The Unassuming Economist

From a new IMF working paper:

“We investigate the link between gender inequality in financial inclusion and income inequality, with three contributions to the recent literature. First, using a micro-dataset covering 146,000 individuals in over 140 countries, we construct novel, synthetic indices of the intensity of financial inclusion at the individual and country level. Second, we derive the distribution of individual financial access “scores” across countries to document a “Kuznets”-curve in financial inclusion. Third, cross-country regressions confirm that our measure of inequality in financial access is significantly related to income inequality, above and beyond other factors previously highlighted in the literature.”

From a new IMF working paper:

“Data show that middle-income households have continued to move down, and less so up, the income distribution in the United States since the 1970s—a phenomenon that is often referred to as the polarization or “hollowing out” of the income distribution. While the level of income polarization is generally lower in the richer states (defined as those with higher median household income levels), there have been wide variations in income polarization over time and across states. We develop two indices to measure income polarization, including a novel hollowing-out index. We also examine the proximate causes of income polarization, using an econometric analysis at both state and household levels. The results suggest that technology, measured by job routinization, and international trade, measured by job offshoring, can explain more than half of the rise in income polarization, with broadly equal contributions. Household characteristics, particularly better education, have had important countervailing effects on income polarization. Policies should continue promoting technological progress and international trade, but also recognize that these positive forces have important side-effects on the income distribution and household welfare that need to be understood and mitigated.”

Dani Rodrik says:

“That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that center-left politicians—Democrats in the United States, Socialists and Social Democrats in Europe—enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatization, financial liberalization, and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion remains infused with norms and principles supposedly grounded in homo economicus.

But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the mark. There is nothing wrong with markets, private entrepreneurship, or incentives—when deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant economic achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of neoliberalism’s useful ideas.

The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper understanding of the economics that lies behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify—and to reject—ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly it would help us develop the institutional imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for the twenty-first century.”

Here’s the rest of the article.

Interesting presentation by Stansbury and Summers.

Roads or schools? It’s a question akin to the “guns or butter” choice that governments around the world confronted in the 20^th century: How to spend a nation’s finite resources to produce the maximum benefit for its people. A new IMF working paper finds that low-income countries tend to spend less on schools than on roads as a share of GDP.

“In the presence of distortionary taxation and debt aversion, the different pace at which roads and schools contribute to economic growth turns out to be central to this decision. Specifically, while costs are front-loaded for both types of investment, the growth benefits of schools accrue with a delay. To put things in perspective, with a ‘big push’, even assuming a large (15 percent) return differential in favor of schools, the government would still limit the fraction of the investment scale-up going to schools to about a half. Besides debt aversion, political myopia also turns out to be a crucial determinant of public investment composition. A ‘big push’, by accelerating growth outcomes, mitigates myopia—but at the expense of greater risks to fiscal and debt sustainability. Tied concessional financing and grants can potentially mitigate the adverse effects of both debt aversion and political myopia”