Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: It is well known that women are more religious than men. Miller and Stark (2002) explained this “gender gap” in religiosity as a consequence of men’s greater biological propensity to take risks, or their “risk preference.” Accordingly, they viewed a lack of religious participation as an other-worldly risk. In this paper, we analyze some of the assumptions of risk-preference theory and measure belief in an afterlife to better operationalize other-worldly risk. Using General Social Survey data, we find that risk preference theory cannot adequately explain the gender gap in religiosity because the gender gap is actually larger for those who do not believe in an afterlife than for those who do. We conclude by proposing alternative explanations for findings that contradict Miller and Stark’s theory, with greater attention to sociological understandings of gender.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: My aim is to integrate the theoretical and statistical study of U.S. presidential budgetary priorities by analyzing presidents' varying partisan risk preferences involving defense and non-defense spending, respectively.

Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: Nearly 5 million uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, out of a total of about 8.5 million uninsured children in the US (DeNavas-Walt et al 2004). Understanding the reasons why these children remain uninsured is an issue of high policy significance. In our paper, we explore the connection between risk preferences of the parents and the decision to enroll children in health insurance. Specifically, we investigate whether smokers, who are shown in previous work to be less risk averse, are less likely to sign-up eligible children for coverage because they may value insurance less. Our preliminary findings show that smokers are less likely to sign up eligible children for Medicaid or SCHIP, when controlling for a variety of other individual characteristics using Currently Population Survey (CPS) Annual Demographic Supplements that we link to the CPS Tobacco Use Supplements. But our estimate is unlikely to be the causal impact of risk preferences alone, as children’s exposure to second hand smoke has health consequences, which could have an independent effect on take-up of insurance. To disentangle these two effects and test our hypothesis, we instrument for the probability that a parent smokes with the state’s cigarette taxes, cigarette prices, and a measure of smoking sentiment in the state created from responses to a series of questions in the CPS Tobacco Supplements. This will allow us to judge the magnitude of the risk preference effect separately from the health effect.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Numerous tax-preferred investment opportunities have been created by Congress and implemented by Treasury. Many of these tax rules mandate the amount of investment risk to which investors may be exposed and attempt to keep investors from acting in an economically risky manner (e.g., through diversification requirements and penalty taxes for early withdrawals). Congress has yet to create a coherent structure for government intervention in risk management within the context of tax-preferred investments. The present administration has urged expansion of tax-preferred savings devices and the introduction of investment risk and “ownership” into Social Security. My presentation will review possible approaches to risk management that Congress could take to create a more unified approach for tax-preferred products.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The formation of individual preferences for free trade is crucial for our understanding of the future prospects of the global trade order. Do citizens want free trade? A number of studies support the the Heckscher-Ohlin model, which predicts income gains of the abundant factor in case of liberal trade. Yet on the aggregate level in highly skill abundant countries a majority of respondents speaks out for protectionist measures and only a small minority supports free trade, as is the case of the United States. This paper offers a complementary explanation and argues that respondents with specific job related skills ought to be skeptical of free trade, for they risk losing their skill related income when forced to change jobs in the wake of trade liberalization. Countries with high levels of wage equality, however, offer insurance against loss of skill specific income. Using individual level data for 17 OECD countries the paper shows that indeed respondents with specific skills and respondents living in countries with high levels of wage inequality are less supportive of free trade.