The Unassuming Economist

From a new IMF working paper by Yu Shi:

“This paper identifies a new mechanism leading to inefficiency in capital reallocation at the extensive margin when an economy experiences a sectoral boom. I argue that imperfections in the financial market and capital barriers to entry in the booming sector create a misallocation of managerial talent. Using comprehensive firm-level data from China, I first provide evidence that more productive firms reallocate capital to the booming real estate sector, and demonstrate that the pattern is likely driven by fewer financial constraints on these firms. I then use a structural estimation to verify the talent misallocation. Finally, I calibrate a dynamic model and find that the without the misallocation, the TFP growth in the manufacturing sector would have improved by 0.5% per year.”

 

From a new IMF working paper by Mitsuru Katagiri:

“This paper investigates the developments in house price synchronization across countries by a dynamic factor model using a country- and city-level dataset, and examines what drives the synchronization. The empirical results indicate that: (i) the degree of synchronization has been rising since the 1970s, and (ii) a large heterogeneity in the degree of synchronization exists across countries and cities. A panel and cross-sectional regression analysis show that the heterogeneity of synchronization is partly accounted for by the progress in financial and trade openness. Also, the city-level analysis implies that the international synchronization is mainly driven by the city-level connectivity between large and international cities.”

The latest IMF report on Philippines points out that:

From a new paper by Francesco Saraceno:

“The New Consensus that has dominated macroeconomics since the 1980s was based on a fundamentally neoclassical structure: efficient markets that on their own converged on a natural equilibrium with a very limited role for macroeconomic (mostly monetary) policy to smooth fluctuations. The crisis shattered this consensus and saw the return of monetary and fiscal activism, at least in academic debate. The profession is reconsidering the pillars of the Consensus, from the size of the multipliers to the implementation of reform, including the links between business cycles and trends. It is still too soon to know what macroeconomics will look like tomorrow, but hopefully it will be more eclectic and open. ”

A new IMF working paper “uses a DSGE model to simulate the impact of technological change on labor markets and income distribution. It finds that technological advances offers prospects for stronger productivity and growth, but brings risks of increased income polarization. This calls for inclusive policies tailored to country-specific circumstances and preferences, such as investment in human capital to facilitate retooling of low-skilled workers so that they can partake in the gains of technological change, and redistributive policies (such as differentiated income tax cuts) to help reallocate gains. Policies are also needed to facilitate the process of adjustment.”

“Policies can change the impact of technological change. Depending on societies’ preferences for growth versus income equality, governments may want to distribute the gains from technology more evenly. Certain policies, if well designed, could mitigate the trade-off between both objectives. For example, illustrative model simulations show that higher education spending would not only allow low-skilled workers to participate in the gains of technological change, it would also increase output; this holds even when taking into account that higher spending will require higher rates of taxation. More generally, while the use of the tax/benefit system to redistribute the gains from technological advances tends to come with some loss in efficiency, the resulting loss in output tends to be relatively small.”