Ig(noble)Nobels 2012, and beyond …

Last week, in another fun-filled ceremony at Harvard University, this year’s IgNobels were awarded for research that seems particularly ignoble. This spoof has become a cult event of note; a report on the festivities and a succinct summary of this year’s ten award winners may be found here.

Some of the Ig(noble) Nobels – a prize for “discoveries that cannot, or should not, be reproduced” — seem richly deserved. But I do wonder about, and find undeserved,  two.

First, the prize for neuroscience, which seems the one most meaningful to economists, went to  C. Bennett, A. Baird, M. Miller, and G. Wolford [USA], for demonstrating that, by using complicated instruments and overly simplistic statistics, one can see meaningful brain activity everywhere – even in a dead salmon. The IgNobel seems undeserved because this research addresses – tongue in cheek but rather effectively – major problems in behavioural research (underpowered studies and other questionable statistics).  These caveats are not new (e.g., here and here) but warrant repeated reminders.

Second, the prize for fluid dynamics, went to H.C. Mayer and R.Krechetnikov for their systematic exploration of why it is so difficult to walk with a cup of coffee without spilling it. Apparently, particularities of common cup sizes, coffee properties (its viscosity), and the biomechanics of a walking individual combine to contribute to the occasionally ugly consequences of such mishaps:  “While walking appears to be a periodic, regular process, closer examination reveals fluctuations in the gait pattern, even under steady conditions. Together with other natural factors – uneven floors, distractions during walking, etc. – this explains why the cup motion during the constant walking speed regime is composed of noise and smooth oscillations of constant amplitude.”  (p. 3) The authors draw on lessons from sloshing engineering for preventive measures such as concentric rings (baffles) arranged around the inner wall of a mug, possibly – for better damping – perforated. While this strikes me as a good start, plenty of further explorations seem in order.  (In work in progress, I am currently conducting controlled experiments on the effects of putting a lid on a coffee mug. I will make sure that the CE reader will be first to learn about my study’s results. Pilot sessions conducted so far have been promising.)

In closing I note that no IgNobel prize for economics has been awarded in years; I hence nominate for 2013 this recent  study by Attema and colleagues: “Your Right Arm for a Publication in AER?” . The authors use the time tradeoff method popular in medical decision making to elicit economists’ preferences for publishing in top economic journals and living without limbs. The American Economic Review (AER) turns out to be preferred to QJE which outranks RES which outranks EER. The (relatively few) responses allegedly imply that they would sacrifice more than half a thumb for publishing in AER.

I submit that what needs to be said about this study is succinctly summarized in the commentary reported in fn 1. A worthy contender for the 2013 IgNobel sweepstakes it is.

Unskilled and unaware of it?

In a widely cited, and provocatively titled, article in 1999, now approaching 1,400 citations on scholar google, Kruger and Dunning seemed to provide evidence that “difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments”. In other words, the less skilled (that’s what the authors really meant to say, alas a provocative title tends to sell) were argued, on average, to be more unaware of the absolute and relative quality of their performance. In fact, the less people were skilled the more they seemed “miscalibrated”.

In an earlier article, Krajc and yours truly have provided in response a simple model and some exploratory computational exercises that suggested that the less skilled may simply face a more complicated signal extraction problem. Our argument hinged on the distribution of skills in the environments that were typically studied being highly asymmetric, often resembling J – shaped distributions. Simply put, it is easy for the A++ student to figure out where s/he stands but much more difficult for those ranked towards the bottom of the class.

In an article just published, Ryvkin, Krajc and yours truly provide evidence in favor of a conjecture formulated in the earlier article: that with fairly little feedback self-assessment biases can be overcome. There was certainly a distinct literature on calibration that suggested that much (e.g., Juslin, Winman, & Olsson 2000 or Koehler 1996 – see here and here). There was, however, also some evidence that suggested otherwise (reviewed in our just published article.)

We hence set out to study whether, and to what extent, the difficulties of the less skilled in recognizing their own incompetence (largely, overconfidence) can be reduced by feedback. We report the results of two studies, one in a natural setting of a two-months graduate orientation and screening semester (and there particularly the micro-economics course by instructors not part of the research team), and another in the same environment but using tasks and stimuli materials that were better under our control. We document initially the same strong miscalibration that Kruger and Dunning also documented but also show that over the course of the two months this miscalibration almost completely disappears with the notable exception of those at the very bottom of the skills distribution and there only for their relative self-assessment which might provide support for the conjecture of Krajc & Ortmann (JoEP 2008; for reference see above) or self-image (e.g., Koeszegi 2006).

So, are the less skilled doomed to be unaware? It seems, no, not really. Learning goes a long way. Which should make us happy. But, of course, it all depends (on the strength and type of feedback, for example.)

MOOConomics

Inside Higher Ed, an online blog that features detailed analyses on developments in higher education in the USA (including a number of interesting reads on the developments at the University of Virginia – here and here — and the fundamental questions it prompts on the governance of higher education institutions there and elsewhere and, yes, the introduction of MOOCs has to do with governance), published last week an essay by Carlo Salerno on “The real economics of massive online courses” (since retitled “Bitter Reality of MOOConomics”). Salerno, a director with Xerox Education Services Group, as do others, claims that MOOCs (massive open online courses) are not sustainable.

Calling the Massive Open Online Course movement (instigated by MITx and by Stanford/Coursera) a craze, he makes two points.

First, „The overwhelming majority of college-goers today don’t enroll in higher education to get an education as much as they seek to earn a credential that they can successfully leverage in a labor market. Surely, the former is supposed to beget the latter, but it’s a hurdle that’s easily, and often, leaped.“ In other words, the times where education was a costly signal in terms of effort have gone. The assessment seems to support introduction of MOOCs although it seems far from clear what the value of some such credential could possibly be.

Second, students – by way of well-documented peer effects – are an important input to education: „For individual institutions, obtaining high quality inputs works to optimize the school’s objective function, which is maximizing prestige.“ So, if institutions care for their prestige, „colleges have a strong incentive to protect, or control, the quality of the degrees that they confer because successful graduates directly affect the institution’s prestige and the public’s perceptions about the value of its products.“ Selectivity, in other words, matters. Which essentially guts the promise of MOOCs all by itself.

Or does it?

In the end it is quite possibly all about relative positioning of higher education institutions. With about one third of the institutions being already in dire financial straits and more headed to financial unsustainability – at least in the USA (see here and links therein) — and about the same percentage of institutions financially strained world-wide, we are in the middle of a world-wide race to the bottom which will intensify the pressure to offer online courses, or to at least make them part and parcel of the course offerings.

I doubt MOOCs will really be an option for those institutions who like to think themselves as being at the top of the prestige pyramid, as Stephen King also seems to argue (see here, in particular the last paragraph). That’s because, in the end, even the most clever and accomplished teaching videos cannot compensate for the interactive learning that happens between teacher and student and among students. This form of interaction is the one with by far the most effective and efficient feedback.Which is what ultimately drives high-quality learning.

The behavioral economics of teacher incentives. (Maybe, maybe not.)

Good teachers matter indeed.

Some teachers are borne this way; they just have the natural ability that it takes. Others have to work, and possibly work hard, on becoming at least halfway decent ones. That often requires considerable effort that can, or cannot, be elicited through teacher incentives. Not surprisingly, incentivizing teachers – and measuring teaching outcomes – has been on the agenda for a while but remains a bone of contention.

A recent working paper by Italian researchers suggests strongly that teaching evaluations, for example, are not a promising avenue for the simple reasons that they can be, and apparently are, gamed. The authors show persuasively that teaching evaluations are not only a poor measure of effectiveness but, in fact, may measure the opposite. Not really a surprise there except maybe for administrators that are convinced that everything can be kpi-d. Well, the paper by Braga et al should make them think again.

While it is difficult enough to determine good teachers ex post, it is even more problematic to do so ex ante. Say the authors of another new working paper:
“Observable characteristics such as college-entrance test scores, grade-point averages, or major choice are not highly correlated with teacher value-added on standardized test scores … . And, programs that aim to make teachers more effective have shown little impact on teacher quality … . To increase teacher productivity, there is growing enthusiasm among policy makers for initiatives that tie teacher incentives to the achievement of their students.” (Fryer et al. 2012, p. 1) Apparently, in the USA at least ten states and many school districts have implemented various teacher incentive programs.

In “Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: A field experiment,” Fryer et al. (2012) ride an old workhorse of behavioral economists – loss aversion – for some additional mileage. Loss aversion is the idea that people – somewhat irrationally — cling on to something that theirs when on average they should not. The idea of loss aversion is closely tied to various “endowment effects” figuring prominently in the behavioral economics literature and is also a key ingredient of prospect theory.

Arguing that there is “overwhelming laboratory evidence for loss aversion” (p. 18, see also p.2 for a similar statement) but little from the field, the authors report the results of a field experiment that they undertook during the 2010-2011 school year in nine schools in Chicago Heights, IL, USA. They randomly picked a set of teachers for participation in a pay-for-performance program – 150 or 160 eligible teachers chose to participate — and then randomly assigned these to one of two treatments. In the “Gain” treatment, participants were given at the end of the school year bonuses linked to student achievement. In the “Loss” treatment, participants were given at the beginning of the school year a lump sum payment (parts of) which they had to return if their students did not meet performance targets. Teachers with the same performance received the same final bonus independent of the frame.

The result:  Those in the Loss treatment manage to increase student math test scores significantly indeed (“equivalent to increasing teacher quality by more than one standard deviation”) while those in the Gains treatment don’t. The authors attribute this strong showing of the “Loss” frame; essentially they argue that paying people upfront, and threatening them with repossession if they would fail to make the grade, were better incentivized because they were “loss” averse.

I am rather skeptical about these results and doubt that they will be confirmed in (large-scale) replications, or for that matter in field applications. What makes me skeptical is that, for starters, the alleged laboratory evidence in favor of  loss aversion is much less overwhelming than the authors try to make us believe. For example, work by Plott & Zeiler in The American Economic Review 2005 (here), 2007 (here), and 2011 (see here and here for a user-friendly blog entry based on their 2005 article that led to the 2011 controversy) has seriously questioned the reality of the endowment effect as well as the related asymmetry between willingness to accept and willingness to pay and hence the underlying idea of loss aversion. Ironically, one of the co-authors (List) has also made his name with artefactual experiments that seem to demonstrate that only inexperienced consumers are likely to fall for endowment effects (e.g., this 2004 Econometrica piece .)

I am also skeptical about these results because – while other explanations are argued not to be likely (something which, especially regarding cheating, seems debatable) – what strikes me as the most obvious explanation is not being discussed: Hawthorne, Pygmalion, placebo and other expectancy effects (e.g., here; see also a recent piece by two of the present authors). Rather than being loss averse, those in the Loss treatment may simply be shame averse for not having made the grade, an effect that most likely was significantly enhanced by them knowing that they were closely watched by scientists.

Last but not least there is, of course, the question whether the one-off effort, if indeed it exists to some extent, could be extracted year after year after year. Maybe, maybe not.

It’s just an economics editor in need of some modern undergraduate coursework, people (a fast and frugal history of recent economic theorizing)

Ross Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday threw a fit; you can read it here. Basically arguing that economists are hopelessly committed to something he labels the “’neo-classical’ model”, he claims that

“This conventional economics reduces all economic activity to that which happens within markets. It further narrows the operation of markets to the setting of prices, assuming movements in relative prices are the primary thing influencing the behaviour of producers and consumers.

It thus abstracts from the role of ‘institutions’ – be they organisations, laws or conventions – in influencing market behaviour, so often leads economists to make policy recommendations that prove seriously misguided.”

These are astonishing claims; somehow Gittins seems to have missed the emergence of (non-cooperative) game theory of the eductive and evolutive kind, modern Industrial Organization (including organizational economics and contract theory as well as corporate finance as encoded in Tirole’s 2006 book), the law and economics movement, modern institutional economics, (market and mechanism) design economics, experimental economics, and behavioural economics. As a matter of fact, there are literally thousands of published articles, and consulting reports for governments and various government bodies, that have been written on various economic aspects of organizations, laws, regulations, and, yes, conventions. There are now even high-quality journals dedicated explicitly – qua title – to those areas of research. In fact, most of these topics are being taught at better Australian universities in their undergraduate program. That’s because the subtle influence of institutional details – for example in various matching mechanism and other market and mechanism design problems (e.g., here for an example of a prominent contributor and likely future Nobel Prize laureate and his work and here for an example of another prominent contributor who should, arguably, have received the Nobel Prize together with Smith and Kahneman a few years back already and still might) — is widely acknowledged.

That’s also why social, and anti-social, preferences have become a veritable cottage industry, as has a related literature on altruistic punishment (Google currently lists under “altruistic punishment” more than 3,500 scholarly articles.)

And, of course, economists have for a long time, and famously, been attacked for their “imperialism”, i.e., their attempts to analyze other than market phenomena. (“Economics imperialism” features 500 Google hits.)

The “’neo-classical’ model”, truth be told, has long been superseded by a wide and ever increasing variety, and diversity, of methods and models.

Yet, it does not mean that more standard game-theoretic models (probably to Gittins’s mind part of the neo-classical model world) are not useful. Somewhat ironically, his discussion of Ostroem’s work, and the claims that Gittins makes about the originality of her work, illustrates that point.

Says Gittins:
“For a good example of the way different analytical models can draw different conclusions about the same problem, consider an old economists’ favourite: the ’tragedy of the commons’.

Because no one owned the common area, no one had an economic incentive to look after it. Indeed, each individual had an incentive to get in and use as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible, before other individuals used it up. So what was everyone’s property was actually no one’s property – and that was the essence of the problem.

Many economists thought it obvious that the solution was to allocate private property rights over the commons.

Neat, eh? Of course, there were also some who saw the solution as having the government take over the common property, maintain it and allocate its use on some fair basis.”

Gittins then goes on saying that recent Nobel prize laureate Elinor Ostrom
“devoted much of her career to combing the world looking for examples where people had developed ways of regulating their use of common resources without resort to either private property rights or government intervention.”

Her excursions were indeed successful, something that would not even have surprised Adam Smith who wrote, after all, extensively about the emergence of languages, moral sentiments, and institutional regulations (and their abuse) .

Ostrom found, that “(i)n all these cases people drew up sensible rules for sharing the use of the resource and combined to perform regular repairs. People who broke the rules were fined or eventually excluded.”

Well, that is exactly what standard “neo-classical” game theory, with its heroic common knowledge and rationality assumptions, would suggest, no? The people living in mountain villages in Switzerland and Japan, and fisheries in Maine and Indonesia, and similar repeated-game situations might be able to reach other equilibria in social-dilemma situations than those in one-off situations exactly because they have punishment options of various kinds. That’s the kind of stuff – the issue of “reputational enforcement” (Google lists more than 1,500 scholarly articles on it) — now routinely taught in undergraduate courses. And, yes, Adam Smith understood reputational enforcement exceedingly well, too.

It is simply nonsense to argue:

“Few economists had heard of [Ostrom], or her model-busting work.Why had this solution to the problem never been considered by economists? Because of their model’s implicit assumption that we only ever act as individuals, never collectively. We compete against each other, but we never co-operate to solve mutual problems.”

No, no, no. This is what game theory is all about: individual actors inter-acting (or, acting collectively). There are well defined conditions, well understood by most modern economists, under which interacting optimizing individual actors co-operate. There are also good reasons why proponents of the Nash program (which postulated, for the sake of robust implementation, that cooperative solutions be grounded in non-cooperative assumptions) have belaboured for the last five decades that very point, with considerable success since non-cooperative game theory today is the only game in town that matters and that, incidentally, is the heart and soul of theorizing about reputational enforcement. And has been that for at least three decades, as demonstrated by the classic work in the early 1980’s by people such as Klein and Leffler and Shapiro.

That the economics editor of one of Australia’s finer newspapers is that uninformed about modern economic theory is bad enough. That he has no qualms to regurgitate the same old tired misperceptions about  economists, and the alleged false policy advice they give, is appalling. For all I can see, Gittins’s poorly informed opinion piece reflects more on his ignorance than the stupidity of economists currently working in Australia. At least not economists working in academia.

The Economist can’t be wrong (or PERHAPS it can …)

A famous saying has it that, if we were to ask “n” economists for their opinion, we would be assured of at least “n+1” opinions because one of them would surely have two opinions all by himself.

So when 172 economists (professors all and by and far German, to boot!), motivated by the outcomes of the recent EU summit (specifically the politically agreed-on direct recapitalization of troubled banks through the European Financial Stability Facility, and its planned future replacement, the Europen Stability Meachnisms, or ESM), … when these 172 economists sign off on one statement, something extraordinary must be happening. Indeed it is.

Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, already losing fast her domestic political support (see here), now also faces considerable public opposition in the form of a letter to the public (see here) that those 172 professors – many of them quite prominent – have signed. (Here is The Economist’s take on things ). The letter of the 172 profs is quite a challenge. Nevermind the multiple legal challenges that are on the way (see here) and that already led Germany’s president, Joachim Gauck, upon request of the country’s High Court, to postpone his signature on documents initiating the European fiscal pact and the ESM.

The letter of the 172 profs drew immediate reactions from Merkel and Schaeuble (her minister of finance) as well as the popular press which has supported Merkel for years in a fairly uncritical manner. (Indeed, Merkel’s public approval ratings until recently were almost those of Gillard and Abbott together.) The 172 profs were called everything from “unknowns outside of their university”  (clearly wrong) to “Stammtisch economists” to “irresponsible” by various partisan commentators including two groups of economists: one spearheaded by alleged “heavyweight” Bofinger and the other by a group of economists connected to the Frankfurt Center of Financial Studies. It is noteworthy that the first group consists of a handful of economists while the second group of about 15. Hardly a strong counterattack, to go by the numbers.

Most recently, a couple of prominent Swiss economists (Monika Bütler, Urs Birchler, B&B from here on) have commented for Swiss newspaper Der Tagesanzeiger on this developing story (see here). Coming from well-informed outsiders, what they have to say strikes me as about right. What follows below is a summary (and partial translation of key passages) of their commentary.

B&B start out by stating that the 172 profs see the proposed European banking union as a means to have tax payers ultimately pay for bank debts (and private profiteering gone awry). They stress that the signatories swim against a current that got stronger in recent weeks and months, with even The Economist, which they call “otherwise reliably market-oriented”, now suggesting to Germany: Pay already! And even though Merkel already has a worldwide reputation as a spoilsport, due to her resistance to the socialization of European debt, the 172 economists argue that she has gone way too far with her agreement to the plans hammered out at the recent EU summit.

B&B summarily dismiss the critique of Bofinger et al. as high in rhetoric and low in substance. B&B then argue that, in contrast, the critique of the 15 economists from the Center for Financial Studies (CFS) in Frankfurt, including Jan Krahnen and Martin Hellwig, ought not to be dismissed. They note that these economists see the ESM as a suitable mechanism to recapitalize banks directly, in return for various suitable conditions.

B&B next ask who is right in their assessment of the EU summit agreements (and in particular the ESM): the 172 economists who wrote the public letter or the 15 CFS economists? B&B conclude that the assessment in the latter case is based on the idea as such (no socialization of European debt), while in the former case the assessment is based on the likely reality (money today for promises to be enacted tomorrow but promises that will not be kept).

B&B then offer an “anatomy of the crisis” stressing that there are really three separate crises (the Euro-crisis which has to do with the diverging competitiveness of the countries in the Euro-zone, which seems to necessitate the exit of some of the countries from the Euro-zone or tremdous efforts by Germany and others able to provide such effort; the national debt crisis, which puts many governments at the mercy of the vagueries of international financial markets; and the bank debt crisis, which has European banks suffering the consequences of the financial crisis, the real estate bubble and the high stock of government bonds with many undercapitalized still distributing huge amounts of dividends and bonuses.)

B&B argue that the EU has been responding to these three crises without any recognizable concept but with ever larger amounts and with ever emptier slogans through which subsets of the crises were linked (“If the euro fails, Europe fails”) and which were then used to dismiss previously adopted rules. B&B argue that the increasing amounts of funds invested in rescue operations and emergency pots have helped neither the Euro nor the indebted countries, and that the Euro can only be saved with economic adjustments in the afflicted countries. Whatever help is currently being given out ends up in the hands of the banks’ creditors, i.e., internationally active banks.

The concluding paragraphs seem worth translating:

“Rescued Banks – Shattered state institutions

With the bailout of Spain, the facade has now fallen. Money goes directly from the printing presses of the ECB to ailing commercial banks. You have to imagine such transactions five years ago. The financial press would have raised hell: A central bank finances troubled commercial banks! By abandoning the commercial banks’ (and their owners’) responsibility for losses and by abandoning its abstinence from handing out selective benefits, the ECB destroys two pillars of the financial architecture.

It seems that no one bothers – except those 172 economists from German-speaking countries through their, in light of the circumstances rather tame, letter. Admittedly, the letter simplifies much, but in its essence it is right on target. The results of the attempts to rescue the Euro and the Euro-zone come to this: on the one hand the far-reaching bailout of banks, on the other hand a shattered European monetary system, broken public finances, and a shattered confidence in European institutions.
This time no one will be able to say: The economists did not warn us.“

So much for B&B.

The subject matter is, of couse, complicated and reasonable people can have differing opinions on some of the matters. The letter of the 172 profs has created new realities in the current debate and certainly will make it more difficult for Merkel and her government to push things through without proper examination of what she commits Germany to.

At the minimum, the 172 profs have invigorated a debate that so far was mostly conducted by professional politicians (i.e., the same people who are majorly responsible for the current malaise of Europe and the Euro). That has to be a good thing. As Germany’s influential weekly Der Spiegel noted (see here), the discussion has become one about ideas rather than ideologies and that has to be a good thing, too.

Will developments in Europe have an effect on Australia? The local experts seem for the most part to think it won’t (see here) but they diverge widely in their forecasts. As one might expect in such a complex matter.

Women and children first! Not!

In a recently published working paper (see here), Swedish economists Elinder & Erixson revisit the issue of gender, social norms, and survival in maritime disasters. This topic has attracted some attention through the controversial work of Frey et al. (e.g., here; see also here) which made much of the alleged bravery of male passengers on the Titanic who allegedly sacrificed themselves so that women and children might be saved, seemingly providing further evidence for a “women and children first” social norm. Specifically, Frey et al. argued that “even though the two vessels and the composition of their passengers were quite similar, the behavior of the individuals on board was dramatically different. On the Lusitania, selfish behavior dominated (which corresponds to the classical homo economicus); on the Titanic, social norms and social status (class) dominated, which contradicts standard economics. This difference could be attributed to the fact that the Lusitania sank in 18 min, creating a situation in which the short-run flight impulse dominated behavior. On the slowly sinkingTitanic (2 h, 40 min), there was time for socially determined behavioral patterns to reemerge.“ (from their abstract)

There was much wrong with the Frey et al paper (an earlier version of which I reviewed for another journal). The authors’ assumption that these two “treatments” differed only in the speed of sinking was unwarranted, as speed of sinking, and time pressure, were confounded along multiple dimensions. For example, the knowledge conditions were quite different across the two “treatments”. The Titanic sank three years earlier than the Lusitania; it also had a reputation for being ‘unsinkable’ that  made it easy to seemingly accept the “women-and-children-first” social norm. Indeed, the first life boat was launched only one hour after the Titanic struck an iceberg and was populated only by a fraction of the passengers it could carry. In essence, chivalry seemed rather inexpensive on the Titanic. At least during the first couple of hours. In contrast, the passengers on the Lusitania almost certainly knew about the sinking of the Titanic. They also knew that their ship was likely to be targeted by the German Imperial fleet. Thus the passengers on the Lusitania surely had no doubt what happened, and what their likely fate would be, when the Lusitania was hit by a torpedo. That very moment chivalry had become rather expensive.

Elinder & Erixson analyse a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, and covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities. Taking their cue from the work of Frey and his collaborators, they test six hypotheses.

Their results suggests that there is little place for chivalry during maritime disasters: Women have a substantially lower survival rate than men. Contradicting the adage that captains (and crews) go last in these kind of situations, Elinder & Erixson find that crews, and captains, do significantly better than passengers (whether female or male); see Figure 1 in their paper. (Yes, Francesco Schettino, you are not alone.) Predictably, children fare worst. Importantly, the authors also find that duration of a disaster has no effect on the survival probability of social norms. The one thing that seems to give the “women-and-children-first” social norm a chance is an explicit policy of the captain. Essentially this finding demonstrates that the potential for punishment has some sway. Elinder & Erixson (2012, p. 8) also show “that women fare worse, rather than better, in maritime disasters involving British ships. This contrasts with the notion of British men being more gallant than men of other nationalities.”