Sunday, February 6, 2022
New post by Timothy Taylor.
“The Olympic Summer Games were held in Beijing in 2008. Now the Winter Games are being held there in 2022. For the sake of the athletes who will be inhaling and exhaling more frequently and deeply than usual in the next few weeks, how has the air quality changed? Michael Greenstone, Guojun He, and Ken Lee discuss the evidence in “The 2008 Olympics to the 2022 Olympics: China’s Fight to Win its War Against Pollution” (February 2022, Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago). They write:
In the years before the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, pollution in China had been sharply climbing. The government responded with quick reforms that temporarily reduced pollution during the games. The reforms, however, only managed to slow the climb in the long run. By 2013, pollution in China had reached record levels. The following year, the same year Beijing applied to host the 2022 Olympic Games, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang declared a “war against pollution” and vowed that China would tackle pollution with the same determination it used to tackle poverty. Seven years later, pollution has declined dramatically by about 40 percent. In Beijing, there is half as much pollution compared to both 2008 and 2013 levels. In most areas of China, pollution has fallen to levels not seen in more than two decades.”
Read more here.https://conversableeconomist.wpcomstaging.com/
New post by Timothy Taylor.
“The Olympic Summer Games were held in Beijing in 2008. Now the Winter Games are being held there in 2022. For the sake of the athletes who will be inhaling and exhaling more frequently and deeply than usual in the next few weeks, how has the air quality changed? Michael Greenstone, Guojun He, and Ken Lee discuss the evidence in “The 2008 Olympics to the 2022 Olympics: China’s Fight to Win its War Against Pollution” (February 2022,
Posted by at 9:49 AM
Labels: Energy & Climate Change
Saturday, February 5, 2022
Source: IMF Working Paper
Abstract:
“This paper provides an overview of the relation between tax policy and gender equality, covering labor, capital and wealth, as well as consumption taxes. It considers implicit and explicit gender biases and corrective taxation. On labor taxes, we (the authors) discuss the well-established findings on female labor supply and present new empirical work on the impact of household taxation. We also analyze the impact of progressivity on pay gaps and labor supply. On capital and wealth taxation, we discuss the implications of lower effective capital income taxation on the personal income tax burden gap across genders. We show that countries with relatively low female shares of capital income and wealth also tend to tax property and inheritances particularly lightly. On consumption taxes, we cover taxes on female hygiene products and excise taxes, which we assess in relation to externalities and differences in consumption patterns across genders.”
Source: IMF Working Paper
Abstract:
“This paper provides an overview of the relation between tax policy and gender equality, covering labor, capital and wealth, as well as consumption taxes. It considers implicit and explicit gender biases and corrective taxation. On labor taxes, we (the authors) discuss the well-established findings on female labor supply and present new empirical work on the impact of household taxation. We also analyze the impact of progressivity on pay gaps and labor supply.
Posted by at 1:43 PM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
Friday, February 4, 2022
One of the most significant stylized facts in the U.S. economy since the 1970s has been the decline in the share of national income accruing to labor. Many recent studies have sought to explain this trend, with most explanations focusing on structural changes such as deindustrialization, globalization, financialization, rising market concentration, and technological change.
In this paper, the authors argue that these forces primarily operate through a bargaining power channel measured by the cost of job loss and that the reduction in labor’s share of income has been driven by lower bargaining power for workers. They examine various parameters for the US between 1960 and 2016 to test this hypothesis and conclude that structural changes such as globalization (Furceri and Loungani, 2018) and weak economic performance in the US have increased inequality over time.
Click here to read the full paper.
One of the most significant stylized facts in the U.S. economy since the 1970s has been the decline in the share of national income accruing to labor. Many recent studies have sought to explain this trend, with most explanations focusing on structural changes such as deindustrialization, globalization, financialization, rising market concentration, and technological change.
In this paper, the authors argue that these forces primarily operate through a bargaining power channel measured by the cost of job loss and that the reduction in labor’s share of income has been driven by lower bargaining power for workers.
Posted by at 1:23 PM
Labels: Inclusive Growth
On cross-country:
On the US:
On China
On other countries:
On cross-country:
Posted by at 5:00 AM
Labels: Global Housing Watch
Thursday, February 3, 2022
New NBER Working paper by Nicholas Bloom, Takafumi Kawakubo, Charlotte Meng, Paul Mizen, Rebecca Riley, Tatsuro Senga & John Van Reenen.
“We link a new UK management survey covering 8,000 firms to panel data on productivity in manufacturing and services. There is a large variation in management practices, which are highly correlated with productivity, profitability and size. Uniquely, the survey collects firms’ micro forecasts of their own sales and also macro forecasts of GDP. We find that better managed firms make more accurate micro and macro forecasts, even after controlling for their size, age, industry and many other factors. We also show better managed firms appear aware that their forecasts are more accurate, with lower subjective uncertainty around central values. These stylized facts suggest that one reason for the superior performance of better managed firms is that they knowingly make more accurate forecasts, enabling them to make superior operational and strategic choices.”
Read more here.
New NBER Working paper by Nicholas Bloom, Takafumi Kawakubo, Charlotte Meng, Paul Mizen, Rebecca Riley, Tatsuro Senga & John Van Reenen.
“We link a new UK management survey covering 8,000 firms to panel data on productivity in manufacturing and services. There is a large variation in management practices, which are highly correlated with productivity, profitability and size. Uniquely, the survey collects firms’ micro forecasts of their own sales and also macro forecasts of GDP.
Posted by at 2:22 PM
Labels: Forecasting Forum
Subscribe to: Posts