[davetannenbaum]

Thanks for your comments (I'm one of the authors on this paper). For a subset of the countries, we went back to retrieve the wallets (logistically, collecting the wallets turned out to be extremely difficult, which is why we didn't collect them everywhere). We find that over 98% of the money was returned, so doesn't seem to be the case that people are contacting the owner but pocketing the cash.

[ppod]

>We find that over 98% of the money was returned, so doesn't seem to be the case that people are contacting the owner but pocketing the cash.

Is that 98% going back to locations that had contacted you? I'd be interested in the figure for returning to locations that didn't contact you, say after a week. But In understand how it could be logistically tricky. Congrats on the paper.

[davetannenbaum]

Many thanks.

Yes, we only went back for those who contacted us first. Your idea is an interesting one, but it gets at something else (how many people, who otherwise would keep the wallet, instead would turn over the wallet when confronted by the owner). We collected wallets from those who contacted us to rule out the possibility that they are returning the wallets empty.

[strideradu]

>We find that over 98% of the money was returned, so doesn't seem to be the case that people are contacting the owner but pocketing the cash.

But in the figure the highest return rate is still below 90%, this just makes me think how do you select the subset to retrive the cash?