Joseph E. Aldy, D. Burtraw, C. Fischer, M. Fowlie, Roberton C. Williams, M. Cropper
Abstract Economists have for decades recommended that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases be taxed – or otherwise priced – to provide incentives for their reduction. The USA does not have a federal carbon tax; however, many state and federal programs to reduce carbon emissions effectively price carbon – for example, through cap-and-trade systems or regulations. There are also programs that subsidize reductions in carbon emissions. At the 2022 meetings of the American Economic Association, the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis brought together five well-known economists – Joe Aldy, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Meredith Fowlie, and Rob Williams – to discuss how the USA does, in fact, price carbon and how it could price carbon. Maureen Cropper chaired the panel. This paper summarizes their remarks.
{"title":"How is the U.S. Pricing Carbon? How Could We Price Carbon?","authors":"Joseph E. Aldy, D. Burtraw, C. Fischer, M. Fowlie, Roberton C. Williams, M. Cropper","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.19","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Economists have for decades recommended that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases be taxed – or otherwise priced – to provide incentives for their reduction. The USA does not have a federal carbon tax; however, many state and federal programs to reduce carbon emissions effectively price carbon – for example, through cap-and-trade systems or regulations. There are also programs that subsidize reductions in carbon emissions. At the 2022 meetings of the American Economic Association, the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis brought together five well-known economists – Joe Aldy, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Meredith Fowlie, and Rob Williams – to discuss how the USA does, in fact, price carbon and how it could price carbon. Maureen Cropper chaired the panel. This paper summarizes their remarks.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"28 1","pages":"310 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84544471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Garfinkel, Laurel Sariscsany, Elizabeth Ananat, Sophie Collyer, R. Hartley, Buyi Wang, Christopher Wimer
Abstract This article conducts a benefit-cost analysis of a child allowance. Through a systematic literature review of the highest quality evidence on the causal effects of cash and near-cash transfers, this article produces core estimates on the benefits and costs per child and per adult of increasing household income by $1000, which can be used for any cash or near-cash program that increases household income. We then apply these estimates to three child allowance proposals, with the main proposal converting the $2000 Child Tax Credit in the federal income tax code into a fully refundable and more generous child allowance of $3600 per child ages 0–5 and $3000 per child ages 6–17, as enacted for 1 year in the American Rescue Plan. Aggregate costs and benefits are estimated via micro-simulation. Our estimates indicate that making the $2000 Child Tax Credit fully refundable and increasing benefits to $3000/$3600 would cost $97 billion per year and generate social benefits of $929 billion per year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the results are robust to alternative assumptions and that each of the three child allowance proposals produces a very strong to an extraordinarily strong return for the U.S. population.
{"title":"The Benefits and Costs of a Child Allowance","authors":"I. Garfinkel, Laurel Sariscsany, Elizabeth Ananat, Sophie Collyer, R. Hartley, Buyi Wang, Christopher Wimer","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article conducts a benefit-cost analysis of a child allowance. Through a systematic literature review of the highest quality evidence on the causal effects of cash and near-cash transfers, this article produces core estimates on the benefits and costs per child and per adult of increasing household income by $1000, which can be used for any cash or near-cash program that increases household income. We then apply these estimates to three child allowance proposals, with the main proposal converting the $2000 Child Tax Credit in the federal income tax code into a fully refundable and more generous child allowance of $3600 per child ages 0–5 and $3000 per child ages 6–17, as enacted for 1 year in the American Rescue Plan. Aggregate costs and benefits are estimated via micro-simulation. Our estimates indicate that making the $2000 Child Tax Credit fully refundable and increasing benefits to $3000/$3600 would cost $97 billion per year and generate social benefits of $929 billion per year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the results are robust to alternative assumptions and that each of the three child allowance proposals produces a very strong to an extraordinarily strong return for the U.S. population.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"41 1","pages":"335 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85486817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Bartik, W. Gormley, S. Amadon, Douglas Hummel-Price, J. Fuller
This paper presents new benefit–cost estimates for the Tulsa universal pre-K program. These calculations are based on estimated effects, from two recent papers, of Tulsa pre-K on high-school graduation rates and college attendance rates of students who were in kindergarten in the fall of 2006. In the current paper, educational effects from these prior papers are used to infer lifetime earnings effects. Our conservative estimates suggest that per pre-K participant, the present value of earnings effects in 2021 dollars is $25,533, compared with program costs of $9,628, for a benefit–cost ratio of 2.65. Compared to prior benefit–cost studies of Tulsa pre-K, this benefit–cost ratio is below what was predicted from Tulsa pre-K’s effects on kindergarten test scores, but above what was predicted from Tulsa pre-K’s effects on grade retention by ninth grade. This fading and recovery of predicted pre-K effects as children go through K-12 and then enter adulthood is consistent with prior research. It suggests that pre-K may have important effects on “soft skills,” such as persisting in school, and reminds us that short-term studies of pre-K provide useful information for public policy.
{"title":"A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Tulsa Pre-K, Based on Effects on High School Graduation and College Attendance","authors":"T. Bartik, W. Gormley, S. Amadon, Douglas Hummel-Price, J. Fuller","doi":"10.17848/pol2022-029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17848/pol2022-029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper presents new benefit–cost estimates for the Tulsa universal pre-K program. These calculations are based on estimated effects, from two recent papers, of Tulsa pre-K on high-school graduation rates and college attendance rates of students who were in kindergarten in the fall of 2006. In the current paper, educational effects from these prior papers are used to infer lifetime earnings effects. Our conservative estimates suggest that per pre-K participant, the present value of earnings effects in 2021 dollars is $25,533, compared with program costs of $9,628, for a benefit–cost ratio of 2.65. Compared to prior benefit–cost studies of Tulsa pre-K, this benefit–cost ratio is below what was predicted from Tulsa pre-K’s effects on kindergarten test scores, but above what was predicted from Tulsa pre-K’s effects on grade retention by ninth grade. This fading and recovery of predicted pre-K effects as children go through K-12 and then enter adulthood is consistent with prior research. It suggests that pre-K may have important effects on “soft skills,” such as persisting in school, and reminds us that short-term studies of pre-K provide useful information for public policy.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90378009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.
{"title":"Three Criteria for Evaluating Social Programs","authors":"J. García, J. Heckman","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.18","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the economic foundations of three criteria used for evaluating the costs and benefits of social programs. Some criteria do not consider the scale of programs or address the costs associated with programs that expand or contract the total government budget. A recent addition to the list of evaluation criteria – the marginal value of public funds – does not adopt a social optimality perspective. It evaluates the optimality of expenditures assuming a predetermined aggregate budget without considering the social costs of raising that budget.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"97 1","pages":"281 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88969109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article describes the process from first proposals in the early 1990s to project completion many years later for seven large Swedish road and railway projects. The purpose is to find reasons for the massive cost overruns as well as explanations for why projects are brought to completion despite much higher costs than when the decision to build was made. Cost overruns are set in an institutional context to highlight the interplay among national, regional, and local policymakers. National investment programs are seen as promises by other parts of society, irrespective of whether project costs increase during the process toward procurement and implementation. Another aspect is that the infrastructure manager’s administrative framework currently makes it impossible to compare costs in contracts with final cost, meaning that there is no institutionalized learning process in place. Design preparations and the estimation of costs for new projects must therefore be done without an understanding of what has been working well in the implementation of previous projects. While Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) played no role in the planning of the seven projects, the article sends a stark warning that early cost estimates provide poor input for assessing project rate of return.
{"title":"The Weak Spot of Infrastructure BCA: Cost Overruns in Seven Road and Railway Construction Projects","authors":"J. Nilsson","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.10","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article describes the process from first proposals in the early 1990s to project completion many years later for seven large Swedish road and railway projects. The purpose is to find reasons for the massive cost overruns as well as explanations for why projects are brought to completion despite much higher costs than when the decision to build was made. Cost overruns are set in an institutional context to highlight the interplay among national, regional, and local policymakers. National investment programs are seen as promises by other parts of society, irrespective of whether project costs increase during the process toward procurement and implementation. Another aspect is that the infrastructure manager’s administrative framework currently makes it impossible to compare costs in contracts with final cost, meaning that there is no institutionalized learning process in place. Design preparations and the estimation of costs for new projects must therefore be done without an understanding of what has been working well in the implementation of previous projects. While Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) played no role in the planning of the seven projects, the article sends a stark warning that early cost estimates provide poor input for assessing project rate of return.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79672074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Roman, J. Neumann, Stefani Penn, A. White, N. Fann
Economic and health benefits assessments of air quality changes often quantify and report changes in deaths at a given point in time. The typical approach uses a method that attributes air pollution-related health impacts to a single year air quality change (or “pulse”). The perspective on benefits from these static pulse analyses can be enhanced by conducting a dynamic population assessment using life tables. Such analyses can provide a richer characterization of health risks across a population over a multiyear time horizon. In this article, we use the life table approach to quantify cumulative counts of reductions in PM-attributable deaths and life-years gained due to overlapping impacts of PM2.5 changes over a multiyear period, using case studies of air quality improvements in the USA and Chile. Our comparison of health risk and economic valuation for the two approaches shows life table analysis can be a valuable adjunct analysis to the pulse approach though both come with their own set of uncertainties and limitations. If applied jointly, they provide a broader characterization of how air quality actions can change populations in terms of life-years lost, life expectancy, and age structure. The value of these metrics is illustrated using case studies with dramatically different air quality reduction trajectories.
{"title":"Dynamic Versus Static Modeling of Mortality-Related Benefits of PM2.5 Reductions in the USA and Chile: 1990 to 2050","authors":"H. Roman, J. Neumann, Stefani Penn, A. White, N. Fann","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.5","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Economic and health benefits assessments of air quality changes often quantify and report changes in deaths at a given point in time. The typical approach uses a method that attributes air pollution-related health impacts to a single year air quality change (or “pulse”). The perspective on benefits from these static pulse analyses can be enhanced by conducting a dynamic population assessment using life tables. Such analyses can provide a richer characterization of health risks across a population over a multiyear time horizon. In this article, we use the life table approach to quantify cumulative counts of reductions in PM-attributable deaths and life-years gained due to overlapping impacts of PM2.5 changes over a multiyear period, using case studies of air quality improvements in the USA and Chile. Our comparison of health risk and economic valuation for the two approaches shows life table analysis can be a valuable adjunct analysis to the pulse approach though both come with their own set of uncertainties and limitations. If applied jointly, they provide a broader characterization of how air quality actions can change populations in terms of life-years lost, life expectancy, and age structure. The value of these metrics is illustrated using case studies with dramatically different air quality reduction trajectories.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79354644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s regulation of disposable lighters was targeted at preventing injuries due to use of lighters by children not over 4 years of age. Based on a difference-in-differences analysis of national data for 1990–2019, this article estimates that the regulation reduced all injuries to the target population by 71%, burn injuries by 74%, and injuries severe enough to warrant admission to the hospital by 85% overall and by 84% for burn injuries. Unlike the counterproductive performance of safety cap regulations, this safety device enhanced safety levels in the target population group. The safety improvements from lighter safety devices outweigh any lulling effect of viewing products as being “childproof.” The regulation had a broader safety impact beyond the target population group, as it also reduced all types of injuries by at least 50% for children in the 5–17 age groups. Total annual risk reduction benefits were $940–$1465 million. A benefit-cost analysis based on a retrospective assessment of the regulation finds a more favorable impact than was anticipated.
{"title":"The Broad Impacts of Disposable Lighter Safety Regulations","authors":"W. Viscusi, R. Dalafave","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.6","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s regulation of disposable lighters was targeted at preventing injuries due to use of lighters by children not over 4 years of age. Based on a difference-in-differences analysis of national data for 1990–2019, this article estimates that the regulation reduced all injuries to the target population by 71%, burn injuries by 74%, and injuries severe enough to warrant admission to the hospital by 85% overall and by 84% for burn injuries. Unlike the counterproductive performance of safety cap regulations, this safety device enhanced safety levels in the target population group. The safety improvements from lighter safety devices outweigh any lulling effect of viewing products as being “childproof.” The regulation had a broader safety impact beyond the target population group, as it also reduced all types of injuries by at least 50% for children in the 5–17 age groups. Total annual risk reduction benefits were $940–$1465 million. A benefit-cost analysis based on a retrospective assessment of the regulation finds a more favorable impact than was anticipated.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83755814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Under the current practice of benefit-cost analysis, the direct economic benefits produced by a newly built transit facility are assessed based on how it affects travel time and various costs that are associated with transport needs and travel behavior. However, the time-saving-based benefit calculation approach has been questioned and criticized. Given the strong correlation between accessibility and land value, we propose the access-based land value benefit assessment as an alternative, and apply this assessment method to analyzing the Second Avenue Subway project in Manhattan, New York. The primary principle of the access-based method is that the economic value of a transport project’s intangible gains is largely capitalized by nearby properties’ value appreciation, which is directly caused by improved transport accessibility. We find that: (i) the actual travel time saving is lower than originally forecast; (ii) a strong positive correlation between residential property value and job accessibility by transit is observed; (iii) the appreciation in sold property value and rented property value both far exceed total project cost; and (iv) such results support the decision to approve and construct the Second Avenue Subway.
{"title":"Time Savings vs. Access-Based Benefit Assessment of New York’s Second Avenue Subway","authors":"Yadi Wang, D. Levinson","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Under the current practice of benefit-cost analysis, the direct economic benefits produced by a newly built transit facility are assessed based on how it affects travel time and various costs that are associated with transport needs and travel behavior. However, the time-saving-based benefit calculation approach has been questioned and criticized. Given the strong correlation between accessibility and land value, we propose the access-based land value benefit assessment as an alternative, and apply this assessment method to analyzing the Second Avenue Subway project in Manhattan, New York. The primary principle of the access-based method is that the economic value of a transport project’s intangible gains is largely capitalized by nearby properties’ value appreciation, which is directly caused by improved transport accessibility. We find that: (i) the actual travel time saving is lower than originally forecast; (ii) a strong positive correlation between residential property value and job accessibility by transit is observed; (iii) the appreciation in sold property value and rented property value both far exceed total project cost; and (iv) such results support the decision to approve and construct the Second Avenue Subway.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"39 1","pages":"120 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90710726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rosemarie L. Summers, D. Wood, Nellie Lew, S. Karns, M. Muth, C. Nardinelli, Janet G. Peckham, C. Wolff
Abstract Partial equilibrium models have been used extensively by policy makers to prospectively determine the consequences of government programs that affect consumer incomes or the prices consumers pay. However, these models have not previously been used to analyze government programs that inform consumers. In this paper, we develop a model that policy makers can use to quantitatively predict how consumers will respond to risk communications that contain new health information. The model combines Bayesian learning with the utility-maximization of consumer choice. We discuss how this model can be used to evaluate information policies; we then test the model by simulating the impacts of the North Dakota Folic Acid Educational Campaign as a validation exercise.
{"title":"Prospective Evaluation of Health Communication Effects on Market Outcomes","authors":"Rosemarie L. Summers, D. Wood, Nellie Lew, S. Karns, M. Muth, C. Nardinelli, Janet G. Peckham, C. Wolff","doi":"10.1017/bca.2022.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.1","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Partial equilibrium models have been used extensively by policy makers to prospectively determine the consequences of government programs that affect consumer incomes or the prices consumers pay. However, these models have not previously been used to analyze government programs that inform consumers. In this paper, we develop a model that policy makers can use to quantitatively predict how consumers will respond to risk communications that contain new health information. The model combines Bayesian learning with the utility-maximization of consumer choice. We discuss how this model can be used to evaluate information policies; we then test the model by simulating the impacts of the North Dakota Folic Acid Educational Campaign as a validation exercise.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"15 1","pages":"34 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91001329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract How do economists use graphs, and do they use them well? Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, I provide evidence to these questions by exploring more than 2600 graphs published in the first issue of the American Economic Review from 1911 to 2017. I find that economists use a lot of line charts – more than 80% of the total sample are line charts. I also find that the share of graphs that use data (as opposed to diagrams) fell over the first half of the century and then increased from about the early 1980s to today, correlated with perceived graph quality.
{"title":"Categorizing and Ranking Graphs in Economics Research: The American Economic Review over the Last Century","authors":"Jonathan A. Schwabish","doi":"10.1017/bca.2021.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2021.17","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How do economists use graphs, and do they use them well? Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, I provide evidence to these questions by exploring more than 2600 graphs published in the first issue of the American Economic Review from 1911 to 2017. I find that economists use a lot of line charts – more than 80% of the total sample are line charts. I also find that the share of graphs that use data (as opposed to diagrams) fell over the first half of the century and then increased from about the early 1980s to today, correlated with perceived graph quality.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"14 1","pages":"20 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77004049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：