[转]艾伦.克鲁格教授

相似文件 换一批

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

Alan B. Krueger     Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University

He has published widely on the economics of education, unemployment, labor demand, income distribution, social insurance, labor market regulation, terrorism and environmental economics. Since 1987 he has held a joint appointment in the Economics Department and Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University.

He is the founding Director of the Princeton University Survey Research Center. He is the author of What Makes A Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism and Education Matters: A Selection of Essays on Education, and co-author of Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage, and co-author of Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies? He has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Russell Sage Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and the American Institutes for Research, as well as a member of the editorial board of Science (2001-09), editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives (1996-2002) and co-editor of theJournal of the European Economic Association (2003-05).

Professor Krueger served as Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy and Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2009-10. In 1994-95 he served as Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor.

He has been a member of the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association (2005-07) and International Economic Association, and Chief Economist for the National Council on Economic Education (2003-09). He was named a Sloan Fellow in Economics in 1992 and an NBER Olin Fellow in 1989-90. He was elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society in 1996 and a fellow of the Society of Labor Economists in 2005. He was awarded the Kershaw Prize by the Association for Public Policy and Management in 1997 and Mahalanobis Memorial Medal by the Indian Econometric Society in 2001. In 2002 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and in 2003 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. He was awarded the IZA Prize in Labor Economics with David Card in 2006. From 2000 to 2006 he was a regular contributor to the "Economic Scene" column in the New York Times. He received a B.S. degree (with honors) from Cornell University's School of Industrial & Labor Relations in 1983, an A.M. in Economics from Harvard University in 1985, and a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1987.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：克鲁格 Perspectives unemployment distribution Association University education insurance published demand

Alan Bennett Krueger (born September 17, 1960) is an American economist, Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. On March 7, 2009, he was nominated by Barack Obama to be United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for economic policy.[1] In October 2010, he announced his resignation from the Treasury Department, to return to Princeton University.[2] He is among the 50 highest ranked economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc. On August 29, 2011, he was nominated by Obama to be chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers[3].

Krueger developed and applied the method of natural experiments to study the effect of education on earnings, theminimum wage on employment, and other issues.

Krueger compared restaurant jobs in New Jersey, which raised its minimum wage, to restaurant jobs in Pennsylvania, which did not, and found that restaurant employment in New Jersey increased, while it decreased in Pennsylvania.[4]

In his book, What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism, (2007), he wrote that in contrast to the assumption that terrorists come from impoverished, uneducated environments, terrorists often come from middle-class, college-educated backgrounds.[citation needed]

From 1994-95 he served as Chief Economist at the United States Department of Labor. He received the Kershaw Prize, Mahalanobis Prize, and IZA Prize (with David Card), and is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Society of Labor Economists, Econometric Society and American Academy of Political and Social Science. He is a member of the Executive and Supervisory Committee (ESC) of CERGE-EI, a top-tier academic institution based in Prague, Czech Republic.

Krueger received his Bachelor's degree from Cornell University's School of Industrial & Labor Relations (with honors), and in 1987 he received his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. He has also published many books on issues related to education, labor markets and income distribution. He is also known for his work on theEnvironmental Kuznets Curve. Krueger grew up in Livingston, New Jersey, and graduated from Livingston High Schoolin 1979.[5]

Recent articles by Alan B. Krueger

• People’s experiences of physical pain
• What makes a terrorist?
  

Romesh Vaitilingam: Welcome to "Vox Talks" a series of audio interviews with leading economists from around the world My name is Romesh Vaitilingam and today's interview is with Professor Alan Krueger from Princeton University We met in October 2008 at the Center for Economic Performance in London, which was hosting a workshop on happiness research. Alan and I spoke about his work on physical pain and wellbeing He began by explaining how he got into this field

Alan Krueger: It actually goes back about eight years when Danny Kahneman invited me to join a group of psychologists that he was working with on wellbeing. I remember he said he has the dream team of psychologists working on this issue, but to have an impact on public policy they needed an economist I found that flattering and I joined up. The work has been evolving over time. The latest development for me has been to work on, specifically, on the issue of pain. I think everybody could agree that pain is a bad thing, or at least, you don't want too much pain in your life
Maybe pain when you exercise is good to have because it's outweighed by other factors, but one of the things that we found is that people who live in pain really live different lives, much less fulfilled lives So, let me back up a little bit
The techniques that we've developed over the last eight years: We started with the idea of experience sampling: trying to measure how people feel during the course of their day in real time. We quickly discovered that it's very difficult to implement that type of survey technique in the general population
So then, we looked for ways in which we could have people keep diaries, a day later, describing what they did the day before in a lot of detail and reporting on their emotional experiences during the day. Those results seemed to mirror pretty well what one finds with the experience sampling technique. You could use these other techniques for more general populations.
So, earlier this year Arthur Stone and I published a paper in the journal Lancet assessing the extent of pain in the US population. It's the first time, really, that pain has been studied in the entire population of the US. There was one previous study, which had a very vague question about how much pain people had
What we could do is we could look moment by moment. We could say, "What fraction of time does the average person spend where they some pain, how about where they have moderate to severe pain? How does it vary by groups?"
And the results we found, I think, were absolutely fascinating. Some we expected, some we didn't. For example, as people grow older, or to be more precise we're looking at people of different ages in a point in time, pain seems to rise for people who are older, but not in a constant fashion; there was a very long plateau.
So, pain increased from people from their late teenage years up until the early 40s. Then there was a plateau from the mid 40s to the mid 70s It was more prominent for men, but it was also there for women We were really quite surprised to see that. We concluded our paper saying that this needs to be replicated. If it can be replicated, we need to figure out what's going on here.
So today, I first showed that finding and then I showed how we replicated it, and we replicated it in two different surveys; one, a very large survey of the US, which the Gallup organization has been doing, and then the second one, which is really more interesting, is a survey that Gallup has been doing in about 140 countries.
It's not quite as precise as what we studied, but pretty close. They asked people in each of these countries, a large sample of people, "Did you experience pain during a lot of the day yesterday?" Then we could see what fraction of people experience pain during a lot of the day yesterday. The US and the UK really stood out for having this plateau What was fascinating, if you look at lower income countries, if you look at Africa, parts of Asia, you see pain rises with age monotonically It starts at a higher level in the poorer countries and it really diverges at the older ages. So, one of the things I concluded from this work is that the UK and the US are good places to grow old in.
We've been trying to understand what it is that accounts for the patterns that we're finding. A related pattern is looking within the US, and of the other countries as well, we find very strong income effects on pain. Low income people experience a lot more pain in their daily lives than high income people
In the US, people who make less than $30,000 a year, or households that make less than $30,000 a year, the average person spends about 18% of their time in pain; in moderate to severe pain. In the high income households, more than $100,000 a year, they're just spending 7% of their time in moderate to severe pain. So, there's a tremendous gap in the way that they experience life. Those things seem to be connected, especially at the older ages; high income people seem to be more resistant to pain. We're not entirely sure we know why.
I think part of the explanation has to do with occupational structure. Lower income people tend to work in jobs that are more physically demanding. That's something that we can show in our data blue collar workers, while they're on the job are experiencing more pain than they feel when they're off the job. You don't see that for the white collar workers: it's about the same amount of pain on the job and off the job
There are other possible explanations too It could be related to pain medication, lifestyle and so on

Romesh: What do you think the issue is about causality? Does it go from pain to, therefore, having lower socioeconomic status because you're less able to work and earn a good wage or is it going the other way around? How do these things interact with each other do you think?

Alan: Right, well I'm confident that the arrows go in both directions. It's harder to separate how much they point in both directions, but it's certainly the case in the data that we have that people who have a disability are in a tremendous amount of pain and have very low employment rates and very low income when they do work. Clearly I think one arrow goes from chronic conditions to disability, to withdrawal from the labor force, to low income. But I suspect another channel, as I mentioned before, is through occupation. It's not only a matter of kind of withdrawing from the labor force because if we look specifically at people who are employed, we still find that those who are employed at lower wages tend to have more pain in their daily lives.
So I suspect that causality goes in both directions. In another level, we certainly care about unraveling the direction of causality, but I would say we also just care about pain itself. We care about characterizing who it is who experiences pain, because pain is an outcome of interest all by itself.

Romesh: What about this issue of the plateau? I mean that sounds a fascinating finding. You said it's unique to the UK and the US in the data you've looked at. What do you think is going on there. What might explain that period between the 40s and the 70s where things don't get so bad for us?

Alan: Right, it's a real puzzle I think some of it's related to having more advanced economies and having different occupational structure because it's more pronounced for men, who tend to be the ones who traditionally are more likely to work and do more physical labor, but it might also be related to pain medication. I'm really not sure. I have to say when we published the first paper in Lancet; I wasn't sure it would be replicated because it was a result so far, we would say in the US, out of left field - I don't know whether you have that expression - it was such a surprise to us, that I was surprised to see that it was replicated. And I kind of jumped when we looked at the subsequent data. It was a bit reassuring to see that you didn't see it in most of the countries of the world, because that accords with your intuition. I suspect that one thing that happens in wealthier countries is that growing older becomes a more, in a number of respects, more satisfying experience.
The work my colleague Angus Deaton did looking at the former Soviet countries found out that the elderly in those countries were really dissatisfied with their lives and with their health.

Romesh: This is a very exciting and new research area. What do you see as the agenda going forward in terms of the questions that you want to find answers and the data you want to try and collect?

Alan: I'd like to have longitudinal data where we could see whether, how pain relates to subsequent life outcomes; how stress relates to mortality, for example; how pain relates to mortality. I'd like to see more combination, and there was some of this at the meeting today, of real time data collection and diary recall methods to see how closely they match each other. That work is progressing. In the US, we have, I think, a great opportunity because the American Time Use Survey, which is the government's only time use survey, is going to add a supplement on subjective experience, and that will provide large samples, very reputable data collection, to study not only pain but also how much of the time people feel stress, happiness, tiredness and so on. So I think that provides a great opportunity to summarize people's lives in a way which is relevant to them and also of interest for public policy.

Romesh: Well, I was going to say this public policy issue seems to be growing interest around the world in trying to draw some public policy implications from this area of wellbeing research. What would you specifically draw from the work you've done so far on pain and wellbeing?

Alan: Well, I'm actually a bit reluctant to make strong policy recommendations. I do think that there is widespread view that our traditional indicators of society's wellbeing are inadequate, incomplete. GDP is important, but it's certainly not intended to be a measure of society's welfare. A lot of what matters for subjective wellbeing takes place outside of markets. So that's not captured in GDP. I think to make specific policy recommendations, what I would like to see is these measures used as outcomes of small scale policy interventions, to see whether these interventions can affect these outcomes.
It certainly suggests to me concentrating on the segment of society that experiences a great deal of pain or a great deal of mental ill health. Depression for example can have big pay offs because a lot of the unhappiness in society we're learning is concentrated in these segments of the population.

Romesh: Alan Krueger, thank you very much

Alan: Thank you.

To economists, criminals are people with a low opportunity cost and few legitimate opportunities. Terrorism is different. Terrorists and their organisations seek to make a political statement; terrorists arise when there are severe political grievances with no alternatives for pursing those grievances.

My former classmate Tyler Cowen, in his review of my new book, What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism, said, “My only complaint is that the book does not deliver on its title; it tells me what doesn’t make a terrorist, but I still don’t know what does make a terrorist.”  He also wrote that the book was “full of first-rate empirical work” and that it “punctuates many myths about terrorism.”  Since I strongly agree with the second part of his comments, I’ll use this space to respond to the first part.

The first thing I could say in my defense is that my publisher suggested the title.  I originally planned to call the book,Enlisting Social Science in the War on Terrorism, a rallying call for using and generating evidence in the war on terrorism.  But I preferred the pithier title the publisher proposed – as did he.  So this is not much of a defense.

The second and more relevant point is that it is easier to take issues off the table than to identify a small set of factors that motivate ordinary citizens to become terrorists.  As Cowen said, my book establishes that “poverty does not breed terrorism, once you look at the data.”  Furthermore, I show that terrorists are more likely to be drawn from the ranks of the well-educated than they are from the uneducated and illiterate masses. And I find little evidence that terrorism is more prevalent among Muslim nations or nations with low GDP per capita and high infant mortality.

The third point is that these “null” findings say a lot about terrorism itself and the making of terrorists.  I have argued (see page 51 of my book, for example) that terrorists are primarily “motivated by geopolitical grievances.”  They become fanatics willing to sacrifice innocent civilians (and sometimes themselves) because they fervently wish to pursue a grievance, either real or perceived, and because they view terrorism as their best or only means to pursue that grievance.  Another theme of my book is that terrorists are more likely to come from societies that suppress civil liberties and political rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to assemble.  This theme is supported by my analysis of data on the country of origin and the country that terrorists target.  One interpretation of the cross-country empirical results is that people who grow up in a society with little tradition of peaceful means of protest are more likely to turn to terrorism when they seek to pursue a geopolitical agenda.

In related work, Laurence Iannaccone has argued that there are many diverse reasons why people have grievances.  Some are nationalistic, some are territorial, some are religious, some are environmental, and so on.  This is probably why poverty, education and the other “usual suspects” do such a poor job predicting participation in terrorism. There is not one standard grievance or one standard profile of a terrorist. Extremists who are willing to sacrifice themselves for some cause probably exist in every large population.  For this reason, the supply of terrorists is fairly elastic. Remove one perceived source of grievance, and there are still many others willing to pursue their grievances with violent means.  The finite “resource” is the number of terrorist organisations capable of channeling extremists to carry out heinous acts of terrorism.  I argue that the best strategy in this type of an environment is to target terrorist organisations, not the supply of would-be terrorists, by degrading their capabilities and by engaging them on their grievances where appropriate.

Terrorism is not just a random, unpredictable act carried out by psychologically disturbed people.  The psychologist Arial Merari studied Palestinian terrorists involved in failed attacks and concluded that they were unlikely to be psychologically abnormal.  The timing of terrorist attacks suggests that they are often chosen to have maximal impact, both on politics and on the news cycle.  This suggests that the terrorist organisations are, in some sense, rationally deploying extremists to pursue their agenda.

What makes a terrorist, then, is someone with a fanatical commitment to pursuing a grievance combined with the perception that there are few alternatives available other than terrorism for pursuing that grievance – and a terrorist organisation or cell willing to deploy a would-be terrorist.  This explanation is further developed in my book.  Poverty and lack of education – the explanations commonly cited by politicians including George Bush, Al Gore and Tony Blair – play very little, if any, role.  In fact, education may have the opposite effect than many people expect because more highly educated people are more likely to become involved politically and are more likely to strongly hold opinions.  Increasing educational attainment does many wonderful things for a country and its people, but I do not think the evidence suggests it brings about complete consensus in society.  If we are to address terrorism in part through education, I argue we should focus more on the content of education, not just educational attainment.

Many people implicitly view terrorism in the same way that economists model crime.  People with a low opportunity cost and few legitimate opportunities are predicted to become involved in property crime.  This model works well in practice. I argue in my book, however, that a better analogy for terrorism than crime is voting.  People who care about issues tend to vote, even though they tend to have a higher opportunity cost of their time than nonvoters.  Terrorists and the organisations that dispatch them seek to make a political statement.  What makes a terrorist will thus depend on the political grievances that terrorists and their organisations are pursuing and the alternatives for pursing those grievances.  This view of terrorism is proposed in my book.