"Social Network Structure and the Radius of Risk Pooling." Putman, D.S.; Working Paper. Under Review.
Note: this paper replaces "Social Network Structure and the Scope of Risk Pooling" and "The Scope of Risk Pooling."
First draft (as "Scope"): June 30th, 2020
"Sharing Covariate Risk in Networks: Theory and Evidence from Ghana." Putman, D.S.; Working Paper. Preparing for Submission.
An older version of this paper appeared at PacDev 2020 as "Risk Preferences and Risk Pooling in Networks: Theory and Evidence from Community Detection in Ghana"
First draft: November 30th, 2019.
Additional Materials, NoBeC Early Career Research Short Talk
"Probing the Limits of Mobile Phone Metadata for Poverty Prediction and Impact Evaluation." Barriga-Cabanillas, O., J. Blumenstock, T.J. Lybbert, D.S. Putman; Working paper [please email for latest draft]. Preparing for submission.
"Strategies for Reducing Non-Institutional Fraud and Building Trust in a Digital Market Platform" Byrne, S., D.S. Putman, M. King, C. Jang; Working Paper [please email for latest draft]. Preparing for Submission.
Project Page, AEA Registry
"Port-Au-Prince Calling: Social Network Response to Social Unrest using Mobile Phone Metadata in Haiti." Putman, D.S. and T.J. Lybbert; Working Paper. Revising.
First draft: September 24th, 2021
MeasureDev 2022 Presentation
"Digital Credit Market Monitoring with Administrative Data: Evidence from a Collaboration with the Competition Authority of Kenya." Putman, D.S.; Working Paper. Revising.
First draft: March, 30th 2022
"The Element of Surprise: An Instrumental Variables Approach for Identifying Usage Curves in Professional Football." Putman, D.S., T.N. Tolhurst; Working Paper.
First draft: November 26th, 2022
Selected In Progress
"Report on the Competition Authority of Kenya Digital Credit Market Inquiry." Putman, D.S., R.K. Mazer, W. Blackmon; Innovations for Poverty Action (2021).
"Attitudes and Preferences Toward Pacific Halibut Management Alternatives in the Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Sector in Alaska: Results from a Survey" Lew, D.K, D.S. Putman, and D.M. Larson; NOAA Technical Memorandum. No. NMFS-AFSC-326 (2016)
This report describes and summarizes the results from a survey of CHP holders (charter businesses) conducted during 2015 that collected information on CHP holders’ attitudes and preferences toward Pacific halibut management in Alaska and preferences and behavior related to the GAF lease market, including values they place on GAF/leased IFQ under different sets of user or transactional restrictions. The mail survey was administered during 2015 to all CHP holders (565 charter businesses) and involved multiple mailings and a telephone contact. The survey response rate was 48% (271 completed surveys).
The survey results suggest that CHP holders generally had a negative view of the CSP and the GAF leasing program, with the majority believing that the GAF leasing program negatively impacts their business. Only a small percentage of respondents had participated in the program during 2014. Among those who had not leased GAF, the costs to lease GAF and generally opposing the GAF leasing program were cited by the most CHP holders as the primary reason for not participating in the program. About 84% of respondents did not plan to lease GAF in 2015 either. The majority of respondents also felt that relaxing restrictions on how GAF could be used (lease terms and transferability) were not likely to be helpful to their business. Respondents were also asked about their knowledge of, and attitudes toward, the Catch Accountability Through Compensated Halibut (CATCH) Proposal, which aims to create a recreational quota entity that can buy and sell commercial halibut IFQ. About 32% were not at all familiar with the CATCH Proposal, and over three-quarters of respondents indicated that they were not supportive of funding the proposal through a fee based on the number of endorsements held by CHP holders or a charter halibut tax per fish based on charter logbook records. Instead, the favored funding mechanism in terms of support was a charter halibut stamp, which would be purchased directly by charter anglers (70% were at least a little supportive). Respondents were split on whose responsibility (angler clients, charter businesses, or both) it was to fund the CATCH proposal, but the majority indicated that they did not feel the cost should be borne solely by charter businesses (about 68%).
There were several differences between responses from CHP holders in International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Southcentral Alaska). Specifically, Area 3A respondents viewed the CSP, the GAF leasing program, and how the current CSP would affect their businesses more negatively than those in Area 2C. They also differed in terms of their support for the CATCH Proposal, with Area 3A respondents being less supportive on average than Area 2C respondents. Area 2C and 3A respondents also seemed to feel differently about how supportive they would be of alternative programs, such as a GAF ownership program (that would allow individual charter businesses to buy and sell commercial fishing quota as GAF) and GAF leasing programs that were more flexible than the current program. In general, Area 2C respondents were a little more supportive than Area 3A respondents of these alternative programs. However, Area 2C and 3A respondents were similar in their statements about whose responsibility they felt it was to pay for the CATCH Proposal (in terms of charter anglers, charter businesses, or both) and their beliefs about how effective it would be if implemented.