Adverse Health Events and Vaccine Hesitancy

We study how experiencing adverse health events affects vaccine hesitancy by using new data on vaccination records and adverse events. We first consider a severe, well-identified case: narcolepsy, a chronic disease induced by the 2009–2010 swine-flu vaccine. We find large effects on COVID-19 vaccination more than a decade later, suggesting that individuals rely heavily on experiences when making decisions about their health. The effects do not attenuate among those with high health literacy but show some attenuation with prior healthcare contact. Second, we assess the social costs of adverse events by studying serious events from all pharmaceuticals. The effects of experiencing such events on COVID-19 vaccination outcomes are small: while there are some effects for vaccine side effects, there are virtually none for adverse events from other drugs. This shows that individuals draw on only a narrow set of experiences for future decisions and suggests that the social costs of adverse events are limited.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc? Side Effect Misattribution and Vaccine Hesitancy

Side effect concerns are the most frequently reported reason for vaccine hesitancy, yet we lack well-identified evidence on how these perceptions form. We study how experiencing illness after vaccination affects the decision to continue vaccinating by exploiting an episode during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign when links between the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots triggered extensive media coverage. Those who experienced a blood clot after vaccination—unrelated to the vaccine-induced syndrome—drop out of vaccination at almost twice the rate of matched controls. Consistent with misattribution, the effect is strongest for diagnoses occurring soon after the dose, and is amplified when clinicians report the event as a suspected side effect. Effects are similarly strong for vaccine brands that were never scientifically linked to vaccine-induced blood clots.

Intergenerational Effects of Wealth Confiscation: Evidence from Sweden’s Great Reduction of 1680

This paper examines the long-run effects of the Great Reduction of 1680 in Sweden. During this episode, the Crown confiscated about half of all noble estates, marking the largest wealth redistribution in Swedish history. Using a novel dataset constructed by linking noble genealogies to landholdings, we exploit quasi-exogenous variation in which families were subject to confiscations to estimate the intergenerational effects. We find substantial effects on wealth: up to five generations later, descendants of affected families hold fewer manors than comparable nobles, implying stronger persistence than intergenerational correlations suggest. We find no effects on demographic traits, marriage patterns, or human capital, indicating that the long-run impact operated primarily through wealth without changes in social status.

Ethnic Capital or Dynastic Human Capital? Evidence from Multigenerational Data

Intergenerational convergence across immigrant groups is often found to be slower than traditional parent–child models predict. A common explanation is that ethnic capital, measured as the average human capital of the origin group, independently shapes outcomes. This paper shows that such estimates can be biased when extended-family influences are omitted, as standard specifications mechanically attribute family transmission to group effects. We decompose persistence in educational outcomes into parental, extended-family, and country-of-origin components. Once the extended family is accounted for, country-of-origin effects become negligible.