Throughout the last crisis, there has been much talk about excessive borrowing by individuals (and countries), and how this seems to follow some irrational behavior. We have to understand here that irrationality is a very strong concept, in the sense that people would knowingly take decisions that are against their best interest. I am not saying this does not happen, but ignorance and wrong beliefs can lead to behavior that looks irrational but is in fact perfectly rational.
Ari Hyytinen and Hanna Putkuri explore some data from Finland and find that those who borrow excessively do so because they are much more optimistic about future outcomes. Believing that future incomes will be high seems a perfectly rational justification for borrowing, especially when the lender seems to share this assessment. What is more worrisome though is that those overly optimistic households have more difficulties revising their expectations when faced with evidence. Maybe they hate it to be proven wrong (who does not?). Maybe it is Finnish bankruptcy law that encourages them to go for broke once a point of no return is reached. The latter would be perfectly rational again.
19 Haziran 2012 Salı
18 Haziran 2012 Pazartesi
I inspire a contest
The folks over at New Economic Perspectives are sponsoring a contest "offering t-shirts to the top three readers who identify passages that contain the worst predictive and policy follies in Mankiw’s textbook."
That is very helpful. Thanks! I am always trying to find mistakes, omissions, and ambiguities in the book so I can improve the next edition. I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
That is very helpful. Thanks! I am always trying to find mistakes, omissions, and ambiguities in the book so I can improve the next edition. I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
About agricultural policies in developing economies
Policy advice and intervention in the poorest developing economies are all about agricultural policy. How to increase crop yields, how to select crops, how to empower various players, how to get them onto markets. The results, overall, have been dismal: the poorest countries have grown less than the world average, thus they are getting even poorer in relative terms. The reaction to this? Thinking even harder about agricultural policy and intervention.
A recent example is a paper by Erik Jonasson, Mateusz Filipski, Jonathan Brooks and Edward Taylor that builds an elaborate model that tries to understand why some farmers do not participate in markets, which should help in specialization and reaping gains from it. They then evaluate the impact of various policies, and find some could lead to improvements in welfare, but nothing dramatic.
Yet, the most important change that should be contemplated is completely absent from this paper: getting subsistence farmers away from agriculture altogether. Obviously, they are not living in areas that are good for farming, so why to reinforce their dependence on the wrong trade. Countries with excess of labor supply should rather industrialize and import if necessary food. This is where the gains from specialization (and trade) are.
A recent example is a paper by Erik Jonasson, Mateusz Filipski, Jonathan Brooks and Edward Taylor that builds an elaborate model that tries to understand why some farmers do not participate in markets, which should help in specialization and reaping gains from it. They then evaluate the impact of various policies, and find some could lead to improvements in welfare, but nothing dramatic.
Yet, the most important change that should be contemplated is completely absent from this paper: getting subsistence farmers away from agriculture altogether. Obviously, they are not living in areas that are good for farming, so why to reinforce their dependence on the wrong trade. Countries with excess of labor supply should rather industrialize and import if necessary food. This is where the gains from specialization (and trade) are.
15 Haziran 2012 Cuma
Using unemployment insurance to compensate for losses from opening trade
It is quite obvious that the gains from trade are positive, but implementing a free trade agreement obviously also implies some losses, in particular for workers whose skills were locked into the industry that just opened up. The implementation of some free trade agreements includes some compensation for such workers, but it is not much used if available. Why? And why would we need such compensation schemes at all?
Indeed, Marco de Pinto points out that unemployment insurance fulfills this role remarkably well. Those who benefit the most from the free trade agreement, and work, contribute to it, while those who lost, and are unemployed, receive insurance benefits. And if the unemployment insurance is not actuarially fair, that is OK, as it corresponds to a side-payment to the losers (no pun intended). But of course, the necessary taxation is distorting to the point of destroying the gains from trade. In such a context, it appears to be better to finance the unemployment insurance with a wage tax, as it neutral on all markets, in particular because under unionized labor markets, after tax wages are unchanged in aggregate. A profit tax is worse, but better than a payroll tax because it does not reduce labor demand for low-skilled workers as much.
Indeed, Marco de Pinto points out that unemployment insurance fulfills this role remarkably well. Those who benefit the most from the free trade agreement, and work, contribute to it, while those who lost, and are unemployed, receive insurance benefits. And if the unemployment insurance is not actuarially fair, that is OK, as it corresponds to a side-payment to the losers (no pun intended). But of course, the necessary taxation is distorting to the point of destroying the gains from trade. In such a context, it appears to be better to finance the unemployment insurance with a wage tax, as it neutral on all markets, in particular because under unionized labor markets, after tax wages are unchanged in aggregate. A profit tax is worse, but better than a payroll tax because it does not reduce labor demand for low-skilled workers as much.
14 Haziran 2012 Perşembe
Why LIFO beats FIFO
When I write a blog post, it is usually about the last paper I read. I draw from a pile that goes by the LIFO principle, "last in, first out." That guarantees that my "stories" are super-fresh, but when there is nothing I go down the pile. I could use the FIFO principle, "first in, first out," which would give each paper a fair chance to be featured, but then I may end up with papers that are always older, instead of just occasionally (there are several dozen papers on the pile). Well, it turns out my principle is in fact better than FIFO (well not exactly, my case is different, but anyway).
Trine Tornøe Platz and Lars Peter Østerdal model a situation where people queue for service (say, boarding an airplane), where there is a bottleneck but it is open at all times. Agents then decide to queue depending on the way they are served. Suppose the cost of waiting is linear in time, people like to be served early, and everyone can be served. Then it is better to implement LIFO than FIFO. Indeed under FIFO, there is no reason for people to wait, they all come at the earliest possible time and have to wait the longest possible period. Under LIFO, there is less of an incentive to come early, indeed the first ones are not served first if anybody arrives right after. Waiting time is then reduced and everybody is better off, in expected terms.
Trine Tornøe Platz and Lars Peter Østerdal model a situation where people queue for service (say, boarding an airplane), where there is a bottleneck but it is open at all times. Agents then decide to queue depending on the way they are served. Suppose the cost of waiting is linear in time, people like to be served early, and everyone can be served. Then it is better to implement LIFO than FIFO. Indeed under FIFO, there is no reason for people to wait, they all come at the earliest possible time and have to wait the longest possible period. Under LIFO, there is less of an incentive to come early, indeed the first ones are not served first if anybody arrives right after. Waiting time is then reduced and everybody is better off, in expected terms.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
19 Haziran 2012 Salı
Optimism and debt overload
Throughout the last crisis, there has been much talk about excessive borrowing by individuals (and countries), and how this seems to follow some irrational behavior. We have to understand here that irrationality is a very strong concept, in the sense that people would knowingly take decisions that are against their best interest. I am not saying this does not happen, but ignorance and wrong beliefs can lead to behavior that looks irrational but is in fact perfectly rational.
Ari Hyytinen and Hanna Putkuri explore some data from Finland and find that those who borrow excessively do so because they are much more optimistic about future outcomes. Believing that future incomes will be high seems a perfectly rational justification for borrowing, especially when the lender seems to share this assessment. What is more worrisome though is that those overly optimistic households have more difficulties revising their expectations when faced with evidence. Maybe they hate it to be proven wrong (who does not?). Maybe it is Finnish bankruptcy law that encourages them to go for broke once a point of no return is reached. The latter would be perfectly rational again.
Ari Hyytinen and Hanna Putkuri explore some data from Finland and find that those who borrow excessively do so because they are much more optimistic about future outcomes. Believing that future incomes will be high seems a perfectly rational justification for borrowing, especially when the lender seems to share this assessment. What is more worrisome though is that those overly optimistic households have more difficulties revising their expectations when faced with evidence. Maybe they hate it to be proven wrong (who does not?). Maybe it is Finnish bankruptcy law that encourages them to go for broke once a point of no return is reached. The latter would be perfectly rational again.
18 Haziran 2012 Pazartesi
I inspire a contest
The folks over at New Economic Perspectives are sponsoring a contest "offering t-shirts to the top three readers who identify passages that contain the worst predictive and policy follies in Mankiw’s textbook."
That is very helpful. Thanks! I am always trying to find mistakes, omissions, and ambiguities in the book so I can improve the next edition. I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
That is very helpful. Thanks! I am always trying to find mistakes, omissions, and ambiguities in the book so I can improve the next edition. I look forward to seeing what they come up with.
About agricultural policies in developing economies
Policy advice and intervention in the poorest developing economies are all about agricultural policy. How to increase crop yields, how to select crops, how to empower various players, how to get them onto markets. The results, overall, have been dismal: the poorest countries have grown less than the world average, thus they are getting even poorer in relative terms. The reaction to this? Thinking even harder about agricultural policy and intervention.
A recent example is a paper by Erik Jonasson, Mateusz Filipski, Jonathan Brooks and Edward Taylor that builds an elaborate model that tries to understand why some farmers do not participate in markets, which should help in specialization and reaping gains from it. They then evaluate the impact of various policies, and find some could lead to improvements in welfare, but nothing dramatic.
Yet, the most important change that should be contemplated is completely absent from this paper: getting subsistence farmers away from agriculture altogether. Obviously, they are not living in areas that are good for farming, so why to reinforce their dependence on the wrong trade. Countries with excess of labor supply should rather industrialize and import if necessary food. This is where the gains from specialization (and trade) are.
A recent example is a paper by Erik Jonasson, Mateusz Filipski, Jonathan Brooks and Edward Taylor that builds an elaborate model that tries to understand why some farmers do not participate in markets, which should help in specialization and reaping gains from it. They then evaluate the impact of various policies, and find some could lead to improvements in welfare, but nothing dramatic.
Yet, the most important change that should be contemplated is completely absent from this paper: getting subsistence farmers away from agriculture altogether. Obviously, they are not living in areas that are good for farming, so why to reinforce their dependence on the wrong trade. Countries with excess of labor supply should rather industrialize and import if necessary food. This is where the gains from specialization (and trade) are.
15 Haziran 2012 Cuma
Using unemployment insurance to compensate for losses from opening trade
It is quite obvious that the gains from trade are positive, but implementing a free trade agreement obviously also implies some losses, in particular for workers whose skills were locked into the industry that just opened up. The implementation of some free trade agreements includes some compensation for such workers, but it is not much used if available. Why? And why would we need such compensation schemes at all?
Indeed, Marco de Pinto points out that unemployment insurance fulfills this role remarkably well. Those who benefit the most from the free trade agreement, and work, contribute to it, while those who lost, and are unemployed, receive insurance benefits. And if the unemployment insurance is not actuarially fair, that is OK, as it corresponds to a side-payment to the losers (no pun intended). But of course, the necessary taxation is distorting to the point of destroying the gains from trade. In such a context, it appears to be better to finance the unemployment insurance with a wage tax, as it neutral on all markets, in particular because under unionized labor markets, after tax wages are unchanged in aggregate. A profit tax is worse, but better than a payroll tax because it does not reduce labor demand for low-skilled workers as much.
Indeed, Marco de Pinto points out that unemployment insurance fulfills this role remarkably well. Those who benefit the most from the free trade agreement, and work, contribute to it, while those who lost, and are unemployed, receive insurance benefits. And if the unemployment insurance is not actuarially fair, that is OK, as it corresponds to a side-payment to the losers (no pun intended). But of course, the necessary taxation is distorting to the point of destroying the gains from trade. In such a context, it appears to be better to finance the unemployment insurance with a wage tax, as it neutral on all markets, in particular because under unionized labor markets, after tax wages are unchanged in aggregate. A profit tax is worse, but better than a payroll tax because it does not reduce labor demand for low-skilled workers as much.
14 Haziran 2012 Perşembe
Why LIFO beats FIFO
When I write a blog post, it is usually about the last paper I read. I draw from a pile that goes by the LIFO principle, "last in, first out." That guarantees that my "stories" are super-fresh, but when there is nothing I go down the pile. I could use the FIFO principle, "first in, first out," which would give each paper a fair chance to be featured, but then I may end up with papers that are always older, instead of just occasionally (there are several dozen papers on the pile). Well, it turns out my principle is in fact better than FIFO (well not exactly, my case is different, but anyway).
Trine Tornøe Platz and Lars Peter Østerdal model a situation where people queue for service (say, boarding an airplane), where there is a bottleneck but it is open at all times. Agents then decide to queue depending on the way they are served. Suppose the cost of waiting is linear in time, people like to be served early, and everyone can be served. Then it is better to implement LIFO than FIFO. Indeed under FIFO, there is no reason for people to wait, they all come at the earliest possible time and have to wait the longest possible period. Under LIFO, there is less of an incentive to come early, indeed the first ones are not served first if anybody arrives right after. Waiting time is then reduced and everybody is better off, in expected terms.
Trine Tornøe Platz and Lars Peter Østerdal model a situation where people queue for service (say, boarding an airplane), where there is a bottleneck but it is open at all times. Agents then decide to queue depending on the way they are served. Suppose the cost of waiting is linear in time, people like to be served early, and everyone can be served. Then it is better to implement LIFO than FIFO. Indeed under FIFO, there is no reason for people to wait, they all come at the earliest possible time and have to wait the longest possible period. Under LIFO, there is less of an incentive to come early, indeed the first ones are not served first if anybody arrives right after. Waiting time is then reduced and everybody is better off, in expected terms.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)