« Mechanism Design and Markets | Main | The best two sentences I read today »
Underappreciated economists, a continuing series
Vivian Hoffman, currently a Ph.d. candidate at Cornell. When I read this description of her research I think that modern economics is very much on the right track:
I study the economics of anti-poverty and health interventions using household survey and experimental economics methods. Most of my work to date has been in East Africa. For my dissertation research on demand for and intra-household allocation of insecticide-treated mosquito nets, I conducted fieldwork in southwestern Uganda. Ongoing projects include a study on the impact of food aid receipt on labor supply and agricultural production in Malawi, estimateing the returns to farm assets in rural Ethiopia, and an experimental investigation into the effect of stigma on HIV testing behavior. I hope to continue working at the intersection of health and development economics. My interests also include health and poverty-related issues in Canada and the United States.
Here is the abstract on her main paper:
This paper reports results from a field experiment in Uganda. Whether a mosquito net was purchased or received for free affected who within the household used the net. Free nets were more likely to be allocated to those members of the household most vulnerable to malaria, whereas purchased nets tended to be used by the household's main income earners. The effect was strongest for free nets received by the mother, increasing the probability that all children five and younger slept under nets by 26 percent relative to when nets had been purchased by either parent or given to the father.
In other words, within the household the breadwinners have a greater practical ability to control priced goods than non-priced goods. This hints at one reason why men are often more willing to "think like economists" within the family.
You might think that Vivian has not yet done enough to be judged, but surely she has done enough to be judged as underappreciated. So go appreciate her and remove that label from her name!
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 16, 2007 at 12:23 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
I haven't read the paper... but was there any control on whether the people handing out the free nets gave instructions or indicated that they should be used on those most vulnerable?
Posted by: anon at Oct 16, 2007 12:41:51 PM
As an Applied Economics PhD (UW-Madison) I may be biased, but the fact she in the Applied Economics department is an indication that Applied/Ag Econ departments are on the right track (and underappreciated).
Posted by: Seth at Oct 16, 2007 12:42:25 PM
Wonderful projects are carried out in a nice way by some of my graduate students.Here is a list of some topics being studied by them:
1.Economics of elephant ownership (private elephants,temple elephants which are privately managed and govt.elephants attached to temples coming under Govt.Boards).She also looks in to the coditions of mahouts also,
2.Spatial integration among small towns,
3.Morbidity and health expenditure in villages,
4.Living arrangements of heterogenous tribals in western ghats,
etc.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 16, 2007 12:59:41 PM
Its cool that you get to call whatever you want "economics". I agree sociology, anthropology and public health are important areas of study.
Posted by: talboito at Oct 16, 2007 1:04:10 PM
How did you come across Ms. Hoffmann? Is it common for faculty to browse graduate student biographies, or did you discover her work through another medium? I'm curious as a PhD student myself (in engineering).
Posted by: Bob at Oct 16, 2007 1:23:24 PM
Cornell is turning out really good health economics people doing interesting work.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Oct 16, 2007 1:41:16 PM
Wasn't the mosquito net paper discussed here already? The economics of malaria net distribution
Posted by: anon at Oct 16, 2007 1:47:19 PM
I was also going to say that I suspect Vivian's field work is incredibly rewarding, both personally and scientifically. I have often wished I was an ethnographer or an anthropologist, partly because all of my data is second-hand, and my theories of behavior are not grounded directly in observation. Economics has both an inductive and a deductive component, but to date, I've been far too deductive for my tastes.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Oct 16, 2007 1:51:23 PM
This is a very good sign indeed. I just wish that the professional development community would catch up. That is why it is very good that programs like IR/PS ( http://irps.ucsd.edu/ ) are turning out professional master's degree candidates with training in experimental design for development projects.
Posted by: nvm at Oct 16, 2007 1:51:51 PM
Anon - to your question, see the Appendix (A1), page 32. It reads:
"Buying Condition: The money you have been given is compensation for your participation in this study.
You may use this for whatever you wish. Later today you will have an opportunity to exchange this cash
for mosquito nets, but you are in no way obligated to do so.
Free Nets Condition: The nets you have been given is compensation for your participation in this study.
You may use these for whatever you wish. Later today you will have an opportunity to exchange these
nets for cash, but you are in no way obligated to do so. "
Posted by: jason voorhees at Oct 16, 2007 1:54:13 PM
When will we a have series of "Big Timing Economists"?
The premiere figure should be Mr. Tyler Cowen himself. After posting a request to the bedraggled readers of this blog for places to eat lunch in L.A., he bypassed his most earnest loyal readers and instead he big-timed us by taking the emailed advice of the elite, fabulously wealthy, Marc Andreessen.
And did he follow his humble advice of a of a local, reasonable ethnic dive? No, he went to the incredibly expensive HamaSaku, which is owned by fire-breathing media mogul Michael Ovitz.
Yes, Prof Cowen has met Los Angeles and gone native. He'll next be seen chatting up his publicist on a tiny cell phone, emailing his talent agent on a blackberry, and posting on his blog with an Iphone, all while negotiating Santa Monica boulevard for a lunch date at Wolfgang Puck's Cut.
Sigh.
Posted by: Distressed at Oct 16, 2007 1:57:01 PM
A sociology grad student friend working in the same general areas of East Africa found that local men were against projects to bring piped water into their villages because they didn't trust their wives with the extra time from avoiding the hours each way to reach existing water sources. The mentioned both infidelity and revenue-generating activities. Financial assets and opportunity costs for women both factor into the male strategy to maintain control/dominance there.
Posted by: mark b at Oct 16, 2007 3:31:33 PM
Is it possible that there are two different groups of people: A). get
free nets; B). go buy nets? If it is true, then what the author observed
might just comes out of two different family "philosophy" (if you will),
instead of the way nets getting into family's houses. -- Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Yisheng Gong at Oct 16, 2007 4:08:54 PM
Thanks. It's important for anyone thinking about development economics to recall that a lot of people in the Third World are mildly sick a lot of the time, especially with malaria. Lack of energy due to malaria was a major drag on the economy of Southern Italy, even, until well into the 20th Century.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 16, 2007 4:13:27 PM
neat article - thought it also shows everything wrong with economics today. pages 7-10 are entirely unneccessary. the language is awkward and tedious throughout. this probably has more to do with what the field expects from phd candidates than what ms hoffman is capable of. sad state of affairs.
Posted by: math at Oct 16, 2007 5:04:52 PM
neat article - thought it also shows everything wrong with economics today. pages 7-10 are entirely unneccessary. the language is awkward and tedious throughout. this probably has more to do with what the field expects from phd candidates than what ms hoffman is capable of. sad state of affairs.
Posted by: math at Oct 16, 2007 5:06:51 PM
My explanation - male desire for domincance stems from a desire to guarantee lineage of children. This dominance curtails female range of behavior. Because females are the family altruists a la Becker's rotten kid theorem, this means that many efficient intrafamilial transfers do not get made.
Goodnight, everybody!
Posted by: Keith at Oct 16, 2007 5:10:41 PM
Thanks everyone for your interest in my work. In my current revision I’m dropping the (tedious and unnecessary) theory section and dealing with the potential sample selection bias arising from the fact that I only observed net use in the households that purchased any nets. The new version should be up tomorrow (what timing!!)
Posted by: Vivian at Oct 16, 2007 7:39:29 PM
Do you get a policy suggestion from this?
Posted by: Andy at Oct 16, 2007 11:43:14 PM
Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 10:44:31 PM
