That is the doc on the labor market written by economist Zach Freitas-Groff from Stanford College. Right here is the abstract :
Coverage selections typically appear stubbornly persistent, even after they turn into politically unpopular or economically damaging. This text gives the primary systematic empirical proof of the persistence of coverage selections, outlined as whether or not the choices of an citizens or legislature have an effect on the implementation of a coverage many years later. I create a brand new dataset that traces the historical past of over 800 state insurance policies which have been the topic of shut referendums in US states since 1900. In a regression discontinuity design, I estimate that the Passing a referendum will increase the probabilities {that a} coverage can be operational 20, 40, and even 100 years later by greater than 40 proportion factors. I accumulate further knowledge on U.S. congressional laws and worldwide referendums and use current knowledge on state laws to doc the persistence of comparable insurance policies for a spread of institutional environments, cultures, and matters. I develop a theoretical mannequin to differentiate potential causes of persistence and current proof that persistence arises as a result of coverage salience declines following referendums. The outcomes point out that many insurance policies are constantly in place – or not – for causes unrelated to the citizens’s present preferences.
Spectacular authentic. Zach has a number of fascinating articles (see first hyperlink), some from an EA-adjacent perspective.
