The Unassuming Economist

From a paper by Panagiotis E. Petrakis, Giorgos Vasilis, and Anna-Maria Kanzola:

“This chapter explores major economic megatrends shaping the global economy, focusing on three transformative forces: persistent economic inequality, the rising global debt, and the shift in global economic power from the West to the East and South. It examines how historical developments, technological progress, globalization, and crises such as the 2008 financial collapse and the Covid-19 pandemic have contributed to growing inequalities. The chapter also analyzes the continuous increase in global debt, highlighting its implications for financial stability and long-term growth. Lastly, it discusses the rebalancing of global economic power, emphasizing the roles of emerging economies, particularly in Asia, and the challenges posed by a multipolar world. These trends are framed as critical for understanding the future trajectory of global economic and political dynamics.”

From a post by by Jay Kulkarni and Susan Thomas:

The economic well-being of households is primarily about their ability to spend on consumption. Household consumption is dominated by what the income of the household is, but not limited by it. Households that spend less than they earn, build their savings. Households that spend more than they earn either borrow or draw down on earlier savings. There is a big difference in the life-cycle possibilities between households that manage to save versus those that do not. In this article, we analyse a panel dataset of Indian households to understand what differentiates households who live within, or beyond, their means.

An often discussed measure of the household’s income-consumption dynamic is the `marginal propensity to consume’ or MPC, which is the marginal change in consumption for a marginal change in income. The MPC is a valuable part of the toolkit of macroeconomics. An equally important measure is the ‘average propensity to consume’ (which is abbreviated as APC). This is the fraction of disposable income that the household consumes. The APC shows the income-consumption dynamics of a household in a stated time period. When the APC is below 1, the household is saving, and on average, building up its wealth. There is a clear line between low APC households (i.e. those with APC below 1), who are building up wealth, vs. the households that are not.

In an advanced economy, we think of the APC as a part of life cycle optimisations. When an affluent and financial unconstrained household is young, it builds up savings (i.e. low APC), and then it dis-saves in old age (i.e. high APC). In a poor country, we see many households who are dis-saving even when they are young. Building up wealth versus drawing down wealth takes on a different character in the context of a low middle income economy (Badarinza et al, 2019).

Aggregate facts about household APC, and its covariates, are an important element of understanding India. This article aims to establish such facts. What is the average household APC in India? What fraction of households have a low APC? Do higher income households have a low APC? Do low APC households have lower income volatility? Are low APC households systematically older households? What is the connection between financial inclusion and household APC?”

Continue reading here.

From a paper by Yu Yang, Qi Zhang, A-Min Zhao, and Hui Gao:

“This study investigates whether China’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) can simultaneously achieve carbon emission reductions and economic growth—a dual objective often described as “having the best of both worlds.” Utilizing panel data from 2508 counties spanning 2000 to 2020, we treat the implementation of the ETS as a quasi-natural experiment and employ a staggered difference-in-differences (DID) approach to evaluate its effects. The results show that the ETS significantly reduces carbon emissions while promoting industry output, confirming the compatibility of environmental and economic objectives. Robustness checks confirm the stability of the estimates. Mechanism analyses reveal that the policy’s success is primarily driven by technological innovation and enhanced environmental regulation. Heterogeneity analyses indicate that the ETS’s effectiveness is more pronounced in cities with stronger industrial foundations, higher enforcement capacity, and those located in the Yangtze River Basin. This research contributes to the environmental economics literature by offering evidence at the county level and provides actionable policy insights for the design and regional tailoring of market-based environmental regulation tools.”

From a paper by Fabio Anobile, Marco Maria Matarrese, Alberto Costantiello, and Lucio Laureti:

“Income inequality poses significant challenges to economic development, social stability, and sustainable growth. While some studies argue that expansionary monetary policies exacerbate inequality by benefiting financial asset holders, others suggest they reduce inequality through job creation and economic stimulation. This study investigates the relationship between monetary policy and inequality, focusing on both conventional (federal funds rate) and unconventional (shadow rate) measures. Given the limitations of traditional interest rate indicators, the shadow rate offers a more comprehensive assessment of monetary policy effects, particularly in zero-lower-bound conditions. Employing a structural vector autoregression (SVAR) model with Cholesky decomposition, this research analyses the short-run effects of monetary policy on inequality. The findings highlight that the shadow rate provides a more accurate representation of monetary policy’s impact on inequality compared to conventional measures, emphasizing the need for refined analytical tools in economic policy analysis. Policymakers should update models to reflect evolving transmission mechanisms, ensuring more accurate assessments and effective decisions.”

From a paper by Glen Biglaiser , Ibrahim Kocaman , Sebastian M Saiegh , and Ronald McGauvran:

“The association between tax havens and income distribution in home states of multinational corporations has attracted much attention. However, studies have not empirically investigated whether there is also a relationship between low-tax jurisdictions and income inequality in host countries. Our findings, based on data from 152 countries spanning 1972–2020 and a range of econometric strategies, reveal a robust positive relationship between tax haven status and domestic income inequality, with tax havens associated with higher market-income (i.e. pretax and pretransfer) Gini indexes, and estimated postadoption Gini coefficients being larger by an average of 0.54 compared to what would be expected based on global trends, country characteristics, and observable economic factors. We also observe that compensatory tax policies, as well as the type of economic activities attracted by tax havens and their implications for labor markets, seem to mediate this relationship. Our results suggest that low-tax jurisdictions economically harm lower income groups in host countries.”