Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Who Flees Conflict?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read People who flee conflict are more risk-averse than those who stay, the paper argues, reversing the usual migrant profile.

desk verdict First quantile-maximization account of forced migration finds risk-averse flee and risk-tolerant stay; the reversal is new, but the imputed leaving lottery and post-migration risk measure keep the finding conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03405 v1 pith:HUUWQEQ7 submitted 2025-05-06 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Lidia Ceriani , Paolo Verme This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords conflictforceddisplacementquantilemaximizationriskaversionmigrationself-selectionexpectedutilitystochasticdominanceNigeria
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that the people who flee conflict are not the same kind of people who make economic migrations: under quantile maximization, the risk-averse choose to leave and the risk-tolerant choose to stay. It models staying and leaving as two lotteries over household living standards and argues that each person judges the lotteries by a single part of their outcome distribution rather than by the mean. Using Nigerian household panel data matched with local conflict deaths from 2010 to 2016, the paper finds that the cumulative distributions of staying and leaving cross once, with leaving better at the low end and staying better at the high end, exactly the pattern that predicts risk-averse flight. A direct survey measure of risk preferences lines up with that prediction, and a difference-in-differences test finds no evidence that conflict itself created the risk-preference gap. If this is right, forced migrants and economic migrants are selected in opposite directions, so policies that bundle them together are likely to miss.

What carries the argument

The engine is the $\tau$-quantile maximization rule. For a lottery with cumulative distribution $F_x$ and $\tau \in [0,1]$, the $\tau$-quantile is $Q_\tau(F_x)=\inf\{x_i : F_x \ge \tau\}$, and a decision maker prefers the lottery with the larger $Q_\tau$; $\tau=0$ gives maxmin behavior and $\tau=1$ gives maxmax behavior, with intermediate $\tau$ covering intermediate risk aversion. The empirical machinery builds the two lotteries as distributions of household expenditure per capita: the staying distribution is observed, and the leaving distribution is predicted by fitting a welfare equation on non-conflict households and applying those coefficients to conflict households, with Duan's smearing correction for the log-to-level retransformation. The statistical object that carries the argument is the once-crossing cumulative distribution functions: below the crossing the leaving lottery dominates at the low end, which the model maps to risk-averse leavers, and above it the staying lottery dominates at the high end, which the model maps to risk-tolerant stayers.

What would settle it

Take the 329 Nigerian households who actually changed local government areas, use the living standards they actually had after moving as the leaving lottery, compare with stayers' observed standards, and check whether the CDFs still cross exactly once with leaving dominant at the low end. If the crossing disappears or reverses, the predicted direction of risk selection is an artifact of the imputation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a conflict environment people are quantile maximizers: a risk-averse (maxmin) person focuses on the lowest possible outcomes of staying and leaving and picks the lottery with the better worst outcome, which in the Nigerian data is leaving, while a risk-tolerant (maxmax) person focuses on the highest outcomes and picks staying. The paper constructs the leaving lottery by imputing the expenditure that conflict-affected households would have had in non-conflict areas, compares its cumulative distribution with the observed distribution of expenditure among stayers, and finds a single crossing: leaving dominates for low quantiles and staying dominates for high quantiles. It then tests the model's selection prediction with a direct risk-preference question and finds that migrants are significantly more risk-averse than stayers, with the association stronger for migration from areas with persistent conflict. A difference-in-differences test shows no significant effect of conflict exposure on risk aversion, which the paper reads as ruling out the main confounder. The paper's conclusion is that forced migrants self-select for risk aversion, in sharp contrast with economic migrants, and that the two groups therefore need separate policies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, which the paper itself flags as strong, is that the way household characteristics translate into living standards is the same for people who stay and people who leave, so the gains from leaving can be predicted by applying non-conflict-area coefficients to conflict households.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the selection result is correct, forced migrants are systematically more risk-averse than the populations they leave behind, which means return decisions hinge on restoring basic safety and minimum living standards rather than on improving opportunity.
  • The same model predicts that the risk-preference gap between leavers and stayers should widen as conflict becomes more persistent, which the Nigerian data show and which can be checked in other conflict panels.
  • Host-country policies that treat economic and forced migrants as one group will fit neither: forced migrants are less likely to take entrepreneurial risks and more likely to need subsistence and security support near their places of origin.
  • Risk preferences, measured cheaply by survey questions, become a usable early indicator of who is likely to flee a conflict zone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper stops at conflict, but the same two-lottery logic transfers to displacement by disasters or economic collapse, where the 'leave' lottery is also chosen for downside protection; a testable extension would apply the CDF-crossing method to climate-displacement panel data.
  • Because the crossing point of the two CDFs is the threshold that separates predicted leavers from stayers, conflict intensity that shifts the crossing rightward should raise flight even with unchanged risk preferences; comparing crossing points across Nigeria's panel waves would test this.
  • The paper leaves implicit that its imputation assumes everyone in the conflict zone faces the same leaving lottery; adding person-specific information such as kin networks and information access would change the quantiles individuals compare and could either sharpen or weaken the risk-selection result.
  • A sharper falsification is available inside the data: the 329 observed migrant households have post-move expenditures recorded when they were followed, so the leaving lottery need not be imputed at all.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantile-maximization (QM) model of the decision to flee conflict, in which individuals compare two lotteries—staying and leaving—and are distinguished by which quantile of the outcome distributions they focus on: maxmin (risk-averse) individuals choose the lottery with the best lower-tail outcome, while maxmax (risk-tolerant) individuals choose the lottery with the best upper-tail outcome. Using Nigerian General Household Survey panel data (2010-2016) matched to ACLED conflict fatalities by Local Government Area, the authors estimate a welfare equation on non-conflict households (Eq. 8), apply the coefficients to conflict households to impute their counterfactual expenditure if they left (Eq. 9), and compare the resulting 'leaver' distribution with the observed 'stayer' distribution. They report that the CDFs cross once: the leaver lottery dominates at the lower tail and the stayer lottery dominates at the upper tail, implying that risk-averse individuals should flee and risk-tolerant individuals should stay. A probit regression (Table 7) using a single binary investment question from the 2016 survey finds that risk tolerance is negatively associated with staying, and a difference-in-differences specification (Table 8) is used to argue that conflict does not confound this association.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a novel contribution: it is, to my knowledge, the first empirical application of quantile maximization to forced displacement, and it proposes a sharp behavioral contrast between risk-averse forced migrants and risk-tolerant economic migrants, with potentially important policy implications. The paper is also commendable for its transparency: it explicitly acknowledges the strong coefficient-stability assumption in the imputation step, provides attrition diagnostics (Tables 3-5), and separates the CDF-prediction step from the observed risk-preference regression, so the central test is not simply a restatement of the model's assumptions. However, two load-bearing gaps prevent the evidence from being fully convincing: the imputed leaver lottery is never validated against the observed post-migration outcomes of the 329 actual migrant households in the panel, and risk preferences are measured once, after migration decisions were made, with a single binary investment question.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (8)-(9); Figure 7] The imputed leaver lottery is never validated against observed outcomes of the 329 households that actually changed LGA. The GHS panel contains their post-migration expenditure in later waves, but Figure 7 relies entirely on the counterfactual predicted by applying non-conflict-household coefficients to conflict households. The paper itself calls the coefficient-stability assumption 'a strong assumption'; if the true returns to characteristics differ for leavers (e.g., through kin networks, labor-market discrimination at destination, or selection into who actually leaves), the single crossing in Figure 7 and the resulting maxmin-leaves/maxmax-stays prediction could be an artifact of the imputation. Please add a validation exercise comparing predicted vs. observed expenditure for actual migrants, and report robustness of the CDF crossing to alternative imputation models (e.g., including destination effects or relaxing the constant-coefficient assumption).
  2. [Section 4, Tables 7 and 8] Risk preferences are measured in 2016 with a single binary investment question, after the migration decisions (2010-2016) have already been made. The DiD in Table 8 does not resolve the timing problem because risk aversion is observed only at the endline; the interaction term is a cross-sectional contrast, not a pre/post comparison. The negative association between staying and risk tolerance in Table 7 could therefore reflect the effect of migration or conflict experience on measured risk preferences rather than selection on stable preferences. The paper should either use a pre-migration measure of risk preferences, or provide a convincing exogeneity/bounding argument (for example, a placebo test using 2010 characteristics to predict 2016 risk attitudes, or a discussion of how measurement error in the binary question would affect the probit estimates).
  3. [Section 5, Figure 7] The claim that the CDFs 'cross in one point' and that the differences are statistically significant needs formal support. The text reports no test statistic for the crossing or for stochastic dominance; a Kolmogorov-Smirnov-type test or confidence bands for the difference in CDFs would strengthen the prediction step. In addition, please clarify whether the observed staying distribution uses all conflict-area households or only those that never migrated during the panel, since the two definitions could shift the location of the crossing and hence the predicted direction of selection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos and garbled references (e.g., 'Khanemann', 'C ¸ ha˘ glar¨Ozden', 'Tizeorie', 'acaderniae') and needs careful proofreading before publication.
  2. [Footnote 1] Footnote 1 contains a local file path ('file:///C:/Users/...') that should be replaced with a proper citation to the source study.
  3. [Table 2] The description of dwelling-quality variables repeats '1=Low quality, 1=Medium quality'; the codes should be 1, 2, and 3.
  4. [References] The Mironova and Whitt work is cited as 'Mironova and Whitt [2017]' in the text and as 'Whitt and Mironova, 2017' in the conclusion, while the bibliography gives 'Under Review, 2017'; please standardize the citation and update the status.
  5. [Section 2.2, final paragraph] The statement that 'only relatively more risk-tolerant individuals would leave their homes' refers to the illustrative example but is easily read as a general model prediction; since the empirical finding is the opposite, please clarify that the sign of the QM prediction is data-dependent and depends on which lottery dominates at the relevant quantiles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QM prediction is derived from observed/imputed outcome distributions, and the risk-preference test uses an independent survey measure.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is not circular. The QM model (Section 2.2) is an external theoretical framework (Rostek 2010; Chambers 2009), and the prediction that maxmin individuals leave and maxmax individuals stay is derived from a first-order stochastic dominance comparison of the observed stay distribution and the imputed leave distribution (Section 5, Figure 7). The leave distribution is a counterfactual imputation (Eqs. 8-9) fitted on non-conflict households and applied to conflict households; this is a standard out-of-sample imputation and is not defined in terms of the risk-preference outcome. The test in Eq. 10 uses a direct 2016 survey measure of risk aversion and observed migration status, which are not inputs to Eqs. 8-9, so the empirical association is not forced by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the imputation assumption ('the Betas of the prediction equation are constant if one migrates or stays. This is a strong assumption'), but that is a validity/robustness limitation, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited QM characterization and uniqueness results are by Rostek and Chambers, not the present authors. The absence of validation of the imputed leaver distribution against the 329 observed migrant households is a legitimate empirical concern but does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result relies on three layers of assumptions: the QM decision rule taken from Rostek, the stability of consumption coefficients across migration status, and the validity of the 2016 binary risk question as a measure of risk preferences for conflict decisions. None of these is independently verified beyond the paper's own tests. The imputed leaver distribution is the main source of fragility.

free parameters (3)
  • Welfare equation coefficients beta_nc = Reported in Table 6
    Estimated by OLS on non-conflict households and used to impute potential expenditure of conflict households if they moved (Eq. 9). The CDF comparison and the model's predicted migration choice depend on these coefficients.
  • Duan smearing factor = Not reported
    Used to retransform log expenditure predictions to levels; affects the location and spread of the imputed leaver distribution.
  • Conflict classification thresholds = At least one year; all six years
    Choice of thresholds for 'some conflict' and 'always conflict' groups affects sample composition of stayer comparisons and the strength of the risk-aversion coefficient in Table 7.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quantile maximization is a valid decision criterion for individuals under conflict (Rostek 2010).
    Individuals are assumed to focus on a single quantile of the outcome distribution, with maxmin and maxmax as extremes; this is imported from prior theory and not tested here.
  • ad hoc to paper The beta coefficients of the consumption equation are constant across migration status.
    Explicitly acknowledged as a strong assumption in Section 3; needed for the counterfactual leaver outcomes in Eq. 9.
  • domain assumption Risk preferences are stable over time and unaffected by conflict exposure.
    Risk-aversion is measured in 2016 only; the paper attempts a DiD test, but this lacks a pre-treatment baseline.
  • domain assumption The binary investment question measures the same risk preferences that drive migration decisions.
    No validation of this single question for conflict migration is provided; it is a financial risk question, not a conflict-specific risk measure.
  • domain assumption The GHS panel attrition is ignorable after reweighting and the authors' tests.
    14 enumeration areas in Borno and Yobe could not be visited at conflict peak; the paper tests means and CDFs, but some selection on unobservables may remain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Who Flees Conflict?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HUUWQEQ7

@misc{pith2026250503405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Who Flees Conflict?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HUUWQEQ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03405}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the growing numbers of forcibly displaced persons worldwide, many people living under conflict choose not to flee. Individuals face two lotteries - staying or leaving - characterized by two distributions of potential outcomes. This paper proposes to model the choice between these two lotteries using quantile maximization as opposed to expected utility theory. The paper posits that risk-averse individuals aim at minimizing losses by choosing the lottery with the best outcome at the lower end of the distribution, whereas risk-tolerant individuals aim at maximizing gains by choosing the lottery with the best outcome at the higher end of the distribution. Using a rich set of household and conflict panel data from Nigeria, the paper finds that risk-tolerant individuals have a significant preference for staying and risk-averse individuals have a significant preference for fleeing, in line with the predictions of the quantile maximization model. These findings are in contrast to findings on economic migrants, and call for separate policies toward economic and forced migrants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two lotteries x and y, where y is a mean preserving spread of x ✟ ✟✟✟ ✟✟✯ ❍❍❍❍❍❍❥ x 1/2 1/2 2 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Probabilities and outcomes associated to two lotteries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative Distribution Function of x(blue) and y(red) ✻ ✲ t t t t ❞ ❞ ❞ ❞ t t t t ❞ ❞ ❞ ❞ 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 4 1 2 3 4 1 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution functions of predicted values for per capita expenditure, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution functions of predicted values for risk-tolerance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Incidence of Fatalities by Local Government Areas, 2011-2016 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative distribution functions of households living in conflict areas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Risk attitudes and migration

    Mehtap Akg \"u c , Xingfei Liu, Max Tani, and Klaus Zimmermann. Risk attitudes and migration. China Economic Review, 37 0 (C): 0 166--176, 2016. URL https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:chieco:v:37:y:2016:i:c:p:166-176

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine

    M Allais. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21 0 (4): 0 503--546, 1953

    work page 1953

  3. [3]

    Apicella, Anna Dreber, Benjamin Campbell, Peter B

    Coren L. Apicella, Anna Dreber, Benjamin Campbell, Peter B. Gray, Moshe Hoffman, and Anthony C. Little. Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29 0 (6): 0 384 -- 390, 2008. ISSN 1090-5138

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    E.A. Beam, D. McKenzie, and D. Yang. Unilateral facilitation does not raise international labor migration from the philippines. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 64: 0 323--368, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Ancient origins of the global variation in economic preferences

    Anke Becker, Benjamin, and Enke Armin Falk. Ancient origins of the global variation in economic preferences. August 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Native-migrant differences in risk attitudes

    Holger Bonin, Amelie Constant, Konstantinos Tatsiramos, and Klaus Zimmermann. Native-migrant differences in risk attitudes. Applied Economics Letters, 16 0 (15): 0 1581--1586, 2009. URL https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:16:y:2009:i:15:p:1581-1586

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Long, and Charles Sprenger

    Michael Callen, Mohammad Isaqzadeh, James D. Long, and Charles Sprenger. Violence and risk preference: Experimental evidence from afghanistan. The American Economic Review, 104 0 (1): 0 123--148, 2014. ISSN 00028282

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    An axiomatization of quantiles on the domain of distribution functions

    Christopher P Chambers. An axiomatization of quantiles on the domain of distribution functions. Mathematical Finance, 19: 0 335--342, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Assessing houshehold vulnerability to poverty from cross-sectional data: a methodology and estimates from indonesia

    Shubham Chaudhuri and Jalan Jyotsna. Assessing houshehold vulnerability to poverty from cross-sectional data: a methodology and estimates from indonesia. Department of Economics Discussion Papers 0102-52, Columbia University, 2002

    2002

  2. [10]

    Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100 0 (3): 0 1238--60, June 2010

    Thomas Dohmen, Armin Falk, David Huffman, and Uwe Sunde. Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100 0 (3): 0 1238--60, June 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Thomas Dohmen, Armin Falk, David Huffman, Uwe Sunde, J \"u rgen Schupp, and Gert G. Wagner. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9 0 (3): 0 522--550, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Smearing estimate: A nonparametric retransformation method

    Naihua Duan. Smearing estimate: A nonparametric retransformation method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78 0 (383): 0 605--610, 1983. doi:10.1080/01621459.1983.10478017. URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1983.10478017

    1983

  5. [13]

    Eckel and Philip J

    Catherine C. Eckel and Philip J. Grossman. Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and human behavior, 23 0 (4): 0 281--295, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Eckel and Philip J

    Catherine C. Eckel and Philip J. Grossman. Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handbook of experimental economics results, 1 0 (1): 0 1061--1073, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    Eckel, Mahmoud A

    Catherine C. Eckel, Mahmoud A. El-Gamal, and Rick K. Wilson. Risk loving after the storm: A Bayesian-Network study of Hurricane Katrina evacuees . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69 0 (2): 0 110--124, February 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms

    Daniel Ellsberg. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 0 (4): 0 643--669, 1961. ISSN 00335533, 15314650

    1961

  9. [17]

    Milton Friedman and L. J. Savage. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56 0 (4): 0 279--304, 1948. ISSN 00223808, 1537534X. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1826045

    1948

  10. [18]

    Basic information document - nigeria general household survey--panel 2015/16

    GHS. Basic information document - nigeria general household survey--panel 2015/16. Technical report, National Bureau of Statistics and LSMS, December 8 2016

    2015

  11. [19]

    Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics

    Joop Hartog, Ada Ferrer-i Carbonell, and Nicole Jonker. Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos, 55 0 (1): 0 3--26, 2002. ISSN 1467-6435

    2002

  12. [20]

    Jaeger, Thomas Dohmen, Armin Falk, David Huffman, Uwe Sunde, and Holger Bonin

    David A. Jaeger, Thomas Dohmen, Armin Falk, David Huffman, Uwe Sunde, and Holger Bonin. Direct evidence on risk attitudes and migration. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92 0 (3): 0 684--689, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Overconfidence in wargames: experimental evidence on expectations, aggression, gender and testosterone

    Dominic DP Johnson, Rose McDermott, Emily S Barrett, Jonathan Cowden, Richard Wrangham, Matthew H McIntyre, and Stephen Peter Rosen. Overconfidence in wargames: experimental evidence on expectations, aggression, gender and testosterone. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biol...

    2006

  14. [22]

    Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk

    Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 0 (2): 0 263--291, 1979. ISSN 00129682, 14680262

    1979

  15. [23]

    Labor migration and risk aversion in less developed countries

    Eliakim Katz and Oded Stark. Labor migration and risk aversion in less developed countries. Journal of Labor Economics, 4 0 (1): 0 134--49, 1986

    1986

  16. [24]

    Kenna and R

    J. Kenna and R. Walker. Modeling individual migration decision. In A.F. Constant and F. Zimmermann, editors, Internal Handbook on the Economics of Migration. Edward Elgar, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    J. S. Lerner and D Keltner. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 0 (1): 0 146--159, 2001

    2001

  18. [26]

    Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences affect risk taking? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126 0 (1): 0 373--416, 2011

    Ulrike Malmendier and Stefan Nagel. Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences affect risk taking? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126 0 (1): 0 373--416, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Risk tolerance during conflict: Evidence from aleppo, syria

    Vera Mironova and Sam Whitt. Risk tolerance during conflict: Evidence from aleppo, syria. Under Review, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the poverty of nations

    Gunnar Myrdal. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the poverty of nations. Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1968

    1968

  21. [29]

    Quantile maximization in decision theory

    Marzena Rostek. Quantile maximization in decision theory. The Review of Economic Studies, 77 0 (1): 0 339--371, 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00564.x

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Rothschild and J

    M. Rothschild and J. Stiglitz. Increasing risk: I. a definition. Journal of Economic Theory, 2: 0 225--243, 1970

    1970

  23. [31]

    Economic growth and the contribution of agriculture: Notes for measurement

    Kuznets Simon. Economic growth and the contribution of agriculture: Notes for measurement. In C. Eicher and L. Witt, editors, Agriculture in Economic Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964

    1964

  24. [32]

    On migration and risk in ldcs

    Oded Stark and David Levhari. On migration and risk in ldcs. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 31 0 (1): 0 191--196, 1982. doi:10.1086/451312. URL https://doi.org/10.1086/451312

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    Michael P. Todaro. A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. The American Economic Review, 59 0 (1): 0 138--148, 1969. ISSN 00028282. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811100

    1969

  26. [34]

    Voors, Eleonora E

    Maarten J. Voors, Eleonora E. M. Nillesen, Philip Verwimp, Erwin H. Bulte, Robert Lensink, and Daan P. Van Soest. Violent conflict and behavior: A field experiment in B urundi. American Economic Review, 102 0 (2): 0 941--64, April 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.