individuals. However, an alternative view is that, even if such applicants underperformed on exams, other (potentially more discretionary and less impersonal) selection criteria might put them at an even worse disadvantage. We investigate this question using evidence from the 1883 Pendleton Act, a landmark reform in American history which introduced competitive exams to select certain federal employees. Using newly assembled data on the socioeconomic backgrounds of government employees and a difference-in-differences strategy, we find that, although the reform increased the representation of "educated outsiders" (individuals with high education but limited connections), it reduced the share of lower-SES individuals. This decline was driven by a higher representation of the middle class, with little change in the representation of upper-class applicants. The drop in the representation of lower-SES workers was stronger among applicants from states with more unequal access to schooling as well as in offices that relied more heavily on connections prior to the reform. These findings suggest that, although using exams could help select more qualified candidates, these improvements can come with the cost of increased elitism.


From the conclusions:

"Our findings have implications for the broader debate on exams and meritocracy. Allocating opportunities based on exams is sometimes described as an equity-efficiency panacea, helping select the most qualified candidates while simultaneously increasing the representation of lower SES individuals. Our results challenge this view: although using exams could, in principle, help select more qualified candidates, we show that these improvements can also come with the cost of increased elitism. More generally, our findings show that adopting less discretionary selection criteria might not necessarily help the chances of lower-SES individuals.

...

"Importantly, while we investigate how exams shaped the social origins of government officials, an important question that remains unanswered is whether the poor themselves were on net made worse off by the reform. The answer to this question is not an obvious one for a variety of reasons. For instance, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds might benefit the most from having a well-functioning state, even if achieving this efficiency implies that they might lose direct access to government jobs. "

***

This paper makes me think of an earlier paper, about the historical introduction and then abandonment of a national exam-based school choice system in Japan, where the result of national exams was that urban students filled more of the places...

Friday, February 21, 2020


Saturday, June 11, 2022

Harm reduction for drugs: an experiment in British Columbia

 Here's a news story in the Guardian, and the policy paper from British Columbia about the new efforts on harm reduction there.

Canada to decriminalize some drugs in British Columbia for three years. Policy aims to stem record number of overdose deaths by easing a fear of arrest by those who need help


Here's the official report of the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia. I think the choice of cover picture does a good job of capturing the tension between treating drug users as criminals or as patients.

STOPPING THE HARM. DECRIMINALIZATION OF PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS IN BC



Friday, June 10, 2022

Congratulations to Arthur Lee, on receiving the Anna Laura Myers Prize for Outstanding Honors Thesis

Arthur Lee received the Economics Department's Anna Laura Myers Prize for Outstanding Honors Thesis yesterday, for his thesis on school choice in Singapore:

A Multi-Phase School Choice Mechanism: Theory and Practice by Arthur Lee

Abstract: We study aspects of a multi-phase school choice system used to allocate students to primary schools (first to sixth grade) in Singapore. We first examine the institutional objectives and contextual constraints of the market. Using interviews and public sources, we then present evidence of strategic decision-making by parents, and outline common considerations they face. We then introduce a novel theoretical model of a sequential matching mechanism, and analyze its performance under uncertainty. We find that the sequential nature of the mechanism may permit equilibrium welfare improvements for students when compared to the static Boston Mechanism. However, we also find that in some important respects (e.g. stability of equilibrium outcomes), such a system may be less desirable than a slot-specific Deferred Acceptance mechanism, a variant of Deferred Acceptance that allows for quotas. We use empirical evidence to demonstrate, using a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) inspired approach, that many parents use prior year’s application information in strategic decision-making. We make partial progress towards additional empirical questions, such as explaining a spike in unassigned students in 2020. Finally, we use our data to provide recommendations for students and parents in their decision-making process.



Congratulations on a fine thesis, Arthur.

Thursday, June 9, 2022

What are (swim) tests for?

 Tests serve multiple purposes, they can be to screen, to certify, to incentivize.  In recent years we have seen concern about tests' differential predictive power for different groups of test takers lead to reduced use for screening, e.g. as SAT's have become optional for college admissions, or as the US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) step 1 is moving to pass/fail grades, to prevent its (over)use in screening medical students for residencies.

Here's a story in the Chronicle of Higher Ed on swimming tests being abandoned at colleges, most recently at Williams.  (It brought back memories of my own freshman swim test at Columbia in 1968... )

Race on Campus: Why Colleges Are Dropping Their Swim Tests by Adrienne Lu 

"Welcome to Race on Campus. At one point or another, about a quarter of American colleges required students to pass a swim test. Today, there are far fewer who do, but a few holdouts remain. One college dropped its requirement this month after examining data showing students of color were far more likely to need a remedial swim class. 

...

“Students expressed feeling shamed and punished for not knowing how to swim,” wrote D. Clinton Williams in an email to The Chronicle. Williams is director of the college’s Pathways for Inclusive Excellence and chairman of the Diversity Advisory Research Team, which studied the swimming requirement. “One student told her first-year adviser, ‘It’s like they are punishing the city kids.’

...

"Once common among American colleges, swimming requirements have been dwindling for decades. A 1997 survey by professors at North Carolina State University found only 5 percent of colleges had a swim-test requirement then, down from the 25 percent that once did.

...

"Concerns about how swim requirements affect students differently are not new. Hobart and William Smith Colleges dropped its requirement in 1994, calling it archaic, difficult to administer, and unfair to students who had no access to pools, according to a Chronicle article at the time. An op-ed in the student newspaper of Washington and Lee University last November argued that the university had “failed to consider racial, economic, and cultural barriers to swimming.”

"Jeff Wiltse, a professor of history at the University of Montana, who has published extensively on the history of swimming pools in the U.S., said Black Americans today are about half as likely to know how to swim as white Americans.

...

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drowning is one of the three leading causes of unintentional-injury death among Americans under 29 years old, and from 1999-2019, American Indian or Alaskan Native people died from drowning at twice the rate of non-Hispanic white people, while non-Hispanic Black people died from drowning at 1.5 times the rate."

*********

The Talmud (in a section that's not so easy to read, kiddushin 29a, concerned among other things with a father's obligations to a son) records this opinion: " And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim. "

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

What might the assisted reproduction gray market look like, post Roe?

 Yesterday I blogged about what might happen to the availability of abortion if it's constitutional protection is reversed so that individual states can ban it.  Today let's consider other medical issues involving conception, such as IVF, which involves creating embryos in Petri dishes. It may be at risk, state by state, if we find that embryos have legal rights.  But (like abortion), IVF is likely to remain legal in some states even if banned in others.

Here's an article in JAMA:

What Overturning Roe v Wade May Mean for Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the US, by I. Glenn Cohen, JD; Judith Daar, JD; Eli Y. Adashi, MD, MS, JAMA. Published online June 6, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10163

"Across the US there exists a wide range of state laws (statutory and common law) regarding assisted reproductive technologies. For example, California courts essentially enforce agreements involving gestational surrogacy, whereas Nebraska treats such agreements as void and unenforceable and Michigan treats the creation of a commercial surrogacy agreement as a felony.

...

"The leaked opinion in the Dobbs case explicitly states that “to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right” and that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion” after sentences that reference the Supreme Court’s pre-Roe constitutional cases regarding a constitutional right to use contraception.1 But on its face, the key piece of the reasoning of the Dobbs decision, that a “right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,”1 would seem to apply with even more force to IVF, which was first used in the US in 1981, after Roe v Wade—and certainly was not present at the time of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868).

...

"A future Supreme Court opinion might easily group embryo destruction as more like abortion because of its involvement with the destruction of “potential life.” If anything, it is easier to see how the Supreme Court might reach such a decision because there is not a countervailing claim to a woman’s gestational bodily autonomy raised by, for example, a prohibition on IVF."

*********

States that make laws against IVF may have difficulty enforcing them if other U.S. states continue to have legal IVF.  Laws can of course claim to apply to their citizens wherever they are, but a woman who returns home, pregnant, from a jurisdiction with legal IVF will be very hard to distinguish from other pregnant women.  So it will be easier to shut down fertility clinics (or to ban the sale of contraceptives) within a state's boundaries than to prevent state residents who can afford it from going to a neighboring state to help them with family planning.  

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

What might the abortion gray market look like, post Roe?

 My favorite psychiatrist points out that, before abortions became generally legal except when the woman's life was at risk, psychiatrists were often called upon to make a decision.

The ‘Open Secret’ on Getting a Safe Abortion Before Roe v. Wade  By Sally L. Satel

"Dr. Satel is a visiting professor of psychiatry at Columbia and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute."


"If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, will psychiatrists resume their pre-Roe role as arbiters of abortion access? The law once compelled psychiatrists and pregnant women to perform dishonest rituals to get abortions. Will psychiatrists once again need to be complicit post-Roe?

"Before Roe v. Wade, a number of states allowed abortions if doctors could certify that the mother’s health, not solely her life, was at serious risk. A great number of those certifications were granted by psychiatrists, some of them by the professors who taught me as a resident in the mid-1980s in Connecticut.

"Through the 1940s and 1950s, medicine advanced to the point where health problems like heart disease and tuberculosis were generally no longer considered to be indications for therapeutic abortion. As a result, psychiatric justification became the primary rationale for therapeutic abortion before Roe.

...

"It was an “‘open secret,’” Dr. Richard A. Schwartz of the Cleveland Clinic observed in 1972, the year before Roe was decided, “that a woman can obtain a safe abortion in a licensed hospital if she can find a psychiatrist who will say she might commit suicide.

"To accommodate such women, psychiatrists used a combination of empathy and civil disobedience to declare them at risk unless they were allowed to terminate their pregnancies."

***

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, laws about abortion will go back to the individual States. One difference from the pre-Roe environment is that there will now be probably around half of the states that will continue to allow legal (and hence safe) abortions.  So the gray market in states with abortion bans will also involve travel, for those who can afford it (and perhaps mail order pills for those well organized enough and for whom travel isn't a good option).


Monday, June 6, 2022

The return of convalescent plasma as a treatment for Covid

 As evidence accumulates, it appears that convalescent plasma helps some patients with Covid.  Here's an article from Medpage

COVID Convalescent Plasma Finds a Therapeutic Role. — Growing evidence shows benefits in the immunocompromised

by Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, Jeffrey P. Henderson MD, PhD, Brenda J. Grossman, MD, MPH, Michael J. Joyner, MD, Shmuel Shoham, MD, Nigel Paneth, MD, MPH, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD June 19, 2022

"In the dark days of the early COVID-19 pandemic, when there was no known therapy, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) brought a ray of hope. COVID-19 survivors, community organizers, clinicians, regulators, and blood bankers collaborated to quickly bring CCP to patients. First used at the end of March 2020 in the U.S., 40% of all hospitalized patients were being treated with CCP by October 2020, considerable progress for a treatment without pharmaceutical industry support.

"Since those early days, CCP use has largely fallen off based on insufficient evidence of efficacy in hospitalized patients and the availability of other therapies. But growing evidence has shown benefits of CCP in a population with diminished treatment options and vaccine responses: the immunocompromised. This population encompasses about 3% of the population and their needs have been relatively neglected in treatment guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

...

"As the pandemic progressed, further evidence showing that CCP was effective when used early and with high antibody content emerged, strengthening support for the FDA EUA in specific groups. However, with evidence of widespread benefit being considered insufficient in the broader patient population, CCP was largely branded as ineffective, collections dropped, and little or no CCP was available when Omicron surged in early 2022.

...

"The continued needs of immunocompromised patients and the discovery that CCP obtained from vaccinated convalescent donors possess extremely high levels of antibodies that neutralize all known variants to date, including Omicron, have promoted a CCP comeback. CCP use is now recommended for immunocompromised patients by multiple major professional organizations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB).

*********

Earlier:

Sunday, April 25, 2021

A beachfront lot for you in the metaverse--or maybe an experimental lab

 With Facebook transforming itself into Meta, we're starting to hear a lot about the metaverse, a term that may have been coined by Neal Stephenson in the novel Snowcrash.

Scott Kominers, who recently signed on to an Andreessen Horowitz ("a16z" for short) expedition to the metaverse, offers this view of why you might want to set up shop there yourself sometime:

Metaverse Land: What Makes Digital Real Estate Valuable by Scott Duke Kominers

 Reading it, I realized that I had something of an early metaverse experience, involving an experiment in May 2008 in Second Life, eventually memorialized in a paper in a special issue of JEBO in honor of Werner Güth:

Greiner, Ben, Mary Caravella, and Alvin E. Roth. "Is avatar-to-avatar communication as effective as face-to-face communication? An Ultimatum Game experiment in First and Second Life." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 108 (2014): 374-382. 

We needed a metaverse laboratory in Second Life, and in order for us to be able to control communication between subjects, they each had to be teleported to a room more than a mile distant from anyone else (so that they would be beyond the range of Second Life chat tools). So our lab was an unusual bit of metaverse real estate: a tower of laboratory rooms floating above our island, each a mile above the room below it. (Construction in the metaverse is more flexible than in the physical universe.) Here's the description from the paper:

"Within Second Life, the sessions took place on an “island” under our control. We restricted access to the island to those participants’ avatars who had signed up to the session. Participants were received in a virtual laboratory building, the interior of which closely resembled the CLER layout (see screenshot 1 in Appendix B). They received a Linden$400 showup-fee, plus their income from the Ultimatum Game. At the beginning, participants received general instructions and were randomly matched to pairs and roles. In the no-communication treatment SL-NC, participants were teleported to private “decision rooms” (distant enough from each other to prevent any chat communication) and made their choices. In the avatar-to-avatar communication treatment SL-A2A, participants were first teleported in pairs to “discussion rooms” (see screenshot 2 in Appendix B) where they were free to discuss any topic for 5 min, before being teleported to their private decision room. In their decision room, participants received instructions on the Ultimatum Game. Decisions were made on an interactive wall in the decision room, which resembled the zTree input mask used in the laboratory sessions (see screenshot 3 in Appendix B). After all decisions were made, participants were informed of their payoffs and paid in Linden$ via the Second Life money transfer mechanism."


Sunday, June 5, 2022

Econometric Society Summer School in Dynamic Structural Econometrics: Market Design

Market design isn't just about game theory these days:

Econometric Society Summer School in Dynamic Structural Econometrics: Market Design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 15-20, 2022

Lecturers of the summer school and invited conference speakers include:

Nikhil Agarwal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Irene Lo, Stanford University

Victoria Marone, University of Texas at Austin

Robert A. Miller, Carnegie Mellon University

Whitney Newey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Advisory board: 

Ariel Pakes, Harvard University

Parag Pathak, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Paulo Somaini, Stanford Graduate School of Business

Daniel Waldinger, New York University

2022 organizers: 

Nikhil Agarwal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Whitney Newey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Saturday, June 4, 2022

NBER workshop on market design: Stanford November 4-5

 Here's an announcement that arrived by email:

To: NBER Market Design Working Group

From: Eric Budish, Jakub Kastl, and Marzena Rostek

 The National Bureau of Economic Research workshop on Market Design is a forum to discuss new academic research related to the design of market institutions, broadly defined. The next meeting will be held in Stanford, CA on November 4 & 5, 2022.

 We welcome new and interesting research and are happy to see papers from a variety of fields. Participants in the past meeting covered a range of topics and methodological approaches. Last year's program can be viewed at:

https://conference.nber.org/altsched/MDf21

 The conference does not publish proceedings or issue NBER working papers - most of the presented papers are presumed to be published later in journals.

 There is no requirement to be an NBER-affiliated researcher to participate.

Younger researchers, and researchers who are members of historically under-represented groups, are especially encouraged to submit papers.

 If you are interested in presenting a paper this year, please upload a PDF version by midnight EDT on August 1, 2022, to this link:

http://conference.nber.org/confsubmit/backend/cfp?id=MDf22

 Preference will be given to papers for which at least a preliminary draft is ready by the time of submission. Only authors of accepted papers will be contacted.

 For presenters in North America, the NBER will cover the travel and hotel costs. For speakers from outside North America, while the NBER will not be able to cover the airfare, it can provide support for hotel accommodation.

 There are a limited number of spaces available for graduate students to attend the conference, though we cannot cover their costs. Please email jkastl@princeton.edu a short nominating paragraph.

 Please forward this announcement to any potentially interested scholars. We look forward to hearing from you.

 


Friday, June 3, 2022

Organ transplants and capital punishment don't go well together

 I recently blogged about a paper by Robertson and Lavee in the American Journal of Transplantation, looking at surgeries conducted in China before 2015, a period in which China acknowledged that most transplants there were conducted with organs from executed prisoners.  Now they summarize their report in a column in the WSJ.

In China, New Evidence That Surgeons Became Executioners. Clinical reports recount scores of cases in which organ donors were alive when operations began.  By Jacob Lavee and Matthew P. Robertson

"The Wuhan doctors write: “When the chest of the donor was opened, the chest wall incision was pale and bloodless, and the heart was purple and beating weakly. But the heartbeat became strong immediately after tracheal intubation and oxygenation. The donor heart was extracted with an incision from the 4th intercostal sternum into the chest. . . . This incision is a good choice for field operation where the sternum cannot be sawed open without power.”

"By casually noting that the donor was connected to a ventilator (“tracheal intubation”) only at midsurgery, the physicians inadvertently reveal that the donor was alive when the operation began.

...

"Our findings end in 2015, but we think the abuse likely continues. Medical papers like those we studied were first unearthed by Chinese grass-roots investigators in late 2014, and it would have been simple to command journals to stop publishing the incriminating details after that. While China claims to have stopped using prisoners in 2015, our previous research raises doubts. In a 2019 paper in the journal BMC Medical Ethics, we used statistical forensics to show that the official voluntary-organ donation numbers were falsified, inflating the success of a modest voluntary organ-donation reform program used to buttress the reform narrative.

"Global medical leaders have largely dismissed such concerns. The World Health Organization took advice from Chinese transplant surgeons in the establishment of its anti-organ-trafficking task force—and then installed them on the membership committee. In 2020, WHO officials joined long-time apologists for China’s transplant system, attacking our previous research showing falsified numbers."

...

"Dr. Lavee is the director of the Heart Transplantation Unit at Tel Aviv’s Sheba Medical Center and a professor of surgery at Tel Aviv University. Mr. Robertson is a research fellow with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and a doctoral candidate in political science at the Australian National University."

Thursday, June 2, 2022

Stanford Economics Site Conferences 2022

Here's the full set of sessions for this summer: 

Program Overview

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Health data and privacy, in a world of overlapping data

 Re-identifying de-identified data, by combining it with other data sets, sometimes provides a way of legally circumventing medical privacy laws such as HIPAA.  Data re-identification isn't illegal.

Here's a story from Stat:

 Top privacy researchers urge the health care industry to safeguard patient data. By Megan Molteni 

"As a STAT investigation published Monday revealed, data brokers are quietly trafficking in Americans’ health information — often without their knowledge or consent, and beyond the reach of federal health privacy laws. This market in medical records has become highly lucrative  — $13.5 billion annually —  thanks to advances in artificial intelligence that enable the slicing, dicing, and cross-referencing of that data in powerful new ways.

"But the building of these algorithms often sidelines patient privacy. And researchers who’ve been tracking these erosive effects say it’s time to reform how health data is governed and give patients back control of their information.

...

"One of the most frequent harms he and other researchers have chronicled: Patients being denied care or insurance coverage based on information payers drew from their social media activities after combining datasets to re-identify them. 

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Food fight in California: Foie gras is legal for private consumption from out of state providers

 The Ninth Circuit has confirmed a nuanced lower court verdict about foie gras, in the latest episode of a long running California food fight about gavage, the force feeding of ducks:

California court okays import of foie gras from out of state, barred in 2012. The law, passed in 2004, went into effect in 2012 and banned the sale of the delicacy if produced by force feeding geese or ducks.

"A California law that effectively bans foie gras sales in the state was limited in part on Friday. Californians can continue purchasing the controversial pate from out-of-state retailers, the ninth circuit court of appeals said in a ruling.

"The law, which passed in 2004 and went into effect in 2012, bars the sale of foie gras if produced by force feeding geese or ducks, according to Courthouse News Service. As the mousse is traditionally produced from the engorged livers of force-fed geese and ducks, the legislation is a near-prohibition.

"The ninth circuit’s decision upheld a lower court’s 2020 ruling, which also permitted the shipping of out-of-state foie gras through third-party delivery companies, according to the Associated Press."

"This ruling is only applicable to people who purchase foie gras for their individual use; California law still bars retailers and restaurants from selling or giving away foie gras. The law has been challenged repeatedly since its enactment."