Skip to content

Month: March 2012

Why Not Just Give Money to Charity?

It’s tax season, so my wife and I have recently had to compile how much we have given to charity in 2011. For those of you who do not live in the US, this is because money given to charity is nontaxable here in the US, which might go a long way toward explaining why Americans give more to charity than the citizens of any other country.

At a little over 0.7 percent of our total household taxable income given to charity, we have given a lot less than I expected. Sure, my wife dedicates some of her time every weekend to volunteering at our local animal shelter, but ideally, I would like to see our household’s charitable giving increased to at least 2.5 percent of our income next year.

Oddly enough, many people are reticent to giving any money to charity. Development blogger extraordinaire Alanna Shaikh (if you are interested in getting a job in development, you do subscribe to her International Development Career List, right?) explains why — and why you should give money to charity:

Krugman on Writing Well

Every once in a while I get correspondence from someone chiding me for the way I write — in particular the informality. I received one the other day complaining about sentences that begin with “but” or “and.” There is, however, a reason I write this way.

You see, the things I write about are very important; they affect lives and the destiny of nations. But despite that, economics can all too easily become dry and boring; it’s just the nature of the subject. And I have to find, every time I write, a way to get past that problem.

One thing that helps, I’ve found, is to give the writing a bit of a forward rush, with a kind of sprung or syncopated rhythm, which often involves sentences that are deliberately off center.

More broadly, the inherent stuffiness of the subject demands, almost as compensation, as conversational a tone as I can manage.

More here, with credit to Michael Roberts.

Here is more excellent advice on writing, albeit not from Paul Krugman: “25 Things Writers Should Stop Doing (Right F***ing Now),” and “25 Things Writers Should Know about Rejection.” The language is NSFW, but the content is excellent.

Think Genes Predict Social and Political Behavior? Not So Fast

My colleague Evan Charney has a very nice article in the most recent issue of the American Political Science Review:

Political scientists are making increasing use of the methodologies of behavior genetics in an attempt to uncover whether or not political behavior is heritable, as well as the specific genotypes that might act as predisposing factors for—or predictors of—political “phenotypes.” Noteworthy among the latter are a series of candidate gene association studies in which researchers claim to have discovered one or two common genetic variants that predict such behaviors as voting and political orientation. We critically examine the candidate gene association study methodology by considering, as a representative example, the recent study by Fowler and Dawes according to which “two genes predict voter turnout.” In addition to demonstrating, on the basis of the data set employed by Fowler and Dawes, that two genes do not predict voter turnout, we consider a number of difficulties, both methodological and genetic, that beset the use of gene association studies, both candidate and genome-wide, in the social and behavioral sciences.

The emphasis is mine. Having seen Evan give a fascinating presentation on this topic a few years ago, I was very happy to see (some of) his work on the topic published in such a widely read journal.

Evan also tells me that he has another paper on the topic titled “Behavior Genetics and Postgenomics” that’s forthcoming in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Here is the abstract of that forthcoming piece: