Lyric Bowditch, Production Associate
“Why Do Doctors Have to Play Defense?” from Freakonomics, M.D.
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, my feeds were flooded with content about it. This episode cut through the noise by offering a really important, mind-widening, and distinctly Freakonomical perspective on the issue that I hadn’t considered or encountered anywhere else. I find myself bringing it up in conversations often!

Neal Carruth, Executive Vice President and General Manager
“Has Globalization Failed?” from Freakonomics Radio
Freakonomics Radio does not shy away from posing big, provocative questions. This episode starts with a question that might, at first blush, seem kind of boring or too abstract to be interesting. But through a charming conversation with a supremely knowledgeable guest, the law professor Anthea Roberts, you acquire the tools to answer for yourself the question of whether globalization has failed. This episode also does a good job of engaging with the back catalog of Freakonomics Radio since the show has covered this general topic in the past.

Jeremy Johnston, Audio Engineer
“Names,” from Off Leash
Since my dog doesn’t seem to recognize his own name half the time, I was excited to learn something from this episode of Off Leash. It ended up being a really great insight into how dogs respond to their nicknames, differentiate vowel sounds, and identify their owners’ voices in crowded places. This is such a happy episode full of animal lovers talking about how they arrived at a name for their furry friends, and also takes us on a fun tour of Isabella Rossellini’s farm.

Julie Kanfer, Senior Producer
“Why Is Everyone Moving to Dallas?” from Freakonomics Radio
I really enjoyed this two-part series and learned a lot about a place I’ve never been (Dallas) and a thing I didn’t know (that everyone is moving there). I found myself thinking about this episode/series a lot throughout the year, random bits of it popping into my brain when I least expected them to. It also really evoked a sense of place and of the people in that place; I felt like I was along for the ride (in that Uber in the pouring rain).

Ryan Kelley, Associate Producer
“What Is Sportswashing (and Does It Work)?” from Freakonomics Radio
We don’t normally focus on current events on Freakonomics Radio (we like to give the economists time to play with the data and come up with something smart), but the new, Saudi-backed professional golf league was just too intriguing not to cover. When Phil Mickelson, Qatar, and Barbra Streisand all come up in the same conversation, it must be good.

Alina Kulman, Production Associate
“Can the Big Bad Wolf Save Your Life?” from Freakonomics Radio
I loved how interdisciplinary this episode was — it’s about wildlife conservation, politics, literature, and also (of course) economics. It also has some pretty staggering statistics, like the fact that deer collisions cost about $10 billion in damages annually.

Zack Lapinski, Senior Producer
“Why Did You Marry That Person?” from Freakonomics Radio
This episode has everything: sexual anthropology, Victorian era politics, divorce, Shakespeare, the dating app Raya, aristocratic romance, Bridgerton, and — of course — an economist.

Morgan Levey, Senior Producer
“A Rockstar Chemist and Her Cancer-Attacking ‘Lawn Mower’” from People I (Mostly) Admire
Maybe it’s a little gauche to list your own show / an episode you produced, but I loved this episode with Carolyn Bertozzi. Rarely does someone so brilliant also have the ability to explain Nobel-prize winning science so clearly. She’s also cool as hell, and I’d really like to be friends with her.

Rebecca Lee Douglas, Senior Producer
“J***s C****t, Angela, Why Are You Such a F***ing Potty-Mouth?” from No Stupid Questions
I saw that Morgan listed an episode of PIMA, so now I feel empowered to share an episode of NSQ. This show was so much fun. It was packed with interesting research, personal anecdotes, and lots and lots of jokes — basically, the ingredients for an incredible episode of NSQ. We received more listener emails/voice memos to this show than any other episode we’ve produced.

Katherine Moncure, Associate Producer
“Are N.F.T.s All Scams?” from Freakonomics Radio
I loved that entire series (“What Can Blockchain Do For You?”) because it took a very complicated and opaque part of our economy — a part that’s highly polarized — and in classic Freakonomics fashion, broke it down into something that was actually understandable. N.F.T.s are especially mind boggling to me, but less so now. I would have to say though, my favorite part was not any of the clear, informative explanations, but rather when the Freakonomics crew and the artist Tom Sachs were chased out of Bryant Park for launching a rocket. Well worth the risk.

Greg Rippin, Technical Director
The “What Can Blockchain Do For You?” series, from Freakonomics Radio
I feel that we did a really good job of explaining the different applications of crypto without coming across like we were trying to get listeners to (literally) buy into it. Plus, I got to leave my studio for a bit and get some fresh air in the park.

The post Freakonomics Radio Network’s 2022 Staff Picks appeared first on Freakonomics.

Thaler is a big reason I personally got interested in economics. (I’ve known him quite a bit longer than I’ve known Steve Levitt.) He is everything to be admired in a scholar and thinker: original, judicious, crafty, and more than a little sardonic. (My only gripe is that he turned me down years ago when I wanted to write a book with him.)

Without Thaler, the world would know far, far less about the work of Kahneman and Tversky, as he was the earliest (and pretty much only) economist interested in harnessing the power of their decision-making research. Without Thaler, there is no way that behavioral economics would now be a standard tool in the arsenal of policymakers (and, of course, others).

He has been featured on this blog many times over the years; you can sample those pieces here.

He has also been on the Freakonomics Radio podcast a few times, including “Fighting Poverty With Actual Evidence” and “Should We Really Behave Like Economists Say We Do?”

And here’s a N.Y. Times piece I wrote about Thaler and other behavioralists back in 2003, near the start of his “libertarian paternalism” push.

Among his books: the influential Nudge; the revealing Misbehaving; and the oft-overlooked Winner’s Curse, which I happened to dip into just last week for fun, and as always got swept up in Thaler’s starkly sane view of the world.

Well done, Economics Sciences Prize Committee, and well done, Dick Thaler!

The post Congratulations to Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler! appeared first on Freakonomics.

Starting with Alfred Marshall’s “superstar model” and continuing with Baumol’s Disease, a number of breakthroughs in economics have come from studying the music industry. The music business also provides a fun and easy way to engage students in economics. To promote cutting-edge research on the economics of music, a group of economists, including Alan Krueger, Joel Waldfogel and Julie Mortimer, has formed the Music Industry Research Association (MIRA).

The goal of MIRA is to provide a forum for economists and other researchers to interact with one another and music industry professionals to study trends, developments, and challenges facing the music industry, and to provide access to data. MIRA will hold its first conference of researchers, industry leaders, and musicians on August 10–11, 2017, at the Luskin Conference Center at the University of California, Los Angeles. You can register for the conference here.

The post Calling All Music-Industry Insiders and the Economists Who Love Them appeared first on Freakonomics.

1. We can provide inspiration for gifts for the “homo economicus” in your life.

2. When you’re making your year-end donations, we can help you consider the evidence for which programs work, and which don’t.

3. No matter how far away you roam, we can entertain and educate your family for the entire trip home with Tell Me Something I Don’t Know.

4. We can nudge you to look back at the year and be grateful — or at least appreciate your tailwinds.

5. Whatever your resolutions are for the new year — whether it’s being “grittier” or more productive, winning more, or becoming great at just about anything —we can help you achieve them.

The post Happy Everything, From Freakonomics appeared first on Freakonomics.

A contestant tries to wow host Stephen J. Dubner and panelists Sam Kass, Gretchen Rubin and Zeke Emanuel. (Photo: Lucy Sutton.)

A while back, we tried out a new idea on a special edition of Freakonomics Radio — a game show we called Tell Me Something I Don’t Know. You might remember it. It was so much fun that we decided to launch a whole new podcast series. It’s been in the works for a while and it’s finally here! A preview episode of the first season of TMSIDK is now available.

Please take a minute to subscribe and, if you like the sound of the preview episode, please please PLEASE leave a rating and/or review on iTunes — it’s really important in helping launch a new show. 

Like all the Freakonomics stuff we do, TMSIDK is still journalism, still factual — but disguised in the most sparkling conversation you can handle. In each episode, audience contestants get on stage and tell us something fascinating (or earth-shaking, or just plain weird) while a panel of three experts tries to sort out what’s worth knowing and what’s not.

The panelists are drawn from an eclectic group of wise people — like Barnard College president Debora Spar; New York Public Library president Tony Marx; former White House economist Austan Goolsbee; the Jesuit writer and thinker James Martin; bioethicist Zeke Emanuel; former White House chef Sam Kass;  Microsoft researcher danah boyd; the heart surgeon and TV doctor Dr. Oz; poker champ Annie Duke; the linguist John McWhorter; the Grit author Angela Duckworth; and the happiness guru Gretchen Rubin.

We also have plenty of comedians and humorists, including Keisha Zollar, Chris Gethard, Frank Delaney, Andy Zaltzman, and Hannibal Buress. And occasionally a globetrotting adventurer like author Simon Winchester.

It’s all hosted by Stephen J. Dubner, who is accompanied each night by a real-time human fact-checker to keep everyone (mostly) honest.

Please subscribe today, so you don’t miss a single episode. The first one will be out on November 7. Season 1 will run six episodes — and we’re already taping Season 2 in New York City (in December and January), so come be a contestant or get tickets to see the show. You can also follow TMSIDK on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

The post Announcing the Debut of Tell Me Something I Don’t Know appeared first on Freakonomics.

We’re recruiting participants who want to get really, really good at something and are willing to engage in “deliberate practice,” as prescribed by Ericsson. We’ll help set you up with a coach or teacher, and Ericsson will be our lead advisor. And then we’ll make some podcasts out of your stories. It will be hard work, maybe a bit embarrassing at times. But wouldn’t it be awesome to get really good at singing, or doing handstands, or whatever your heart yearns for — and to have your whole process recorded for posterity?

If you’re up for it — truly up for it — and you want to be considered for our Peak project, drop us a note at radio@freakonomics.com. Tell us a little about yourself, what you want to get great at, and how far along you are in your progress.

The post Calling All (Potential) Peak Performers! appeared first on Freakonomics.

The concept of Question of the Day is simple: Dubner and Altucher take turns asking each other a question — for instance: “What are the secrets of being likable?” “What is the best possible future discovery or invention?“ “What social norms will be considered immoral in 100 years?” In the blink of an eye, their conversation will range from fact-based reality to unapologetic dogma.

With Dubner and Altucher, you never know where the conversation will go, or what you’ll learn. Throw in a live audience — and their questions — and the night is sure to be memorable, and a lot of fun.

Buy tickets here. Or submit your own question for a chance to win two free tickets. Post it below in the comments section or tweet it @QOD.

The post Win Free Tickets to See Dubner on Stage in Brooklyn on January 14 appeared first on Freakonomics.

Dubner has a friend who’s equally curious and who has also absorbed an enormous amount of information over the course of his eclectic career. James Altucher is an entrepreneur, investor and author. James also interviews people who intrigue him, for his James Altucher Show podcast.

Not long ago, Dubner and Altucher started a podcast together called Question of the Day. It’s a continuation of the kind of fast-paced conversation these two smart, unconventional thinkers have been having for years over their long friendship and their long-running game of backgammon.

The topics are wide-ranging but never superficial, deep but never heavy. The episodes are short — usually under 15 minutes — and full of useful information that’s also  entertaining. In a single episode you might hear about Anders Ericsson’s 10,000-hour rule, Steven Spielberg’s singular advice about casting a movie and why the key to a good golf game is leg strength. All that from asking the question “What are shortcuts to learning something quickly?”

You can imagine the twists and turns when they ask “What are the secrets of being likable?” “Should you let your kids win at chess?” or “What is the best possible future discovery or invention?”

It’s a safe bet that in no other podcast will you hear references to the business savvy of YouTube make-up artist sensation Michelle Phan, the improbable story of how a podcasting start-up called Odeo morphed into Twitter, and the writing habits of Stephen King.

We like to say that QOD is for people who are long on curiosity and short on time. We’re guessing anyone who’s a fan of Freakonomics would fit into that category. So check out Question of the Day. You can subscribe to it on iTunes and also hear it on Earwolf, Soundcloud and Stitcher. And you can follow QOD on Twitter and Facebook.

The post Introducing “Question of the Day,” a New Dubner Podcast appeared first on Freakonomics.

Good afternoon Stephen,

I am a psychologist by education and spend my professional life as a consultant in the field of higher education and an executive coach.  I spend my personal life as a mother, wife, sister, daughter, and friend.  In all these roles I: (1) have many opportunities to improve and (2) try to express my gratitude to those who help me.  It is for these two reasons that I send this email.

I started listening to your podcasts because I liked your book, Freakonomics, and appreciate the opportunity to learn about things that I don’t have the time to study myself.  For the work that you and your collaborators do researching and telling interesting and informative stories, I am grateful, as I had expected to be.  This email, though, is about something else.

Because many people are quick to stop listening to anybody who holds a differing perspective, I have been taken by the curious and open-minded way in which you discuss topics with others.  Sometimes I am good at this, while other times my mannerisms and my tone give me away — exposing the fact that I’m not doing a great job of learning about an opposing view.  This is a skill that I would like to improve and one that I hope my children (11 and 9-years-old) develop.  So, using your podcasts as a model, our family is working on asking questions and constructing responses in a curious and open-minded way.  And, we have turned your last name into a verb…

dubner (verb): to engage in a curious and open-minded conversation​.

It is for this reason that I write to express my unexpected gratitude.​

With kind regards and sincere appreciation,

Kara E. Penfield, Ph.D.
President, Penfield Consulting Group

Thanks, Kara. I am truly flattered! The only problem is that I don’t feel I really live up to the definition as well as I’d like — i.e., while I of course try to be as curious and open-minded as possible, I often find, on listening back to interviews, that my priors and biases are stronger than I realized in the moment. So I am constantly looking for ways to dislodge them. Maybe having my name attached to this pursuit will be just the incentive I need!

The post Quite Possibly the Most Flattering E-Mail Ever appeared first on Freakonomics.

Hi!  Long time reader/listener here, looking for some quick reading list recommendations…

I have submitted another application to be on CBS’s Survivor, the reality show of outwit, outplay, outlast fame.  The game is physical as well as mental and includes a large social aspect concerning relationships, building trust, evaluating motives, and building/destroying alliances with other contestants.

Do you have any reading recommendations you think could help if I ever get cast on the show?  So far, my short list of titles to consider rereading if I am cast for the show include How To Win Friends and Influence People, portions of Wiseman’s 59 Seconds (persuasion, motivation), and portions of Think Like a Freak (how to persuade people).

You can watch Scott’s audition tape here. Okay, what is your reading advice for him?

The post Any Strategic Reading Tips for a Survivor Applicant? appeared first on Freakonomics.

I listened to the episode on diamonds and asked my boyfriend for a gold bar for engagement instead. Then I heard the episode on quitting, so I broke up with him. I’ve been very happy ever since! Thank you for the awesome podcasts!

Nice to see that we are getting results!

I followed up with Yu by e-mail and this is what she had to say:

Recently my family has been pressuring me to find someone. So I try to apply what I know to dating. I was ecstatic when I heard the episode on online dating. I used match.com to meet my two previous boyfriends. I used a screening system where “candidates” must be able to produce meaningful conversations with me via email for two weeks prior to the “interview.” Then I staked the interviews. I met as much as three candidates a week. I realize it’s a two-way choice. We make our selections within the first three dates. This allowed me to meet the most qualifying candidates in a short amount of time.

I thank Freakonomics and TED Talks for my recent break up. Freakonomics told me that I would be less likely to regret if I were to quit. TED Talks said I should reject everyone within the first 37% of my dating window and marry the next best thing. So I shall reject everyone I meet before 28.7. I’m on the right track.

The post Do We Owe This Boyfriend an Apology? appeared first on Freakonomics.

(Photo: Florian Christoph)

Almost a decade of blogging had worn me down, but after some time off, I’m ready to jump back in the saddle. I can’t think of a better way than by embarrassing myself with the annual Kentucky Derby predictions!

I can’t remember the last time I was so excited about a Kentucky Derby.

It’s not that there is some particular horse that I have an emotional attachment to it.  It is not that there is a particularly compelling story line going into this year’s race.

Nope.  The reason is that I am a gambler, and unlike most years, the numbers coming out of my model are telling me that I should bet a whole lot of money on this year’s derby.

There are two likely betting favorites in this year’s race: American Pharaoh and Dortmund.  Favorites tend to be the smart bets in horse racing because of a very pronounced “long shot” bias.  On average, bettors are much too optimistic about the winning chances of the long shots relative to the favorites.  Because the odds are determined by the bettors, the smart thing to do is usually to stick with favorites.

My model, quite unusually, dislikes both favorites in this year’s Kentucky Derby.  If I’m right (and those who follow my annual predictions know that I rarely am), that means there is a good chance that the top three or four finishers might all be long shots.  Which means that the potential payoffs on what are called “exotic” bets (e.g. picking the top three finishers in the exact order) could be huge.  Which, as a gambler, gets me excited!

My single favorite horse is Upstart, who will likely have odds of about 15-1.

I also like Tencendur, Bolo and  Materiality.  And if you want a real long shot — try Itsaknockout…but I am guessing he will be 80-1 when the final odds are determined.

I always try to predict the horse that will finish last as well (most notably Mine That Bird).  My model doesn’t see any real stinkers this year.  But if I had to pick one bad horse, it would be Mr. Z.

If you are looking to bet the Derby, I have some good friends who have built a cool company that tries to make it fun and easy for novices to bet on horses.  It’s called Derby Jackpot.  (I have no financial interest in Derby Jackpot, but my friends do, and they would really like you to come and bet with them.)

Good luck!

The post The Annual Freakonomics Kentucky Derby Predictions appeared first on Freakonomics.

 Pre-order your copy today!

In celebration of the 10th anniversary of Freakonomics comes this curated collection from the most readable economics blog in the universe. When Freakonomics was first published, its authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, started a blog — and they’ve kept it up. The writing is more casual, more personal, even more outlandish than in their books. In When to Rob a Bank, they ask a host of typically off-center questions: Why don’t flight attendants get tipped? If you were a terrorist, how would you attack? And why does KFC always run out of fried chicken?

Dubner and Levitt wound up publishing more than 8,000 blog posts on Freakonomics.com. Many of them, they freely admit, were rubbish. But now they’ve gone through and picked the best of the best. You’ll discover what people lie about, and why; the best way to cut gun deaths; why it might be time for a sex tax; and, yes, when to rob a bank. (Short answer: never; the ROI is terrible.) You’ll also learn a great deal about Levitt and Dubner’s own quirks and passions, from gambling and golf to backgammon and the abolition of the penny.

Below you can read an early excerpt of When to Rob a Bank, comprising the introduction and first chapter. Enjoy!

The post Read an Early Excerpt from When to Rob a Bank appeared first on Freakonomics.

What do they find?

Across the fifty-two estimated specifications, greater religiosity is almost uniformly and very significantly associated to less favorable views of innovation.

They are careful to note the broad benefits of religiosity on the social fabric:

Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales (2003), using the World Values Survey (WVS), found more religious persons to be more trusting – of other people, public institutions, and market outcomes– as well as more trustworthy: less willing to break the law, accept a bribe, cheat on taxes, and the like. Theoretical models, similarly, have emphasized how beliefs in divine rewards and punishments (or a Calvinistic desire to self-signal one’s predestined fate) can induce individuals to behave less opportunistically and more cooperatively, which can in turn make such beliefs self-sustaining at the social level.

Religiosity thus seems to be associated to what Guiso et al. describe as certain “societal attitudes… conducive to higher productivity and growth.”

But:

The ultimate driver of long-run growth, on the other hand, is technical progress and more generally the whole spectrum of innovation: from advances in basic science to the diffusion of new technologies (e.g., Mokyr (2004)), economic practices and even social change, such as the inclusion of women in production and idea-creation. It therefore seems equally important to examine the extent to which religious beliefs, values and institutions may be conducive or detrimental to creativity and innovation. Doing so means, in a sense, revisiting with modern methodologies the age-old theme of religion’s often tense relationship with science, free thought and disruptively novel ideas.

And so they revisit this theme, and reach this conclusion:

Using all five waves of the World Values Survey, we examined the relationships between eleven indicators of openness to innovation, broadly defined (e.g., attitudes toward science and technology, new versus old ideas, general change, personal risk taking and agency, imagination and independence in children) and five measures of religiosity, involving both beliefs and attendance. Across the fifty-two regression specifications (with controls for sociodemographics, country and year), greater religiosity was almost uniformly and very significantly associated to less favorable views of innovation. In follow-up work, we plan to examine differences in these attitudes across denominations.

The post Religiosity: Good for Society, Bad for Innovation? appeared first on Freakonomics.

Hello:

I am an academic plant geneticists, who has worked at [a renowned academic institution] for the last five years. I’ve pretty much decided I want to leave academia but remain in science. The obvious direction to then go into is biotech and I think I could be a good fit for it. There are many options for me in biotech and I’ve applied for many jobs. The company that has been the most responsive to me is Monsanto.

I’m sure Monsanto would be a great employer for the reasons I would like to work in biotech (stability, good pay/benefits and collaboration). However it is seen by most as perhaps the most “evil” company. I’m confident I would lose a lot of friends if I did work for them. Also, I doubt I would dare tell strangers that I worked for them.

I’m not decided on how I feel about the company myself. I think they have done some messed-up things in the past but so have most large corporations. I’m more pro-GMO than most but also have my reservations. I understand the need for a company to patent seeds. I doubt I would be doing evil work for them and would not do it if I knew I was.

I wonder if you would find it of interest to look into the ways people decide to work for companies that most people hate. I doubt all those people are dead inside. Maybe most people can easily make the decision to work for famously “evil” companies or not but I can’t see it as obviously black or white.

The post Should I Work for an “Evil” Company? appeared first on Freakonomics.

I just finished your book Think Like a Freak, and I’m trying to use the lessons in the book while I’m in Kyrgyzstan. I’m an undergraduate at University of South Carolina, and I’ve decided to pursue my very first, independent research project while I’m living in Kyrgyzstan on the effects of Kyrgyz accession to the Eurasian Economic Union on the Kyrgyz informal economy and, ultimately, Kyrgyzstan’s political stability.

I’m almost ready to go out to the bazaars and do my data collection, but I’ve been trying to pick the best possible questions to ask the people working in the stalls. Thus far I’ve been focusing on questions regarding past prices and what they expect in the future, what they feel the EEU’s effect will be on them, how much they depend on bazaar money, whether or not they have any sons that are migrant workers (and if they’ll be returning home soon), etc.

I’ve been struggling to come up with a good Freakonometric for the questionnaire, but I’ve been struggling to find an unusual, but important, common thread between the EEU, bazaars, household income, etc. and was wondering if you would have any advice for this filthy undergrad.

Who can give John a good suggestion or two?

The post A Would-Be Freakonomist in Kyrgyzstan Needs Your Help appeared first on Freakonomics.

If you want to get a head start on this topic, consider a new working paper (gated) called “Does Medicaid Coverage for Pregnant Women Affect Prenatal Health Behaviors?” The authors are Dhaval M. Dave, Robert Kaestner, and George L. Wehby. They didn’t use an RCT, but they did work hard to answer a tough and worthwhile question in the realm of healthcare delivery. Their conclusion, bolded in the abstract below, is quite counterintuitive (and surely, to some at least, depressing):

Despite plausible mechanisms, little research has evaluated potential changes in health behaviors as a result of the Medicaid expansions of the 1980s and 1990s for pregnant women. Accordingly, we provide the first national study of the effects of Medicaid on health behaviors for pregnant women. We exploit exogenous variation from the Medicaid income eligibility expansions for pregnant women and children during late-1980s through mid-1990s to examine effects on several prenatal health behaviors and health outcomes using U.S. vital statistics data. We find that increases in Medicaid eligibility were associated with increases in smoking and decreases in weight gain during pregnancy. Raising Medicaid eligibility by 12 percentage-points increased rates of any prenatal smoking and smoking more than five cigarettes daily by 0.7-0.8 percentage point. Medicaid expansions were associated with a reduction in pregnancy weight-gain by about 0.6%. These effects diminish at higher levels of eligibility, which is consistent with crowd-out from private to public insurance. Importantly, our evidence is consistent with ex-ante moral hazard although income effects are also at play. The worsening of health behaviors may partly explain why Medicaid expansions have not been associated with substantial improvement in infant health.

Just to be clear, weight gain is a good thing when you’re pregnant; and smoking 5 more cigarettes a day is not. Here’s how the authors attempt to explain their finding:

One possible explanation for this somewhat counterintuitive finding is that health insurance creates incentives to change health behaviors along with lowering the price of medical care. Insurance lowers the price of treating an illness, for example, an adverse medical outcome for either the mother or child, which may cause a reduction in maternal efforts to prevent the occurrence of such events (ex-ante moral hazard).

In addition, Medicaid coverage entails an income effect from the saved out-of-pocket expenditures and from spending on health insurance premiums (in the case of substitution of private for public insurance). This income effect may be used to purchase goods that improve infant health, but also goods that may harm infant health (e.g., cigarettes).

Incentives, incentives, incentives.

The post What Happens When Poor Pregnant Women Are Given Medicaid Coverage? appeared first on Freakonomics.

My name is Jess and for most of my adult life I have been afflicted by various forms of sleeplessness.

Would I call it insomnia? I don’t know if it could be classified as clinical insomnia, but all I can say is up until a few months ago I did dread that point in the night where you turn off the light (where normal people drop off to sleep within a matter of minutes) and where, I, on the other hand, would spend many hours tossing and turning as my brain would come up with a thousand and one things to ruminate over instead of journeying peacefully to the land of nod.

What happened to change this dire situation you ask? I now religiously download my Freakonomics podcasts well in advance, pop my headphones on, tune in with anticipation as invariably my mind slowly melds into a soft fuzzy somnambulistic state as I listen to the dulcet tones of Stephen J. Dubner!

SO THANKYOU

The post New Miracle Sleep Aid Discovered! appeared first on Freakonomics.

We’ve both believed for a long time that the combination of creative economic thinking and randomized experiments has the potential to revolutionize business and the non-profit sector. John and I have worked to foment that revolution through both  academic partnerships with firms as well as a project of John’s called the Science of Philanthropy Initiative (SPI), whose mission is “evidence-based research on charitable giving.”

This summer, John is committed to taking that mission to a whole new level with the first annual University of Chicago Summer Institute on Field Experiments.  The idea is to bring together for one week top economists, business leaders, and NGOs with the goal of developing powerful, creative solutions to the toughest problems faced by firms, whether for-profit or not-for-profit.

In addition to lots of brainstorming and work focused on firms’ problems, there will be presentations by John, me, and other leading scholars. Knowing John, I’m sure there will also be plenty of after-hours activities.

Here’s how the website describes the sort of people we are looking for:

The Summer Institute is looking for practitioner partners who are open to new and bold ideas that will revolutionize the way they develop policy, do business, or provide charitable programming. Practitioner partners should be willing to work closely with researchers to field-test solutions, and must be willing to allow research publications to come from the partnership. We expect the Institute to serve as a catalyst for field-experiment research and strong researcher-practitioner partnerships.

So if you or someone you know might be a good candidate, please apply!  You can find the details on the Institute website.

We can’t wait to meet you and get started!

The post Great Companies Needed appeared first on Freakonomics.

The popularity of New Year’s resolutions suggests that people are more likely to tackle their goals immediately following salient temporal landmarks. … We propose that these landmarks demarcate the passage of time, creating many new mental accounting periods each year, which relegate past imperfections to a previous period, induce people to take a big-picture view of their lives, and thus motivate aspirational behaviors.

What we’re looking for are your examples of fresh starts — whether it’s a new timeframe, job, relationship, living situation, etc. — and how it may have motivated some aspirational behaviors of your own.

Use your iPhone, Android, or other recording device to make a short audio recording of your answer and e-mail the file to radio@freakonomics.com. Tell us your name, where you live,  what you do — and, most important, your Fresh Start story. We’ll pick through the best, weirdest examples and make them a part of our show. If you’re too shy to record your voice, give us a shout on Twitter, on our Facebook page, or in the comments below. But audio is what we’re really after.

Many thanks!

The post Lend Your Voice to Freakonomics Radio appeared first on Freakonomics.