Category: Data Source
Growth Experiences and Trust in Government*
From a new QJE paper by Timothy Besley, Christopher Dann, and Sacha Dray:
This paper explores the relationship between economic growth and trust in government using variation in GDP growth experienced over a lifetime since birth. We assemble a newly harmonized global dataset across eleven major opinion surveys, comprising 3.3 million respondents in 166 countries since 1990. Exploiting cohort-level variation, we find that individuals who experience higher GDP growth are more prone to trust their governments, with larger effects found in democracies. Higher growth experiences are also associated with improved perceptions of government performance and living standards. We find no similar channel between growth experience and interpersonal trust. Second, more recent growth experiences appear to matter most for trust in government, with no detectable effect of growth experienced during one’s formative years, closer to birth or before birth. Third, we find evidence of a “trust paradox” whereby average trust in government is lower in democracies than in autocracies. Our results are robust to a range of falsification exercises, robustness checks and single-country evidence using the American National Election Studies and the Swiss Household Panel.
Via Alexander Berger.
Claims about AI and science
You should take these as quite context-specific numbers rather than as absolutes, nonetheless this is interesting:
Scientists who engage in AI-augmented research publish 3.02 times more papers, receive 4.84 times more citations and become research project leaders 1.37 years earlier than those who do not. By contrast, AI adoption shrinks the collective volume of scientific topics studied by 4.63% and decreases scientists’ engagement with one another by 22%.
Here is the full Nature piece by Qianyue Hao, Fengli Xu, Yong Li, and James Evans. The end sentence of course does not have to be a negative. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
The share of factor income paid to computers
Via Kevin Bryan.
Grade inflation sentences to ponder
Next, we consider the effects of grade inflation on future outcomes. Passing grade inflation reduces the likelihood of being held back, increases high school graduation, and increases initial enrollment in two-year colleges. Mean grade inflation reduces future test scores, reduces the likelihood of graduating from high school, reduces college enrollment, and ultimately reduces earnings.
Here is the full paper by Jeffrey T. Denning, Rachel Nesbit, Nolan Pope, and Merrill Warnick. Via Kris Gulati.
The downside of NAFTA?
We study how NAFTA changed the geography of violence in Mexico. We propose that this open border policy increased trafficking profits of Mexican cartels, resulting in violent competition among them. We test this hypothesis by comparing changes in drug-related homicides after NAFTA’s introduction in 1994 across municipalities with and without drug-trafficking routes. Routes are predicted least cost paths connecting municipalities with a recent history of detected drug trafficking with U.S. land ports of entry. On these routes, homicides increase by 2.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, which is equivalent to 26% of the pre-NAFTA mean. These results cannot be explained by changes in worker’s opportunity costs of using violence resulting from the trade shock.
That is from a new JDE paper by Eduardo Hidalgo, Erik Horning, and Pablo Selaya. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
The Tyranny of the Complainers
Some years ago, Dourado and Russell pointed out a stunning fact about airport noise complaints: A very large number come from a single individual or household.
In 2015, for example, 6,852 of the 8,760 complaints submitted to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport originated from one residence in the affluent Foxhall neighborhood of northwest Washington, DC. The residents of that particular house called Reagan National to express irritation about aircraft noise an average of almost 19 times per day during 2015.
Since then, total complaint volumes have exploded—but they are still coming from a tiny number of now apparently more “productive” individuals. In 2024, for example, one individual alone submitted 20,089 complaints, accounting for 25% of all complaints! Indeed, the total number of complainants was only 188 but they complained 79,918 times (an average of 425 per individual or more than one per day.)
What I learned recently is that it’s not just airport noise complaints. We see the same pattern in data from the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights which enforces federal civil rights laws related to education funding. In 2023, for example, 5059 sexual discrimination complaints came from a single individual–from a total of 8151 complaints. Thus, one individual accounted for 68.5% of all sexual discrimination complaints in that year.
In the annual reports for 2022-2024 the OCR identifies what type of complaint the single-individual with multiple complaints was making, a sex discrimination complaint, while in previous years they just give data on the number of complaints from single individuals compared to the total of all types of complaints. I’ve collated this data in this graph which presents totals compared to multiple complaints from a single individual without regard to the type of complaint. Do note, that there are also single individuals filing hundreds of other types of complaints such as age discrimination complaints so the data from more recent years may actually be an underestimate.
In any case, it’s clear that a single individual often accounts for 10-30% of all complaints! These complaints have to be investigated so this single individual may be costing taxpayers millions. It’s as if a single individual were pulling a fire alarm thousands of times a year, mobilizing emergency services on demand, and never facing repercussions.
Does this strategy work? Probably. When complaints are summarized for Congress or reported in the media, are totals presented as-is, or adjusted for spam?
Increasingly, public institutions seem to exist to manage the obsessions of a tiny number of neurotic—and possibly malicious—complainers.
The US Leads the World in Robots (Once You Count Correctly)
If you search for data on robots you will quickly find data from the International Federation of Robotics which places South Korea in the lead with ~818 robots per 10,000 manufacturing workers, followed by China, Japan, Germany and finally at 10th place the US at ~304 robots per 10,000. The IFR, however, misses the most sophisticated, impressive and versatile robots, namely Teslas with FSD capability. Teslas see the world, navigate complex environments, move tons of metal at high speeds and must perform at very high levels of tolerance and safety. If you included Teslas as robots, as you should, the US leaps to the top.
Moreover, once you understand Teslas as robots, Optimus, Tesla’s humanoid robot division, stops being a quixotic Elon side-project and becomes the obvious continuation of Tesla’s core work.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Vaccines: Evidence from COVID-19
Sorry people, but the verdict on this one continues to come in:
We estimate direct and indirect vaccine effectiveness and assess how far the infection-reducing externality extends from the vaccinated, a key input to policy decisions. Our empirical strategy uses nearly universal microdata from a single state and relies on the six-month delay between 12- and 11-year-old COVID vaccine eligibility. Vaccination reduces cases by 80 percent, the direct effect. This protection spills over to close contacts, producing a household-level indirect effect about three-fourths as large as the direct effect. However, indirect effects do not extend to schoolmates. Our results highlight vaccine reach as important to consider when designing policy for infectious disease.
That is from American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, by Seth Freedman, Daniel W. Sacks, Kosali Simon, and Coady Wing. So many different methods and papers are pointing in the same direction…
Economic inequality does not equate to poor well-being or mental health
A meta-analysis of 168 studies covering more than 11 million people found no reliable link between economic inequality and well-being or mental health. In other words, living in a place that has large gaps between the rich and poor does not affect these outcomes, with implications for policy.
Here is the Nature link, this claim has been bad science all along.
A model of girl happiness, a compensatory-use study
A statistical model was used to examine these relationships simultaneously by predicting the likelihood that a girl reports being very happy.
The model includes socioeconomic status, parent–child communication, screen-time limits, and an interaction between limits and communication.
The results reinforce the patterns in the figures. Parent–child communication dominates the model. Girls who report strong communication are about three to four times more likely to report being very happy than those who report none. Socioeconomic status shows a smaller independent association. Screen-time limits contribute little on their own and matter modestly only when strong communication is already present.
If phones were the central problem, limits would emerge as a robust solution across contexts. They do not…
What the compensatory-use model rejects is a stronger claim. It rejects the idea that smartphone exposure itself is the primary driver of youth distress and that prohibition is therefore the central remedy. If that causal story were correct, limits would show large and consistent benefits across households, including among those with the weakest communication and highest distress. They do not.
And to close:
The most reliable way to improve youth well-being is to meet individual needs through connection instead of control.
That work depends on cooperation, not compliance.
Here is the full essay by Owen Kellogg, of course this is only a single study.
Cayman (U.S.) fact of the day
Over the past four years, hedge funds have doubled their footprint in the U.S. debt market, making the Cayman Islands — where many hedge funds are officially based — the place where the most U.S. debt outside the United States is held, according to the Fed. Typically, people flock to Treasuries for safety in times of crisis. Yet, driven in large part by hedge fund activity, the Treasury market went through unusual turbulence during recent shocks, including the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement in April 2025.
And this:
By the early 2010s, these foreign governments made up over 40 percent of Treasury holdings, excluding those the Federal Reserve held. That was up from just over 10 percent in the mid-1990s…Foreign governments now make up less than 15 percent of the overall Treasury market.
Marginal Returns to Public Universities
From Jack Mountjoy, forthcoming in the QJE:
This paper studies the returns to enrolling in American public universities by comparing the long-term outcomes of barely admitted versus barely rejected applicants. I use administrative admission records spanning all 35 public universities in Texas, which collectively enroll 10 percent of all American public university students, to systematically identify and employ decentralized cutoffs in SAT/ACT scores that generate discontinuities in admission and enrollment. The typical marginally admitted student gains an additional year of education in the four-year sector, becomes 12 percentage points more likely to ever earn a bachelor’s degree, and eventually earns 8 percent more than their marginally rejected but otherwise identical counterpart. Marginally admitted students pay no additional tuition costs thanks to offsetting grant aid; cost-benefit calculations show internal rates of return of 26 percent for the marginal students themselves, 16 percent for society (which must pay for the additional education), and 7 percent for the government budget. Earnings gains are similar across admitting institutions of varying selectivity, but smaller for students from low-income families, who spend more time enrolled but complete fewer degrees and major in less lucrative fields. Finally, I develop a method to separately identify effects for students on the extensive margin of attending any university versus those on the margin of attending a more selective one, revealing larger effects on the extensive margin.
That is one simple way of seeing why I do not think of higher education as largely signaling, noting that signaling theories might give you a higher wage up front but not over extended periods of time, as worker quality becomes known.
Economic growth
Depending on how you look at it growth in Q3 was very very strong or very strong or just possibly merely strong.
Annual rates: GDP: 4.3% Real final sales to domestic purchasers: 2.9% Average of GDP & GDI: 3.4%
GDI: 2.4%
That is from Jason Furman.
How to rise to the very top?
From athletes like Simone Biles and Michael Phelps to scientists like Marie Curie and Albert Einstein, identifying exceptional talent is essential in the science of innovation. But how does talent originate? Did the most talented athletes, scientists, and musicians reach peak performance relatively early or late in their career? Did they forgo mastering multiple sports, academic subjects, and musical instruments to reach world-class performance in only one? In an Analytical Review, Güllich et al. looked at published research in science, music, chess, and sports and found two patterns: Exceptional young performers reached their peak quickly but narrowly mastered only one interest (e.g., one sport). By contrast, exceptional adults reached peak performance gradually with broader, multidisciplinary practice. However, elite programs are designed to nurture younger talent.
That is from a new article in Science by Arne Güllich, Michael Barth, David Z. Hambrick, and Brooke N. Macnamara. Via Atta Tarki. But are they conditioning on a collider? Short players seem to do pretty well in today’s NBA…
An RCT on AI and mental health
Young adults today face unprecedented mental health challenges, yet many hesitate to seek support due to barriers such as accessibility, stigma, and time constraints. Bite-sized well-being interventions offer a promising solution to preventing mental distress before it escalates to clinical levels, but have not yet been delivered through personalized, interactive, and scalable technology. We conducted the first multi-institutional, longitudinal, preregistered randomized controlled trial of a generative AI-powered mobile app (“Flourish”) designed to address this gap. Over six weeks in Fall 2024, 486 undergraduate students from three U.S. institutions were randomized to receive app access or waitlist control. Participants in the treatment condition reported significantly greater positive affect, resilience, and social well-being (i.e., increased belonging, closeness to community, and reduced loneliness) and were buffered against declines in mindfulness and flourishing. These findings suggest that, with purposeful and ethical design, generative AI can deliver proactive, population-level well-being interventions that produce measurable benefits.
That is from a new paper by Julie Y.A. Cachia, et.al. A single paper or study is hardly dispositive, even when it is an RCT. But you should beware of those, such as Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge, who are conducting an evidence-less jihad against AI for younger people.
Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.