Showing posts with label Inclusive Growth. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
The Science of Inequality
The Science Magazine has dedicated a special issue on the science of inequality, which features articles from the following authors: H. Pringle, A. Deaton, E. Pennisi, M. Ravallion, E. Marshall, T. Piketty and E. Saez, and others.
The Science Magazine has dedicated a special issue on the science of inequality, which features articles from the following authors: H. Pringle, A. Deaton, E. Pennisi, M. Ravallion, E. Marshall, T. Piketty and E. Saez, and others.
Posted by at 9:17 AM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
The IMF’s Andy Berg reviews Piketty
“This important and fascinating book surely ranks among the most influential economic analysis of recent decades. Much of the debate over inequality in recent years is the result of the work of Thomas Piketty and his fellow researchers.
Earlier research on inequality focused on data from household surveys described in terms of the “Gini” index, which measures the income distribution in a country. But the Gini misses much of the action at the top of the income distribution, partly because the very rich tend not to report all their income. And at best, these surveys measure income, not wealth.
Piketty has painstakingly drawn on new data sources to show that income inequality has risen sharply in recent decades to extremely high levels in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in a handful of other English-speaking countries. The rise has been driven mostly by wage inequality between the top 1 percent of the wealthiest in society, and everyone else. (I wish there had been room in this long book to address the critics who attribute these results to distortions in the data.)”
“This important and fascinating book surely ranks among the most influential economic analysis of recent decades. Much of the debate over inequality in recent years is the result of the work of Thomas Piketty and his fellow researchers.
Earlier research on inequality focused on data from household surveys described in terms of the “Gini” index, which measures the income distribution in a country. But the Gini misses much of the action at the top of the income distribution, Read the full article…
Posted by at 9:07 AM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
Friday, May 16, 2014
Minimum wages and firm employment: Evidence from China
Minimum wages are set to increase in China under the country’s latest five-year plan. This vox column documents that past increases led to lower employment. However, the impact is heterogeneous. Firms with high average wages or large profit margins actually increase employment, while those with low average wages or small profit margins downsize.
Minimum wages are set to increase in China under the country’s latest five-year plan. This vox column documents that past increases led to lower employment. However, the impact is heterogeneous. Firms with high average wages or large profit margins actually increase employment, while those with low average wages or small profit margins downsize.
Posted by at 11:22 AM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Minimum Wages and Employment
Do minimum wages lower or raise employment in China? Yes. That’s the answer from the paper my co-author Yi Huang presented at the University of Zurich’s Macro-Finance-Labor Seminar.
Do minimum wages lower or raise employment in China? Yes. That’s the answer from the paper my co-author Yi Huang presented at the University of Zurich’s Macro-Finance-Labor Seminar.
Posted by at 8:00 PM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
Okun Isn’t Brokun’: Sorry to Sound like a Brokun’ Record
Over the past few years, the IMF has argued that Okun isn’t brokun’—the relationship between output growth and unemployment remains tight. We’ve done so here, here, here, here, here, and here. Hear! Hear! Finally it seems we’re being heard.
An independent study by the San Francisco Fed—independent in the sense that it seems unaware of any of the 6 links given above—finds that rumors of the demise of Okun’s Law may have been exaggerated; see the WSJ story on the study.
For those tempted to say, “yes, that’s the U.S. but my country is different,” see the evidence we provide in one of the six links above on how well Okun’s Law fits for advanced economies, including high unemployment countries like Spain.
Why does it matter whether Okun’s Law holds? It’s because the alleged demise of Okun’s Law is often used as a jumping-off point to argue that the link between jobs and growth is broken, so structural reforms are needed to restore job creation. The stability of Okun’s Law, combined with evidence that the Beveridge Curve is looping back to normality, as noted by Krugman, suggests that cyclical factors may still be behind the weakness in labor markets.
Over the past few years, the IMF has argued that Okun isn’t brokun’—the relationship between output growth and unemployment remains tight. We’ve done so here, here, here, here, here, and here. Hear! Hear! Finally it seems we’re being heard.
An independent study by the San Francisco Fed—independent in the sense that it seems unaware of any of the 6 links given above—finds that rumors of the demise of Okun’s Law may have been exaggerated;
Posted by at 1:53 AM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
Subscribe to: Posts