↳ Economic_effects

June 24th, 2019

↳ Economic_effects

Push Pull

PROGRESS UNCOUPLE

Debating growth and the Green New Deal

In past newsletters, we have highlighted research and policy proposals relating to the Green New Deal and the literature surrounding "degrowth"—the idea that the growth imperative is at odds with human flourishing. In a recent exchange, economist Robert Pollin debates sociologists Juliet Schor and Andrew Jorgenson on the relative merits of "decoupling" and "degrowth." The former asserts that "economies can continue to grow while advancing a viable climate-stabilization project, as long as the growth process is decoupled from fossil-fuel consumption." The latter holds that public discussions over combating climate change must turn "from growthcentricity to needs- and people-centered policies."

The authors share a commitment to increased public investment, and both sides emphasize the distributional consequences of decarbonization. Their debate turns on, and illuminates larger conversations regarding the discursive frameworks and metrics we use to understand economic life. Schor and Jorgenson see reducing GDP in the global north as one element of a program to radically restructure the principles of society; Pollin understands these efforts to muddy the mandate for immediate climate action.

From Pollin:

"Let’s assume that global GDP contracts by 10 percent over the next two decades, following a degrowth scenario. That would entail a reduction of global GDP four times larger than what we experienced over the 2007–2009 financial crisis and Great Recession. In terms of CO2 emissions, the net effect of this 10 percent GDP contraction, considered on its own, would be to push emissions down by precisely 10 percent—that is, from 32 billion tons to 29 billion. So, the global economy would still not come close to bringing emissions down to 20 billion tons by 2040.

The overwhelming factor pushing emissions down will not be a contraction of overall GDP but massive growth in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy investments (which, for accounting purposes, will contribute toward increasing GDP) along with similarly dramatic cuts in fossil-fuel production and consumption (which will register as reducing GDP). In my view, addressing these matters in terms of their specifics is much more constructive than presenting broad generalities about the nature of economic growth, positive or negative."

Link to Pollin's initial paper, link to Schor and Jorgenson.

  • Pollin elaborates on this point in his follow-up statement with a case study of Japan: "Despite the fact that Japan has been close to a no-growth economy for twenty years, its CO2 emissions remain among the highest in the world, at 9.5 tons per capita." Link. Another recent article reviews and recaps the decoupling vs. degrowth exchanges. Link.
  • Schor and Jorgenson’s follow-up challenges Pollin's conviction that decoupling is either possible or efficient: "After decades of promises from advocates of green growth that absolute decoupling will happen, the record is dismal. The simple point about growth is therefore that it makes the nearly impossibly high mountain that we need to climb even steeper. Why rule out an important source of emissions reductions before we’ve even started?" Link.
  • Another iteration of the debate in a compilation of INET papers: Schröder et al argue that "if past performance is relevant for future outcomes, our results should put to bed the possibility of 'green growth.'" Michael Grubb takes a different tack: "Before declaring that history has set limits on what is possible, we need to be extremely careful. The future has already started, though its beginnings may be modest." Link.
  • From Autonomy, a proposal for a shortened work week—a key element of several green degrowth arguments. Link.
  • Mark Paul, Anders Fremstad, and JW Mason offer a brand new paper on US decarbonization. "In an economy facing persistent demand constraints and weak labor markets, public spending on decarbonization will raise wages and living standards." Link.
⤷ Full Article

June 10th, 2019

Sketch for a Counter-Sky

MECHANICAL SHADOWS

On central bank independence and the rise of shadow money

Debates over the political impacts of Central Bank Independence (CBI) reached their peak in the late 90s and early 2000s, due to rising inequality and the volatility of financial markets. Initiated with the 1977 Federal Reserve Act and Paul Volcker’s subsequent term as chairman of the Fed, CBI was, and remains, a means of isolating the more "mechanical" field of monetary policy from the fleeting interests of politicians. In order to preserve stability and credibility, independent central banks have made inflation targeting the center point of their agenda. Critics of CBI have argued that the distinction between economic science and political incentives are not as clear as they might seem; low levels of inflation may benefit creditors and investors, but they harm those whose income entirely depends on rising wages. While monetary policy has distributional and political consequences, its decision makers are insulated from public accountability.

Expanding the literature on the politics of CBI, BENJAMIN BRAUN and DANIELA GABOR examine its financial consequences. In a recently published paper, they argue that the anti-inflationary policies of central banks have catalyzed dependence on shadow money and shadow banking, key components of a broader trend towards financialization:

"In the late 1990s, the US Federal Reserve was confronted with a peculiar predicament. While the world was celebrating central bank independence as a mark of 'scientific' economic governance after the populist era of monetizing government bonds, the US Federal Reserve worried about projections that the US government would pay down all its debt by 2012. A world without US government debt, they worried, was a world filled with monetary dangers. Market participants would not have a safe, liquid asset to turn to in times of distress.

Rather than seeking to limit shadow money supply, the Fed actively encouraged its expansion, seeking market solutions to political problems. It lobbied Congress to ensure that holders of shadow money backed by private (securitized) collateral had the same legal rights to collateral as those holding shadow money issued against US government debt. The Fed also changed its lending practices, allowing banks to issue shadow money backed by private collateral to borrow from the Fed. These concrete steps contrast starkly with the picture of central banks watching passively from the margins, as financial institutions find new ways to monetize credit and circumvent rules."

Link to the article.

  • More contemporary iterations of the debate over CBI can be found in the comparison between a 2018 HKS working paper, which distinguishes between "political oversight" and "operational independence," and a 2014 Levy Institute working paper which argues there is no practical meaning of operational independence at all. Link and link.

  • A primer on shadow banking, from Stijn Claessens and Lev Ratnovski at Vox EU. Link.

  • A new article by Andreas Kerna, Bernhard Reinsbergc, and Matthias Rau-Göhring finds that the IMF’s targeted lending practices actively encouraged the proliferation of independent central banks in low income economies. Link.

  • On CBI, inflationary targets, and the 2010 Eurocrisis, by Mark Copelovitch, Jeffry Frieden, and Stefanie Walter. Link.

⤷ Full Article

February 2nd, 2019

The Summit

LEGITIMATE ASSESSMENT

Moving beyond computational questions in digital ethics research

In the ever expanding digital ethics literature, a number of researchers have been advocating a turn away from enticing technical questions—how to mathematically define fairness, for example—and towards a more expansive, foundational approach to the ethics of designing digital decision systems.

A 2018 paper by RODRIGO OCHIGAME, CHELSEA BARABAS, KARTHIK DINAKAR, MADARS VIRZA, and JOICHI ITO is an exemplary paper along these lines. The authors dissect the three most-discussed categories in the digital ethics space—fairness, interpretability, and accuracy—and argue that current approaches to these topics may unwittingly amount to a legitimation system for unjust practices. From the introduction:

“To contend with issues of fairness and interpretability, it is necessary to change the core methods and practices of machine learning. But the necessary changes go beyond those proposed by the existing literature on fair and interpretable machine learning. To date, ML researchers have generally relied on reductive understandings of fairness and interpretability, as well as a limited understanding of accuracy. This is a consequence of viewing these complex ethical, political, and epistemological issues as strictly computational problems. Fairness becomes a mathematical property of classification algorithms. Interpretability becomes the mere exposition of an algorithm as a sequence of steps or a combination of factors. Accuracy becomes a simple matter of ROC curves.

In order to deepen our understandings of fairness, interpretability, and accuracy, we should avoid reductionism and consider aspects of ML practice that are largely overlooked. While researchers devote significant attention to computational processes, they often lack rigor in other crucial aspects of ML practice. Accuracy requires close scrutiny not only of the computational processes that generate models but also of the historical processes that generate data. Interpretability requires rigorous explanations of the background assumptions of models. And any claim of fairness requires a critical evaluation of the ethical and political implications of deploying a model in a specific social context.

Ultimately, the main outcome of research on fair and interpretable machine learning might be to provide easy answers to concerns of regulatory compliance and public controversy"

⤷ Full Article

January 26th, 2019

Bone Mobile

LONG RUNNING

Learning about long-term effects of interventions, and designing interventions to facilitate the long view

A new paper from the Center for Effective Global Action at Berkeley surveys a topic important to our researchers here at JFI: the question of long-run effects of interventions. In our literature review of cash transfer studies, we identified the need for more work beyond the bounds of a short-term randomized controlled trial. This is especially crucial for basic income, which is among those policies intended to be permanent.

The authors of the new Berkeley report, Adrien Bouguen, Yue Huang, Michael Kremer, and Edward Miguel, note that it’s a particularly apt moment for this kind of work: “Given the large numbers of RCTs launched in the 2000’s, every year that goes by means that more and more RCT studies are ‘aging into’ a phase where the assessment of long-run impacts becomes possible.”

The report includes a summary of what we know about long-run impacts so far:

"Section 2 summarizes and evaluates the growing body of evidence from RCTs on the long-term impacts of international development interventions, and find most (though not all) provide evidence for positive and meaningful effects on individual economic productivity and living standards. Most of these studies examine existing cash transfer, child health, or education interventions, and shed light on important theoretical questions such as the existence of poverty traps (Bandiera et al., 2018) and returns to human capital investments in the long term."

Also notable is the last section, which contains considerations for study design, "lessons from our experience in conducting long-term tracking studies, as well as innovative data approaches." Link to the full paper.

  • In his paper "When are Cash Transfers Transformative?," Bruce Wydick also notes the need for long-run analysis: "Whether or not these positive impacts have long-term transformative effects—and under what conditions—is a question that is less settled and remains an active subject of research." The rest of the paper is of interest as well, including Wydick's five factors that tend to signal that a cash transfer will be transformative. Link.
  • For more on the rising popularity of RCTs, a 2016 paper by major RCT influencers Banerjee, Duflo, and Kremer quantifies that growth and discusses the impact of RCTs. Link. Here’s the PowerPoint version of that paper. David McKenzie at the World Bank responds to the paper, disputing some of its claims. Link.
⤷ Full Article