The Unassuming Economist

From a paper by Kashif Nesar Rather and Mantu Kumar Mahalik:

“The attention surrounding the climate change has gained momentum over the last two decades, with significant stress on its consequential impact on gender inequality. Simultaneously, economies are caught in an environment of heightened uncertainty, potentially exerting influence on gender disparities. Within this framework, this study attempts to empirically investigate the implications of climate change and world uncertainty for gender inequality by using a balanced panel of 100 economies between 1995 and 2021. The novelty of this study lies in its adoption of Gender Inequality Index, a comprehensive measure quantifying gender disparity using three dimensions including reproductive health, economic empowerment, and labour market. Moreover, this study has adopted two different measures: the total ecological footprint to measure environmental pressures and ND-GAIN’s Vulnerability index to capture the climate change vulnerability, thereby ensuring comprehensive proxies for climate change dynamics. The estimated models also control for the effects of globalisation, economic growth, and education expenditure. The panel cointegration tests establish a significant long-run relationship between the variables of the study. Furthermore, the long-run results of PMG-ARDL estimation technique indicate that both climate change and world uncertainty contribute to increasing the gender disparities. Additionally, the results reveal that globalisation, economic growth, and education expenditure play crucial roles in diminishing gender disparities. The reliability of these findings is further confirmed by the PCSEs and DKSE estimation techniques. Moreover, the baseline findings obtained using total ecological footprint as a measure of climate change are consistent when climate change is proxied by Vulnerability Index. Potential policy suggestions for mitigating the detrimental gender ramifications stemming from climate change and rising world uncertainties are also discussed.”

From a book chapter by Sylvio Kappes, Louis-Philippe Rochon, Guillaume Vallet:

“With the recent resurgence of inflation — which had been dormant for the better part of the last 3 decades — monetary policy has once again taken centre stage as the only possible policy solution to inflation or the only game in town. Fiscal policy was never considered, and there has been no mention of the possibility of using fiscal policy to fight inflation except in some heterodox circles. As such, the entire responsibility to fight inflation was laid at the feet of independent central banks.”

From a paper by João Tovar Jalles, and André Teixeira:

“This paper explores the impact of fiscal consolidations on banking behavior, focusing on efficiency and stability. Using a panel dataset covering 194 countries from 1989 to 2020 and employing local projection methods, we find that fiscal consolidations improve bank stability at the expense of efficiency. The decline in efficiency is attributed to reduced operational income, while stability gains stem from improved asset quality and bolstered capital adequacy. The effects are heterogeneous: consolidations have a more substantial negative impact on efficiency in advanced economies, while stability improvements are more pronounced in emerging markets. The size and composition of fiscal adjustments also matter: tax-based consolidations favor stability more than expenditure-based ones. Robustness checks with alternative definitions of fiscal consolidations and non-linear models confirm these findings. The findings emphasize the importance of tailoring fiscal consolidations to country-specific factors to balance stability and efficiency in the banking sector.”

From a paper by Yoosoon Chang, Soyoung Kim, and Joon Y. Park:

“This paper investigates the interactions between macroeconomic aggregates and income distribution
by developing a structural VAR model with functional variables. With this novel empirical approach, we are able to identify and analyze the effects of various shocks to the income distribution on macro aggregates, as well as the effects of macroeconomic shocks on the income distribution. Our main findings are as follows: First, contractionary monetary policy shocks reduce income inequality when focusing solely on the redistributive effects, without considering the negative impact on aggregate income levels. This improvement is achieved by reducing the number of low and high-income families while increasing the proportion of middle-income families. However, when the aggregate income shift is also taken into account, contractionary monetary policy shocks worsen income inequality. Second, shocks to the income distribution have a substantial effect on output fluctuations. For example, income distribution shocks identified to maximize future output levels have a significant and persistent positive effect on output, contributing up to 30% at long horizons and over 50% for the lowest income percentiles. However, alternative income distribution shocks identified to minimize the future Gini index do not have any significant negative effects on output. This finding, combined with the positive effect of output-maximizing income distribution shocks on equality, suggests that properly designed redistributive policies are not subject to the often-claimed trade-off between growth and equality. Moreover, variations in income distribution are primarily explained by shocks to the income distribution itself, rather than by aggregate shocks, including monetary shocks. This highlights the need for redistributive policies to substantially alter the income distribution and reduce inequality.”

See here a PPT by Torsten Slok, Rajvi Shah, and Shruti Galwankar on quantifying the impact of DOGE and tariffs on GDP and inflation.