Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Sunday, July 14, 2019

AI Summary. US electricity generation shifted from coal, which supplied over 40% of power until 2011, to natural gas, which overtook coal and reached 35.5% in 2018 following advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric together still supply over 88% of US electricity.

Mark Perry American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

US electricity generation has shifted significantly since 1949, with coal dominating until 2011, natural gas surging past coal in 2016, and renewables increasing gradually.

How has the US electricity generation fuel mix shifted over decades?

Core argument: US natural gas-fired generation reached 35.5% of electricity in 2018, surpassing coal by 2016 after falling below 10% in 1988, a shift attributed to advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

From 1949 to 2019, US electricity generation underwent significant shifts in fuel sources, with coal historically dominating, providing over 40% of power until 2011 and over 50% in 43 of those years. Natural gas, after a decline to less than 10% in 1988, surged past coal by 2016, reaching 35.5% in 2018 due to advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Nuclear power, contributing since 1957, stabilized between 19% and 21.5% over the last 30 years. Hydroelectric power's share fell from over 30% in 1949 to between 6% and 8% in recent years. Solar and other renewables, including wind, have seen gradual increases, with wind reaching over 10% by early 2019. Despite these changes, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric still supply over 88% of US electricity. The CPI for electricity has risen only about 1% annually since 2010, indicating a decrease in real costs, but a shift to renewables could increase electricity costs and taxes, impacting low and middle-income households.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US natural gas-fired generation reached 35.5% of electricity in 2018, surpassing coal by 2016 after falling below 10% in 1988, a shift attributed to advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
  2. Coal supplied over 50% of US electricity in 43 of the years from 1949 to 2019 and over 40% until 2011, while hydroelectric power's share fell from over 30% in 1949 to between 6% and 8%.
  3. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric together still supply over 88% of US electricity, with nuclear holding between 19% and 21.5% over the last 30 years and wind exceeding 10% by early 2019.

Mark Perry, "Animated chart of the day: US electricity generation by fuel source, 1949-2019," American Enterprise Institute, July 9, 2019, https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/animated-chart-of-the-day-us-electricity-generation-by-fuel-source-1949-2019/

Animated chart of the day: US electricity generation by fuel source

Animated chart of the day: US electricity generation by fuel source, 1949-2019: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Here’s a new animated “bar chart race” visualization using the online Flourish software, this one showing US electricity generation by energy source shares from 1949 to 2019 (through April) based on data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Here are few observations:

1. Coal has historically been the largest energy source for America’s electricity generation, and provided more than 40% of the nation’s electric power in every year between 1949 and 2011, and more than 50% in 43 of those 59 years.

2. Although natural gas provided more than 20% of US electric power from 1959 to 1972 it provided less than 20% from 1973 to 2008, less than 15% of US electricity from 1982 and 2005 and a record low of less than 10% in 1988. In 2011, natural gas provided more than 25% of US electric power for the first time when oceans of shale gas were accessed for the first time in shale rock formations with revolutionary drilling and extraction technologies (hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling) and its share quickly surpassed coal for the first time in 2016. During the last full year (2018) natural gas provided 35.5% of electric power versus 27.7% for coal, its lowest share in the history of these EIA data.

3. Nuclear started provided a small share of US electric power in 1957, but its share never rose above 1% until 1968. By 1977, nuclear’s share of electricity rose above 10% for the first time and rose above 20% in 1990 for the first time and hit an all-time peak of 21.8% in 2001. Over the last 30 years, nuclear’s share of US electric power has been fairly stable in a range between about 19% and 21.5%.

4. Solar never contributed to US electricity generation until 1984, but its share never exceeded 1% until 2017 and its share in 2018 was 1.6%.

5. Conventional hydroelectric power provided nearly one-third (more than 30%) of the nation’s electricity in 1949, and its share was above 20% from 1950-1958 before steadily after that. By 1987, hydroelectric power was supplying less than 10% of US electricity and during this century the share has ranged between 6% and 8%.

6. The category “Other Renewables” includes “wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind” according to the EIA. I assume that category today mostly includes windmills, and it never supplied more than 1% of America’s electricity until 1989, and never more than 2% until 2006. During the last full year (2018), it provided 8.6% of the country’s electric power and its share increased to slightly above 10% for the first time during the first four months of this year.

MP: The environmentalists and Green New Deal supporters apparently want to eliminate all fossil fuels, nuclear power and even hydroelectric power, and replace those energy sources with millions of acres of solar panels and windmills. The chart above demonstrates what a massive change that would be, since coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power currently supply more than 88% of America’s electric power.

Further, the CPI for electricity has increased on average only about 1% per year since 2010 compared to the average 1.8% increase in the overall CPI during that period, meaning that the real cost of electric power for Americans has been falling for the last decade. Replacing affordable and dependable fuels to generate electricity with costly and undependable renewables (solar and windmills) would have to result in significant increases in the cost of electricity and would also likely involve increases in taxes to continue to subsidize energy sources that aren’t scientifically and economically viable without taxpayer life support.

Higher energy costs and higher taxes from converting to renewables would burden Americans, especially low and middle-income households, and would significantly lower the standard of living in the US. The GND is what is an existential threat, a threat to affordable energy, a threat to our standard of living and a threat to the economy that supports our way of life.

Ed Comment:Kinda cool although I don’t see why animation is better than a graph, which allows you see all the data more clearly.

Monday, July 15, 2019

AI Summary. Twenty-five US megacities and high-growth hubs, home to 96m people, have driven most job growth since the Great Recession and are projected to capture 60% of US job growth through 2030, while 54 trailing cities and 2,000 rural counties with 78m residents face older, shrinking workforces and higher unemployment.

Americana McKinsey Global Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

25 US cities have generated most job growth since the Great Recession, driven by high-growth industries & young, educated workforces. These cities could capture 60% of US job growth through 2030.

Is US job growth concentrating in a small number of cities?

Core argument: Twenty-five US megacities and high-growth hubs housing 96m people have driven most job growth since the Great Recession and could capture 60% of US job growth through 2030.

Since the Great Recession, 25 megacities and high-growth hubs, home to 96m people, have driven most US job growth, characterized by high-growth industries and young, educated workforces. These cities could capture 60% of US job growth through 2030. In contrast, 54 trailing cities and 2,000 rural counties, with 78m residents, face older, shrinking workforces and higher unemployment. The mixed middle, with 94m people, sees modest growth. Urban areas have grown over 10% since 2007, while rural counties grew by less than 1%. Geographic mobility is at historic lows, with immigration offsetting population losses in megacities. These trends highlight the widening economic disparities across US regions.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Twenty-five US megacities and high-growth hubs housing 96m people have driven most job growth since the Great Recession and could capture 60% of US job growth through 2030.
  2. Fifty-four trailing cities and 2,000 rural counties with 78m residents face older, shrinking workforces and higher unemployment, while a mixed middle of 94m people sees modest growth.
  3. US urban areas have grown over 10% since 2007 against under 1% for rural counties, with geographic mobility at historic lows and immigration offsetting population losses in megacities.

just an FYI some good data from McKinsey highlights the continued "Balkanization" of the US productivity on geographic lines

".... Our analysis of 315 cities and more than 3,000 counties shows that the United States is a mosaic of local economies with widening gaps between them. Twenty five megacities and high-growth hubs, where 96 million people live, have generated most of the nation’s job growth since the Great Recession. These are the nation’s most dynamic places, with high-growth industries, many high-wage jobs, and young, educated workers but notable inequality. By contrast, 54 trailing cities and roughly 2,000 rural counties, collectively home to 78 million people, have older and shrinking workforces, higher unemployment,and lower educational attainment. Between these extremes are thriving niche cities and a larger “mixed middle” with modest economic growth; 94 million people live in these segments..... The same 25 cities and peripheries that led the post-recession recovery could capture 60 percent of US job growth through2030. The mixed middle and trailing cities are positioned for modest job gains, but rural counties could see a decade of flat or even negative net job growth. These shifts are occurring when geographic mobility is at historic lows....Population growth has also tilted toward urban America. High-growth hubs, small powerhouses, and silver cities have grown by more than 10 percent since 2007, and most urban peripheries are also growing. Residents have been moving out of megacities, stable cities, America’s makers, and trailing cities, but immigration has more than offset the losses in megacities and stable cities. By contrast, populations in rural Americana counties grew by less than 1 percent—and distressed Americana is shrinking......

Susan Lund and Et al., "The future of work in America," McKinsey Global Institute, July 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-in-america-people-and-places-today-and-tomorrow

AI Summary. United Nations population projections show China's median age surpassing that of the United States, at 38.4 years versus 38.3 years, with the gap projected to widen in subsequent years.

UN Staff United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

China’s median age surpassed the US in 2020, reaching 38.4 years, marking a significant demographic shift. The aging population poses challenges for China’s economic growth, necessitating policy adjustments to address the economic implications of an aging society.

Is China's population now older than America's?

Core argument: China's median age surpassed the United States' in 2020, reaching 38.4 years versus 38.3 years, according to World Population Prospects 2019.

In 2020, China's median age surpassed that of the US, reaching 38.4 years compared to the US's 38.3 years, marking a significant demographic shift. This trend is expected to continue, with the gap likely widening in subsequent years. The aging population in China poses potential challenges for its economic growth, as a higher median age can lead to a shrinking workforce and increased dependency ratios. This demographic change may impact China's GDP growth and labor market dynamics, necessitating policy adjustments to address the economic implications of an aging society. As China navigates these challenges, the shift in median age underscores the importance of strategic planning in areas such as healthcare, pensions, and labor force participation [LFP] to sustain economic stability and growth.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. China's median age surpassed the United States' in 2020, reaching 38.4 years versus 38.3 years, according to World Population Prospects 2019.
  2. The gap between China's and the United States' median ages is expected to widen in the years after 2020, per World Population Prospects 2019.
  3. China's aging population poses potential challenges for economic growth, as a higher median age can shrink the workforce and raise dependency ratios, with implications for healthcare, pensions, and labor force participation.

next year the median age in China will be 38.4 years old, > the median age in the US of 38.3 years old. and then the gap will likely quickly widen thereafter.

World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights: Extended Excerpt Image 1


World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights: Extended Excerpt Image 2


UN Staff, "World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights," United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, June 17, 2019, https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-2019-highlights.html

AI Summary. School desegregation is associated with halving the black-white test-score gap for some age groups without harming white children, and the gap has widened as schools resegregated. Research finds black children with access to quality Head Start, increased school funding, and desegregation were more likely to graduate high school, escape poverty, and live longer.

Nikole Hannah-Jones New York Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

School desegregation significantly reduced the test-score gap btw black and white children, cutting it in half for some black age groups without harming white children.

Does school desegregation narrow the black-white test-score gap?

Core argument: School desegregation cut the black-white test-score gap in half for some black age groups without harming white children, and the gap was at its narrowest at the peak of desegregation before widening as schools resegregated.

School desegregation significantly reduced the test-score gap between black and white children, cutting it in half for some black age groups without harming white children. At the peak of desegregation, this gap was at its narrowest, but it has widened as schools have resegregated. Economist Rucker C. Johnson's research highlights that black children with access to quality Head Start, increased school funding, and desegregation experienced transformative life outcomes. They were more likely to graduate high school, escape poverty, earn higher incomes, avoid incarceration, and even live longer compared to peers in segregated schools. The earlier and longer these children accessed integrated education, the stronger the positive results, underscoring the profound economic and social benefits of sustained desegregation efforts.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. School desegregation cut the black-white test-score gap in half for some black age groups without harming white children, and the gap was at its narrowest at the peak of desegregation before widening as schools resegregated.
  2. Rucker C. Johnson's research finds that black children with access to quality Head Start, increased school funding, and desegregation were more likely to graduate high school, escape poverty, earn higher incomes, avoid incarceration, and live longer than peers in segregated schools.
  3. The earlier and longer black children had access to integrated education, the stronger their outcomes, according to Rucker C. Johnson's research.

, academic support for claims in op-ed are attached

"...Research has shown that the early studies purporting that desegregation did not help black children academically were flawed because they attempted to study the phenomenon too soon. If a child has spent 10 years in segregated, inferior schools and just two in a highly resourced, integrated school, one cannot expect marked achievement gains. We now know that school desegregation significantly reduced the test-score gap between black and white children — cutting it in half for some black age groups without harming white children. No other reform has reduced the gap on this scale. Rather, the opposite is true: The test-score gap between black and white students reached its narrowest point ever at the peak of desegregation and has widened as schools have resegregated. An economist and professor of public policy, Rucker C. Johnson at the University of California, Berkeley, studied the life outcomes of black children who got access to the trifecta of quality Head Start, increased school funding and desegregation. He saw the entire trajectory of their lives change. Compared with kids stuck in segregated schools, even their own siblings, they were more likely to graduate from high school and more likely to get out of poverty. As adults, they earned more, were less likely to go to jail and even lived longer. The earlier and longer these children got access to integrated schools, Dr. Rucker found, the stronger the results....."
Nikole Hannah-Jones, "It Was Never About Busing,"New York Times, July 12, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/opinion/sunday/it-was-never-about-busing.html

AI Summary. National long-term assessment data show the White-Black test-score gap in reading and mathematics narrowed from the early 1970s to 2008, driven by larger gains among Black students, with the gap at its narrowest during peak desegregation and widening somewhat as schools resegregated. The White-Hispanic math gap at age 9 was largely unchanged since the 1970s.

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Btw 1971/1973 and 2008, the gap btw White and Black students in reading and math narrowed significantly, with Black students making larger gains.

How have racial test-score gaps changed over four decades?

Core argument: The White–Black test-score gap in reading and mathematics narrowed from the early 1970s to 2008, a reduction attributed to larger gains among Black students, with the gap at its narrowest during peak desegregation before widening somewhat as schools resegregated.

From the early 1970s to 2008, significant progress was made in narrowing the test-score gap between White and Black students in reading and mathematics. This reduction is attributed to larger gains by Black students compared to their White counterparts, with the gap reaching its narrowest point during peak desegregation. Despite some widening as schools resegregated, the long-term trend shows a positive shift. The 2012 NAEP assessments highlight these improvements, with Black and Hispanic students making notable strides. However, the White-Hispanic gap in math at age 9 remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. Gender disparities also shifted, with female students generally outperforming males in reading, while males led in math at age 17. The narrowing gender gap at age 9 is due to larger gains by males in reading from 1971 to 2012. These trends underscore the impact of educational policies aimed at closing achievement gaps and highlight ongoing challenges in achieving equity.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The White–Black test-score gap in reading and mathematics narrowed from the early 1970s to 2008, a reduction attributed to larger gains among Black students, with the gap at its narrowest during peak desegregation before widening somewhat as schools resegregated.
  2. The 2012 NAEP long-term trend assessments show Black and Hispanic students making notable gains, while the White–Hispanic gap in mathematics at age 9 remained largely unchanged since the 1970s.
  3. Female students generally outperformed males in reading while males led in mathematics at age 17, with the gender gap at age 9 narrowing because males posted larger reading gains from 1971 to 2012.

what the timesop-edon busing cited to support this claim ".... We now know that school desegregation significantly reduced the test-score gap between black and white children — cutting it in half for some black age groups without harming white children. No other reform has reduced the gap on this scale. Rather, the opposite is true: The test-score gap between black and white students reached its narrowest point ever at the peak of desegregation and has widened as schools have resegregated...."".... Closing achievement gaps is a goal of both national and state education policy. The results from the 2012 NAEP long-term trend assessments show some progress toward meeting that goal. The narrowing of the White - Black and White - Hispanic score gaps in reading and mathematics from the 1970s is the result of larger gains by Black and Hispanic students than White students. Only the White - Hispanic gap in mathematics at age 9 has not shown a significant change from the early 1970s. Female students scored higher in reading than male students at all three ages. The 2012 results show 9-year-old males making larger score gains than females. This has led to a narrowing of the gender gap at age 9 as compared to 1971. In mathematics, male 17-year-old students scored higher than female students. The gender gap at age 17 narrowed because female students made gains from 1971 to 2012, but 17-year-old male students did not...."

Trends in Academic Progress: Reading 1971-2012 | Mathematics 1973-2012: Extended Excerpt Image 1


U.S. Department of Education, "Trends in Academic Progress: Reading 1971-2012 | Mathematics 1973-2012," National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2012/pdf/2013456.pdf

AI Summary. Research using four decades of longitudinal data finds school desegregation is associated with higher educational attainment, earnings, and health for African Americans, with no harm to whites, and better adult outcomes for their children. For poor children, greater Head Start and K-12 spending together is linked to larger gains than either alone.

Valerie Strauss Washington Post
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

School integration is linked to stronger outcomes in adulthood for children of all races, as evidenced by extensive research using longitudinal data over four decades. @ValerieStrauss/WashingtonPost.

Does school desegregation improve long-term outcomes for Black students?

Core argument: Research using longitudinal data spanning four decades links school integration to stronger adult outcomes for children of all races, with African Americans gaining in educational attainment, earnings, and health status and no detriment to whites.

School integration is linked to stronger outcomes in adulthood for children of all races, as evidenced by extensive research using longitudinal data over four decades. African Americans saw significant improvements in educational attainment, earnings, and health status without detriment to whites. The benefits extended to the next generation, with longer exposure to integrated schools correlating with better adult outcomes. For poor children, increased Head Start and K12 spending led to notable gains in education and economic status, reducing incarceration rates. The combined effect of higher Head Start and K12 spending was greater than their individual impacts, highlighting the importance of sustained investment in education. While historical spending levels were lower, suggesting potentially smaller contemporary effects, the returns on education have increased, underscoring the critical role of quality education investments from preK-12.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Research using longitudinal data spanning four decades links school integration to stronger adult outcomes for children of all races, with African Americans gaining in educational attainment, earnings, and health status and no detriment to whites.
  2. Longer exposure to integrated schools correlates with better adult outcomes, and the benefits extend to the next generation.
  3. For poor children, increased Head Start and K–12 spending led to gains in education and economic status and reduced incarceration rates, with the combined effect of both larger than each individually.

Ed, the times op-ed on busing (attached) cited the following to support this claim

"....An economist and professor of public policy, Rucker C. Johnson at the University of California, Berkeley, studied the life outcomes of black children who got access to the trifecta of quality Head Start, increased school funding and desegregation. He saw the entire trajectory of their lives change. Compared with kids stuck in segregated schools, even their own siblings, they were more likely to graduate from high school and more likely to get out of poverty. As adults, they earned more, were less likely to go to jail and even lived longer. The earlier and longer these children got access to integrated schools, Dr. Rucker found, the stronger the results....."
the op-ed cites his new book, which I can get a copy of to actually see his metrics, but here is an interview with Johnson characterizing his books findings:

"....Using nationally representative longitudinal data spanning more than four decades, I analyze the life outcomes of cohorts tracked from birth to adulthood across several generations, from the children of Brown to Brown’s grandchildren. The slow and uneven pace of desegregation, school funding reforms, and Head Start programs across the country created a natural “policy lab,” that allowed for rigorous, empirical evaluation of integration, school funding and Head Start. The research findings are clear: African Americans experienced dramatic improvements in educational attainment, earnings and health status — and this improvement that did not come at the expense of whites. Moreover, the longer students were exposed to integration and strong school funding, the better their outcomes in adulthood. This was true for children of all races. The beneficial effects were found not just for the children who attended desegregated schools, but for their children as well. School integration didn’t fail.The only failure is that we stopped pursuing it and allowed the reign of segregation to return......"

".... We use children’s differential exposure to Head Start spending (at age 4) andcourt-ordered school finance reforms (SFRs) (between the ages 5 through 17), depending on place and year of birth, to examine whether the marginal effect of Head Start spending on children’s adult outcomes are larger among individuals who were subsequently exposed to SFR-induced K12 spending increases.We present extensive tests to document that the policy-induced variation in Head Start spending and K12 public school spending we exploit is unrelated to other childhood family, community, or policy changes. For non-poor children, SFR-induced K12 spending increases led to significant improvements in educational and economic outcomes, while increases in Head Start spending had no effect.However, for poor children, both Head Start spending increases and SFR-induced K12 spending increases led to significant improvements in educational outcomes, economic outcomes, and reductions in the likelihood of incarceration. Importantly, the long-run effects of increases in Head Start spending are amplified when followed by attending schools that experienced SFRinduced increases in K12 per-pupil spending. Across all the outcomes, the marginal effect of the same increase in Head Start spending was more than twice as large for students from K12 school districts that spent at the 75th percentile of the distribution than those from K12 school districts that spent at the 25th percentile. Similarly, the benefits of K12 school-spending increases on adult outcomes were larger among poor children who were exposed to higher levels of Head Start spending during their pre-school years. For poor children, the combined benefits of growing up in districts/counties with both greater Head Start spending and K12 per-pupil spending are significantly greater than the sum of the independent effects of the two investments in isolation. There are two important caveats to our work. First, because the counterfactual childcare and pediatric care may be better today than in the late 1960s and 70s, the marginal effect of Head Start may be smaller today than in the earlier period that we study. Second, public school spending levels during the period we study were lower than current levels. If school spending exhibits diminishing marginal product, the effects presented here may be larger than one would observe with similar spending increases today. These caveats do not minimize the importance of the findings or their profound implications for policy. However, they do suggest that the contemporary magnitude of the effects may be smaller than those we present here. At the same time, the returns to education have increased, so the consequences of access to high-quality human capital investments from preK-12 are large...."
Rucker Johnson and C. Kirabo Jackson, "Reducing Inequality Through Dynamic Complementary Evidence From Head Start and Public School Spending," National Bureau of Economic Research June 2017, https://gsppi.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/RJabstract_LRHeadStartSchoolQuality.pdf

Valerie Strauss, "Why school integration works,"Washington Post, May 16, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/16/why-school-integration-works/

going through his CV seem like the support for that claim of the books is likely drawn from a 2017 NEBR paper of his that found