tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post4529469853228034625..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Gene on SchellingEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-56370410825023063442012-09-16T17:26:51.938-04:002012-09-16T17:26:51.938-04:00Funny you mention that TGGP. I read Easterly's...Funny you mention that TGGP. I read Easterly's paper only a week ago... I've been thinking of my own empirical investigation of a Schelling-type model and relevant tipping points.<br /><br />In short, it involves South African schools, which experienced a radical shift in racial composition a few years after Apartheid. Now, that may sound entirely obvious, but some schools were affected to a far larger degree than others. Moreover, the proximate cause (at least according to the anecdotal evidence that I have thus far) was new legislation that obliged schools to accepting a minimum number of non-white pupils within their "catchment" areas. Thus, how these catchment areas were defined would appear to have made all the difference. The end result is that schools that were previously all white have become exclusively black within a few short years... While others remain majority white, or enjoy a more healthy mix.<br /><br />Okay, I'm blabbing a bit, but the idea has got me quite excited lately. It would seem that you have a nice quasi-experiment and (possibly) a control group depending on how these catchment areas were defined. Identification El Dorado!<br /><br />(PS - Data issues aside, this is obviously a pretty sensitive subject. For one thing, I'm nervous to make this an argument about simple racism even in the wake of South Africa's chequered past. I suspect that is much more a story of income disparities and classism... Though, this clearly still qualifies as a form of prejudice.)Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-25963907643945116302012-09-16T17:00:11.919-04:002012-09-16T17:00:11.919-04:00Oh, by the way, welcome to Twitter.
About time!Oh, by the way, welcome to Twitter.<br /><br />About time!Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-33335213547518151462012-09-16T16:59:20.068-04:002012-09-16T16:59:20.068-04:00You know it's impossible for me to see a post ...You know it's impossible for me to see a post about Schelling without gushing like a little schoolgirl.<br /><br />I'll also shamelessly plug <a href="http://stickmanscorral.blogspot.no/2010/10/why-we-need-maths-in-economics-2b_25.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> old post in which I described the dynamics of the Segregation Model in some depth. (For those that just want to see things in action -- don't worry! There's a great, short video at the bottom that gets the intuition across very well.)Grant McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868318397832070394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-24185225371786514552012-09-16T11:25:46.559-04:002012-09-16T11:25:46.559-04:00I remember Tim Harford citing Schelling on segrega...I remember Tim Harford citing Schelling on segregation in his argument with Dan Ariely over the worth of pure logic in economics. <a href="http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15069#fromrss" rel="nofollow">Easterly</a> has a paper arguing that Schelling's model doesn't fit the data. I wasn't able to access it when I first read about it, but it seems publicly available now.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.com