Photos Flashcards
what does the diagram look like for a monoposonistic labour market before the setting of a minimum wage *
what does the introduction of a minimum wage do to the supply mc curve in a monoposonistic labour market *
how does the introduction of a minimum wage affect equilibrium employment in the monopsony labour market model *
up to a point, increase in minimum wage does not decrease unemployment
what does the diagram look like for the labour discipline model *
effect of minimum wage on labour discipline model
draw diagram showing how uncovered sector will absorb displaced workers from the covered sector *
how do you show compensating variation on a graph
what do the diagrams look like for the behavioural response to labelled benefit *
how do you show equivalent variation on a graph *
how do you show the deadweight cost associated with congestion on a diagram *
how does a Pigouvian tax look on the diagrams *
draw diagram to show the consumer surplus before and after taxation for congestion charge *
draw diagram showing the benefits of reduced congestion and the lost consumer surplus for those who stop driving *
what’s the significance of the p-values in this table *
p value is probability that these values would be observed if the null is true,
all greater than 0.05 so fail to reject null that these are the same (they are the same),
this means characteristics of stamp and cash recipients are the same,
this is basically a test of randomisation
what does the p-value mean in tables for whitmore
p-value is for test that check and stamp recipients spend the same
what does table 2a show
among cash group they spend $49 and stamp $56,
p-value is 0.01 which is less than 0.05 so these values are significantly different to each other
what does table 2b show *
for infra-marginal consumers the weekly expenditure is exactly the same,
p-value 0.972 so fail to reject the null, spending is same for check and stamp for infra-marginal,
not statistically different
was there any labelling effects for infra-marginal in whitmore study
no, there is no labelling effects for infra-marginal as they are treating the food stamps just as they would cash
when working out social welfare implications for distorted spending more on food (less utility than if received cash) what do you need to know
if they are spending more on food they are spending less on other stuff,
for social welfare need to know what they are they spending more on what are they spending less on,
need to know this as they are worse off from a utility perspective
what does the food consumption evidence show in whitmore *
shows slightly higher spending across all categories of food for stamp compared to check,
significantly more on juice and soda,
stamp recipients consume more calories than cash (not statistically significant),
consumed significantly more vitamin c (although cash consumed nearly 2x recommended RDA)
cash recipients spend more on non-food items so what do they spend it on
results inconclusive limited number of categories,
don’t spend more on alcohol,
lower total spend from cash,
spending on non-recorded items, reducing debts / pay off bills
what does each of the betas capture (abeler and marklein) *
ß1= effect of gourmet (cash) voucher compared to baseline,
ß2= differential effect of the gourmet beverage (targeted) voucher compared to the gourmet (cash) voucher,
ß1+ß2= effect of the gourmet beverage (targeted) voucher compared to baseline,
standard model ß2=0,
behavioural model ß2>0
what does this table show (abeler and marklein) *
starred ones are statistically significant to 0,
drinks voucher causing significant increase in spending on drink comared to other cash voucher,
increased spending by 4 euros and when additional controls it goes up by 5 euros,
reject that ß2=0
what are the results of the abeler and marklein lab experiment
column 1 and 2 are when both groups face exactly the same conditions,
because .133 this shows that the randomisation works (because spend almost same as non treatment on the targeted good at this stage),
those who receive label grant spend more on targeted than people who received cash grant,
labelled recipients consume 2.205 more of the targeted good than cash recipients and this is statistically significant (even though infra-marginal),
participants in control group (cash grant) choose 14.4 units on average which is close to new optimum of 13
what does this graph show (abeler and marklein)
shows changes in the allocation of the targeted good from stage 1 to 2,
big spike among the label treatment group at 10 (grant worth 10 units of targeted good) indicating that all the grant was allocated to the targeted good,
focusing on marginal allocation rather than considering the voucher part of an overall income that could be allocated on both,
optimal strategy to increase targeted good by 1 so lots of people did do that
what did the further analysis of lab data for abeler and marklein by cognitive ability show
identify ability by using high school math score (although all uni students),
stronger effect among low-math group may suggest cognitive biases (mental accounting, narrow bracketing)
