Multiple Dimensions of Bureaucratic Discrimination: Evidence from German Welfare Offices

A growing experimental literature uses response rates to fictional requests to measure discrimination against ethnic minorities. This article argues that restricting attention to response rates can lead to faulty inferences about substantive discrimination depending on how response dummies are correlated with other response characteristics. We illustrate the relevance of this problem by means of a conjoint experiment among all German welfare offices, in which we randomly varied five traits and designed requests to allow for a substantive coding of response quality. We find that response rates are statistically indistinguishable across treatment conditions. However, putative non‐Germans receive responses of significantly lower quality, potentially deterring them from applying for benefits. We also find observational evidence suggesting that discrimination is more pronounced in welfare offices run by local governments than in those embedded in the national bureaucracy. We discuss implications for the study of equality in the public sphere.     

Does Public Opinion Affect Political Speech?

Does public opinion affect political speech? Of particular interest is whether public opinion affects (i) what topics politicians address and (ii) what positions they endorse. We present evidence from Germany where the government was recently forced to declassify its public opinion research, allowing us to link the content of the research to subsequent speeches. Our causal identification strategy exploits the exogenous timing of the research's dissemination to cabinet members within a window of a few days. We find that exposure to public opinion research leads politicians to markedly change their speech. First, we show that linguistic similarity between political speech and public opinion research increases significantly after reports are passed on to the cabinet, suggesting that politicians change the topics they address. Second, we demonstrate that exposure to public opinion research alters politicians' substantive positions in the direction of majority opinion.     

Children in motor vehicle collisions: analysis of injury by restraint use and seat location

This study was a retrospective chart review of hospital records and autopsy reports of 499 children nine years old or younger involved in motor vehicle collisions from 1994 to 1998. The objective was to evaluate the frequency and severity of injuries as a function of age, restraint use, and seat position. We found that 33% of the children were unrestrained and 20% were improperly restrained. Unrestrained children had the highest mean Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scores (MAIS) and Injury Severity Scores (ISS), accounted for 70% of the fatalities, and had the highest incidence of head injuries. Although most of the head injuries were superficial, 80% of the fatalities were the result of a head injury. Improperly restrained children had the highest frequency of abdominal injuries. Regardless of restraint use, the back seat was associated with fewer head injuries and lower mean MAIS and ISS scores compared to the front seat. Also, properly restrained children in the front seat had lower mean MAIS and ISS scores than unrestrained children in the back seat, suggesting that restraint use is more beneficial than seat position.