In last week's Economist, the Free Exchange column explored the issue of social mobility across generations. In other words, how much are differences in income in one generation attributable to the previous generation and earlier generations? In other words, how much of the income of the readers of this blog is determined by the income of their parents, grandparents etc.? Greg Clark and Neil Cummins have used rare surnames to measure social mobility rates over the long run (i.e., 200 years plus). They find that social mobility is low in the long run as 70-80% of economic advantage appears to be transmitted from one generation to the next. Click here for an overview of this fascinating research. However, the ultimate question is how much of this economic advantage is down to nature and how much is down to nurture?
Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne...