Friday, March 8, 2019
From a new VOX post:
“There is mounting evidence that income inequality and disparities in wealth have been rising in advanced economies in the recent decades. Using data on advanced and emerging economies, this column investigates the link between an economy’s financial structure – that is, the mix of bank-provided versus market-provided funds – and income inequality. Results show that the relationship is not monotonic. More finance reduces income inequality up to a point, but beyond that point inequality rises, especially if finance is expanded via market-based financing.”
[…]
“Making causal inference is a challenge here. The link between finance and income inequality can go either way. More finance can lead to more income inequality, but more inequality may also foster the development of banks and specialised financial services. A common identification strategy employs instruments that are correlated with the financial structure but not correlated with income inequality. Following the literature, in a recent paper (Brei et al. 2018) we instrument the development of banks and financial markets by their initial values, legal origin, societal fractionalisation, and the location of countries (relative to the Equator). Furthermore, we control for other determinants of income inequality, including the degree of education, industrial specialisation, and inflation.
The main results of our regression analysis are represented in Figure 3. Both higher bank activity and higher market activity translate initially into lower income inequality. However, this pattern reverses beyond a certain threshold. The trajectories of income inequality, once the threshold is reached, differ for bank-based versus market-based financial development. Specifically, the subsequent rise in income inequality is much steeper in market-based financial systems. This suggests that the development of financial markets over the last decades could have produced an increase in income inequality. ”
From a new VOX post:
“There is mounting evidence that income inequality and disparities in wealth have been rising in advanced economies in the recent decades. Using data on advanced and emerging economies, this column investigates the link between an economy’s financial structure – that is, the mix of bank-provided versus market-provided funds – and income inequality. Results show that the relationship is not monotonic. More finance reduces income inequality up to a point,
Posted by 1:49 PM
atLabels: Inclusive Growth
On the US:
On other countries:
On the US:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Friday, March 1, 2019
From the IMF’s latest report on Malta:
“Rapidly rising house prices and rents may eventually pose financial stability risks while putting some vulnerable households at risk of poverty. Policies that help mitigate the rapid increase of house prices and make rents more affordable while strengthening households and banks’ balance sheets should be encouraged.
Strong demand for housing has continued to push up property prices. While some signs of overvaluation have started to emerge, recent house price trends can largely be explained by fundamentals such as e.g., strong immigration flows, rising disposable income, portfolio rebalancing towards property investment and a delayed supply response. Other factors such as the extension of the first-time home-buyer stamp duty relief, the reduced tax rate on rental income, surging demand for tourist accommodation and, for the high-end segment, the IIP may also have played a role (but are not directly controlled for in the empirical analysis conducted in Annex I).
Banks’ exposure to housing-market-related risks is high and increasing, and the introduction of macroprudential measures should proceed as planned. All the more so that households’ indebtedness is relatively high, low income households are vulnerable to housing price corrections and flexible interest rate on mortgages are prevalent.7 Against this backdrop, recent efforts to close data gaps (loan-level data collection) and the planned introduction of borrowerbased macroprudential measures such as caps to loan-to-value (LTV) ratios at origin, stressed debt service-to-income (DSTI) limits, and amortization requirements are steps in the right direction (see text table).
To be more effective, the new borrower-based measures could be refined in due course and exemptions to the LTV limit could be narrowed. To avoid excessive risk concentration, speed limits should be defined in terms of the total value of new loans, not in terms of the number of new loans, and speed limits for loans against secondary and buy-to-let properties, the likely most speculative segment, should be lowered as soon as concerns about any initial disruptions dissipate. Finally, the scope of the new borrower-based measures should be extended to also cover non-bank mortgage loans.
Rapidly rising housing costs are affecting vulnerable households. The government recently relaxed the eligibility requirements for rent subsidies, but the scheme should be periodically reviewed to ensure it remains targeted on low-income households. Further efforts should also be envisaged to accelerate the provision of social housing, including by fiscally incentivizing private investments.
Authorities’ Views
Rapidly rising property prices are viewed by the authorities as mainly reflecting economic fundamentals. Inflows of foreign labor and higher income in general are fueling housing demand. The authorities also see the impact of tax benefits for first and second-time home buyers, the reduced tax rate on rental income and the IIP as marginal. They stressed that the planned borrower-based macroprudential measures were carefully calibrated to have minimal market impact upon their introduction. The authorities have agreed that there is room for refinement, in due course, and emphasized that they can easily recalibrate the measures to mitigate financial stability risks emanating from the housing market in a timely and effective manner. The authorities also recognize the growing importance of making housing more affordable for vulnerable households. They emphasized the progressive nature of the new rent subsidy scheme. Projects are underway to increase the stock of social and affordable housing.”
From the IMF’s latest report on Malta:
“Rapidly rising house prices and rents may eventually pose financial stability risks while putting some vulnerable households at risk of poverty. Policies that help mitigate the rapid increase of house prices and make rents more affordable while strengthening households and banks’ balance sheets should be encouraged.
Strong demand for housing has continued to push up property prices. While some signs of overvaluation have started to emerge,
Posted by 10:52 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Chris Wellisz profiles Branko Milanovic, a leading scholar of inequality for the March 2019 issue of Finance & Development:
“As a child growing up in Communist Yugoslavia, Branko Milanovic witnessed the protests of 1968, when students occupied the campus of the University of Belgrade and hoisted banners reading “Down with the Red bourgeoisie!”
Milanovic, who now teaches economics at the City University of New York, recalls wondering whether his own family belonged to that maligned group. His father was a government official, and unlike many Yugoslav kids at the time, Milanovic had his very own bedroom—a sign of privilege in a nominally classless society. Mostly he remembers a sense of excitement as he and his friends loitered around the edge of the campus that summer, watching the students sporting red Karl Marx badges.
“I think that the social and political aspects of the protests became clearer to me later,” Milanovic says in an interview. Even so, “1968 was, in many ways, a watershed year” in an intellectual journey that has seen him emerge as a leading scholar of inequality. Decades before it became a fashion in economics, inequality would be the subject of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Belgrade.
Today, Milanovic is best known for a breakthrough study of global income inequality from 1988 to 2008, roughly spanning the period from the fall of the Berlin Wall—which spelled the beginning of the end of Communism in Europe—to the global financial crisis.
The 2013 article, cowritten with Christoph Lakner, delineated what became known as the “elephant curve” because of its shape (see chart). It shows that over the 20 years that Milanovic calls the period of “high globalization,” huge increases in wealth were unevenly distributed across the world. The middle classes in developing economies—mainly in Asia—enjoyed a dramatic increase in incomes. So did the top 1 percent of earners worldwide, or the “global plutocrats.” Meanwhile, the lower middle classes in advanced economies saw their earnings stagnate.
The elephant curve’s power lies in its simplicity. It elegantly summarizes the source of so much middle class discontent in advanced economies, discontent that has turbocharged the careers of populists from both extremes of the political spectrum and spurred calls for trade barriers and limits on immigration.”
Continue reading here.
Chris Wellisz profiles Branko Milanovic, a leading scholar of inequality for the March 2019 issue of Finance & Development:
“As a child growing up in Communist Yugoslavia, Branko Milanovic witnessed the protests of 1968, when students occupied the campus of the University of Belgrade and hoisted banners reading “Down with the Red bourgeoisie!”
Milanovic, who now teaches economics at the City University of New York, recalls wondering whether his own family belonged to that maligned group.
Posted by 10:44 AM
atLabels: Inclusive Growth
On cross-country:
On the US:
On other countries:
On cross-country:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Subscribe to: Posts