The Unassuming Economist

From a paper by Alberto Botta, Danilo Spinola , Giuliano Yajima, and Gabriel Porcile:

“This paper studies the relationship between financial integration, external debt sustainability and fiscal balance in emerging and developing economies (EDEs). We do so by applying Pasinetti’s ‘geometry of debt sustainability’ to EDEs and analysing how it is shaped by exposure to global financial cycles. Through the lenses of Pasinetti’s theoretical framework, we study whether global finance opens ‘windows of opportunities’ or creates more constraints for EDEs in offering fiscal support for structural change, including green structural transformations. We suggest EDEs may face a ‘gridlock’. Global finance and pressures to keep external debt sustainable make them struggle to maintain vital public investment and enact counter-cyclical fiscal actions. This, in turn, exacerbates technological backwardness, which feeds back in the form of more binding external constraints and tighter ‘surveillance’ by international creditors. We support our theoretical analysis with an econometric study over a sample of 55 countries from 1980 to 2018. Capital controls and external macroprudential policy emerge as fundamental policies enabling EDEs to adeptly manoeuvre through debt challenges without falling into the pitfalls of stagnation and enduring technological underdevelopment.”

From a paper by Maridueña-Larrea, Ángel; Martín-Román, Ángel; Porras-Arena, Sylvina:

“This study analyses the relationship between unemployment and economic growth at the
international level, addressing the nature and decomposition of the Okun coefficient. Using World
Bank data from 173 countries between 1991 and 2019, econometric techniques including
decompositions and spatial dependence analysis are applied. First, the validity of Okun’s law is
confirmed, noting the heterogeneity of the coefficient across countries, suggesting the need for
context-specific approaches to improve labour dynamics. Second, the evidence underlines the
importance of labour productivity over labour supply as a key determinant of the unemploymentoutput relationship. Finally, the identification of spatial patterns highlights the interdependence
between neighbouring economies, justifying coordinated strategies at the regional level to boost
employment. These results provide valuable guidelines for the design of more effective public
policies, adapted to the productive and labour realities of each country and capable of exploiting
of the synergies arising from economic integration.”

From a paper by Keyang Zhan & Zhengning Pu:

“Firms, in response to risk response, tend to avoid and transfer the risks associated with climate policy uncertainty (CPU) as much as possible, which in turn has a profound impact on household income. We use Chinese prefecture-level cities as the research sample to examine the economic impact of CPU on income inequality. We find that (1) CPU exacerbates income inequality by promoting agglomeration effect, technological bias effect, and automation effect. (2) The negative impact of CPU on income inequality is not obvious in the central region, high administrative level, high capital allocation ability, low labour allocation ability and resource-based cities. (3) Shock duration, effects (as opposed to climate physical risks), and other impacts are examined. Command-and-control environmental regulations can mitigate the potential impacts of CPU, whereas market-based environmental regulations have limited effectiveness. This study examines the potential impacts of CPU on balanced development and high-quality development, providing new insights for the formulation of climate policies and the management of policy risks associated with climate change.”

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 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.”