On democracy and tuition hikes

Some students in Quebec have now been on strike for over three months over a law that would increase the tuition in all universities (they are all public) by a total of about US$1500 over five years. This seems a rather trivial amount for a US student, but in countries where tuition is free or almost free, this is not trivial. The apparent violence of the protests, which have gone all the way to sabotaging the subway system, and the daily protest marches show there is some deep issue at play. Let me add my grain of salt on two points.

The first is about democracy. I am all for popular uprisings, demonstrations and marches when there is a failure in the democratic process that leads the government to take decisions that are against the public good. Frankly, I do not see where the failure of democracy is in this case. The law was adopted by a democratically elected government. While Quebec is a province with severe corruption issues (for Western standards), the electoral process seems clean. Polls appear to show wide support for the government's policies. Even the striking students are a minority in the student population. The street should not hold the democratic process and sound policy making hostages.

Which brings me to the second point. Apparent popular support in the polls may be a reaction to the violence and radicalization of the student movement. It may not be about sound policy. But it should. Indeed, the main argument for low tuition is that it makes university access affordable to everyone. That is right, but it is also a gigantic gift to the rich, who send their children much more frequently and much longer to university. If you add the costs and the taxes, giving free tuition is equivalent to a very regressive taxation. I do not think that this is the goal. The goal is to get everyone to pay their fair share in education, for which the future personal benefits in present value are very large. Tuition should be subsidized because of the positive externalities of education, but those that benefit the most from it should also pay the most for it. If students cannot afford studies right now, then grants and loans can overcome that. But the fact that some students cannot afford to study should not lead to a policy where higher education is free, or almost free, for everyone.

The Quebec government is right on this one, and the street is wrong.

Why are seasonal immigrant worker programs so unpopular?

Immigration policy is difficult to optimize, first because some economic rents are at stake, second because people do not want to share the luck of being born in the right place and at the right moment with foreigners who do not have that luck. But even within that context, a policy of seasonal immigration should be easy to adopt, as everybody wins: immigrants are let in only when labor demand is very high and cannot be met by locals, and the immigrants leave when the labor demand is back to normal. And the immigrants are willing to go for it, as it provides good income that is valued as they return home. This is a winning proposition for everyone, yet such policies are rare, and when they exist, they are little used. Why?

Danielle Hay and Stephen Howes take the example of Australia, where such a policy has been adopted for the horticulture industry but little used. It appears growers are reluctant to hire seasonals even when they have trouble finding workers. Either they are unaware, or they are afraid of red tape, or they prefer to hire back-packers (illegals) who show up on their doorstep. So it appears that once more, the fact that illegals can be exploited runs counter to good policy. Again, I appeal that we should give give each worker, legal or not, the same rights. Another win-win proposition.

Good News

The Senate confirms Jeremy Stein and Jerome Powell to the Federal Reserve Board.

Why we need small countries: they experiment with policies

Small countries are often considered a nuisance. They are sometimes tax havens that annoy larger countries because it increases tax competition. They have more weight than their size in international organizations (UN, European Commission, ECB) or sports organizations (FIFA), which at least in the latter case encourages corruption. And they increase sample sizes in cross-country regressions without truly adding information, sometimes leading to erroneous results. But small countries are also great because it allows to experiment with policies.

That is the argument of Jeffrey Frankel. He gives plenty of examples of innovative policies adopted in small countries that turned out to be good choices. In many cases, it looks like larger countries would also benefit from adopting them, that is, smallness is not a necessary condition for success. A good read with a boatload of interesting anecdotes to bring up in conversation.

What to do when people expect the government to default on its debt

The situation in Greece is rapidly getting worse, with clear signs that a bank run is in the works, mainly because there is no party majority that would avoid a default on the public debt. In such a situation, what should the fiscal policy be? Clearly, the budgets have to be reduced dramatically as no one would be willing to lend to the government and the government can only pay with cash (which is not the new drachma, as no one will trust that either and we would have immediate hyperinflation and the complete collapse of public services). This is why the government has no choice but to honor its debts if it wants to continue offering public goods, and this is what the Greeks want, I think.

So then, what should happen if the government is committed to pay the debt, but the public does not believe it? For advice, we can turn to the recent paper by Francesco Caprioli, Pietro Rizza and Pietro Tommasino. Suppose economic agents eventually and gradually learn about the good dispositions of the government. They also believe there is a positive correlation between the level of debt and the probability of default. The consequence of these very reasonable assumptions is that government expenses need absolutely to be reduced after a negative tax revenue shock. The first reason is that the interest rate goes up and worsens the situation, the second is that the government needs to keep the debt low to avoid fueling more default expectations, not just today but also in the future due to inertia of beliefs. This is in stark contrast from a situation where the government can credibly commit to repaying the debt: then, debt can effectively be used to smooth out fluctuations in tax revenue.

Greece is so screwed.

California Fact of the Day

"A ballot initiative this November would give California a whopping 13.3 percent top marginal rate for state income taxes."

Source.

Wealth exemptions do not matter in bankruptcy

The major aspect in bankruptcy law variation across states in the US is the wealth exemption. Some states protect substantial wealth from the creditors, the prime example being Texas where housing is exempted without limits, plus $30,000 per spouse. Maryland, however, exempts only $11,000 total personal property plus about $20,000 in owner-occupied housing. This considerable source of variation ought to lead to cross-state variation in bankruptcy rates, as several models would predict, yet the data does not show it.

Jochen Mankart explains why. He uses a life-cycle model where households borrow and save, and they are subject to a variety of shocks, the most relevant being health expense shocks, the most common trigger of bankruptcy in the United States. Varying bankruptcy exemptions, he finds no significant change in bankruptcy rates. The reason is quite simple: those who file for bankruptcy are so poor they have nothing left anyway, thus exemptions do not matter to them. Where it matters though is in the savings rate. Higher exemptions encourages especially the poor to save more. To boot, the model solves the credit card puzzle (see posts 1 and 2).