Sunday, April 6, 2025
From a paper by Cephas Naanwaab:
“Recent trends in inequality have raised concerns among researchers and policymakers globally. The role of globalization, one of the leading forces driving this trend, continues to be intensely debated in academic and policy circles. Invoking standard trade theory, this paper analyses whether and the extent to which trade liberalization has contributed to the recent trends in inequality. The approach and findings of the paper are novel: previous studies of trade liberalization’s impact on inequality do not explicitly control the direction of trade. The empirical results show that trade liberalization is associated with decreasing income inequality overall, but contingent on the direction of trade, it has opposing effects: North–North and South–South trade are inequality-reducing while North–South trade is inequality-increasing. Simply put, liberalizing trade between countries of similar developmental levels does not raise inequality. This paper affirms, using recent data, that trade with developing countries raises inequality in developed countries. Additionally, it finds that North–South trade (particularly imports from high-income to low-income countries) may also raise inequality in developing countries, contrary to Heckscher–Ohlin–Stolper–Samuelson model predictions. Skill-biased technical change, a consequence of trade liberalization between North and South, is the main mechanism driving inequality increases in developing countries.”
From a paper by Cephas Naanwaab:
“Recent trends in inequality have raised concerns among researchers and policymakers globally. The role of globalization, one of the leading forces driving this trend, continues to be intensely debated in academic and policy circles. Invoking standard trade theory, this paper analyses whether and the extent to which trade liberalization has contributed to the recent trends in inequality. The approach and findings of the paper are novel: previous studies of trade liberalization’s impact on inequality do not explicitly control the direction of trade.
Posted by 6:24 PM
atLabels: Inclusive Growth
Saturday, April 5, 2025
From a paper by Jarosław Brodny, Magdalena Tutak, and Wieslaw Wes Grebski:
“One of the foremost challenges in today’s global economy is ensuring energy security for individual countries and regions. In the contemporary context, this security plays a pivotal role in ensuring sovereignty, fostering innovation, and bolstering competitiveness, particularly in knowledge-based economies. The pursuit of energy independence while mitigating adverse environmental impacts stands as a key priority in European Union policy. Efforts towards achieving a zero-carbon economy encompass all member states, including those in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This paper delves into this pressing issue by evaluating the sustainable energy security and policy efficiency of CEE countries over a 15-year period. This research employed a well-defined methodology, employing a multidimensional approach to address the complexity of the issue. The outcome of this approach was the development of the Sustainable Energy Security Index (SESI) for the countries under study, serving as a benchmark for evaluating energy security and policy effectiveness. Multiple Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods, including COPRAS, EDAS, MAIRCA, and the Hurwicz criterion, were utilized to determine the SESI value. Additionally, CRITIC, equal weights, standard deviation methods, and Laplace’s criterion were employed to ascertain the weights of the indices characterizing various dimensions of sustainable energy security. The findings reveal significant disparities in energy security and policy implementation effectiveness among CEE countries. Slovenia, Croatia, Latvia, Romania, and Hungary demonstrated notably strong performance, while Poland and Bulgaria lagged behind. These results underscore the necessity of integrating findings into the energy and climate strategies of both CEE countries and the EU-27 as a whole.”
From a paper by Jarosław Brodny, Magdalena Tutak, and Wieslaw Wes Grebski:
“One of the foremost challenges in today’s global economy is ensuring energy security for individual countries and regions. In the contemporary context, this security plays a pivotal role in ensuring sovereignty, fostering innovation, and bolstering competitiveness, particularly in knowledge-based economies. The pursuit of energy independence while mitigating adverse environmental impacts stands as a key priority in European Union policy.
Posted by 10:43 AM
atLabels: Energy & Climate Change
On cross-country:
Working papers and conferences:
On China:
On Australia and New Zealand:
On other countries:
On cross-country:
Working papers and conferences:
On China:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Friday, April 4, 2025
On prices, rent, and mortgage:
On sales, permits, starts, and supply:
On other developments:
On prices, rent, and mortgage:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Wednesday, April 2, 2025
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 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.
Posted by 1:17 PM
atLabels: Inclusive Growth
Subscribe to: Posts