Economic Laws Explained Simply

Contributions

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 29 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   Corrected two altered statistics from otherwise accurately-cited real economics studies: the Gneezy & Rustichini daycare-fine effect size and the Autor/Dorn/Hanson China-trade-shock job-loss figure, which had been conflated with a different follow-up paper covering a different date range.

   What the page claimed

   Article cited the real Gneezy & Rustichini (2000, Journal of Legal Studies) Israeli daycare late-fee study but stated late arrivals 'increased by 70%,' when the study's actual finding is that late arrivals roughly doubled. Separately, the article correctly cited Autor, Dorn & Hanson's 2013 American Economic Review paper on the China trade shock (1990-2007) but attributed to it a 'approximately 2 million US manufacturing jobs' figure that actually comes from a later follow-up paper by the same authors covering 1999-2011 and a broader job-loss measure (not manufacturing-only, 1990-2007).

   What was corrected

   Gneezy & Rustichini figure corrected to 'roughly doubled.' Autor/Dorn/Hanson passage corrected to state the 2013 paper's actual finding (import competition explains roughly a quarter of the contemporaneous US manufacturing employment decline) and separately, correctly attributed, notes the ~2 million figure to the later 1999-2011 follow-up study.

   Why: Independent verification found 4 of 6 major citations in this article (Kerr 1975, Benabou & Tirole 2003, Helpman & Krugman new trade theory, Porter 1985) were accurately described with correct figures - this article was substantially cleaner than others flagged in the same scan, with only two specific numbers needing correction rather than unverified sources.

   View the full record →

Contributors In This Page