Summary

Imperfect Expectations: Theory and Evidence
Author(s):
George-Marios Angeletos, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NBER
Zhen Huo, Yale University
Karthik Sastry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Discussant(s):
Jessica Wachter, University of Pennsylvania and NBER
Ricardo Reis, London School of Economics
Summary:

Angeletos, Huo, and Sastry complement existing evidence about the predictability of average and individual forecast errors with a new fact: in response to aggregate shocks, expectations under-react initially but over-shoot later on. They next inspect these facts under the lens of a parsimonious theoretical framework that distills the essence of diverse existing theories about expectation formation. The researchers conclude that the evidence favors a theory that combines dispersed information with over-extrapolation. Theories that emphasize cognitive discounting, level-k thinking and over-confidence find little support. Angeletos, Huo, and Sastry finally illustrate the general-equilibrium implications of the documented facts within the New Keynesian model.

Sources of U.S. Wealth Inequality: Past, Present, and Future
Author(s):
Per Krusell, Stockholm University and NBER
Joachim Hubmer, University of Pennsylvania
Anthony Smith, Yale University and NBER
Discussant(s):
Owen Zidar, Princeton University and NBER
Benjamin Moll, London School of Economics
Summary:

This paper employs a benchmark heterogeneous-agent macroeconomic model to examine a number of plausible drivers of the rise in wealth inequality in the U.S. over the last forty years. Krusell, Hubmer, and Smith find that the significant drop in tax progressivity starting in the late 1970s is the most important driver of the increase in wealth inequality since then. The sharp observed increases in earnings inequality and the falling labor share over the recent decades fall far short of accounting for the data. The model can also account for the dynamics of wealth inequality over the period -in particular the observed U-shape - and here the observed variations in asset returns are key. Returns on assets matter because portfolios of households differ systematically both across and within wealth groups, a feature in their model that also helps us to match, quantitatively, a key long-run feature of wealth and earnings distributions: the former is much more highly concentrated than the latter.

The Glass Ceiling and The Paper Floor: Gender Differences among Top Earners, 1981-2012
Author(s):
Fatih Guvenen, University of Minnesota and NBER
Greg Kaplan, University of Chicago and NBER
Jae Song, Social Security Administration
Discussant(s):
Paola Sapienza, Northwestern University and NBER
Raquel Fernández, New York University and NBER
Summary:

Guvenen, Kaplan, and Song analyze changes in the gender structure at the top of the earnings distribution in the United States over the last 30 years using a 10% sample of individual earnings histories from the Social Security Administration. Despite making large inroads, females still constitute a small proportion of the top percentiles: the glass ceiling, albeit a thinner one, remains. They measure the contribution of changes in labor force participation, changes in the persistence of top earnings, and changes in industry and age composition to the change in the gender composition of top earners. A large proportion of the increased share of females among top earners is accounted for by the mending of, what the researchers refer to as, the paper floor -- the phenomenon whereby female top earners were much more likely than male top earners to drop out of the top percentiles. Guvenen, Kaplan, and Song also provide new evidence at the top of the earnings distribution for both genders: the rising share of top earnings accruing to workers in the Finance and Insurance industry, the relative transitory status of top earners, the emergence of top earnings gender gaps over the life cycle, and gender differences among lifetime top earners.

Downloads:
What Do We Learn From Cross-Regional Empirical Estimates in Macroeconomics?
Author(s):
Adam Guren, Boston University and NBER
Alisdair McKay, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Emi Nakamura, University of California, Berkeley and NBER
Jón Steinsson, University of California, Berkeley and NBER
Discussant(s):
Valerie Ramey, University of California, San Diego and NBER
Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, Harvard University and NBER
Summary:

Recent empirical work uses variation across cities or regions to identify the effects of economic shocks of interest to macroeconomists. The interpretation of such estimates is complicated by the fact that they reflect both partial equilibrium and local general equilibrium effects of the shocks. Guren, McKay, Nakamura, and Steinsson propose an approach for recovering estimates of partial equilibrium effects from these cross-regional empirical estimates. The basic idea is to divide the cross-regional estimate by an estimate of the local fiscal multiplier, which measures the strength of local general equilibrium amplification. The researchers apply this approach to recent estimates of housing wealth effects based on city-level variation, and derive conditions under which the adjustment is exact. Guren, McKay, Nakamura, and Steinsson then evaluate its accuracy in a richer general equilibrium model of consumption and housing. The paper also reconciles the positive cross-sectional correlation between house price growth and construction with the notion that cities with larger price volatility have lower housing supply elasticities using a model in which housing supply elasticities are more dispersed in the long run than in the short run.

In addition to the conference paper, the research was distributed as NBER Working Paper w26881, which may be a more recent version.

Innovative Growth Accounting
Author(s):
Peter Klenow, Stanford University and NBER
Huiyu Li, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Discussant(s):
John Haltiwanger, University of Maryland and NBER
Summary:

Recent work highlights a falling entry rate of new firms and a rising market share of large firms in the United States. To understand how these changing firm demographics have affected growth, Klenow and Li decompose productivity growth into the firms doing the innovating. They trace how much each firm innovates by the rate at which it opens and closes plants, the market share of those plants, and how fast its surviving plants grow. Using data on all nonfarm businesses from 1982-2013, Klenow and Li find that new and young firms (ages 0 to 5 years) account for almost one-half of growth -- three times their share of employment. Large established firms contribute only one-tenth of growth despite representing one-fourth of employment. Older firms do explain most of the speedup and slowdown during the middle of our sample. Finally, most growth takes the form of incumbents improving their own products, as opposed to creative destruction or new varieties.

In addition to the conference paper, the research was distributed as NBER Working Paper w27015, which may be a more recent version.

Diverging Trends in National and Local Concentration
Author(s):
Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, Princeton University and NBER
Pierre-Daniel Sarte, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Nicholas Trachter, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Discussant(s):
Robert Hall, Stanford University and NBER
Jan Eeckhout, Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Summary:

Using U.S. NETS data, Rossi-Hansberg, Sarte, and Trachter present evidence that the positive trend observed in national productmarket concentration between 1990 and 2014 becomes a negative trend when they focus on measures of local concentration. The researchers document diverging trends for several geographic definitions of local markets. SIC 8 industries with diverging trends are pervasive across sectors. In these industries, top firms have contributed to the amplification of both trends. When a top firm opens a plant, local concentration declines and remains lower for at least 7 years. Their findings, therefore, reconcile the increasing national role of large firms with falling local concentration, and a likely more competitive local environment.

In addition to the conference paper, the research was distributed as NBER Working Paper w25066, which may be a more recent version.

Participants

Below is a list of conference attendees.
Patrick Adams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Elena Afanasyeva, Federal Reserve Board
Andrea Ajello, Federal Reserve Board
Federico Bennet, Duke University
Agneta Berge
Riccardo Bianchi Vimercati, Northwestern University
Laura Blattner, Stanford University
Jean-Felix Brouillette, Stanford University
Nicolas Caramp, University of California at Davis
Xiang Ding, Georgetown University
Ethan Fang, University of Rochester
Juan Herreno, Inter-American Development Bank
Sasha Indarte, University of Pennsylvania
Diego Kaenzig, London Business School
Maziar Kazemi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Federico Kochen, New York University
Eunseong Ma, Louisiana State University
Humberto Martinez Beltran, Rutgers University
Max Miller, University of Pennsylvania
Marialuz Moreno Badia, International Monetary Fund
Thuy Lan Nguyen, Santa Clara University
Krisztina Orban, NBER
Jacob Orchard, University of California at San Diego
James Paron, University of Pennsylvania
Stefano Pica, Boston University
Tatevik Sekhposyan, Texas A&M University
Joe Simmons, Boston University

More from NBER

In addition to working papers, the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter, the NBER Digest, the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability, and the Bulletin on Health — as well as online conference reports, video lectures, and interviews.

Economics of Digitization Figure 1
  • Article
The NBER Economics of Digitization Project, established in 2010 with support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,...
claudiagoldinpromoimagelecture.png
  • Lecture
Claudia Goldin, the Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard University and a past president of the American...
2020 Methods Lecture Promo Image
  • Lecture
The extent to which individual responses to household surveys are protected from discovery by outside parties depends...