The Unassuming Economist

From a paper by Joe Piacentini, Harley Frazis, Peter B. Meyer, Michael Schultz, and Leo Sveikauskas:

“This paper surveys economic literature largely from 2020 and 2021 on how the COVID-19 pandemic and responses to it affect U.S. income inequality. Established trends of growing inequality may continue roughly as before, involving new technologies, international trade, and the growth of “superstar” firms. Employment, earnings, and schooling were affected differently across demographic groups and occupations. The pandemic disrupted lower-paid, service sector employment most, disadvantaging women and lower income groups at least temporarily, and this may have scarring effects. Government policies implemented in response to the pandemic offset much of the effect on income. Higher-paid workers tend to gain more from continuing opportunities to telework. Less-advantaged students suffered greater educational setbacks from school closures. School and day care closures disrupted the work of many parents, particularly mothers. We conclude that the pandemic is likely to widen income inequality over the long run, because the lasting changes in work patterns, consumer demand, and production will benefit higher income groups and erode opportunities for some less advantaged groups. Telework has increased permanently. High-contact jobs and services may continue to face reduced demand and increased automation. School disruptions have been worse for lower-income students and are likely to have lingering negative effects, which may widen future inequality within more recent birth cohorts. The history of the 1918 flu shows that the effect of a pandemic on inequality in income, education, health, and wealth depends on the nature of the pandemic and on behavioral and policy responses.”

From a paper by Enoch Quaye, Fred A. Yamoah, Pratyush K. Patro, and Adolf Acquaye:

“Research indicates that some countries have achieved decoupling between economic activity
and environmental damage, even considering consumption. We question whether emissions
reductions from decoupling sufficiently mitigate climate change to meet Sustainable
Development Goal 13: Climate Action. A novel approach is used to model latent information in
GDP growth rates to predict country-level sustainable carbon emission rates. We propose a
latent variable model for the growth rate of the CO2 emissions-to-GDP ratio to understand the
dynamics needed to achieve sustainable carbon thresholds for the Net Zero target. We document
that while the unconditional average GDP per capita growth trends upward, the belief in
its persistence is declining. The parameter linking consumption-based emissions with GDP per
capita growth is statistically significant. It indicates a downward trend and confirms that economies
can grow without a proportional increase in emissions as technology advances and people
alter their behaviour. The findings highlight the importance of policies and technological innovation
in decoupling economic growth from consumption emissions. Furthermore, the latent
variable (which is easy to learn) persists and barely changes during the estimation period 2010
to 2018. We observe a decline between 2015 and 2018, despite remaining high overall.”

From a paper by Andrea Foschi, Christopher L. House, Christian Proebsting, and Linda L. Tesar:

“We examine the responsiveness of labor participation, unemployment and labor migration to
exogenous variations in labor demand. Our empirical approach considers four instruments
for regional labor demand commonly used in the literature. Empirically, we find that labor
migration is a significant margin of adjustment for all our instruments. Following an increase
in regional labor demand, the initial increase in employment is accounted for mainly through
a reduction in unemployment. Over time however, net labor in-migration becomes the dominant
factor contributing to increased regional employment. After 5 years, roughly 60 percent
of the increase in employment is explained by the change in population. Responses of labor
migration are strongest for individuals aged 20-35. Based on historical data back to the
1950s, we find no evidence of a decline in the elasticity of migration to changes in employment.”