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
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…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
  • “…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 very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 172
  • Primary focus 71
Showing 71 database articles primarily about Poverty/Crime
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Poverty/Crime
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,196 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Poverty/Crime):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Bidens Marijuana Pardon Wont Release a Single Inmate

Jason Riley Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
October 13, 2022
Is Database:
Database

@JasonRiley @WSJ, 13% of population blacks are 1/3 of those arrested for violent crime, driving racial disparity in incarceration rates, not drug offenses.

@JasonRiley @WSJ, 13% of population blacks are 1/3 of those arrested for violent crime, driving racial disparity in...
The racial disparity in incarceration rates is primarily driven by violent crime statistics, with blacks comprising 13% of the U.S. population yet accounting for about one-third of those arrested for violent crimes. This imbalance persists despite efforts to address drug-related incarcerations, as drug offenders constitute a minor fraction of the prison population. As of 2019, 58% of state prisoners were sentenced for violent offenses, while only 14% were for drug offenses, and a mere 4% for drug possession. Even if all drug offenders were released, the U.S. would still lead in prison population among advanced nations, and racial disparities would remain largely unchanged. The focus on drug offenses overlooks the larger issue of violent crime's role in mass incarceration and racial imbalance, suggesting that policy shifts should address these core drivers to effect meaningful change.

Jason Riley, "Biden’s Marijuana Pardon Won’t Release a Single Inmate,"Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-marijuana-pardon-prison-midterms-crime-drug-offenders-racial-disparities-systemic-racism-war-on-drugs-pot-legalization-11665520780

Biden’s Marijuana Pardon Won’t Release a Single Inmate

Even Democrats who sympathize with President Biden’s decision to pardon thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law might question his timing.

Republican candidates across the country have made crime control a major issue in this year’s midterm elections, and Mr. Biden’s order could inadvertently help the GOP advance a narrative that Democrats are preoccupied with coddling criminals.

What trumps that concern for the White House, however, is that Democrats have their own narrative to push, which is that the war on drugs has led to the mass incarceration of people who are disproportionately black and is therefore racist. Following the White House announcement, an NAACP official told National Public Radio, “We’ve seen since the 1970s that marijuana policy was intentionally and malevolently constructed to target the African-American community.” President Obama made a similar claim in 2015. “Over the last few decades, we’ve also locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before,” he said. “And that is the real reason our prison population is so high.”

What civil-rights activists often conveniently omit from this history is the role that black community leaders and the black press played a half-century ago in getting tougher drug laws passed. They also leave out the key role of black lawmakers in advancing legislation that created sentencing disparities for drug offenses. The fight in Congress in the 1980s and ’90s was led by black liberal Democrats, including Harlem’s Rep. Charles Rangel and Brooklyn’s Rep. Major Owens. A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted in favor of the law that created much harsher penalties for crack-cocaine offenses than for powder-cocaine offenses.

Whatever you think of the wisdom of this approach in hindsight, the claim that the initial war on drugs and subsequent escalations were motivated by racial animus toward blacks is nonsense.

There are strong libertarian arguments that the drug war, much like alcohol prohibition in the past, has on balance been a failure and that it’s time to cut our losses. Given that polls now show a majority of Americans, including about half of Republican voters, favor decriminalizing pot, the White House announcement might resonate with people in both parties. But if the goal is to address mass incarceration and racial imbalance in the prison system, then focusing on drug offenders is the wrong approach.

Even Mr. Biden had to concede that no one is in federal prison for simple marijuana possession. What he didn’t say is that even among those housed in state prisons—which hold about 90% of the country’s incarcerated population—a relatively small percentage is there on drug offenses, and almost all of those were convicted of trafficking, not for being caught with small amounts of drugs for personal use. “As a percentage of our nation’s incarcerated population, those possessing small amounts of marijuana barely register,” writes Yale law professor and former District of Columbia public defender James Forman in his book, “Locking Up Our Own.” “For every ten thousand people behind bars in America, only six are there because of marijuana possession.”

The reality is that what drives incarceration rates is violent crimes, not drug crimes. According to the Justice Department, as of 2019 some 58% of people imprisoned by states had been sentenced for violent offenses, 15% for property offenses, 14% for drug offenses and only 4% for drug possession. Put another way, drug offenders are less than a quarter of the violent offenders, and more than 85% of the prison population is there for something other than a drug offense. The U.S. regularly tops the list of advanced countries with the largest prison population, but if we sent home every incarcerated drug offender tomorrow, we’d still top the list.

Nor would releasing drug offenders do much of anything to address the racial imbalance among inmates, which results primarily from the fact that blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population yet around one-third of those arrested for violent crimes. So long as this racial gap in violent offenses persists, so will the racial gap in incarceration rates. “The racial disparities in prison populations would barely budge if all the people serving time for drug crimes were immediately released,” writes John Pfaff, a professor of criminal law at Fordham University, in his book, “Locked In.” And “it seems likely that scaling back the drug war would not on its own necessarily alter offending or enforcement patterns enough to bring about real change.”

Messrs. Forman and Pfaff are not indifferent to the problems of mass incarceration and racial inequality. What distinguishes both scholars is a desire to have an honest debate about what’s driving the phenomenon and, as important, what isn’t. Which is more than can be said about the Biden administration.

Ed Comment: Note ratio of black to non-black violent crime = (65%/13%)/(35%/87%)= 5/0.4 =12.5 times more violent crime before adjusting for statistically significant demographic differences.

“…Nor would releasing drug offenders do much of anything to address the racial imbalance among inmates, which results primarily from the fact that blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population yet around one-third of those arrested for violent crimes….”

  • Poverty/Crime
  • Workforce
Previous articleOctober 13, 2022China and the West are in a race to foster innovationThe US leads with an $800bn investment in corporate R&D, venture capital, and state funding, 3.8% of GDP, surpassing China’s $660bn 2.7% of GDP.Next articleOctober 13, 2022Brad Sester On Current Accounts Surpluses And FX ReservesChina, Russia, and the Gulf are driving the global current account surplus, with China on track for $400bn, Russia for $250bn, and the Gulf for $400bn or more.
Showing 70 database articles primarily about Poverty/Crime

An Extra Point for Attendance: The Impact of High School Varsity Athletics on Absenteeism

AI Summary. High school varsity sports participation reduces student absenteeism by ~20%, with absence rates falling further during active seasons, indicating the relationship is at least partly causal rather than purely a result of selection.

Nat Malkus and Sam Hollon American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
April 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The absentee rate of Indiana high school students, ~23% of whom played a varsity sport, was ~20% lower for those who participated in varsity athletics than for non-athletes. The effect was stronger when an athlete’s particular sport was in season.

Does participation in high school sports significantly reduce student absenteeism?

Core argument: Varsity athletes’ absence rates drop 1.37 pts below non-athletes’, a ~20% reduction that drives improved school engagement year-round.

We find that varsity sports participation is strongly associated with better student attendance, and we argue it is plausible that varsity sports participation causes better attendance. When we control for a number of factors that we know matter for both sports participation and attendance, we continue to find that varsity athletes are absent less often than their peers across the entire year. Across the school year, athletes’ absence rate was 1.37 points lower than non-athletes’. That’s a reduction of almost 20%. The broad pattern shown in Table 1 is that students from more advantaged groups were more likely to participate in varsity sports and less likely to be absent from school. It’s thus no surprise that, in the raw data, there is an association between playing varsity sports and having good attendance (Figure 3). But is that because students who attend school more reliably are more likely to play sports or because playing sports leads to better attendance? One way to tease out the answer is to compare varsity athletes' attendance during their sports seasons with their attendance the rest of the year. Not only do varsity athletes have lower annual absence rates—especially unexcused absences—than non-athletes, but [Figure 3 and Figure 4] show that their absence rates fall further when their sport is in season, [which suggests at least some causal effect].

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Varsity athletes’ absence rates drop 1.37 pts below non-athletes’, a ~20% reduction that drives improved school engagement year-round.
  2. In-season absence rates fall further for varsity athletes, suggesting sports participation directly leads to more reliable attendance patterns.
  3. Athletes from advantaged backgrounds show stronger attendance gains, indicating varsity sports participation compounds existing socioeconomic advantages in school engagement.

Related Articles:

  • The Benefits of Scholastic Athletics — Heckman et al, using two longitudinal data sets with a rich set of controls, find that participation in varsity athletics raises rates of high school and…
  • Long COVID for Public Schools: Chronic Absenteeism Before and After the Pandemic — 28% of American public school students missed at least 10% of the school year in 2022 up from 15% before the pandemic. The change was most pronounced in…
  • The Latest Chronic Absenteeism Numbers — The number of students missing 10% or more of the school year doubled from 15% in 2019 to 28% in 2022 and 26% in 2023. Early reports for 2024 show signs of…
  • Poverty/Crime
  • Workforce
    • Education
      • K-12

Sports Betting Across Borders: Spatial Spillovers, Credit Distress, and Fiscal Externalities

Jacob Goss and Daniel Mangrum Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Date Posted:
March 27, 2026
Is Database:
Database

After the legalization of sports betting in 2018, delinquency rates on a wide range of consumer debts rose, increasing .31pp as of 2025. The delinquency rate for the ~3% of the population that were new gamblers increased by ~10pp driven by those under 40.

Exploiting the staggered roll-out of state-level legalization following the 2018 Murphy v. NCAA decision, we use an extended two-way fixed effects (ETWFE) framework that separately estimates direct treatment effects and cross-border spillover effects. Our first-stage estimates establish that legalization dramatically increases betting activity: average quarterly spending per person rises by roughly $46 from a pre-treatment mean of $2.50, and the share of the population with any sportsbook spending in a quarter increases by 3.1 percentage points. The effects on average spending grow continually over time with no clear evidence of saturation, suggesting the market for mobile sports betting continues to mature years after legalization. At the same time, substantial betting activity occurs in counties where sports betting is not legal but which lie near a legal state, with spillover effects on total spending roughly 14% of the direct effect for counties within 15 miles of a legal state, declining monotonically with distance and approaching zero by 60 miles. These spillovers have real consequences for consumer financial health. Three years after legalization, median credit scores are one point lower and overall delinquency rates increase by 0.31 percentage points following legalization. [Under-40 auto loan delinquency increases by half a percentage point and credit card delinquency by one percentage point, driving the overall increase in delinquency.] Since only about 3.1% of the population takes up betting after legalization, these intent-to-treat estimates would imply that those who are induced to bet due to legalization experience delinquency increases of 10 percentage points.

Related Articles:

  • The Case for Prohibiting Vice — Lehman makes the case for restricting sports gambling, marijuana, and pornography. The costs of vice and its regulation are not limited to individual harm…
  • Americans Increasingly See Legal Sports Betting As A Bad Thing For Society and Sports — 43% of American adults say widespread betting on sports is “a bad thing for society,” up from 34% in 2022. 47% of men under 30 say legal sports…
  • From Sports to AI, America Is Awash in Speculative Fever. Washington Is Egging It On — Citing the AI-related equity boom, crypto and the rise of sports betting, Greg Ip argues that “speculation has become woven into today’s political…
  • Poverty/Crime
  • Politics

New York City Government Services: Services for the Unsheltered

Thomas DiNapoli New York State Comptroller
Date Posted:
March 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database

In 2025 New York City spent $81,705 per “street” homeless person, up 262% from 2019 whose numbers increased 26% during that period. This does not include spending on “sheltered” homeless, who are ~97% of the homeless population.

New York City’s unsheltered population increased from 3,588 in FY 2019 to 4,504 in FY 2025 — a 26% increase from pre-pandemic levels. In that time, spending on services for this population has more than tripled, growing from $102 million in FY 2019 to nearly $368 million in FY 2025 (a 262% increase). Its share of spending has also increased, from just under 5% to nearly 9% of total Department of Homeless Services (DHS) spending.

Related Articles:

  • As New Jobs In Finance Dry Up, New York City’s Fiscal Model Is Wilting — Since January 2020, private sector real hourly earnings have fallen 9% in New York City, while increasing 3% nationally, as large firms based in NYC move jobs…
  • The Clock Now Ticks on Zohran Mamdani — Reihan Salam argues that NYC’s incoming mayor will take office with “the clock on his program already five minutes to midnight,” citing the erosion of the tax…
  • Supply and The Mam — At ~15%, NYC has the highest combined city-state personal tax rate in the US, and the top marginal corporate income tax rate at 17.4%. The city also has the…
  • Poverty/Crime
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Government Spending
  • Workforce

Poverty and Dependency in the United States, 1939–2023

Richard Burkhauser and Kevin Corinth National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
February 3, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Btw 1939 and 1963, the % of Americans below LBJ’s absolute poverty line (3× the cost of a minimal meal plan), fell from 48.5 to 19.5, driven by rising market income. Post-1964, most (for non-blacks, all) drops were the result of transfers, not earnings.

The major innovation of this paper is to extend a comprehensive and consistent measure of poverty back to 1939, exploiting a quarter century of data before the War on Poverty began. From 1939-1963, absolute poverty fell from 48.5% to 19.5%, a 29 percentage point reduction. This pre-war progress provides important context for previously documented success in reducing poverty afterwards, since it occurred before the major expansion of safety net programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and refundable tax credits. During that 1939–1963 period, it was the growth of market income rather than government transfers net of taxes that reduced poverty rates. In fact, poverty fell no faster in the 24 years after the War on Poverty was declared than in the 24 years before, even when applying the same initial poverty rate to both periods. Our results do not imply that poverty would have necessarily continued to fall at the same rate after 1963 in the absence of the War on Poverty. A pre versus post comparison is conflated by contemporaneous macroeconomic and social changes, such as slower economic growth in the post-1963 period. Conversely, any claim that the War on Poverty was necessary for poverty to decline should be accompanied by an attempt to understand why it had already been falling in the quarter century before it was declared.

Related Articles:

  • Evaluating the Success of the War on Poverty since 1963 Using an Absolute Full-Income Poverty Measure — The US won the War on Poverty on LBJ’s terms, cutting the absolute full-income poverty rate from 19.5% in 1963 to 1.6% in 2019. During these years the share of…
  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Transfer payments made up 18% of all US personal income in 2022, up from 8% in 1970. Social Security/Medicare made up 56% of the increase from 1970 to 2022…
  • Government Benefit Programs Already Do A Lot To Help Low Income Families — A 2-adult, 3-child US family with $20,000 of market income receives at least $61,000 in annual benefits and has $79,000 of disposable income. That same family…
  • Poverty/Crime
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Government Spending
  • Workforce

The Biggest Fraud in Welfare

Phil Gramm and John Early Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
December 18, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Counting non-cash benefits as income would reduce the 19.8mm US households defined as poor by 90%. If the $1.4T in annual Federal poverty spending, including non-cash benefits, were distributed in cash to those households, each would receive $70,000.

Counting non-cash benefits as income would reduce the 19.8mm US households defined as poor by 90%. If the $1.4T in annual...
The government’s failure to count its largess as recipients’ income allows welfare households to blow past the income level above which a working family no longer qualifies for government help. Take a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work. The government considers this household in poverty because its income is below $25,273. But this family would qualify for benefits worth $53,128. It would receive Treasury checks of $3,400 in refundable child tax credits and $4,400 in refundable earned-income tax credits. The family would also receive Food Stamp debit cards worth $9,216 a year, $9,476 in housing subsidies, $877 of government payments for utility bills, $16,033 to fund Medicaid, $3,102 in free meals at school and $6,624 in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. All this puts the family’s income at $64,128, or 254% of the poverty level. A hardworking family earning anything like $64,128 in salary wouldn’t be eligible for any of these welfare benefits in four-fifths of the states. Meanwhile, the welfare family would be eligible for another 90 small federal benefits and sundry state and local welfare programs.

Related Articles:

  • Stranded by the Safety Net: How to Fix the Benefit Cliff Problem — A non-working, non-disabled mother of two in North Carolina can collect $50k in benefits. Due to benefit phase-outs, she would have to earn $70k in market…
  • Mitigating Benefits Cliffs for Low-Income Families: District of Columbia Career Mobility Action Plan as a Case Study — A single parent with one child in Washington DC, earning $11K, receives $68K of government benefits net of taxes for a total after-tax income of $79K. A…
  • Welfare Is What’s Eating the Budget — Phil Gramm notes that after transfers and taxes “the average household in the bottom, second, and middle quintiles all have roughly the same incomes—despite…
  • Poverty/Crime
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Government Spending
  • Workforce

Explaining the Widening Divides in US Midlife Mortality: Is There a Smoking Gun?

Christopher Foote, Ellen Meara, Jonathan Skinner, and Luke Stewart National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
December 17, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

The college/non-college life expectancy gap widened from 2.6–6.3 years btw 1992 and 2019, while county mortality inequality jumped 30% to the detriment of rural areas. Smoking by state predicts ~300 extra deaths per 100k for non-college grads, 0 for grads.

The education-mortality gradient has increased sharply in the last three decades, with the life expectancy gap btw people with and without a college degree widening from 2.6 years in 1992 to 6.3 years in 2019. During the same period, mortality inequality across counties rose 30%, accompanied by an increasing rural health penalty. Using county- and state-level data from the 1992–2019 period, we demonstrate that these three trends arose due to a fundamental shift in the geographic patterns of mortality among college and non-college populations. First, we find a sharp decline in both mortality rates and geographic inequality for college graduates. Second, the reverse was true for people without a college degree; spatial inequality became amplified. Third, we find that rates of smoking play a key role in explaining all three empirical puzzles, with secondary roles attributed to income, other health behaviors, and state policies. [An objection is that] the non-college smoking rate declined by somewhat more than the college rate from 1992 to 2019. [The resolution is that] college populations gave up smoking decades before non-college populations did. [The key] college/non-college comparison [is] among 55–64 year-olds, the age group for which the smoking mortality penalty is greatest.

Related Articles:

  • Human Capital Spillovers and Health: Does Living Around College Graduates Lengthen Life? — Bor, @Cutler_econ, Glaeser, and @lj_ristovska find a strong negative correlation between the % of college graduates in an area and all-cause mortality, even…
  • Comments On: “Accounting For the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA” By Anne Case and Angus Deaton — Caroline Hoxby argues that Anne Case and Angus Deaton’s recent findings on the divergence btw Americans with a BA and those without is largely driven by…
  • Accounting for the Widening Mortality Gap Between American Adults With and Without a BA — As of 2021, US adults with a college degree have a life expectancy at age 25 on par with Japan, but US adults without a BA have a life expectancy that’s 8.5…
  • Poverty/Crime
  • Politics
  • Workforce
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms