Joel Waldfogel is an economics prof. at Wharton School (UPenn.). His

In summary: Others should be managed, regulated, or banned when the gift is unnecessary or impractical.In summary, Joel Waldfogel is an economics prof. at Wharton School (UPenn.). His latest book is Scroogenomics. In it, he estimates that the recipient of a gift usually values the item less than its cost. By his measure, Christmastime gifts amount to $12 billion lost value ("deadweight loss") each year, which is inefficient and irrational.
  • #1
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,350
124
Joel Waldfogel is an economics prof. at Wharton School (UPenn.). His latest book is Scroogenomics. In it, he estimates that the recipient of a gift usually values the item less than its cost. By his measure, Christmastime gifts amount to $12 billion lost value ("deadweight loss") each year, which is inefficient and irrational.

Modern economics postulates that the "best" gift is money -- it let's the recipient to spend it as he or she pleases. Prof. Waldfogel's book seems a special case of this general postulate. But writing a jolly check payable to the grandchildren is not a popular choice among the grandparents currently, and unlikely ever to become one.

What is your take on his claim? Should holiday gifts be discontinued, managed, regulated, banned? Or replaced by handouts in the form of cold cash?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Waldvogel might ask a parent of a 5-year old, who has laboured over, and made a nice drawing as a gift to him/her, for a second opinion.
 
  • #3


EnumaElish said:
...

What is your take on his claim? Should holiday gifts be discontinued, managed, regulated, banned? Or replaced by handouts in the form of cold cash?
I heard a review of Waldfogel before the holidays and it nudged me into a decision I had been mulling for some time for my family during the holidays: all gifts must be something one makes, not buys, with some reasonable caveats. Ties, scarfs, and the like are banished. The result is that Waldfogel's theory of gift value is, I think, reversed. If the house was on fire, I might run back for my xmas gift family photo collage made by Mrs mheslep while letting a hundred flat screen tv's burn.
 
  • #4


arildno said:
Waldvogel might ask a parent of a 5-year old, who has laboured over, and made a nice drawing as a gift to him/her, for a second opinion.
Exactly, though I vaguely thought Waldvogel was in the main talking about purchased gifts.
 
  • #5


I like money, but no amount of money can replace the thoughtful gifts my two girls get for me. They know what I care about and the time and thought they put into getting me something that will be meaningful to me just blows me away. They're not expensive, but each one brings tears to my eyes and each time I walk by one of their gifts, it tugs at my heart.
 
  • #6


EnumaElish said:
What is your take on his claim? Should holiday gifts be discontinued, managed, regulated, banned? Or replaced by handouts in the form of cold cash?
It depends on what is behind the gift.

Evo said:
I like money, but no amount of money can replace the thoughtful gifts my two girls get for me. They know what I care about and the time and thought they put into getting me something that will be meaningful to me just blows me away. They're not expensive, but each one brings tears to my eyes and each time I walk by one of their gifts, it tugs at my heart.
:approve:

mheslep said:
I heard a review of Waldfogel before the holidays and it nudged me into a decision I had been mulling for some time for my family during the holidays: all gifts must be something one makes, not buys, with some reasonable caveats. Ties, scarfs, and the like are banished. The result is that Waldfogel's theory of gift value is, I think, reversed. If the house was on fire, I might run back for my xmas gift family photo collage made by Mrs mheslep while letting a hundred flat screen tv's burn.
:approve:

The most important thing, no amount of money can buy. It must be given freely.
 
  • #7


EnumaElish said:
... Should holiday gifts be discontinued, managed, regulated, banned? Or replaced by handouts in the form of cold cash?
I missed this phrasing the first time. Did you really mean to say "managed, regulated, banned"? Even assuming Waldvogel is 100% correct, why not phrase the question something like "does this make you reconsider holiday gifting" or "knowing this, would you behave differently". Who or what third party entity do you imagine has even the slightest authority or right to "manage, regulate, or ban" holiday gifting?
 
  • #8


mheslep said:
I missed this phrasing the first time. Did you really mean to say "managed, regulated, banned"? Even assuming Waldvogel is 100% correct, why not phrase the question something like "does this make you reconsider holiday gifting" or "knowing this, would you behave differently". Who or what third party entity do you imagine has even the slightest authority or right to "manage, regulate, or ban" holiday gifting?
The language you suggest is sensible but I was trying to be ironic.

I understand that some gifts are managed, regulated, or banned all the time, and all gifts may have to be managed, regulated, or banned sometimes (for example, as a punishment), but all gifts cannot be managed, regulated, or banned all the time.
 
  • #9


EnumaElish said:
The language you suggest is sensible but I was trying to be ironic.

I understand that some gifts are managed, regulated, or banned all the time, and all gifts may have to be managed, regulated, or banned sometimes (for example, as a punishment), but all gifts cannot be managed, regulated, or banned all the time.
Yes because the item is perhaps toxic or otherwise presents some kind of harm to the recipient, not ever because some third party believes it is not an efficient use of funds.
 
  • #10


The most efficient purchases are those you make on yourself, because obviously you know exactly what you want. Less efficiently, you can buy something for someone else, or someone else can buy something for you. Least efficiently, someone else can buy something for someone else. This concept is called the "efficiency of purchases" presented by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman.

Getting money is the best gift, because obv. if you get money you know exactly what you want, and can get it. Even for sentimental moments, etc. with the money you can buy a family photo, or even a family vacation, or a romantic getaway.

Food for thought, would anyone honestly prefer a $20 best buy gift card to a $20 bill? If not, then why are you more likely to receive the former as a gift rather than the latter?
 
  • #11


Getting money is the best gift, because obv. if you get money you know exactly what you want,
WOW!

I didn't know that there exist persons like you, who have a total knowledge about what pleases you most.
Furthermore, I didn't know you have such idiotic significant others who never can be better judges than yourself about what you'd really profit from.

Or is it, perhaps, that you do not have any significant others at all, because you are too full of yourself?
 
  • #12


EnumaElish said:
Joel Waldfogel is an economics prof. at Wharton School (UPenn.). His latest book is Scroogenomics. In it, he estimates that the recipient of a gift usually values the item less than its cost. By his measure, Christmastime gifts amount to $12 billion lost value ("deadweight loss") each year, which is inefficient and irrational.

Modern economics postulates that the "best" gift is money -- it let's the recipient to spend it as he or she pleases. Prof. Waldfogel's book seems a special case of this general postulate. But writing a jolly check payable to the grandchildren is not a popular choice among the grandparents currently, and unlikely ever to become one.

What is your take on his claim? Should holiday gifts be discontinued, managed, regulated, banned? Or replaced by handouts in the form of cold cash?

Cold cash works work me. Most useful present I ever had. I also tend to give cash very often (but not in all situations) and it works out pretty well.

But holiday gifts should not be "discontinued, managed, regulated, banned". I mean , what gives the society the right to legislate gift regulations ?
 
  • #13


arildno said:
WOW!

I didn't know that there exist persons like you, who have a total knowledge about what pleases you most.
Furthermore, I didn't know you have such idiotic significant others who never can be better judges than yourself about what you'd really profit from.

Or is it, perhaps, that you do not have any significant others at all, because you are too full of yourself?

Huh? This psycho-babble you gave me is a waste of time.

I'll just quote from the text of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman" [Broken] (winner of the Nobel prize in econ.) Free to Choose complete with the explanation, and I'll follow up with an example.

You Are the Spender

On Whom You Spent
Whoose Money ,,| You | Someone Else
-------------------+-----+---------------
... Your's ... | .. I .| ... II
-------------------+-----+---------------
Someone Else's .| . III | ... IV
-------------------+-----+---------------

Category I refers to you spending your own money on yourself. You shop in a supermarket for instance. You clearly have a strong incentive both to economize and to get as much value as you can for each dollar you do spend.

Category II refers to your spending your own money on someone else. You shop for Christmas or birthday presents. You have the same incentive to economize as in Category I but not the same incentive to get full value for your money, at least as judged by the tastes of the recipient. You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like-provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort. (If, indeed, your main objective were to enable the recipient to get as much value as possible per dollar, you would give him cash, converting your Category II spending to Category I spending by him.)

Category III refers to your spending someone else's money on yourself=lunching on an expense account,for instance. You have no strong incentive to keep down the cost of the lunch, but you do have a strong incentive to get your money's worth.

Category IV refers to your spending someone else's money on still another person. You are paying for someone else's lunch out of an expense account. You have little incentive either to economize or to try to get your gues the lunch that he will value most highly. However, if you are having lunch with him, so that the lunch is a mixture of Category II and Category IV, you do have a strong incentive to satisfy your own tastes at the sacrifice of his, if necessary.


He then goes on to speak to us about welfare.

All welfare programs fall into either Category II-for example, Social Security which involves cash payments that the recipient is free to spend as he may wish; or Category IV-for example, public housing; except that even Category IV programs share one feature of Category III, namely, that the bureaucrats administering the program partake of the lunch; and all Category III programs have bureaucrats among their recipients.

Here is an example. Jay Leno went to Michigan (very poor by American standards), and gave some workers free comedy tickets. He then was so upset that the workers put them up on eBay, that he http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0134084161.shtml" ordered eBay to ban the sales. This is in Category II. Apparently he thought that the worker's would rather see his show than get some food.

Bear in mind when discussing economics that in economics we are talking about getting the most for a dollar, yen, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14


Actually, you are the one psycho-babbling, because you totally ignore highly important factors.

For example, I don't know about all books that exist that I would enjoy if I got them.

Having friends&family who DO know what sort of books I like multiplies my chances manifold of getting books I will like if they give THE BOOKS to me, rather than giving me cash so that I myself have to go looking for them at random.

Giving me "useful tips" about books along with the cash is still not good enough, because I must go and buy them, instead of geting them in my hand right now.
 
  • #15


arildno said:
Having friends&family who DO know what sort of books I like multiplies my chances manifold of getting books I will like if they give THE BOOKS to me, rather than giving me cash so that I myself have to go looking for them at random.

Isnt simpler to keep an Amazon.com wish list, and buy from there with the cash you got ? This is what I do. I also have a public wish list, so other persons can see what are the books I want (not matter that some would be able to make a pretty good educated guess)
 
  • #16


DanP said:
Isnt simpler to keep an Amazon.com wish list, and buy from there with the cash you got ? This is what I do. I also have a public wish list, so other persons can see what are the books I want (not matter that some would be able to make a pretty good educated guess)

What about those books I'd love to read, but have no idea that I would want to read before being given them?

That's where knowledgeable friends and family can extend my eventual possessions.


Similarly, you go to a picturesque antique shop on your holidays, finding a bracelet you KNOW your mother would love.

What do you do?
Wait till you are back, hand her the cash and the ticket to wherever you had vacation, saying she sjould go and buy that bracelet?

Wouldn't it be much simpler to buy the bracelet and hand it over to her yourself?
 
  • #17


My wife and I cook for others. Regardless of monetary value, people appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness behind the gifts. I would feel crass, just handing out money, and would be quite uncomfortable about giving gifts without putting a lot of thought and effort into the selection.

Today, my wife got into a baking mood, and while I did some spring-time clean-up she made soft German sugar cookies filled with lemon curd, a couple of round loaves of substantial pumpernickel bread, and 4 different kinds of bone-shaped dog cookies. Most featured rolled outs, whole grains, and garlic powder, and were built around main ingredients such as fresh herbs, ground beef, and fresh beef liver. Some of those cookies smelled REAL good when they were baking, so I'm going to have to sample them when giving Duke treats. I stopped in at the neighbors' this afternoon and dropped off a loaf of the bread, a bag of the filled cookies, and another bag of mixed dog-treats for Max. Max did NOT undervalue his gift. He got to sample a garlic and parsley cookie first, and he was kind of clingy afterward (more!). I think gifts are more fun to give when they are unexpected and not tied to some event.
 
  • #18


turbo-1 said:
My wife and I cook for others. Regardless of monetary value, people appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness behind the gifts. I would feel crass, just handing out money, and would be quite uncomfortable about giving gifts without putting a lot of thought and effort into the selection.

A lot of ppl would be just happy to receive money as a gift. So why would you feel crass ? A large percentage of gifts are always returned if you let the receipt in the packet. Especially some pretty expensive ones, when temptation to have the cash is big.
 
  • #19


DanP said:
A lot of ppl would be just happy to receive money as a gift. So why would you feel crass ? A large percentage of gifts are always returned if you let the receipt in the packet. Especially some pretty expensive ones, when temptation to have the cash is big.
Let's put it this way - one of my neighbors's grand-daughters has a birthday coming up on the 20th. She'll be 5. She loves rocks, animals of all kinds, and astronomy (among other things). My wife is going to cook treats for her birthday party, and she has already bought her a big bag of assorted sea-shells, and a bag of mixed polished agates with a wide range of colors. She'll love those. Would she love a check? Don't think so.

My father is 84. He is not wealthy, but he has everything he needs. Should I write him a check on his birthday or father's day? Generally, my wife and I fix him up a multi-course meal that lends itself well to left-overs. Maybe pork rib roast with gravy, mashed potatoes with onions and garlic, sweet peas with pearl onions, pastry biscuits, rye bread, and vegetables that are compatible sides. He'll call over and over again as he demolishes that feast. Think he'd like a check?
 
Last edited:
  • #20


Gifts? Bah, humbug!
scrooge.gif
 
  • #21


turbo-1 said:
My wife and I cook for others. Regardless of monetary value, people appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness behind the gifts. I would feel crass, just handing out money, and would be quite uncomfortable about giving gifts without putting a lot of thought and effort into the selection.

Certainly -- and I imagine many people feel similarly. But isn't the point of this thread -- or one of its points -- that those societal feelings ("crass", et. al.) should be changed, if efficiency is to be achieved?

Certainly while that's a common feeling, cash gifts will be rare.
 
  • #22


CRGreathouse said:
Certainly -- and I imagine many people feel similarly. But isn't the point of this thread -- or one of its points -- that those societal feelings ("crass", et. al.) should be changed, if efficiency is to be achieved?

Certainly while that's a common feeling, cash gifts will be rare.

That's basically where I'm at. I don't think I've ever given money as a gift because of societal pressures. Cash does buy books. Cash does buy baked goods. Cash even buys health care for the elderly. Cash is a thoughtful gift, because almost anything you can dream of cash can go towards buying.
 
  • #23


turbo-1 said:
Today, my wife got into a baking mood, and while I did some spring-time clean-up she made soft German sugar cookies filled with lemon curd, a couple of round loaves of substantial pumpernickel bread, and 4 different kinds of bone-shaped dog cookies. Most featured rolled outs, whole grains, and garlic powder, and were built around main ingredients such as fresh herbs, ground beef, and fresh beef liver. Some of those cookies smelled REAL good when they were baking, so I'm going to have to sample them when giving Duke treats. I stopped in at the neighbors' this afternoon and dropped off a loaf of the bread, a bag of the filled cookies, and another bag of mixed dog-treats for Max. Max did NOT undervalue his gift. He got to sample a garlic and parsley cookie first, and he was kind of clingy afterward (more!). I think gifts are more fun to give when they are unexpected and not tied to some event.

This is a common act of charity. Companies frequently donate their services rather than money, because their services can be given away at cost, and is also a good way to demonstrate their value to the community. If your wife's time is very valuable, then she's got to be costing herself, but assuming she has nothing to do, then doesn't that save money in the long run?

It's almost as though we give children things in the hopes that they don't grow up.

Also, we are ignoring all the not-so-stellar-gifts that we must be giving because obviously we've all received them. What if you get a book that you don't like, or an ugly tie, whatever. The purchaser has incentive to make sure he gets a good deal on the good (or to prepare it well), but the good itself may or may not meet with the preferences of the recipient. That's the main point. Sometimes the gift is right on the money, but sometimes its a total miss.
 
  • #24


Waldfogel is totally missing the point. He's looking at this from the neoclassicalist perspective: all that matter is monetary. What he should be looking at, and what the neoclassical model tries to increase, is net utilitarianism (with consideration of the Kaldor-Hicks efficiency - if you don't know what this is, ignore.).

THE MOMENT he gets data asserting that receiving cash as a gift derives more utility on average than an actual physical gift, THEN he has a theory.
 
  • #25


I think the point that most people brought up, but economists tend to ignore, is that the act (of receiving a gift that is NOT cash) itself provides utility to many people. Even if the gift is not exactly what an individual needs or wants, it can become the thing that individual wants simply because it was chosen by someone important to him (e.g a child or significant other). In this way, the net utility gain from mandating all gifts be in the form of currency is offset (at least somewhat) by the net utility loss by people who wanted others to choose stuff for them.

As in all economics, it's impossible to tell which factor outweighs which. Utils are not uniform across all consumers.

Simply put, consumer surplus in this case cannot simply be measured by the amount of money someone would have payed for the item minus the amount the gifter actually payed because the act of someone else picking the item for giftee may affect their demand curves in unknown ways.
 
  • #26


Another point that is missed is due to the simplification of the human being as a self-sufficient, "rational" actor.

For such a person, gaining trust to, and tokens of good-will from others is basically unnecessary.

Not so for the rest of us..
 
  • #27


I doubt it would ever be successful to legislate gift-giving culture, even if it was preferable.

The funny thing, though, is that I think gift-giving culture itself has been amplified with the idea of decentralized fiscal stimulus in mind.

How many people are actually thinking about their sales with dollar-signs in their eyes when they are celebrating the joys of holiday giving?

I believe that Charles Dickens even wrote A Christmas Carol as part of his cultural assault on industrial capitalism. While people like Benjamin Franklin were saying "a penny saved is a penny earned" and emphasizing frugality and diligence, people like Charles Dickens were complaining that they wanted to live it up by painting sad pictures of poverty and sadness.

I believe this culture survives today as the battle between liberalism and conservatism, but spending is just part of that divide.
 
  • #28


calculusrocks said:
This is a common act of charity.
Charity? Those people are our friends, and they don't need charity. We do nice things for one another with no thought of charity, debt, or payback. He built a nice little mini-greenhouse out of scrap aluminum and scavenged windows and doors, and gave it to us, so we could start plants for our garden. My wife hadn't been using her computer much, so I gave it to his grand-daughters, along with a nice self-contained work-station, flat-screen monitor, and color printer. My garden was torn up last fall by heavy equipment while I was having a new leach-field installed for my septic system, so he gave me his garden-spot so I could plant my garlic then. He won't have time to garden this summer, anyway, because he'll be sawing out lumber to build an addition on his house for his daughter and grand-children. I'll help him with the saw-mill, and I'll plant extra vegetables in my garden-spot to help supply his family with fresh vegetables.

I have another neighbor who likes to hunt but is really squeamish about blood and guts. When he shoots a deer, I gut it for him and he gives me the heart and liver, and steaks, burger, and roasts. I hunt on his property, and I give him free access across my property to make a short-cut to the snowmobile trail, so he doesn't have to ride on the road-side. He built the back bumper on my truck and built a set of boat racks.

None of this is charity. Gifts are gifts, not payment in kind, and we all use our talents to do nice things for one another.
 
  • #29


turbo-1 said:
Charity? Those people are our friends, and they don't need charity. We do nice things for one another with no thought of charity, debt, or payback. He built a nice little mini-greenhouse out of scrap aluminum and scavenged windows and doors, and gave it to us, so we could start plants for our garden. My wife hadn't been using her computer much, so I gave it to his grand-daughters, along with a nice self-contained work-station, flat-screen monitor, and color printer. My garden was torn up last fall by heavy equipment while I was having a new leach-field installed for my septic system, so he gave me his garden-spot so I could plant my garlic then. He won't have time to garden this summer, anyway, because he'll be sawing out lumber to build an addition on his house for his daughter and grand-children. I'll help him with the saw-mill, and I'll plant extra vegetables in my garden-spot to help supply his family with fresh vegetables.

I have another neighbor who likes to hunt but is really squeamish about blood and guts. When he shoots a deer, I gut it for him and he gives me the heart and liver, and steaks, burger, and roasts. I hunt on his property, and I give him free access across my property to make a short-cut to the snowmobile trail, so he doesn't have to ride on the road-side. He built the back bumper on my truck and built a set of boat racks.

None of this is charity. Gifts are gifts, not payment in kind, and we all use our talents to do nice things for one another.

You should read about the Potlach analysis done by Marcel Mauss of gift-reciprocation and social status.

What do you think happens when one neighbor gives lots freely to another neighbor but the other neighbor never reciprocates at some level or other? Probably the giving neighbor feels slighted and doesn't feel like doing him any more favors.

As such a gift economy develops, property rights and measured exchanges become frowned upon. Don't believe me? Try offering your friend the service of gutting his deer at 25% off the price charged by a local butcher.

Certainly barter is preferable to money-based exchanges to the extent that you can avoid taxes, but I believe (perhaps too cynically) that some freedom of exchange is supplanted with social loyalty and obligations.

I suppose it is possible, though, to barter without creating a longer-term exchange relationship. That's actually what I do, because I'm a fan of free markets. But I notice a pattern of people who like bartering and community-building cooperation almost enjoy the social-bond formation more than what they get out of the exchanges.
 
  • #30


We live in a very rural area. To some extent, we may all be dependent on one another at one time or another. I have a 30hp tractor with a tiller and loader. It's the right size for some jobs. The squeamish neighbor has a much larger Ford tractor with a backhoe. We do stuff for one another using the appropriate equipment. No problem. I need something welded? He takes care of it. He needs electronics troubleshooting done? I do that for him.
 
  • #31


EnumaElish said:
But writing a jolly check payable to the grandchildren is not a popular choice among the grandparents currently, and unlikely ever to become one.

Over the last two years, I gave up trying to figure out what the nieces and nephews would want for Christmas and birthdays and instead sent money. They LOVED it! What they especially liked is that they could pool their money for something they really want. What's more, by eliminating the shipping costs, I was able to give more to my family and less to UPS. As for me, I cannot remember a time when a cash gift was unwelcome.

If you have something special in mind, obviously the thought is usually appreciated. But it is hard to imagine any kid having a problem with cash. What is easy to imagine is a closet full of unused junk that was never worth the money paid in the first place. Buying for kids can be tough.

I also remember getting gifts from my grandparents that had sentimental value because I loved my grandparents, but the gifts really had no practical value. I was never going to use them.
 
Last edited:
  • #32


Ivan Seeking said:
Over the last two years, I gave up trying to figure out what the nieces and nephews would want for Christmas and birthdays and instead sent money. They LOVED it! What they especially liked is that they could pool their money for something they really want. What's more, by eliminating the shipping costs, I was able to give more to my family and less to UPS. As for me, I cannot remember a time when a cash gift was unwelcome.

If you have something special in mind, obviously the thought is usually appreciated. But it is hard to imagine any kid having a problem with cash. What is easy to imagine is a closet full of unused junk that was never worth the money paid in the first place. Buying for kids can be tough.

I also remember getting gifts from my grandparents that had sentimental value because I loved my grandparents, but the gifts really had no practical value. I was never going to use them.

Who gives kids the gift of learning that happiness is possible without material things or leisure activities that cost money?

That is the gift of independence for later when they have to cut their budgets to afford the mortgage payment when they've lost income. At that point they can either be in a miserable prison of spending-constraint or they can be busy with all the things they learned to enjoy that don't cost anything or involve material items that have to be purchased.
 
  • #33


Oh lord, we are talking about gifts not lessons in philosophy. There is plenty of time for that later. I think it is extremely selfish to think of what you want based on some abstract concept, instead of something that will actually make the kids happy.

Being the tough guy/gal is a job for the parents. The rest of us get to score browinie points.
 
  • #34


Ivan Seeking said:
Oh lord, we are talking about gifts not lessons in philosophy. There is plenty of time for that later. I think it is extremely selfish to think of what you want based on some abstract concept, instead of something that will actually make the kids happy.

Being the tough guy/gal is a job for the parents. The rest of us get to score browinie points.

So in other words you like the idea of giving kids anything they want without considering how it will affect them, either presently or in later life.

I tend to look at gift-giving or anything else I do for or with kids as part of raising them. I think raising them involves a certain degree of giving them freedom to want and get what they want, but I also think it is good for adults to think about what is good for them - which requires some philosophizing, whether you like it or not.
 

1. Who is Joel Waldfogel?

Joel Waldfogel is an economics professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He is also a researcher and author in the field of economics.

2. What is the Wharton School?

The Wharton School is the business school of the University of Pennsylvania. It is one of the top business schools in the world, known for its prestigious programs in finance, management, and economics.

3. What is Joel Waldfogel's area of expertise?

Joel Waldfogel's area of expertise is in economics, specifically in the fields of industrial organization, cultural economics, and public policy. He has conducted extensive research and published numerous articles and books on these topics.

4. What are some of Joel Waldfogel's notable achievements?

Joel Waldfogel has received numerous awards and honors for his work, including the Sherwin Rosen Prize for Outstanding Contributions to Behavioral Economics and the American Economic Association's John Bates Clark Medal. He is also a fellow of the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

5. How can I learn more about Joel Waldfogel's work?

You can learn more about Joel Waldfogel's research and publications by visiting his faculty page on the Wharton School's website. He also has a personal website where you can find a list of his publications, media appearances, and contact information.

Back
Top