Search

As a neurotoxin, early exposure to lead has long been assumed to affect socioeconomic outcomes well into adulthood. However, the empirical literature documenting such effects has been limited. This study documents the long-term effects of in utero exposure to air lead on adult socio-economic outcomes, including real earnings, disabilities, employment, public assistance, and education, using US survey and administrative data. Specifically, we match individuals in the 2000 US Decennial Census and 2001-2014 American Community Surveys to average lead concentrations in the individual's birth county during his/her 9 months in utero. We then estimate the effects of shocks to airborne lead conditional on observable characteristics, county fixed effects, county-specific time trends, and month-year fixed effects. We find a 0.5 μg/m3 decrease in air lead, representing the average 1975-85 change resulting from the passage of the U.S. Clean Air Act, is associated with an increase in earnings of 3.5%, or a present value, at birth, of $21,400 in lifetime earnings. Decomposing this effect, we find greater exposure to lead in utero is associated with an increase in disabilities in adulthood, an increase in receiving public assistance, and a decrease in employment. Looking at effects by sex, long-term effects for girls seem to fall on participation in the formal labor market, whereas for boys it appears to fall more on hours worked. This is the first study to document such long-term effects from lead using US data. We estimate the present value in 2020, from all earnings impacts from 1975 forward, to be $4.23 Trillion using a discount rate of 3%. In 2020 alone, the benefits are $252 B, or about 1.2% of GDP. Thus, our estimates imply the Clean Air Act's lead phase out is still returning a national dividend of over 1% every year., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Traditional economic interpretations have not been successful in explaining differences in saving rates across countries. One hypothesis is that savings respond to cultural specific social norms. The accepted view in economics so far is that culture does not have any effect on savings. We revisit this evidence using a novel dataset, which allows us to study the saving behavior of up to three generations of immigrants in the United Kingdom. Against the backdrop of existing evidence, we find that cultural preferences are an important explanation for cross-country differences in saving behavior, and their relevance persists up to three generations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Publication bias leads consumers of research to observe a selected sample of statistical estimates calculated by producers of research. We calculate critical values for statistical significance that could help to adjust after the fact for the distortions created by this selection effect, assuming that the only source of publication bias is file drawer bias. These adjusted critical values are easy to calculate and differ from unadjusted critical values by approximately 50%-rather than rejecting a null hypothesis when the t-ratio exceeds 2, the analysis suggests rejecting a null hypothesis when the t-ratio exceeds 3. Samples of published social science research indicate that on average, across research fields, approximately 30% of published t-statistics fall between the standard and adjusted cutoffs.