The Unassuming Economist

A new paper “revisits the old standing issue of the stability of labour shares. […] Empirical results indicate diverse patterns in labour share movements, the most preponderant being a downward deterministic trend with break(s). Upward trends are observed in a limited set of economies (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).  Overall, the stability of the labour share hypothesis appears to find only weak support. Exploratory analysis demonstrates that most of the structural breaks are economically significant and relate to the recent economic and political history of individual economies. The nature of labour share dynamics, as a country-specific and (to a large extent) policy and political phenomenon, is emphasized.”

From a VoxEU post by Ricardo Perez-Truglia:

“Tax records became easily accessible online in Norway in 2001, allowing everyone in the country to observe the incomes of everyone else. This column offers evidence that people primarily went online to snoop on the incomes of friends, relatives, and other contacts. This game of income comparisons negatively affected the wellbeing of poorer Norwegians while at the same time boosting the self-esteem of the rich.

Technological advances have made it possible for everyone to know potentially everything about everyone else. Sci-fi shows such as Netflix’s Black Mirror imagine dystopian scenarios that could result from these new technologies. In the real world, social media is already allowing individuals to disclose details about their personal lives with strangers. This technological change has sparked a policy debate too: should governments disclose data such as tax records?

Tax transparency in Norway

To understand how far reaching the societal consequences of transparency could be, it is useful to look at the experience of one of the pioneers of transparency, namely, Norway. Tax records have been public in Norway since the 19th century, but they have not always been easily accessible. Before 2001, an individual had to make a formal request in person at a tax agency to see someone else’s income. In the fall of 2001, the Norwegian media digitised tax records and created websites that allowed any individual with internet access to search the entire country’s tax records easily and effortlessly. Every Norwegian could find out the incomes of anyone else in the country in a matter of seconds.

In the following decade, Norwegians engaged in a heated debate about whether tax records should be easily accessible online. A similar debate took place in neighbouring Sweden, Iceland, and Finland. These other Scandinavian countries also had laws making tax records public, and thus had to decide whether to make them easily available online as in Norway.

There was no consensus among politicians or the general public on whether Norway’s transparency was good or bad. At its core, the disagreement was about what the effects of transparency actually are. Some supporters argued that public records could serve to deter corrupt politicians and tax evaders (Bø et al. 2015). Meanwhile, detractors claimed that the tax records would be used in objectionable ways, to snoop on the incomes of friends, for example. Thus far, only qualitative and anecdotal evidence has substantiated this contention. In a recent paper (Perez-Truglia 2019), I provide the first quantitative evidence on the matter.

Figure 1 shows a screenshot of one of the websites that allowed Norwegians to browse the tax records. These websites were easy to use and became incredibly popular in the country for the following decade. ”

Continue reading here.

From a new IMF working paper:

“In this paper, we show that nighttime lights can be a useful source of information to improve official real GDP data. To begin with, they can be used to detect the uncertainty in official data and potential mismeasurement of real GDP. Systematic differences between the new and official measures may warrant further investigation as to what contributes to such differences. While nighttime lights can be computationally intensive to process, the method developed in this paper is not limited to nighttime lights. In fact, measures of real GDP that are conditionally independent of official data can be used in a similar fashion.”

“Figure 1 compares satellite images of nighttime lights for mainland China, […] Variation in nighttime lights may thus contain useful information on China’s real economic growth.”

Continue reading here.

From a new Econbrowser by Hie Joo Ahn and James D. Hamilton:

“We conclude that the true unemployment rate in the U.S. is 1.9% higher on average than the published estimates.”

“We also conclude that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has underestimated the labor-force participation rate by 2.2% on average and that the fall in participation has been slower than suggested by the BLS estimates.”

“On the other hand, we find that reported average unemployment durations significantly overstate the average length of an uninterrupted spell of unemployment. A big factor in this appears to be the fact noticed by Kudlyak and Lange (2018) that some individuals include periods when they were briefly employed but nonetheless looking for a better job when they give an answer to how many weeks they have been actively looking for a job.”

“Here is our paper’s conclusion:

The data underlying the CPS contain multiple internal inconsistencies. These include the facts that people’s answers change the more times they are asked the same question, stock estimates are inconsistent with flow estimates, missing observations are not random, reported unemployment durations are inconsistent with reported labor-force histories, and people prefer to report some numbers over others. Ours is the first paper to attempt a unified reconciliation of these issues. We conclude that the U.S. unemployment rate and labor-force continuation rates are higher than conventionally reported while the average duration of unemployment is considerably lower.”

From Intereconomics:

“The idea of a universal basic income (UBI) is nothing new: the concept of a guaranteed endowment paid by the government to each of its citizens dates back centuries. The UBI has gained momentum in recent years as the relative economic stability of the second half of the 20th century gave way to a more turbulent start to the new millennium. The limits of the free market and globalisation in providing a decent standard of living for every citizen were laid bare for all to see, and inequality widened in even the richest global economies. Added to this was the increasing complexity of social security systems in modern welfare states. Policymakers and civil servants had the unenviable task of deciding who was deserving of assistance, as well as policing those in the system to make sure advantage was not being taken. Proponents argue that a UBI, by simply trusting everyone with a basic income each month, could solve both of these issues. Moreover, it could also be the solution to the purportedly imminent destruction of traditional jobs due to the rise of robotics and artificial intelligence. While the idea of a UBI is intriguing, real-world implementation is anything but basic. No serious answers have been found to the question of how to finance such a system, and until a workable solution is found, a UBI is simply not feasible. Other issues that economists continue to research include the negative effects of a UBI on a person’s willingness to work and the proper size of a UBI in order to fulfil its intended purpose. The following five articles in this Forum deal with these issues in order to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of what will surely be a major topic of debate over the next decade and beyond.”

Continue reading here.