Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Long-Run and Intergenerational Effects of Early Childhood Environments

Great NBER working paper this week on the long-run and next generation returns to early life conditions. Specifically, Eric Gould and co-authors look at consequences driven by the airlift of Yemenite immigrants into Israel. In their own words:

This paper estimates the effect of the childhood environment on a large array of social and economic outcomes lasting almost 60 years, for both the affected cohorts and for their children. To do this, we exploit a natural experiment provided by the 1949 Magic Carpet operation, where over 50,000 Yemenite immigrants were airlifted to Israel. The Yemenites, who lacked any formal schooling or knowledge of a western-style culture or bureaucracy, believed that they were being "redeemed," and put their trust in the Israeli authorities to make decisions about where they should go and what they should do. As a result, they were scattered across the country in essentially a random fashion, and as we show, the environmental conditions faced by immigrant children were not correlated with other factors that affected the long-term outcomes of individuals. We construct three summary measures of the childhood environment: 1) whether the home had running water, sanitation and electricity; 2) whether the locality of residence was in an urban environment with a good economic infrastructure; and 3) whether the locality of residence was a Yemenite enclave. We find that children who were placed in a good environment (a home with good sanitary conditions, in a city, and outside of an ethnic enclave) were more likely to achieve positive long-term outcomes. They were more likely to obtain higher education, marry at an older age, have fewer children, work at age 55, be more assimilated into Israeli society, be less religious, and have more worldly tastes in music and food. These effects are much more pronounced for women than for men. We find weaker and somewhat mixed effects on health outcomes, and no effect on political views. We do find an effect on the next generation – children who lived in a better environment grew up to have children who achieved higher educational attainment.

I find this paper noteworthy for several reasons:

(1) The authors have a credible and interesting source of variation, and the actual early life exposures they look at have immediate policy implications

(2) The authors explore a wide variety of different outcomes, including behavioral aspects. In my dissertation, I argued that long-run returns need to be taken into account when making resource allocation decisions. However, this is difficult if only a subset of long-run returns are known. This paper really hits this gap.

(3) Finally, and more self-serving, the long-run effects of sanitation and clean water jive well with my thesis paper on the National Clean Water Program in Mexico (see the next post).

4 comments:

Jeremy said...

This is my favorite type of paper - very clever identification strategy, interesting and real world topic, and only 1 equation!

Atheendar said...

Yup.

My only worry is the issue of multiple comparisons: they look at A LOT of different outcomes. While a large enough percentage of these are significant and in the expected direction (reducing the possibility that they are due to chance), they should still have accounted for the fact that each regression is not unrelated.

Jeremy said...

Yes, but if they don't do all of the outcomes, then maybe other researchers would write separate papers about each of them, in which case you have to think deeply about the notion of multiple testing.

James H. said...

Really excellent case study to seize upon. And y'all have already discussed my only concern.