November 15^th, 2019

Structural breaks in gasoline and diesel elasticities: a dynamic analysis of the Portuguese case

Susana Silva – CEF.UP (joint with Isabel Soares and Carlos Pinho)

ABSTRACT

“Fuel consumption is strongly associated with environmental pollution. Several policies have been implemented in an attempt to mitigate these problems, among which fuel taxes are the most common. It is, therefore, crucial to know if those taxes are effective to moderate demand. In this paper we calculate price and income elasticities of gasoline and diesel demand for Portuguese consumers using a dynamic perspective. We cover the period from 1995 to 2015 as it corresponds to a critical macroeconomic period which comprehends International Monetary Fund (IMF) financial intervention in the country. Results for the whole period show that long-run price elasticities are -0.368 for diesel and -0.911 for gasoline while long-run income elasticities are 2.338 for diesel and 0.877 for gasoline. Hence, taxes are then relatively effective to moderate gasoline demand but not diesel demand. Using rolling windows, we perform a dynamic analysis and conclude that there is a certain degree of variability of those elasticities around the values estimated with the full sample. It is evident that diesel consumption responses were affected by the economic crisis. Our results show no evidence of an effect of the market liberalization.”

 1-2p.m. | Room 305

December 6^th, 2019

The effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on well-being: a causal analysis

Rui Leite – CEF.UP (joint with Li-Wei Chao,  Ana Rita Farias, Helena Szrek, Shandir Ramlagan, and Karl Peltzer)

ABSTRACT

“Fruit and vegetable consumption has been associated with reductions in mortality and better physical health, and various countries and the World Health Organization recommend a daily consumption of 5 or more servings. Recently, fruit and vegetable consumption has also been linked to better mental health and well-being. Most of the studies document a cross-sectional relationship, and a few studies control for fixed effects using longitudinal data, but nevertheless the authors caution against a causal interpretation of the results. In our study, we use longitudinal data from a survey conducted in South Africa and apply instrumental variable estimation to examine this relationship. We use three distinct instruments that are plausibly linked to fruit and vegetable consumption (time preference, ownership of a business that sells fruit or vegetable, and the CPI of fruit) and find that increased fruit and vegetable consumption is causally associated with higher self-reported life satisfaction and lower perceived stress.”

 1:10 – 2:10 p.m. | Room 305

Friday – December 13^th, 2019

Tell me who you consult with and I’ll tell you how compliant you are: Can physicians affect patient adherence?

Joana Costa – CEF.UP (joint with Joint with Nuno Sousa Pereira and Ricardo Vicente)

ABSTRACT

“Objectives: Relying on a large longitudinal matched physician-prescription-patient dataset for all Portuguese e-prescriptions (SPMS, 2015-2017) we’ve extended the paper by Koulayev et al. (2017) which analyzes the contributions of doctor-specific, patient-specific, and drug-specific factors to the adherence decision, now applied to hypoglycemic agents and their pharmacotherapeutic groups.

Methods: We considered a large longitudinal dataset for all Portuguese e-prescriptions collected from Ministério da Saúde from January 1, 2015 till December 31, 2017 that contained any pharmaceutical used to treat Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. We use high-dimensional fixed-effects to assess the influence of physicians on patient compliance. The dependent variable is the medication possession ratio for a particular refill, while the explanatory variables rely on patient demographics, physician characteristics and a set of controls which includes match-specific variables.

Results: So far, we rely on 1.204.987 observations and find that physicians are able to influence patient compliance. Further results to be computed will consider the impact of a pair physician-patient on the variation of the adherence which could tell us more information regarding this relationship.

Discussion: This paper extends to antidiabetic drugs, the determinants of patient adherence which could lead us to potential relevant policy implications such as the consideration of customized interventions among physician-patient pairs that will lead us to optimal results regarding compliance.”

 1:10 – 2:10 p.m. | Room 305

December 20^th, 2019

Ratings, prices, and real effects

José Jorge – CEF.UP

ABSTRACT

“Many claim that credit rating agencies respond to financial prices (such as CDS spreads) and that changes in credit ratings have real effects. Such claims are hard to test. Simple models regressing credit ratings on financial prices, or regressing real variables on credit ratings are unlikely to provide reliable estimates because of the feedback effects between ratings, prices and real variables. Prices cause ratings inasmuch as ratings cause prices, and real variables definitely affect ratings. In this paper we propose a structural vector auto regression approach to identify both the impact of financial prices on credit ratings and the real effects of credit ratings.“

 1:10 – 2:10 p.m. | Room 305

January 17^th, 2020

To change or not to change: the impact of mortgage law on loan origination

Ana Sá – CEF.UP

ABSTRACT

“Concerns on households’ over-indebtedness and mortgage default are central in the debate on how to prevent the next crisis. A tempting solution is to change the mortgage law to make it more borrower-friendly and protect households in case of default. With more borrower-friendly laws, the risk and cost of mortgages might increase, leading to a change in the supply of mortgage credit. Intuitively, lenders might react to a risk increase by charging a higher risk premium on loans or by demanding higher collateralization. By taking advantage of U.S. mortgage law heterogeneity across States, I study the direct and indirect effects of different law contexts.”

1:10 – 2:10 p.m. | Room 305