tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44095511723396398402024-03-05T22:03:21.549-08:00Douglas L. CampbellA blog about Manufacturing, International Trade, Monetary Policy, and replication by an academic economist. Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-60026954065264872742020-06-05T22:08:00.001-07:002020-06-05T22:17:16.027-07:00John Cochrane on Stephanie Kelton's New Book: ‘The Deficit Myth’ Review: Years of Magical Thinking<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
John Cochrane <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deficit-myth-review-years-of-magical-thinking-11591396579">has a review</a> of Stephanie Kelton's new book, "The Deficit Myth". Here it is, for those who don't have access, with a few comments from me, on what I agree with and don't agree with. I haven't read the book myself, but I've also posted favorably about aspects of MMT in the past, so I felt I should defend at least parts of the doctrine.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Modern monetary theory, known as MMT, erupted suddenly into the public consciousness when it won the attention of high-profile politicians including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their media admirers. Its central proposition states that the U.S. federal government can and should freely print money to finance a massive spending agenda, with no concern about debt and deficits. </blockquote>
OK, I agree with Cochrane, I don't think government should have "no concern" with debt and deficits. However, when you're in a liquidity trap or a severe recession, or just growing slowly with below-target inflation, it's not time for austerity at the Treasury.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What is MMT? Its advocates have told us in essays, blog posts, videos and tweets what MMT says about this and that, but what is its logic and evidence? As a monetary theorist who is also skeptical of conventional wisdom, I looked forward to a definitive exposition from Stephanie Kelton’s “The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ms. Kelton, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University and senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, starts with a few correct observations. But when the implications don’t lead to her desired conclusions, her logic, facts and language turn into pretzels. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
True, the federal government can spend any amount by simply printing up the needed money (in reality, creating bank reserves). True, our government need never default since it can always print dollars to repay Treasury bonds. But if the government prints up and spends, say, $10 trillion, will that not lead to inflation? Ms. Kelton acknowledges the possibility: “If the government tries to spend too much in an economy that’s already running at full speed, inflation will accelerate.”</blockquote>
What does Cochrane disagree with here? Kelton seems to say the government shouldn't spend so much that it causes inflation to accelerate. I haven't read the book, but it seems she too is concerned with debt and deficits to the extent it is inflationary when the economy is at full employment, does it not? This is a crucial point to me, and it's not exactly clear to me how Kelton phrased it from Cochrane's retelling. Is she saying print and spend all the time and become Zimbabwe (it seems not), or is she saying print enough to actually hit your inflation target (which probably needs to be raised a bit)? These are quite different, and the latter seems to be a reasonable position that is actually also implied by standard Keynesian economics.<br />
<blockquote>
So how do we determine if the economy is running at full speed, or full of “slack,” with unemployed people and idle businesses that extra money might put to work without inflation? Ms. Kelton disdains the Federal Reserve’s noninflationary or “natural” unemployment rate measure of slack as a “doctrine that relies on human suffering to fight inflation.” Even the recent 3.5% unemployment is heartlessly too high for her. “MMT urges us to think of slack more broadly.” OK, but how?</blockquote>
Various other obvious measures of labor market slack, such as the prime-age employment to population ratio, wage growth,GDP growth, and inflation were all pointing at a different conclusion.<br />
<blockquote>
She offers only one vaguely concrete suggestion: When evaluating spending bills, “careful analysis of the economy’s . . . slack would guide lawmakers. . . . If the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] and other independent analysts concluded it would risk pushing inflation above some desired inflation rate, then lawmakers could begin to assemble a venue of options to identify the most effective ways to mitigate that risk.” She doesn’t otherwise define slack or even offer a conceptual basis for its measurement. She just supposes that the CBO will somehow figure it out. </blockquote>
OK, but I think there is some logic in looking at a variety of obvious measures, and not just saying "unemployment is low, let's ignore labor force exits or wage growth".<br />
<blockquote>
She doesn't mention that the CBO now calculates a measure, potential GDP, which does not reveal perpetual slack. And she later excoriates the CBO for its deficit hawkishness. Really her answer is: Don’t worry about it. She simply asserts that “there is always slack in the form of unemployed resources, including labor.”</blockquote>
<blockquote>
We’re not talking about a little slack either. Ms. Kelton’s “people’s economy” starts with the full Green New Deal and moves on to a federal job for anyone, free health care, free child care, the immediate cancelation of student debt, free college, “affordable housing for all our people,” national high-speed rail, “expanded Social Security,” “a more robust public retirement system,” “middle-class tax cuts,” and more. How much does this add up to? $20 trillion? $50 trillion? She offers no numbers. How is it vaguely plausible that the U.S. has this much productive capacity lying around going to waste? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In a book about money, the inflation of the 1970s and its defeat are astonishingly absent. History starts with Franklin Roosevelt—a hero for enacting the New Deal but a villain for paying for it with payroll taxes rather than fresh dollars. Ms. Kelton praises John F. Kennedy, too. He “pressured unions and private industry, urging them to keep wage and price increases to a minimum to avoid driving inflation higher. It worked. The economy grew, unemployment fell sharply and inflation remained below 1.5 percent for the first half of the decade.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The second half of that decade—Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Vietnam War spending, inflation’s breakout, Richard Nixon’s disastrous price controls—is AWOL. Did we not try MMT once and see the inflation? Did not every committee of worthies always see slack in the economy? Did not the 1970s see stagflation, refuting Ms. Kelton’s assertion that inflation comes only when there is no “slack”? Don’t look for answers in “The Deficit Myth.”</blockquote>
OK, good point. I agree that spending a bunch of money is not the ideal response to an adverse commodity price shock. I would prefer nominal GPD growth be kept relatively constant during such periods. This would presumably mean tight fiscal and monetary policy, and causing a recession to reduce inflation.<br />
<blockquote>
Victory over inflation under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher goes likewise unmentioned. History starts up again when Ms. Kelton excoriates Thatcher for saying that government spending has to be paid for with taxes. She insinuates, outrageously, that Thatcher deliberately lied on this point in order to “discourage the British people from demanding more from their government.”<br />
If spending can be financed by printing money, “why not eliminate taxes altogether?” Ms. Kelton begins consistently. She criticizes Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for claiming that they need to raise taxes to pay for spending programs. But then why raise taxes? Taxes exist to decapitate the wealthy, not to fund spending or transfers: “We should tax billionaires to rebalance the distribution of wealth and income and to protect the health of our democracy.”</blockquote>
I agree with Cochrane here -- taxes are necessary, in part, to finance useful spending. The entire tax and transfer system is necessary in part for redistribution, and thereby increase political support for a capitalist system that does tend to create vast inequalities. If you just try to do it by printing money, you'll end up like Zimbabwe.<br />
<blockquote>
She offers a second answer, more subtle, and revealingly wrong. She starts well: “Taxes are there to create a demand for government currency.” This is a deep truth, which goes back to Adam Smith. Soaking up extra money with fiscal surpluses is, in fact, the ultimate control over inflation. But then arithmetic fails her. To avoid inflation, all the new money must eventually be soaked up in taxes. The new spending, then, is ultimately paid for with those taxes.<br />
What about the debt? Ms. Kelton asserts the government can wipe it out. Again, she starts correctly: The Fed could purchase all of the debt in return for newly created reserves. She continues correctly: The Fed could stop paying interest on reserves. But in conventional thinking, these steps would result in a swift inflation that is equivalent to default. Ms. Kelton asserts instead that these steps “would tend to push prices lower, not higher.” She reasons that not paying interest would reduce bondholders’ income and hence their spending.<br />
The mistake is easy to spot: People value government debt and reserves as an asset, in a portfolio. If the government stops paying interest, people try to dump the debt in favor of assets that pay a return and to buy goods and services, driving up prices.</blockquote>
I agree with Cochrane here. Not paying IOER would likely be inflationary. Fed buying debt and returning it to the Treasury would be too.<br />
<blockquote>
What about all the countries that have suffered inflation, devaluation and debt crises even though they print their own currencies? To Ms. Kelton, developing nations suffer a “deficit” of “monetary sovereignty” because they “rely on imports to meet vital social needs,” which requires foreign currency. Why not earn that currency by exporting other goods and services? “Export-led growth . . . rarely succeeds.” China? Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Her goal posts for “success” must lie far down field.<br />
The problem is that “the rest of the world refuses to accept the currencies of developing countries in payment for crucial imports.” Darn right we do. Her solution: more printed money from Uncle Sam—a “global job guarantee.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
She also advises small and poor countries to cut themselves off from international commerce. They should develop “efficient hydroponic and aquaponics food production” and install “solar and wind farms” rather than import cheap food and oil. They should refuse international investment, with the “classical form of capital controls” under Bretton Woods as an ideal. “We share only one planet,” she writes, yet apparently that planet must have hard national borders.</blockquote>
I don't agree that small and poor countries should cut themselves off from international commerce. I would very much go in the other direction, a la East Asia.<br />
<blockquote>
By weight, however, most of the book is not about monetary theory. It’s rather a recitation of every perceived problem in America: the “good jobs deficit,” the “savings deficit,” the “health-care deficit,” the “infrastructure deficit,” the “democracy deficit” and—of course —the “climate deficit.” None of this is original or relevant. The desire to spend is not evidence of its feasibility.</blockquote>
I would probably agree with most what Kelton has to offer here. I'd spend on infrastructure and a green new deal in the current climate, given the past decade of slow growth, and looming problem of climate change.<br />
<blockquote>
Much of “The Deficit Myth” is a memoir of Ms. Kelton’s conversion to MMT beliefs and of her time in the hallways of power. She criticizes Democrats, including President Obama and his all-star economic team, for their thick skulls or their timidity to state her truth in public. </blockquote>
I think many observers think the Obama admin. should have been more bold on fiscal policy, including a lot of former members of the Obama administration. Also, I recall one John Cochrane changed his mind on fiscal policy, and went from recommending austerity to stimulus in 2009/2010... Net of state and local austerity, there was basically no overall fiscal stimulus during that recession.<br />
<blockquote>
...</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In a revealing moment, Ms. Kelton admits that “MMT can be used to defend policies that are traditionally more liberal . . . or more conservative (e.g., military spending or corporate tax cuts).” Well, if so, why fill a book on monetary theory with far-left wish lists? Why insult and annoy any reader to the right of Bernie Sanders’s left pinkie?<br />
Writing the book to “defend” an immense list of left-wing spending policies destroys what’s left of her argument. If you could only feel her singular empathy for the downtrodden, if you could, as she does, view the federal budget as a “moral document,” if you could just close your eyes and need it to be true as much as she does, your “Copernican moment” will arrive. Logic and evidence will no longer trouble you.<br />
That effect is compounded by her refusal to abide by the conventional norms of economic and public-policy discourse. She cites no articles in major peer-reviewed journals, monographs with explicit models and evidence, or any of the other trappings of economic discourse.</blockquote>
OK, good point. Note that standard Keynesian models do have some MMT-like implications in a liquidity trap though. Here's <a href="http://www.crei.cat/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gmoney_dec2016-1.pdf">Jordi Gali on the topic</a>, although he doesn't use the words MMT. Kelton should cite him. <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-respond-to-next-recession.html">Here's me</a>.<br />
<blockquote>
The rest of us read and compare ideas. Ms. Kelton does not grapple with the vast and deep economic thinking since the 1940s on money, inflation, debts, stimulus and slack measurement. Each item on Ms. Kelton’s well-worn spending wish list has raised many obvious objections. She mentions none.<br />
Skeptics have called it “magical monetary theory.” They’re right.<br />
—Mr. Cochrane is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.</blockquote>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-60442845502494562812020-04-17T23:02:00.000-07:002020-04-17T23:06:11.307-07:00Debate Over Covid Fatality<div class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, first came this horrendous WSJ article by a<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-11585088464"> Stanford couple</a> claiming the true Coronavirus death rate may be much less than what people think. They suggest that perhaps the real rate may be as low as .01%, and thus, that maybe we should just let the disease run. After all, if just between 20,000 and 40,000 Americans die, what is the harm? </span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Of course, now, with 37,000 Americans already dead from Covid-19, and the body counts still rising daily (some 2,500 just yesterday), this estimate now looks foolish. Not to say, "I told you so", but the WSJ looked problematic to me in real time, so I tweeted about it: <a href="https://twitter.com/TradeandMoney/status/1243215666297044995">https://twitter.com/TradeandMoney/status/1243215666297044995</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In retrospect, my response looks prescient, in part since China's own government revised up its estimates of death in Wuhan.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Debraj Ray, an economist who I respect a lot, and who is an editor of the American Economic Review, also posted some interesting thoughts about the Covid-19 death <a href="http://debrajray.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-micro-and-macro-of-covid-19.html">rate here</a>, influenced by the Stanford couple's WSJ article. He argued we should rethink lockdowns given the uncertainty over the fatality rate. I posted a response on his blog, which I'll repost here:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">Hello Debraj. Thought provoking post. I see some potential problems in your logic, however. Why are you ignoring the growth in deaths (or lack thereof) in New York before March 14th? If it's true that there were no deaths before then, then why wouldn't it follow that cases before then were scarce? Of course, likely there were few deaths before March 14th because there was little testing -- if you die of flu symptoms with no test for Covid available, it's likely you are not marked as dying of coronavirus. To the extent this is true, the growth rate of deaths is slower that what you have merely assumed. And, if it turns out that the rate of growth doubles every four days, then that would imply that either New York had it's first case before Wuhan did, or the death rate is even higher than 1%.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;" /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;">Lastly, Bhattarchaya's stuff has already been debunked. The death rate in Vo was 1%. The Chinese data should not be taken at face value. The NBA is not a random sample of the US. The Stanford couple mention .01% as a plausible death rate. But, some Italian provinces have death rates already as high as .065%, and that is assuming a 100% infection rate, which can't be right, as these provinces are still recording masses of new cases despite a draconian quarantine. In other Italian towns, already .1% of the population has died, and many people have also tested negative.</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;" /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;">After all this, I should mention that I'm actually in agreement that the death rate could well be much less than 1%. .4-.6% seems plausible to me, but spreads easier since there is no vaccine. On the other hand, .1% seems ruled out by what we know already. This could explain why Italian hospitals were overwhelmed so early, why they are not by the flu.</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;" /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">Also, you write that people have freaked out too much. Have you paid any attention, at all, to what has happened in Italy? The freak out there has not prevented ICU units to become completely overwhelmed. They are essentially letting people over the age of 65 die for lack of ventilators. You really think this mass "freaking out" in Italy makes no sense?</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;" /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;">Very Respectfully Submitted,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;">Doug Campbell</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Debraj then provided a thoughtful response.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">Hi Doug, thanks. I wish we knew the truth behind fatality rates. You are right that it could be as high as 0.4%. My post is not written with a sense of dramatic certainty. That said (1) could you give me references to the Vo fatality rate? (2) I don't know what you mean by trusting the "Chinese data" --- the data has to do with airlifts out of Wuhan where everyone was tested, (3) the flu rate is for a particular distribution of ages (say, the US distribution), and we need to correct for that age distribution when studying regions with a high proportion of elderly, and (4) please read carefully before commenting on my interpretation. My post is perfectly consistent with OVERALL deaths being higher by a factor of 3 or more. I don't know what you want to include under the term "freaking out," but I am not including the terrible sense of sorrow that people feel for losing their loved ones. I simply refer to one's *own* fear of being fatally sick. Thanks.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">He agrees that a death rate as high as .4% is plausible. In response to his point:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> (1) I actually don't see the Vo fatility rate that I had seen earlier when I was just googling, although they had like 89 people test positive when they tested the first time, and they had a high-profile early death: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/eradicated-coronavirus-mass-testing-covid-19-italy-vo">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/eradicated-coronavirus-mass-testing-covid-19-italy-vo</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> (2) Bhattarcharya's first piece of evidence, using Chinese data, takes the fatality rate in Wuhan at face value, while making an adjustment to the infection rate. I was suspicious of the Chinese fatality rate. Lo and behold, under pressure, China has now revised up its fatality estimates for Wuhan by 50% -- and many people, me included, suspect it even could be higher than that. I won't try to claim I'm any sort of a genius here -- it was obvious the Chinese data were fake. Still is. It was troubling to see the Stanford duo take them at face value.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> (3) I agree we need to adjust for ages. Also, in Italy, Wuhan, and Iran, the hospitals were clearly overwhelmed. But, the death rate in Lombardy is now at .12%. Over two-thirds of the people there tested, tested negative, and they only test high-risk people. In addition, they have undoubtedly missed a lot of deaths, and people are still dying. You add all this to the info that their hospitals were overwhelmed by the end of February, and it's clear this is vastly more deadly than the flu. You had written: "<i style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><b>That calls for a fatality rate around 0.1%</b>". </i>Even in New York City, the death rate is already around .1% of the population (that is, % of the population before the exodus), and over half of the people tested there have tested negative. And this came in the US, without any overwhelmed hospitals and likely a similar population structure, if healthier and wealthier than average. Even if we assume that 20% of the New York City population has already been infected, then we get a fatality rate of around .5%. If 25%, then .4%. Given the exodus of people out of the city, and 60% negative test rate of those with severe symptoms or direct exposure, it's probably tough to make an argument that more than 25% of NYC residents could have been infected.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> (4) I still don't see a lot of evidence that people are freaking out way too much. For example, I just went to a church where old people were still packed en masse and kissing icons. At least some of New York's bars were reportedly packed before they were closed. Boris Johnson shook everyone's hands in the Covid Ward. Rudy Gobert made sure to touch every microphone. People are protesting to open the economy back up. The draconian restrictions put into place have only modestly lowered the rate of infection. Even in Italy, six weeks of quarantine have only halved the daily rate of infections. To change people's behavior, you need them to "freak out" to certain degree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> In any case, I am also opposed to a prolonged shutdown. Only, my alternative is Vo-style ubiquitous testing, or at least doing a vigorous "Test and Trace", plus some surveillance testing, ramping up N-95 mask production to wear in public, and other kinds of surveillance (cops with temperature helmets, like in China), etc. Nevertheless, it's clear now that Covid-19 poses a significantly higher danger in terms of mortality than the flu does.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-52164078116763413662020-02-28T03:32:00.001-08:002021-03-04T23:57:06.743-08:00How to Respond to the Next Recession: Central Bank Fiscal SupportNow that it looks like like the next recession may be coming sooner rather than later, it's time to lay out what I think is clearly the best path forward for monetary policy in a liquidity trap (we should be more creative than <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bernanke_ASSA_lecture.pdf">we have been</a>). This is an issue I've been thinking seriously since long before I worked in the Obama CEA in 2011 -- I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Japan's liquidity trap in 2003. And Japan is still in a liquidity trap. Some things never change...<br />
<br />
<b>Fiscal Support</b><br />
My idea is simple: Fiscal Support from the Fed to the Treasury (some might call it Fiscal QE, a name I oppose, "Treasury remittances", or simply seigniorage, although I see this as slightly different). The Federal Reserve should print money, buy government bonds, and then -- crucial second step -- return those bonds to the Treasury! That's it. (Well, in fact, there are several more steps I'll discuss below, but these are the key ones...) In fact, the Fed already returns interest on the bonds it holds to Treasury. Over ten years after the first QE, in total, this has actually added up to be a substantial amount of money, and thus it is an ignored modest side-benefit of the QE program (in addition to lowering US government borrowing costs, and thus the debt).<br />
<br />
<b>Mechanisms</b><br />
Why would this work? I can see several channels. First, smaller deficits, or even surpluses, would encourage governments to do fiscal stimulus. (How many politicians do you know who couldn't figure out a way to spend a surplus?) In fact, most countries in liquidity traps run such large deficits that after a few years, all but the most ardent keynesians/MMT people recommend fiscal austerity to counterbalance the deficits. Fiscal stimulus is likely to carry a bit more "oomph" than merely QE alone, particularly since this is a policy with <b>an unlimited ceiling</b>.<br />
<br />
Secondly, this QE + fiscal transfer is likely to be more effective even if the government doesn't enact fiscal stimulus today. Why? First, it is a bit more difficult for the central bank to unwind. In addition, if the Fed just wanted a temporary stimulus, they would just go with normal QE rather than tying their hands by transferring these bonds to the Treasury. Thus, it is<b> a signal</b> of looser future monetary policy, and also a signal that the Fed is serious about getting the economy on track. Recall, a key problem in a liquidity trap is that the central bank needs to "credibly promise to be irresponsible" -- to convince the public that it will generate higher inflation, even after the crisis is over. What better way to do that than with "permanent QE"? One thing to note is that the central bank will still be able to raise interest rates later on, or increase reserve requirements, and so I don't think this will, in fact, inhibit the Fed from responding to inflation later on if it is so inclined, but it's a signal that the Fed believes it needs to bring in the big guns. <br />
<br />
A third mechanism, albeit less important, is that, even if fiscal policy is non-reactive today, it will have to be reactive at some point in the future. This implies that people will, at minimum, expect to be taxed less in the future, or have government spending decreased by less.<br />
<br />
A fourth mechanism is the classic QE mechanism: purchasing long-term bonds will lower long term interest rates mechanically. A fifth mechanism is that long-term interest rates imply a devaluation of the currency. However, in this case, I'll say full stop that these mechanisms are likely to be modest, but for good reasons -- fiscal policy can be expected to be expansionary and thus raise future interest rates.<br />
<br />
<b>Fiscal Support + Communication: </b><br />
Were I a central banker, I would not just do this policy quietly (in which case it's likely no one would notice). I would also publicly encourage the government to engage in fiscal stimulus. I would also assure market participants that the policy will be in place and ratcheted up each month, until, at a minimum, the inflation target has been hit (even better would be to raise the inflation target, and in fact price level target, or switch to a 6% NGDP target, but this can be debated elsewhere). This is akin to telling the market you will do "whatever it takes". In fact, committing to potentially doing more at first will likely allow you to do less later on.<br />
<br />
<b>Alternative Options:</b><br />
Of course, this is not the only policy option on the table. Short term interest rates are 1.5%. It makes sense to cut them first. However, the market is smart, and it probably realizes that the Fed only has a few arrows left in this quiver. The closer the Fed gets to zero without a credible plan for what to do next, the less effective each successive rate cut will be.<br />
<br />
Next, the Fed could <b>go negative</b>. I think they should. I think t<a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.com/2018/10/are-negative-interest-rates.html">his could be an effective policy </a>particularly if the Fed <b>subsidizes new bank loans</b> (a la TLRTO -- the ECB's program) in addition to <b>taxing reserves</b> held in excess. To prevent a negative effect on total bank profits, the Fed could simultaneously provide banks with a higher positive interest rate on required reserves while taxing some smaller fraction of excess reserves over a target threshold. CBs could also tax large cash holdings of banks. I am not necessarily opposed going this route. But, I also think it will be problematic to pass along negative interest rates to depositors. I also suspect that negative interest rates, absent bank subsidies and taxes on cash holdings, could be problematic, and may be limited in how low a central bank can go (although subsidies of course are unlimited). Also, since I'm a liberal who see value in many forms of public spending, I would prefer more public spending to higher bank subsidies. (Alternatively, since I'm a capitalist who values my hard-earned money, I'd prefer receiving a tax cut to a bank subsidy.) Also, many smart economists think that <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w24039">negative interest rates might be contractionary</a>. Also, are very large bank subsidies, if needed, politically feasible? I have my doubts. Still, if I were Fed Chair, I would include negative interest rates, including new loan subsidies in particular, in the arsenal. I still believe it is a crime that the Fed did not go all the way to zero in the last crisis.<br />
<br />
The Fed can also use <b>forward guidance</b>. Of course they should, but talk is always cheap. If the economy and inflation recover, of course the Fed will raise interest rates, and markets know this. Also, both this policy, and plain old vanilla QE, while beneficial overall, also tend to reduce the spread between short-term and long-term interest rates. This reduces bank profits, and may make banks more likely to wait to make loans. The Fed can promise to keep interest rates zero, or at minus one, for one or two years, but can it credibly do it for 5 or 10 years? Most of the FOMC members won't even be around in five years. And the FOMC committee itself rotates every year.<br />
<br />
This leads me to <b>vanilla QE</b>. Why not just do more QE? Well, yes, the Fed should. Also, after an announcement that X amount of bonds will be bought each month, if the Fed's growth and inflation targets are not met, the Fed should increase the monthly amount of bond purchases. This is what they did not do last time around, and what the BoJ has also refused to do. One argument against QE is that it was a public relations disaster. Many economists still believe it did not work. And, even though the Fed did QE last time, the economy was very slow to recover. Thus, if the Fed does merely resort to QE this time, they need to do it much more aggressively than before. They could, for example, promise to double the bond purchases every month until NGDP hits a certain target. They also would need a new way to market it. Instead of calling it just "QE", add a name that every day bond trader bros on Wall Street can relate to: "QE on steroids", or "QE on cocaine".<br />
<br />
How about <b>raising the inflation target</b> too? Of course the Fed should. That the Fed continues to maintain a 2% inflation target (that it rarely even hits), now that we know what a problem the ZLB is can be thought of as a badge of incompetence. However, the problem circa 2009-2017 was that, although the Fed had an inflation target, it did not appear to have any ability to actually hit its own target. This almost certainly damaged the Fed's credibility.<br />
<br />
<b>Objections</b>:<br />
<i>This will never happen! </i><b>Response</b>: It already has! In fact, the Fed already remits interest payments to the Treasury, and other stuff associated with its operating profits. I've heard they have also remitted bond principal before, although I can't find a link and haven't seen any hard proof of this myself. (Update: A commenter on twitter suggests that the Bank of Japan and Bank of Sweden return principle to their govt's, but I cannot verify this.)<br />
<br />
<i>The ECB will never do this</i>! <b>Response</b>: The ECB has also already implemented this before. The ship has sailed.<br />
<br />
<i>This will encourage governments to overspend</i>. <b>Response</b>: That's a feature of the plan, not a bug. Indeed, if central banks do not to this, central governments likely will. The only thing stopping Trump from doing this himself is that he doesn't know he can. Indeed, this is the one drawback: if the Fed does it first, Trump will learn that it's possible, and likely do too much. However, as mentioned above, the Fed will still be able to raise interest rates and increase reserve requirements.<br />
<br />
<i>Would Fiscal Policy Actually Work?</i> <b>Response</b>: Yes it would. I actually lean toward the low side on fiscal multiplier estimates. However, I also don't think there is any serious doubt that large fiscal stimulus is expansionary. If a government sends everyone a $10,000 check (financed by the printing press), spending and inflation will go up.<br />
<br />
<i>What if it Fails to generate growth? </i><b>Response</b>: Let's say for a second it had no effect at all on the economy. In that case, the only effect would be to lower the national debt with nothing lost! That's still a pretty good deal.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b>:<br />
The Fed has the power to create money. In a downturn, the Fed should simply print money, buy the bonds, and then return those bonds to the Treasury. For the very reason that this policy can be unlimited, it's likely to be more effective than any other option. This is simply an idea whose time has come.<br />
<br />
PS: If any of you Macro theorists out there want to write this up into a "serious" paper, I'd be interested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-56181207373391274842019-05-06T00:48:00.000-07:002019-05-06T00:52:45.862-07:00Journal Reporting Times, EJMR vs. Self-Reported Stats from Journals. Methodology: I took the self-reported data I collected <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.com/2019/02/ranking-economic-journals-by-speed.html">here</a> (which come from <a href="https://www.econjobrumors.com/journals.php">from ejmr here</a>), and compared to the official journal stats collected by Juan Carlos Suárez <a href="https://jcsuarez.shinyapps.io/journal_turnaround_app/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Overall, the data line up fairly well.<br />
<br />
Here is the correlation in journal first-response times, conditional on being sent out for review. The R-squared is a respectable .52, although AEJ: Micro is an outlier on EJMR, where it actually does better than what the official statistics suggest (with N=16 though...). Author-reported weight times are about two weeks longer on average, but on ejmr, you round to the nearest month vs. day, so some difference isn't surprising.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-wC9DqqhZnJHfMQBD4nPCCKaDZntcsvqxlk1aMeFNM3YR9W7go2_OicTaOudnrivLBGy3ZEBvsyoDRuFI9zd_kXk-fEbiY7BAS-0BP5UVSvDhS_rioAw9-Gvzxx68Q_WfLO64b_RB52Y/s1600/responsetime.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="813" data-original-width="1123" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-wC9DqqhZnJHfMQBD4nPCCKaDZntcsvqxlk1aMeFNM3YR9W7go2_OicTaOudnrivLBGy3ZEBvsyoDRuFI9zd_kXk-fEbiY7BAS-0BP5UVSvDhS_rioAw9-Gvzxx68Q_WfLO64b_RB52Y/s640/responsetime.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Here is the correlation between desk rejections, author vs. journal reported. The regression coefficient is close to 1, and the R-squared is .63. The intercept is -.072, as average reported desk-rejections are lower on ejmr.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIpyaA5O1vabLfBWoZNbLkvzoQaIEx1lkCYx5l8bl2pIZYE9kD6aWytSdf8qB0KwNZ6erzi8qMvo2Bret0Ujo-77UHcyy7xofzVtiytDPdCfcIU3MXd58dsJs3iVMKNRN9F2seCJfanMU/s1600/deskreject.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="805" data-original-width="1127" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIpyaA5O1vabLfBWoZNbLkvzoQaIEx1lkCYx5l8bl2pIZYE9kD6aWytSdf8qB0KwNZ6erzi8qMvo2Bret0Ujo-77UHcyy7xofzVtiytDPdCfcIU3MXd58dsJs3iVMKNRN9F2seCJfanMU/s640/deskreject.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
Here's the Data:<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 686px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4437; mso-width-source: userset; width: 94pt;" width="125"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3840; mso-width-source: userset; width: 81pt;" width="108"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3527; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="99"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 5944; mso-width-source: userset; width: 125pt;" width="167"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 6656; mso-width-source: userset; width: 140pt;" width="187"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="65" style="height: 48.6pt; mso-height-source: userset;">
<td class="xl67" height="65" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 48.6pt; width: 94pt;" width="125"><b>Journal</b></td>
<td class="xl68" style="width: 81pt;" width="108"><b>Desk Reject Rate (EJMR)</b></td>
<td class="xl68" style="width: 74pt;" width="99"><b>Desk Reject (Official)</b></td>
<td class="xl68" style="width: 125pt;" width="167"><b>First Response Time, Conditional
on Being Sent Out to Referees (EJMR)</b></td>
<td class="xl68" style="width: 140pt;" width="187"><b>First Response Time, Conditional
on Being Sent Out to Referees (Official)</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">QJE</td>
<td class="xl65">61%</td>
<td class="xl65">66%</td>
<td class="xl66">1.5</td>
<td class="xl66">1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">JPE</td>
<td class="xl65">50%</td>
<td class="xl65">49%</td>
<td class="xl66">8.0</td>
<td class="xl66">4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">REStud</td>
<td class="xl65">34%</td>
<td class="xl65">49%</td>
<td class="xl66">4.5</td>
<td class="xl66">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">ECTA</td>
<td class="xl65">23%</td>
<td class="xl65">32%</td>
<td class="xl66">3.6</td>
<td class="xl66">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">AEJ: Macro</td>
<td class="xl65">21%</td>
<td class="xl65">38%</td>
<td class="xl66">2.9</td>
<td class="xl66">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">AEJ: Applied</td>
<td class="xl65">37%</td>
<td class="xl65">45%</td>
<td class="xl66">2.5</td>
<td class="xl66">2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">Journal of Finance</td>
<td class="xl65">33%</td>
<td class="xl65">32%</td>
<td class="xl66">3.0</td>
<td class="xl66">2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">AER</td>
<td class="xl65">47%</td>
<td class="xl65">46%</td>
<td class="xl66">3.7</td>
<td class="xl66">3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">JEEA</td>
<td class="xl65">58%</td>
<td class="xl65">49%</td>
<td class="xl66">2.5</td>
<td class="xl66">3.2</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">AEJ: Policy</td>
<td class="xl65">36%</td>
<td class="xl65">51%</td>
<td class="xl66">2.8</td>
<td class="xl66">3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">EJ</td>
<td class="xl65">45%</td>
<td class="xl65">55%</td>
<td class="xl66">3.7</td>
<td class="xl66">3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">AEJ: Micro</td>
<td class="xl65">25%</td>
<td class="xl65">38%</td>
<td class="xl66">3.4</td>
<td class="xl66">4.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-65329113706097991322019-02-18T09:37:00.001-08:002019-02-18T09:51:05.045-08:00Ranking Economic Journals by Speed, UpdatedI decided to update my previous ranking on economics journals <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.com/2017/08/ranking-academic-economic-journals-by.html">ranked by speed</a>.<br />
<br />
In the table below, # is the journal's rank by citations (may be 2 years old, I didn't update this), and then there is data on the acceptance rate, desk rejection rate, average time to acceptance, median time to acceptance, and the 25th and 75th percentiles (all in terms of months). Only journals with at least 5 observations were included. Data come from <a href="https://www.econjobrumors.com/journals.php">here</a>.<br />
<br />
There are some similarities with the previous ranking by speed. The QJE is still the fastest, and the JME still brings up the rear -- despite the fact I've doubled the sample size.<br />
<br />
One note is that I just copy-pasted and ran my previous code, so if you notice any errors below, please let me know.<br />
<br />
My big hesitation with doing this is that I think it may not purely be a good thing to incentive journals to respond quickly. They tend to do this by desk-rejecting more papers, and I worry that desk-rejections are often done on the basis of institutional affiliation, or perhaps after a less-than-fully-thorough examination of the paper. I may do an updated version which conditions on the paper going out to journals. Nevertheless, if you are contemplating which journal to submit a paper to, this may be helpful.<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 650px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 938; mso-width-source: userset; width: 20pt;" width="26"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 10154; mso-width-source: userset; width: 214pt;" width="286"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1450; mso-width-source: userset; width: 31pt;" width="41"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1848; mso-width-source: userset; width: 39pt;" width="52"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1536; mso-width-source: userset; width: 32pt;" width="43"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1649; mso-width-source: userset; width: 35pt;" width="46"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2190; mso-width-source: userset; width: 46pt;" width="62"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2161; mso-width-source: userset; width: 46pt;" width="61"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1166; mso-width-source: userset; width: 25pt;" width="33"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="57" style="height: 42.6pt; mso-height-source: userset;">
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"#"}" height="57" style="height: 42.6pt; width: 20pt;" width="26"><b>#</b></td>
<td class="xl66" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal Name"}" style="border-left: none; width: 214pt;" width="286"><b>Journal
Name</b></td>
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Accept %"}" style="border-left: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; width: 31pt;" width="41"><b>Accept
%</b></td>
<td class="xl71" data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Desk Reject %"}" style="border-left: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; width: 39pt;" width="52"><b>Desk
Reject %</b></td>
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Avg. Time"}" style="border-left: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; width: 32pt;" width="43"><b>Avg.
Time</b></td>
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Median Time"}" style="border-left: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; width: 35pt;" width="46"><b>Median
Time</b></td>
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"25th Percent. (Months)"}" style="border-left: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; width: 46pt;" width="62"><b>25th
Percent. (Months)</b></td>
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"75th Percent. (Months)"}" style="border-left: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; width: 46pt;" width="61"><b>75th
Percent. (Months)</b></td>
<td class="xl65" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"N ="}" style="border-left: none; width: 25pt;" width="33"><b>N =</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">1</td>
<td>Quarterly Journal of Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">1%</td>
<td class="xl70">61%</td>
<td class="xl69">0.59</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">82</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">80</td>
<td>Journal of Economic Geography</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">80%</td>
<td class="xl69">0.67</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">12</td>
<td>Journal of the European Economic Association</td>
<td class="xl70">3%</td>
<td class="xl70">58%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.16</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">81</td>
<td>Kyklos</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.33</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">94</td>
<td>Economics and Human Biology</td>
<td class="xl70">43%</td>
<td class="xl70">43%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.50</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">74</td>
<td>Management Science</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl70">45%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.55</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">22</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">15</td>
<td>Review of Financial Studies</td>
<td class="xl70">11%</td>
<td class="xl70">37%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.59</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">27</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">78</td>
<td>Demography</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">80%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.60</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">14</td>
<td>Journal of Human Resources</td>
<td class="xl70">15%</td>
<td class="xl70">54%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.60</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">46</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">31</td>
<td>European Economic Review</td>
<td class="xl70">28%</td>
<td class="xl70">44%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.72</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">50</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">6</td>
<td>American Economic Journal: Applied Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl70">37%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.76</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">49</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">13</td>
<td>American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl70">36%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.83</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">36</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">100</td>
<td>China Economic Review</td>
<td class="xl70">67%</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl69">1.83</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">9</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">7</td>
<td>Journal of Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.05</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">21</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">19</td>
<td>Journal of Financial Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">24%</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.06</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">17</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">27</td>
<td>Journal of Financial Intermediation</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl70">29%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.14</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">9</td>
<td>American Economic Review</td>
<td class="xl70">7%</td>
<td class="xl70">47%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.16</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">91</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">46</td>
<td>Econometrics Journal</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">50%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.17</td>
<td class="xl68">0.5</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">55</td>
<td>Review of Income and Wealth</td>
<td class="xl70">17%</td>
<td class="xl70">67%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.17</td>
<td class="xl68">0.5</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">38</td>
<td>Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis</td>
<td class="xl70">29%</td>
<td class="xl70">6%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.18</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">17</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">37</td>
<td>Journal of Population Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">22%</td>
<td class="xl70">44%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.22</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">9</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">76</td>
<td>Explorations in Economic History</td>
<td class="xl70">56%</td>
<td class="xl70">11%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.22</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">9</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">32</td>
<td>Theoretical Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.23</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">90</td>
<td>Economics Letters</td>
<td class="xl70">45%</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.24</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">114</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">42</td>
<td>Review of Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.25</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">1.5</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">16</td>
<td>Economic Journal</td>
<td class="xl70">16%</td>
<td class="xl70">45%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.26</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">56</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">34</td>
<td>Journal of Health Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">13%</td>
<td class="xl70">55%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.32</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">5</td>
<td>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</td>
<td class="xl70">13%</td>
<td class="xl70">21%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.33</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1.5</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">24</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">62</td>
<td>Regional Science and Urban Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">52%</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.35</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">21</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">65</td>
<td>International Journal of Industrial Organization</td>
<td class="xl70">7%</td>
<td class="xl70">20%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.47</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">91</td>
<td>Public Choice</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl70">48%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.48</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">29</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">35</td>
<td>Labour Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">9%</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.55</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">22</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">41</td>
<td>Journal of Law and Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">43%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.57</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">14</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">61</td>
<td>Journal of Comparative Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.63</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0.5</td>
<td class="xl68">4.5</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">71</td>
<td>European Journal of Political Economy</td>
<td class="xl70">38%</td>
<td class="xl70">23%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.69</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">58</td>
<td>B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl70">7%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.71</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">26</td>
<td>Journal of Urban Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">22%</td>
<td class="xl70">17%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.72</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">18</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">30</td>
<td>American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</td>
<td class="xl70">19%</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.74</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">16</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">4</td>
<td>Econometrica</td>
<td class="xl70">6%</td>
<td class="xl70">23%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.77</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">35</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">24</td>
<td>Journal of Applied Econometrics</td>
<td class="xl70">9%</td>
<td class="xl70">35%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.78</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">23</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">57</td>
<td>Industrial and Labor Relations Review</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl70">36%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.82</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">11</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">64</td>
<td>The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.82</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">11</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">85</td>
<td>Energy Journal</td>
<td class="xl70">38%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.88</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">3.5</td>
<td class="xl68">8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">36</td>
<td>World Bank Economic Review</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl70">31%</td>
<td class="xl69">2.92</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">11</td>
<td>Journal of Labor Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">32%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.00</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">19</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">21</td>
<td>Journal of Public Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">12%</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.10</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">60</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">83</td>
<td>American Journal of Health Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">43%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.14</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">3</td>
<td>Review of Economic Studies</td>
<td class="xl70">4%</td>
<td class="xl70">34%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.16</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">73</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">23</td>
<td>Journal of Development Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">17%</td>
<td class="xl70">41%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.16</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">54</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">63</td>
<td>Oxford Economic Papers</td>
<td class="xl70">17%</td>
<td class="xl70">42%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.23</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">67</td>
<td>Journal of Banking and Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.25</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">28</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">87</td>
<td>Southern Economic Journal</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.29</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">99</td>
<td>American Journal of Agricultural Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">23%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.31</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">82</td>
<td>Journal of Macroeconomics</td>
<td class="xl70">31%</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.31</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">0.5</td>
<td class="xl68">5.5</td>
<td class="xl68">16</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">69</td>
<td>Economics and Politics</td>
<td class="xl70">40%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.33</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">89</td>
<td>Journal of Economic History</td>
<td class="xl70">17%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.33</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">93</td>
<td>Review of Economics of the Household</td>
<td class="xl70">20%</td>
<td class="xl70">10%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.46</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">17</td>
<td>Journal of Economic Growth</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.50</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">92</td>
<td>Small Business Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.50</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1.5</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">10</td>
<td>Review of Economics and Statistics</td>
<td class="xl70">2%</td>
<td class="xl70">48%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.51</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">65</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">56</td>
<td>Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization</td>
<td class="xl70">30%</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.67</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">33</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">25</td>
<td>Journal of Business and Economic Statistics</td>
<td class="xl70">20%</td>
<td class="xl70">10%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.70</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">49</td>
<td>Canadian Journal of Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">28%</td>
<td class="xl70">6%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.72</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">18</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">53</td>
<td>Economics of Education Review</td>
<td class="xl70">50%</td>
<td class="xl70">7%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.79</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">14</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">51</td>
<td>Journal of Industrial Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">13%</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.81</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">1.5</td>
<td class="xl68">5.5</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">88</td>
<td>World Development</td>
<td class="xl70">39%</td>
<td class="xl70">37%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.92</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">49</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">33</td>
<td>Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier)</td>
<td class="xl70">21%</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.94</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">33</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">22</td>
<td>RAND Journal of Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">6%</td>
<td class="xl70">21%</td>
<td class="xl69">3.97</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">68</td>
<td>Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)</td>
<td class="xl70">57%</td>
<td class="xl70">21%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.07</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">14</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">28</td>
<td>Experimental Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">38%</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.08</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">40</td>
<td>Journal of Environmental Economics and Management</td>
<td class="xl70">24%</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.15</td>
<td class="xl68">3.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">25</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">45</td>
<td>Econometric Theory</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">40%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.20</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">84</td>
<td>Health Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl70">50%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.21</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">44</td>
<td>Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control</td>
<td class="xl70">50%</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.22</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">22</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">54</td>
<td>Journal of Economics and Management Strategy</td>
<td class="xl70">54%</td>
<td class="xl70">8%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.23</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">66</td>
<td>International Tax and Public Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.29</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">60</td>
<td>B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics</td>
<td class="xl70">63%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.33</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">75</td>
<td>Economic Theory</td>
<td class="xl70">23%</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.35</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">22</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">95</td>
<td>Energy Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">55%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.42</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">3.5</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">11</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">98</td>
<td>Economics of Transition</td>
<td class="xl70">71%</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.50</td>
<td class="xl68">4.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">47</td>
<td>Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics</td>
<td class="xl70">29%</td>
<td class="xl70">36%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.64</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">14</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">72</td>
<td>Environmental and Resource Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl70">47%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.69</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">6.5</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">18</td>
<td>Journal of International Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl70">6%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.71</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">17</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">43</td>
<td>Journal of International Money and Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">40%</td>
<td class="xl70">5%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.75</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
<td class="xl68">20</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">97</td>
<td>Journal of Corporate Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl70">14%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.75</td>
<td class="xl68">3.5</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6.5</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">73</td>
<td>Review of International Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">30%</td>
<td class="xl70">10%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.91</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">52</td>
<td>Games and Economic Behavior</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl69">4.94</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">50</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">59</td>
<td>Economic Development and Cultural Change</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl70">20%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.00</td>
<td class="xl68">4.5</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">6.5</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">48</td>
<td>Economic Inquiry</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl70">25%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.18</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
<td class="xl68">36</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">39</td>
<td>Journal of Economic Surveys</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">40%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.20</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">0</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">2</td>
<td>Journal of Political Economy</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl70">50%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.34</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">2</td>
<td class="xl68">8</td>
<td class="xl68">32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">96</td>
<td>Empirical Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">44%</td>
<td class="xl70">13%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.56</td>
<td class="xl68">5.5</td>
<td class="xl68">3.5</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">16</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">50</td>
<td>Economica</td>
<td class="xl70">11%</td>
<td class="xl70">53%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.57</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">1</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">19</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">20</td>
<td>Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking</td>
<td class="xl70">13%</td>
<td class="xl70">13%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.72</td>
<td class="xl68">4.5</td>
<td class="xl68">2.5</td>
<td class="xl68">9</td>
<td class="xl68">30</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">77</td>
<td>Journal of Public Economic Theory</td>
<td class="xl70">27%</td>
<td class="xl70">18%</td>
<td class="xl69">5.86</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">3</td>
<td class="xl68">9</td>
<td class="xl68">11</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">79</td>
<td>The World Economy</td>
<td class="xl70">40%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">6.25</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">3.5</td>
<td class="xl68">8.5</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">70</td>
<td>Econometric Reviews</td>
<td class="xl70">33%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">6.86</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">29</td>
<td>Journal of Econometrics</td>
<td class="xl70">10%</td>
<td class="xl70">10%</td>
<td class="xl69">6.90</td>
<td class="xl68">6.5</td>
<td class="xl68">5</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
<td class="xl68">10</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">86</td>
<td>Journal of Empirical Finance</td>
<td class="xl70">38%</td>
<td class="xl70">0%</td>
<td class="xl69">8.22</td>
<td class="xl68">7</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
<td class="xl68">8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">
<td class="xl68" height="19" style="height: 14.4pt;">8</td>
<td>Journal of Monetary Economics</td>
<td class="xl70">21%</td>
<td class="xl70">11%</td>
<td class="xl69">9.12</td>
<td class="xl68">6</td>
<td class="xl68">4</td>
<td class="xl68">11</td>
<td class="xl68">19</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-82602279919676874952018-10-30T07:48:00.000-07:002018-11-03T22:19:10.823-07:00Are Negative Interest Rates Expansionary? A Review of Eggertsson et al. (2017)<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">My answer is yes they are.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I recently assigned my students to write a referee report of Eggertsson et al., "<a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w24039">Are Negative Nominal Rates Expansionary?</a>" I chose the paper because I'm a huge fan of Eggertsson's work, the paper is well done, it has a nice synthesis of data and theory, and the topic is of central policy importance. The authors find that negative nominal interest rates may not be expansionary, and also, that under certain conditions, quite surprisingly, they may be contractionary.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I like the paper and see a clear contribution. However, I wish the authors would have framed the paper slightly differently. My reading is that they show that negative <i>reserve</i> rates below the cost of hoarding cash can be potentially contractionary under some conditions, and need other policies (negative lending rates for banks/Gesell taxes) to make the policy more expansionary. This is still an important and useful point -- I learned something from them. Yet, since not all of the key modeling assumptions are true, and since "negative interest rates" can include 1. negative rates above the cost of hoarding cash, 2. negative borrowing rates for banks, or 3. Gesell taxes on banks (may seem far-fetched, but something in this spirit has, in fact, happened), I think the paper's actual result is in fact narrower than "negative rates aren't expansionary and may be contractionary", and does not apply to the negative interest rates that we have seen.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">From where does the contractionary result come from? It comes from assuming banks profits can affect intermediation costs. Since negative interest rates are a tax on banks, they hurt profitability. But, how much did banks actually pay in taxes due to negative interest rates? Color me skeptical it hurt profitability enough to have materially damaged intermediation. We are talking a second or third-order type of effect. And, to the extent negative interest did increase loans, the impact on profitability would be uncertain. Lastly, the ECB had a tiered rate system, in which required reserves were still paid a positive interest rate, but only the marginal reserves over some threshold were taxed. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One concern is that the ECB also had a program (dubbed TLRTO -- can't central banks print some money and hire better PR people?) where banks could <i>borrow</i> money at negative interest rates on the condition they lend it out. In that case, hundreds of billions of Euros in loans were taken out, likely many as a cause of the policy, and these "negative interest rates" would also add several billion Euros directly to bank profits over the last few years</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">. The model in the paper does not consider this possibility. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">Two additional key assumptions of the model are that banks are taking out 100% financing from deposits (as many of my students noted) and all bank profits are paid to households. To their credit, the authors fully acknowledge that the first of these assumptions is important and not exactly true. In Sweden, for example, the deposit share is less than 50%. To the extent that financing comes from other sources, banks may actually care about the spread between the reserve rate and the loan rate, particularly if there is a cost of holding cash (say, 1-1.5%). In practice, after the financial crisis, banks like Bank of America cut their dividend payments to almost nothing. In this environment, banks will respond to negative interest rates by making more loans and lowering the interest rate on loans, and may even pay more dividends, boosting aggregate demand. Nothing in the paper contradicts this logic. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px;">My intuition before reading this paper is that a negative interest rate will be an effective tax on excess reserves, and thus it would make a bank want to lend out money instead of having more reserves. This appears not to happen in the model because banks would hoard physical cash instead of reserves (I think the authors could have been more explicit on what banks do with their mountain of excess reserves when negative rates happen -- the calibration exercise starts with few excess reserves). There is an implicit assumption that because deposit rates didn't drop (much) below zero, that the cost of holding cash must also be close to zero, and also, in particular, lower than the .4-.7% negative interest rates that we've seen. My gut feeling is that the level is likely to be closer to 1-1.5%, since banks did not, in fact, hoard physical cash. One reason they did not, however, is that central banks aren't stupid -- it seems at least some central banks take into account changes in cash holdings of banks when setting the limits for negative-interest free reserves (see box 2 of <a href="https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1603e.pdf">this BIS document</a> on negative rates). In addition, <a href="http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6901.pdf">there is a paper arguing</a> banks responded to negative interest rates by raising fees instead, effectively lowering deposit rates below zero -- a topic the authors do address (hat tip to a student).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px;">Perhaps banks did not lower their deposit rates below zero, not because there is no cost to holding cash, but because they didn't know how depositors would react, or believed the policy was temporary, and were afraid of a hysteretic effect on depositors, or due to ongoing concerns with their quantities of bad long-term loans. It could also be the case that holding small amounts of cash is relatively costless, but once you have football fields of cash, suddenly you need to hire top-notch security, and buy insurance, so the cost could increase non-linearly. The authors, once again, should be commended for being explicit that this assumption would alter the conclusions of the paper. Yet, even I suspect there is a limit to the cost of hoarding cash. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">I could go on here with theory. This is a one period model. A negative headline rate probably sends a stronger signal about future low short-term rates (commitment to irresponsibility) than keeping a rate at zero, and thus could influence longer maturities (as </span><a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w25180.pdf">evidence finds</a><span style="font-size: 16px;">). They could also underscore a central bank's commitment to do "whatever it takes" to achieve inflation. It's also a closed economy -- negative interest rates could trigger capital outflows and a depreciated exchange rate, particularly if it had an impact on the yield curve.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It's also possible to introduce other factors which would imply negative nominal rates are expansionary. See <a href="http://www.dporcellacchia.com/resources/Porcellacchia_JMP.pdf">this nice paper by Davide Porcellacchia</a> (who we tried unsuccessfully to hire last year at NES), which argues that negative rates might still lead consumers to save less overall. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Thus, theoretically, the result is ambiguous. (Isn't that always the case?) Thus, it comes down to empirics. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I also had some minor quibbles with the empirics in the paper. At one point, they write, speaking of Denmark, that "the negative policy rate has not been transmitted to deposit rates." It actually looks to my eye like there were slight declines in the deposit rates each time the Danish central bank crossed into negative territory. The household deposit rate was cut roughly in half after the second cut in 2014. If you squint, it also looks like the corporate deposit rate dipped below zero at several points. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQLgtXO0vVaQ0zAS8_fhYWT40jt4iBR_GnC22s7YiLuQhjVPFgz6PAhiE0i4RPx64qWaCG1ceUzPrF8zkb8JSWzu8TIoO4DAa-i2X-DtUgrIiUuey6i5TbJVyiuPgE1ILZtUiqzGEogxI/s1600/Denmarkrates.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="910" height="492" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQLgtXO0vVaQ0zAS8_fhYWT40jt4iBR_GnC22s7YiLuQhjVPFgz6PAhiE0i4RPx64qWaCG1ceUzPrF8zkb8JSWzu8TIoO4DAa-i2X-DtUgrIiUuey6i5TbJVyiuPgE1ILZtUiqzGEogxI/s640/Denmarkrates.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Admittedly, in their evidence for Switzerland and Japan, going negative did appear to have, at best, a very minor impact on deposit rates (see below). However, for both Germany, and for the Euro Area as a whole, it looks to me like going negative might have had close to a 1-for-1 impact on deposit rates. Certainly, in at least several cases negative policy rates did translate into lower deposit rates. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhthBWihnSssTS8AAZvsxS4xR5mXz1TA4GJgLVWtae0Fd5BgtBtUc_HD9-jYvBffMOFGC__39Vhh94RRT_xBqLFTxYDjmg21SjqsS_mJ_k02QxfGSmdkbn2VoeXmxU23mqi-pJq1uM4PYs/s1600/eurodepositrates.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="769" data-original-width="1086" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhthBWihnSssTS8AAZvsxS4xR5mXz1TA4GJgLVWtae0Fd5BgtBtUc_HD9-jYvBffMOFGC__39Vhh94RRT_xBqLFTxYDjmg21SjqsS_mJ_k02QxfGSmdkbn2VoeXmxU23mqi-pJq1uM4PYs/s640/eurodepositrates.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Even more important than deposit rates are lending rates (Figure below). Again, for lending rates, it does look like in at least a few cases, a lower deposit rate did translate into lower lending rates. In the Japanese case, this happened despite the fact that deposit rates did not fall. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPN2rHGISPsD6p7uN0wspfongQhDd9pm8Cykl4sKFdyw5Dx5Mw-dCMwIjeCifuo5sh2Ok0DXU6HN5ZzI9kPrSZsyKl5Zd5kuHnlwlumJI5td_PBp3ACDIfDGNtGt9DxizTPu5tkkzIESY/s1600/eurolendingrates.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="766" data-original-width="1073" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPN2rHGISPsD6p7uN0wspfongQhDd9pm8Cykl4sKFdyw5Dx5Mw-dCMwIjeCifuo5sh2Ok0DXU6HN5ZzI9kPrSZsyKl5Zd5kuHnlwlumJI5td_PBp3ACDIfDGNtGt9DxizTPu5tkkzIESY/s640/eurolendingrates.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It would also have been nice to look at surprise announcements of ZLB episodes, and look at how the announcement of negative rates affect a variety of interest rates in the economy, including the rates that banks borrow from each other at, longer-term yields, and also of exchange rates and the stock market (admittedly, from what I've seen, this evidence looks mixed). The <a href="https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1603e.pdf">BIS found </a>that negative interest rates passed through fully into money markets. Switzerland and Denmark did, after all, institute negative rates in part to stabilize the exchange rates. </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I think more work needs to be done on this topic, but from the theory and the data, I don't see much that suggests that negative interest rates can't or didn't stimulate the economy. I am persuaded that negative reserve rates are best complemented with other policies, and I credit this paper with making the point. I believe central banks should do more to boost lending during liquidity trap periods, such as through a full program of quantitative targeting of loan levels, regulation, fines, negative interest rates, or subsidies for loans made. China in fact was said to do quantitative targeting during the Great Recession, and <a href="https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/monnet-eric/monetarypolicyfrancemonnet.pdf">France</a> and Germany did things like this during the Bretton Woods period. (See this <a href="https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/monnet-eric/monetarypolicyfrancemonnet.pdf">nice paper by Eric Monnet</a>.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Overall, I'm a big believer of much more aggressive monetary policy at the zero lower bound than what we've seen. While I think a healthy degree of skepticism about new policy tools during liquidity trap periods is prudent (probably, mistakes were made with the rollout and PR around QE, even if it does seem to have been stimulative), and while I also think papers like this one move the debate forward, I've also long been skeptical of the skepticism of the idea that monetary policy can't be effective at the ZLB. I worry that this paper may be misinterpreted to suggest that banks shouldn't try to use negative interest rates at the ZLB, and should opt to do nothing instead. This despite the correct conclusion being that central banks should use negative reserve rates in conjunction with other policies. Some like this happened with people who read Paul Krugman only occasionally, but not in the round. They walked away believing that monetary policy had "shot its wad" -- in the words of a former president. Had they read every word Krugman wrote, they would have believed instead that central banks needed to credibly commit to higher future levels of inflation to stimulate the economy, but only that traditional monetary policy was ineffective. I observed this when I worked in the Obama CEA, and some economists there too believed that nothing more could be done on monetary policy, leading them to not want to recommend to the President that he make his vacant FOMC picks. There's <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/%5Bnode%3A%5D/podcasts/06262017/macro-musings-63-matt-yglesias-politics-fed-policy">a case to be made</a> that this was <i>the</i> single biggest policy mistake Obama made while in office. And that mistake, to a large extent, explains how we got to where we are. </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Note: I should mention that many of the points above were motivated, directly or indirectly, by the insightful referee reports of my students! </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-14363151048774241532018-02-06T10:35:00.001-08:002018-02-09T05:15:47.806-08:00On the Uses (and Abuses) of Economath: The Malthusian ModelsMany American undergraduates in Economics interested in doing a Ph.D. are surprised to learn that the first year of an Econ Ph.D. feels much more like entering a Ph.D. in solving mathematical models by hand than it does with learning economics. Typically, there is very little reading or writing involved, but loads and loads of fast algebra is required. Why is it like this?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first reason is that mathematical models are useful! Take the Malthusian Model. All you need is four simple assumptions: (1) that the birth rate is increasing in income, (2) that the death rate is decreasing in income, (3) that income per person is negatively related to population, and (4) the rate of technological growth is slow relative to population growth, and you can explain a lot of world history, and it leads you to the surprising conclusion that income in a Malthusian economy is determined solely by birth and death rate schedules, and is uncorrelated with technology. Using this model, you can explain, for example, why incomes before 1800 were roughly stagnant for centuries despite improving technology (technological advance just resulted in more people; see the graph of income proxied by skeletal heights below). It also predicts why the Neo-Europes -- the US/Australasia/Southern Cone countries are rich -- they were depopulated by disease, and then Europeans moved in with lots of land per person. It is a very simple, and yet powerful, model. And it makes (correct) predictions that many historians (<i>e.g</i>., Kenneth Pomeranz), scientists (<i>e.g</i>., Jared Diamond), and John Bates Clark-caliber economists (see below) get wrong.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQV269o044LNEhROgz1gbcc7vo_zLBKunLy-yjnd75DwSH_iVUSGWRv8ptU26sKZxSzknVAWV34vVeBGV2QBIvjwsByEPytBACJZm3Zliw30Q9z-8F2yP-2scUc7J86uYAlXALqH-ClhY/s1600/skeletalheights.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1033" data-original-width="1371" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQV269o044LNEhROgz1gbcc7vo_zLBKunLy-yjnd75DwSH_iVUSGWRv8ptU26sKZxSzknVAWV34vVeBGV2QBIvjwsByEPytBACJZm3Zliw30Q9z-8F2yP-2scUc7J86uYAlXALqH-ClhY/s640/skeletalheights.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A second beneficial reason is signalling. This reason is not to be discounted given the paramount importance of signalling in all walks of life (still <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/03/is-academia-biased-against-stars.html">not sufficiently appreciated</a> by all labor economists). Smart people do math. Even smarter people do even more complicated-looking math. I gratuitously put a version of the Melitz model in my job market paper, and when I interviewed, someone remarked that I was "really teched up!" Simple models are not something that serious grown-ups partake in. Other social science disciplines have their own versions of peacock feathers. In philosophy, people write in increasingly obtuse terms, using obscure language and jargon, going through enormous effort to use words requiring as many people as possible to consult dictionaries. Unfortunately, the Malthusian model above, while effective in terms of predictive power, is far too simple to play a beneficial signalling role, and as a result would likely have trouble getting published if introduced today. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A third reason to use math is that it is easy to use math to trick people. Often, if you make your assumptions in plain English, they will sound ridiculous. But if you couch them in terms of equations, integrals, and matrices, they will appear more sophisticated, and the unrealism of the assumptions may not be obvious, even to people with Ph.D.'s from places like Harvard and Stanford, or to editors at top theory journals such as Econometrica. A particularly informative example is the Malthusian model proposed by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson in the 2001 version of their "<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w8460">Reversal of Fortune</a>" paper (model starts on the bottom of page 9). Note that Daron Acemoglu is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant economic theorists of his generation, is a tenured professor of Economics at MIT, was recently the editor of Econometrica (the top theory journal in all of economics), and was also awarded a John Bates Clark medal (the 2nd most prestigious medal in the profession) in large part for his work on this paper (and a closely related paper). Also keep in mind this paper was eventually published in the QJE, the top journal in the field. Very few living economists have a better CV than Daron Acemoglu. Thus, if we want to learn about how economath is used, we'll do best to start by learning from the master himself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's interesting about the Acemoglu et al. Malthusian model is that they take the same basic assumptions, assign a particular functional form to how population growth is influenced by income, and arrive at the conclusion that population density (which is proportional to technology) will be proportional to income! They use the model:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
p(t+1) = rho*p(t) + lambda*(y-ybar) + epsilon(t),</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
where p(t+1) is population density at time t+1, p(t) is population at time t, rho is a parameter (perhaps just less than 1), lambda is a parameter, y is income, ybar is the level of Malthusian subsistence income, and epsilon is an error term. If you impose a steady state (p* and y*) and solve for p*, you get:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
p* = 1/(1-rho)*lambda(y*-ybar)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I.e., you get that population density is increasing in income, and thus that income per person should have been increasing throughout history. Thus, these guys from MIT were able to use mathematics and overturn one of the central predictions of the Malthusian model. It is no wonder, then, that Acemoglu was then awarded a Clark medal for this work.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except. This version doesn't necessarily fit the skeletal evidence above, although that evidence may be incomplete and imperfect (selection issues?). What exactly was the source of the difference in the classical Malthusian model and the "MIT" malthusian model? The crucial assumption, unstated in words but there in greek letters for anyone to see, was that income affects the <i><b>level</b></i> of population, but not the <b><i>growth rate</i></b> in population. Stated differently, this assumption means that a handful of individuals could and would out-reproduce the whole of China and India combined if they had the same level of income. (With rho less than one, say, .98, the first term will imply a contraction of millions of people in China/India. With income over subsistence, we then need to parameterize lambda to be large enough so that overall population can grow in China. But once we do this, we'll have the implication that even a very small population would have much larger absolute growth than China given the same income.) Obviously, this is quite a ridiculous assumption when stated in plain language. A population can grow by, at most, a few percent per year. 100 people can't have 3 million offspring. What this model does successfully is reveal how cloaking an unrealistic assumption in terms of mathematics can make said assumption very hard to detect, even by tenured economics professors at places like MIT. Math in this case is used as little more than a literary device designed to fool the feebleminded. Fortunately, someone caught the flaw, and this model didn't make the published version in the QJE. Unfortunately, the published version still included the view that population density is a reasonable proxy for income in a Malthusian economy, which of course it is not. And the insight that Malthusian forces led to high incomes in the Neo-Europes was also lost. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given that this paper then formed part of the basis of Acemoglu's Clark medal, I think we can safely conclude that people are very susceptible to bullshit when written in equations. More evidence will come later in the comments section, as, conditioned on getting hits, I suspect several people will be taken in by the AJR model, and will defend it vigorously. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This episodes shows some truth to <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/economath_fails.html">Bryan Caplan</a>'s view that "The main intellectual benefit of studying economath ... is that it allows you to detect the abuse of economath." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given the importance of signaling in all walks of life, and given the power of math, not just to illuminate and to signal, but also to trick, confuse, and bewilder, it thus makes perfect sense that roughly 99% of the core training in an economics Ph.D. is in fact in math rather than economics.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> Sure enough, as I predicted above, we have a defender of the AJR model in the comments. He argues the AJR model shows why math clarifies, even while his posts unwittingly convey the opposite.<br />
<br />
Above, I took issue with the steady state relationship in the model and the fallacious assumption which yields it. The commenter points out correctly, that, outside of the steady state, the AJR model actually implies that there are two conflicting forces. But, so what? My argument was about the steady state. If one fixes the wrong assumption, steady-state income in the Malthusian model will be equal to subsistence income, and thus the main argument for correlation between population density and income outside of the steady state will also be shut down.<br />
<br />
Second the commenter unfairly smears Acemoglu & Co., writing that the real problem is not with their model, but that they didn't interpret their model correctly: "goes ahead in the empirical work to largely, in contrast to what their model says, take population density as a proxy for income!".<br />
<br />
Thus I'd like to defend Acemoglu against this unfair smear. In preindustrial societies, there were vast differences in population densities between hunter-gatherer groups, and agricultural societies, even though there were not vast income differences between the two. In fact, quite surprisingly, hunter-gatherer societies often look to have been richer despite working less (read Greg Clark), and despite far more primitive technology. Thus it is quite reasonable to assume, as AJR did, that it is likely that differences in technology would swamp the differences in other population shocks (A more important than epsilon). The Black Death might have doubled or tripled incomes, but settled agrarian societies might have population densities 1000 times as large as primitive hunter-gatherer tribes. This isn't an airtight argument, but, given their model, I believe AJR's empirical extension is reasonable, particularly given that they provide a caveat. The problem is that their model is not reasonable.<br />
<br />
The commenter goes on to argue that I've gotten AJR's conclusion backward: "<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">You claim that the point they are making is "population density will be a decent proxy for income in a Malthusian model." The point they are making is explicitly the exact opposite: that "caution is required in interpreting population density as a proxy for income per capita."</span><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"> </span><br />
<br />
Huh? The first two lines of the abstract of the AJR paper read: "Among countries colonized by European powers during the past 500 years, those that were relatively rich in 1500 are now relatively poor. We document this reversal using data on urbanization patterns and population density, which, we argue, proxy for economic prosperity."<br />
<br />
Seems clear here they are arguing for using it as a proxy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-44744871813973141292018-01-24T06:29:00.002-08:002018-01-24T07:07:33.316-08:00Reminder: Most Published Research is Probably Wrong!<div class="tr_bq">
At least in some way. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of great research out there. However, it has occured to me that many people are much too trusting of published research, particularly when written by people from fancy universities with fancy letters behind their names and when published in prestigious journals. I saw this recently during a very lively session on the Decline in <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/1759?q=eNqrVipOLS7OzM8LqSxIVbKqhnGVrJQMlWp1lBKLi_OTgRwlHaWS1KJcXCArODkjv6QEyE9JrIRKZOamQlhlmanlIEOKCgqAAqYGSrW1XDBcMFwiHc0,">US Manufacturing Growth and Productivity</a> at the AEA meetings in Philadelphia several weeks ago. Several people asked David Autor why his results on the impact of China on US innovation was different from what other prominent researchers had found. (One of the answers, of course, is that there is little reason to believe the competing research, but I digress...) Similarly, one of my complaints of the otherwise excellent <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/trade-talks-piie/id1270804213?mt=2">Trade Talks podcast</a> with Chad Bown is that published results, particularly by prominent researchers, are generally taken at face value, with not enough discussion, in my view, about potential caveats and shortcomings of the methodologies employed.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
The reality is that science is difficult, and that <a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/tyler-cowens-three-laws.html">Cowen's First Law</a> (there is something wrong with everything!) applies to economic research.</div>
<br />
Here's a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MqTOEospfo">moving video</a> from Neil Degrasse Tyson which I mostly love. My only issue was his description of science:<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #fcfcfc; color: #444444; font-family: lft-etica; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 1em; word-wrap: break-word;">
One of the great things about science, is that it's an entire exercise in finding what is true.<br />
You have a hypothesis, you test it. I get a result. A rival of mine double checks it, because they think I might be wrong. They perform an even better experiment than I did, and they find out, “Hey, this experiment matches! Oh my gosh. We’re on to something here!” And out of this rises a new, emergent truth.</blockquote>
This is a description of everything I wish science was! Perhaps it is an accurate description of hard sciences (I'm skeptical), but this is not how the social sciences operate. In practice, when a top researcher has a major finding, other top researchers, with rare exceptions, do not check it. Occasionally, grad students or less prominent researchers will overturn the result, but they will find that journals simply aren't <a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/">the least bit interested</a> in publishing papers which reverse seminal papers. Thinking like an economist, this creates some rather perverse incentives. If you are a well-connected researcher in a prominent department, you are well-incentivized to publish as much as possible. This means creating research which appears sophisticated, and it also means not pissing off the people who will judge your research. On the contrary, implies that there are benefits from having a lot of close friends (what deGrasse calls your "rivals") in the profession. You don't accomplish this by pointing out that another researcher's results disappear when you control for latitude. As a result, many top researchers are in fact incentivized to crank out many low-quality papers but with seemingly blockbuster results.<br />
<br />
Part of the way this system survives is because there is a culture frowning on writing "comment papers", and the other reason is that there is, fortunate for the existence of this system, a willing population of "sheep", the "true believers", available to consume and believe this research.<br />
<br />
In any case, on my ride back to Moscow from Philadelphia, I fired up Stata, and took a second look at some of the research which found that the China shock led to a huge increase in productivity and patenting in Europe, published in a leading journal. The thesis sounded quite dubious to me from the beginning. It turned out that including sectoral fixed effects -- a very basic control -- killed the results. If I were to write this up, the journal that published it would never, in a million years, accept it. Secondly, although the original authors seem to me like fine people, traditionally, economists behave in a way which is <a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/">mafia-level shady (see the comments)</a> when their research comes under attack. Partly, they have to do this, since the masses believe that most top research is correct, it is seen as a huge black mark on someone's reputation to have a paper overturned. If there was widespread knowledge that science is difficult and most papers have flaws, this might not be so necessary. Then, perhaps, we could get a bit closer to Neil Degrasse Tyson's idealized view of science.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-49501893292053070232017-12-11T04:11:00.000-08:002017-12-11T04:23:54.347-08:00Janet Yellen's Tenure, in Retrospect (Has the Economy Really Recovered?)On Twitter, Paul Romer lauds the job that Janet Yellen has done, writing that "<span style="background-color: #f5f8fa; color: #14171a; font-family: "segoe ui" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In an extraordinarily difficult political context, J. Yellen did an extraordinarily important public policy job extraordinarily well."</span><br />
<br />
However, I've long been a skeptic of the job that both Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen have done. (Seems I'm the only one who remembers that <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTDSRUSM193N">2010 discount rate hike</a>, with GDP 20% below trend, she voted for, which helped spawn the Tea Party...) The economy never had a full recovery, as growth is still slow and inflation is still below target. I once explained this to a colleague, and she told me that "Sorry, but I don't think you are smarter than Ben Bernanke. He knows more about monetary policy than you." When I was at the CEA, virtually everyone else there thought I was the stupid one, and that Ben-"<a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/07/ben-bernanke-in-denial-re-when-growth.html">When Growth is Not Enough</a>"-Bernanke's policy was roughly optimal.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is long before Ben Bernanke himself amended his views, to say that central banks <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/">should do price-level targeting</a> when exiting a liquidity trap. <i>I.e.</i>, Ben Bernanke (2017) thinks the Fed should have aimed for higher inflation in the 2009 to 2014 period, whereas Ben Bernanke (2009-2014) seemed to be content with below-target inflation, much less inflation over and above the inflation target. That Bernanke (and Yellen) also believed that when growth and inflation were below forecast, a central bank should not provide more stimulus, but instead lower the forecasts.<br />
<br />
However, Bernanke's reappraisal isn't just a repudiation of the views of the 2009 to 2014 Ben Bernanke, but also a repudiation of the views of Janet Yellen over this period. Of course, Janet has only been the Chair since 2014. Since that time, she has seen fit to end QE and raise interest rates repeatedly. So, let's do some Monday-morning quarterbacking on how well this has gone.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimo1o4BNIxifQbpkhK1YnmgbJvYPSWTGE19Oc42ZF3sNAG03q-sL8e29QbQ1bEngfQboI1wkrCyIHDGB44fvUZ5U-Ppw50LI9AusaSQd6nxBKMdEq3xc_6s-wEwrunAV7kIb__Txr0cMo/s1600/pcedeflator.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="987" data-original-width="1600" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimo1o4BNIxifQbpkhK1YnmgbJvYPSWTGE19Oc42ZF3sNAG03q-sL8e29QbQ1bEngfQboI1wkrCyIHDGB44fvUZ5U-Ppw50LI9AusaSQd6nxBKMdEq3xc_6s-wEwrunAV7kIb__Txr0cMo/s640/pcedeflator.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In terms of the Core PCE deflator, inflation has been below the Fed's own target under Yellen's entire term, and is currently nowhere near the target. In addition, there's a good case to be made that the Fed's inflation target is, itself, too low. And then there is Bernanke's argument, that, coming out of a liquidity trap period, central banks should aim for temporarily high inflation. Yellen's record here is not good.<br />
<br />
How about with GDP growth and employment? If all is well there, slightly lower inflation would not be a real problem. However, here is Real GDP relative to the long-run trend.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSt8t23a9WqnlDAmLjBso4-cDEffyTXo58uc_eWCg3Ql_uBCeApKpAUQYkL76enCRqlRQiUCFj6w5OJc7zlbmN3MDmGSJIc_WzNDfZb6V4rFzyNt1K_U2cR7yUoIsitK5UfYrSMb4ruxg/s1600/RGDPreltotrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1045" data-original-width="1600" height="418" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSt8t23a9WqnlDAmLjBso4-cDEffyTXo58uc_eWCg3Ql_uBCeApKpAUQYkL76enCRqlRQiUCFj6w5OJc7zlbmN3MDmGSJIc_WzNDfZb6V4rFzyNt1K_U2cR7yUoIsitK5UfYrSMb4ruxg/s640/RGDPreltotrend.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Note that the US is well below it's long-run growth trend, and getting further away from it. The near-consensus among economists, interestingly enough, is that most everything that can be invented has already been invented, and there just isn't that much "stuff" left. Yes, really. I think that is nonsense (the iphone was invented in 2007!). In fact the cause is the China (+RER) shock, and then poor regulation during the housing bubble, and poor monetary policy managing the liquidity trap. This is all fairly obvious by now. Strange it isn't already the consensus. But slow inflation along with slow growth suggests that the problem isn't some structural supply problem, but due to a shortfall of demand.<br />
<br />
However, to be fair to Paul Romer, unemployment is way down. This is a good sign, and an indicator that the labor market has improved.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVvNLqSI8PhsotqtlTd6M3kxaDqUWd_LNWo9-ZCtmnI3jW8tc1ISEd0j1TiY3JH_lpW98rzHXKlcPgqevTqjkiekzvESKCZ3N7Obfd7CYgvgChxYDy5Lyw9Q13m5qEfS-dOC9U_bvceU4/s1600/unemployment.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="991" data-original-width="1600" height="396" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVvNLqSI8PhsotqtlTd6M3kxaDqUWd_LNWo9-ZCtmnI3jW8tc1ISEd0j1TiY3JH_lpW98rzHXKlcPgqevTqjkiekzvESKCZ3N7Obfd7CYgvgChxYDy5Lyw9Q13m5qEfS-dOC9U_bvceU4/s640/unemployment.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, it is not the only labor market indicator, and thus, by itself, does not provide a full picture of the economy. The employment rate for prime-aged workers is another legitimate measure to look at, as the unemployment rate might look good if many people have simply left the labor force. And, the prime-age employment rate below shows that, while the US has made steady progress, it is not quite back to the level it was at in 2007. In addition, the 2007 peak, which came after 7 years of relatively slow GDP growth despite a housing bubble, and was also the decade of the collapse in manufacturing employment, was significantly lower than the 2000 peak. (The overall employment-to-population<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO"> ratio still looks terrible</a>.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEICMwCsC_5I2CLultAjx7w-7IUulm7eTKksA6TDTBldSdp1BycG-R6_3UpE02nNavw64HxffHmQkEaSTwuP8Dm76l8NnuISmN_glXAVNq6EEr3Tno52ZfCLm8NNOZ7arnAF4YS5byZto/s1600/emptopop25to54a.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="974" data-original-width="1600" height="388" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEICMwCsC_5I2CLultAjx7w-7IUulm7eTKksA6TDTBldSdp1BycG-R6_3UpE02nNavw64HxffHmQkEaSTwuP8Dm76l8NnuISmN_glXAVNq6EEr3Tno52ZfCLm8NNOZ7arnAF4YS5byZto/s640/emptopop25to54a.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, even this measure is flawed in several respects. One problem is that, given heavy baby boomer retirement, more jobs have opened up for younger workers than would otherwise be the case. While I don't think an adjustment for this would change the picture that much, we might actually deduct a quarter to a half of a percent for this.<br />
<br />
A second factor is that the several decades since the 1970s had saw increasing numbers of women enter the labor force. Optimists may say that this trend was simply complete by 2000. But, even since then, we have seen female employment continue to increase on a relative basis. Thus, I would say that our baseline shouldn't be the 2000 peak, but that we should have expected emp-to-pop to have increased more than this. How much more? Perhaps another .25 or .5%. A good paper could probably tease this out. Again, I don't think this necessitates a large adjustment. But, these are starting to add up, and means we might still be 3.5-4% below where we should be.<br />
<br />
The graph of the female prime-aged employment rate shows that female employment has essentially recovered back to its level in 2007. This means that it is still gaining ground relative to male employment, even since 2000. And, it is still about 7% lower than the overall employment rate.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60ZFzkT30B5W-e58Mhru66H1Co50jrs2fxNxGMB9Hf-FIlY9_cdZUgaDgZiK74vm629fa-wJe59oQrebanN7y9LZ9ZNPSdDCglpR1pGhhWmXQ5cY7Va7CUdZC3vhCUDErXEnPLomwhpk/s1600/femaleemp.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1040" data-original-width="1600" height="416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60ZFzkT30B5W-e58Mhru66H1Co50jrs2fxNxGMB9Hf-FIlY9_cdZUgaDgZiK74vm629fa-wJe59oQrebanN7y9LZ9ZNPSdDCglpR1pGhhWmXQ5cY7Va7CUdZC3vhCUDErXEnPLomwhpk/s640/femaleemp.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A third factor is that just because people are working, it doesn't mean they are doing work they are happy with, or have seen the wage growth they would like. Here is the part-time employment rate, which is still elevated, and presents a rather pessimistic figure. But, if more people are working part-time, this is an indication that other people who are working full-time are not employed in their ideal jobs, but would rather have better jobs with higher salaries. And, of course, given the slower GDP growth, incomes have not grown as fast as they used to.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidPDtwLahfcWi83ZQxsydHTH_JR1F8Ohkup5abi_A7l16fn67kYTBA17R9J6Pu8Zq8oVTmZpAH7ECi2-nlYS8kMg5B_j38U3wk5fUAERysfa5T0IpZeZ7aYur3IhysNmsiTb2OYgvyF_4/s1600/parttime.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1029" data-original-width="1600" height="410" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidPDtwLahfcWi83ZQxsydHTH_JR1F8Ohkup5abi_A7l16fn67kYTBA17R9J6Pu8Zq8oVTmZpAH7ECi2-nlYS8kMg5B_j38U3wk5fUAERysfa5T0IpZeZ7aYur3IhysNmsiTb2OYgvyF_4/s640/parttime.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Obviously, incomes are also not increasing as fast as they used to.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7NZY7cpiix-BaZL7oyt8uTywTJHtfOluYuCdS6bqjU_VjQBXwmX7hgUfLnXHED7SIHp74h6z-iBmD7KAV7l56lok1o6xiLogikMKzo22bBPjNsZL39m-7eUkbG9oaF8nw9LIRhGQPYZY/s1600/wagegrowth.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1031" data-original-width="1600" height="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7NZY7cpiix-BaZL7oyt8uTywTJHtfOluYuCdS6bqjU_VjQBXwmX7hgUfLnXHED7SIHp74h6z-iBmD7KAV7l56lok1o6xiLogikMKzo22bBPjNsZL39m-7eUkbG9oaF8nw9LIRhGQPYZY/s640/wagegrowth.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sure, inflation is also low, but GDP growth is slow. That both are slow is an indication that the economy is demand constrained. Why is it demand constrained? Well, the end of QE and four rate hikes are certainly part of the story. Those rate hikes caused the dollar to appreciate, inflation to subside, and more manufacturing jobs to be lost. And this is Janet Yellen's doing. This wasn't a one-time mistake either. She repeatedly failed to hit her inflation target, with slow GDP, and never re-thought the course the Fed was on.<br />
<br />
The defence of Yellen (and also of Bernanke) is that she might have liked to have been more accommodative over much of this period, but also had to deal with more conservative elements on the Board (see <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/07/in-idiocy-of-kevin-warsh-more-evidence.html">here</a>).<br />
<br />
To get a sense of how competent the people around Yellen at the Fed have been, read this stream of jaw-dropping quotes, stolen from a commenter <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/07/what_bernanke_w.html">here</a> on Scott Sumner's excellent blog:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">The 2008 “Dream Team”</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 FOMC TRANSCRIPT</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">SELECTED QUOTES EXCERPTED FROM ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR DUDLEY</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Either the financial system is going to implode in a major way, which will lead to a significant further easing, or it is not.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR LOCKHART</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">But I should follow the philosophy of Charlie Brown, who I think said, “Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow.” [Laughter]</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR ROSENGREN</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Deleveraging is likely to occur with a vengeance as firms seek to survive this period of significant upheaval… I support alternative A to reduce the fed funds rate 25 basis points. Thank you.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Mr HOENIG.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">I also encourage us to look beyond the immediate crisis, which I recognize is serious. But as pointed out here, we also have an inflation issue. Our core inflation is still above where it should be.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MS YELLEN. I agree with the Greenbook’s assessment that the strength we saw in the upwardly revised real GDP growth in the second quarter will not hold up. Despite the tax rebates, real personal consumption expenditures declined in both June</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">and July, and retail sales were down in August. My contacts report that cutbacks in spending are widespread, especially for discretionary items. For example, East Bay plastic surgeons and dentists note that patients are deferring elective procedures. [Laughter]</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR BULLARD</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Meanwhile, an inflation problem is brewing. The headline CPI inflation rate, the one consumers actually face, is about 6¼ percent year-to-date…My policy preference is to maintain the federal funds rate target at the current level and to wait for some time to assess the impact of the Lehman bankruptcy filing, if any, on the national economy.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR PLOSSER</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">As I said, it is my view that the current stance of policy is inconsistent with price stability in the intermediate term and so rates ultimately will have to rise.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR STERN</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Given the lags in policy, it doesn’t seem that there is a heck of a lot we can do about current circumstances, and we have already tried to address the financial turmoil. So I would favor alternative B as a policy matter. As far as language is concerned with regard to B, I would be inclined to give more prominence to financial issues. I think you could do that maybe by reversing the first two sentences in paragraph 2. You would have to change the transitions, of</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">course.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR. EVANS</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">But I think we should be seen as making well-calculated moves with the funds rate, and the current uncertainty is so large that I don’t feel as though we have enough information to make such calculations today.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MS PIANALTO</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Given the events of the weekend, I still think it is appropriate for us to keep our policy rate unchanged. I would like more time to assess how the recent events are going to affect the real economy. I have a small preference for the assessment-of-risk language under alternative A.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR LACKER</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">In fact, it’s heartening that compensation growth is coming in a little below expected in response to the energy price shock this year. This has allowed us to accomplish the inevitable decline in real wages without setting off an inflationary acceleration in wage rates.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR. HOENIG</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">I think what we did with Lehman was the right thing because we did have a market beginning to play the Treasury and us, and that has some pretty negative consequences as well, which we are now coming to grips with.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR. ROSENGREN</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">I think it’s too soon to know whether what we did with Lehman is right. Given that the Treasury didn’t want to put money in, what happened was that we had no choice…I hope we get through this week. But I think it’s far from clear, and we were taking a bet, and I hope in the future we don’t have to be in situations where we’re taking bets.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Mr. FISHER. All of that reminds me—forgive me for quoting Bob Dylan—but money doesn’t talk; it swears. When you swear, you get emotional. If you blaspheme, you lose control. I think the main thing we must do in this policy decision today is not to lose control, to show a steady hand. I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that we embrace unanimously—and I think it’s important for us to be unanimous at this moment—alternative B</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">MR WARSH.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">Those would be my suggestions to try to strike that balance—that we are keenly focused on what’s going on, but until we have a better view of its implications, we are not </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 12.8px;">going to act.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
The optimistic view of Yellen is that, while overall policy was quite inappropriately tight for essentially the entire period since 2008, Yellen may have been struggling all the time against these clowns in private, leading policy on a less-bad course. It seems this was partly true, but this case remains to be made, however, as I see no evidence that she wasn't in favor of the rate hikes as Fed Chair. She also could have talked Obama into making timely appointments in 2009 and 2010, to try to get policy back on track. Instead, she voted for a rate hike in 2010. I viewed this as unforgivable at the time, and it even looks worse in retrospect.<br />
<br />
Of course, she also got unlucky. Had it not been for Comey, her mistakes as Fed Chair would likely not have led to Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Note: follow me on twitter @TradeandMoney</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-16491756596877095062017-11-29T07:48:00.000-08:002017-12-01T02:43:35.030-08:00An Economist's Take on Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies: It's a Giant Scam and the Mother of All BubblesBitcoin has climbed over $10,000 (when I first drafted this post last week, it was at just $8,200). The cryptocurrency market now appears like a full <a href="https://coinmarketcap.com/">stock market of fake stocks</a>, with a market cap of $245 billion (update a week later: $345 billion), more than 1% of the capitalization of the US stock market. My take on bitcoin is the standard boring economists' take: bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are the mother of all irrational bubbles. The South Seas Bubble, Tulip Mania, the Nifty Fifty, and the dot.com bubble were all similar. And, if you'd listened to me (and us economists), you're continuing to live in relative poverty as your friends get rich, with money and wealth coming out of nowhere and millionaires minted overnight.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiorw49boEoWHW0zqxGcx84sVKRWBWXQAK_wxfhEDNiaUhWah6LYDaUD8VX8JmQoba2vbuEBwM-yYJrvsLb8DWJp6gSf-Lksu_j_b8w3pCa1rgIDTcaT-1V5Eftbw79wAXPyySsxzAMGVE/s1600/20171129_120602%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiorw49boEoWHW0zqxGcx84sVKRWBWXQAK_wxfhEDNiaUhWah6LYDaUD8VX8JmQoba2vbuEBwM-yYJrvsLb8DWJp6gSf-Lksu_j_b8w3pCa1rgIDTcaT-1V5Eftbw79wAXPyySsxzAMGVE/s320/20171129_120602%255B1%255D.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pictured here with Nobel Prize Winner Robert Shiller,<br />
fortunate to experience a balmy -7 degrees in Moscow. He<br />
also <span style="font-size: 12.8px;">believes that bitcoin is in a huge bubble.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Despite my view that this is a standard bubble, I tried to buy bitcoin last summer (back at the bargain price of $4,000...), in part because I wanted to see how easy it was to use bitcoin to send money back to the US from Russia. After all, the logic behind bitcoin is that it is a super easy, cheap and fast way to send money. Exactly what I needed. The difficulty I went through in trying to purchase bitcoin only confirmed my worst fears of why I think it is a scam/ponzi scheme. Part of the problems I faced were no doubt specific to me, as a US national living in Russia. Many bitcoin exchanges are country specific, and didn't like my Russian IP address. Others did, but required a lot of information, including a picture of my with an ID, and also a picture of me with a bank statement with my home address (in the US) written on it. I ended up never getting approved, and never got a straight answer from some of these exchanges on why not. Probably, they are just minting money so fast why should they invest in customer support.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But all the information required, even if I had been approved immediately, kind of shoots down some of the logic. If I'm a drug-dealer looking to accept payment in bitcoin, I'm still going to have to provide a lot of information to the exchanges. And, while my troubles may have been unique, bitcoin isn't <i>that</i> easy to use. Your grandma isn't going to be buying groceries or trading bitcoin anytime soon. Indicative of the inconvenience of buying bitcoin, there is a closed-end investment fund which traded on the stock-market that owns only bitcoin, and was recently trading at <a href="https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/">twice the par value of bitcoin</a> (see Figure below). That is, people who wanted to buy bitcoin in their brokerage accounts were too lazy to cash out their accounts and buy bitcoin directly, so they paid <i>double the price</i> to avoid the hassle.</div>
<div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHaAQfczu1r9aLnhpL_J4s0yV5x6lLdSvFCiFZluV2AvIrQAx14-W6ET5qH_VWt9_k8BNpEhrOR0HfRl7PmYG6CFncZWpCAA_MTCumBjxsUF7PK7DyU37TX2Xzc-gSMlAS8JBASd7PL-c/s1600/bitcointrust2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="740" data-original-width="1600" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHaAQfczu1r9aLnhpL_J4s0yV5x6lLdSvFCiFZluV2AvIrQAx14-W6ET5qH_VWt9_k8BNpEhrOR0HfRl7PmYG6CFncZWpCAA_MTCumBjxsUF7PK7DyU37TX2Xzc-gSMlAS8JBASd7PL-c/s640/bitcointrust2.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Grayscale Bitcoin Investment Trust</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
In addition, the fees associated with buying bitcoins in Russia using rubles, sending them to myself in the US, and then converting them back into dollars are at least an order of magnitude larger than just buying dollars using my currency broker, and then sending money to myself directly. The total cost of my normal fees for doing this set of transactions run about $25 for a $10,000 transaction using the banking system and my currency broker. By contrast, I'm told the bitcoin broker in Russia charges 3%, and one in the US (Coinbase) charges 2% per transaction (maybe this is now 1.49% for Coinbase users in the US, although it looks as though <a href="https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/2109597-buy-sell-bank-transfer-fees">they charge 4% to fund</a> an account using Visa/Mastercard), plus whatever the bitcoin miners charge (perhaps .2%?). Even the miner's fees are calculated in a <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees">super non-transparent way</a>. It's probably that way for a reason. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Theoretically, some other problems with bitcoin is that there is free entry. Anyone can create an infinite amount of cryptocurrency out of thin air. The marginal cost is zero. The saving grace is that there are network effects -- a currency becomes more valuable the more people that use it, and so it will be tough for other cryptocurrencies to displace bitcoin. However, that can't explain why there are thousands of cryptocurrencies with huge market caps. Only 1-2 of these will ultimately be the victor, and bitcoin is likely to be one of them.<br />
<br />
Another issue with bitcoin/cryptocurrencies long-term is that if they ever did replace actual currencies in everyday transactions, governments could really lose out. The Federal Reserve would lose control over monetary policy, for example, and to the extent cryptocurrencies enable drug smugglers and hackers and others to evade the authorities and paying taxes, this should be something which governments will have a real interest in illegalizing. Thus, there is no endgame where bitcoin replaces the US dollar, the Chinese Yuan, or the Euro as the primary currency of a major economy. It is simply too volatile, and there will be nothing to stabilize its value.<br />
<br />
The real economic argument for bitcoin is not that it actually provides cheap transaction fees, but rather that it is a really good scam/meme. It's techy, it's complicated, and few people understand it. Those who spent the time to learn how it really works then become part of the cult and evangelize over it. It could be compared to the spread of a religion: If many people very fervently buy into it, it could be a bubble that lasts a long time. This is the optimistic case for bitcoin. There are a group of Japanese in Brazil who went to their graves believing that Japan didn't lose WWII, and it was just US propaganda that suggested otherwise. The bitcoin true believers/dead-enders may hold bitcoin until the day they die, giving it a positive value for a long time to come.<br />
<br />
Or, it could be more like the spread of a disease (I'm stealing this from Robert Shiller). To grow, the disease needs a lot of new people to infect. Once about 20-30% of the people are infected, it's growth will be at a maximum. But, over time, there are fewer and fewer new people to infect, as most people have had the disease, and the rate of new infections crashes. Bitcoin may not be so different -- the early adopters buy in, sending the price up. The higher price means more news, and is a positive feedback loop as the mainstreamers start to buy. Doubt creeps into the minds of naysayers, who might have believed it to be a scam initially, but now see the price soaring, against their predictions.<br />
<br />
Usually the moment to sell is after almost everyone who is a quick adopter has already adopted, the median person has too, and the moment at which people who are typically late adopters start to invest. At that point, the economy will run out of suckers, and the price will start to stagnate and fall. Legend has it that Joe Kennedy sold his stocks in 1929 after a shoeshine boy started giving him stock tips. An older family member of mine was day-trading tech stocks in the 1990s, and then bought a condo in Florida in 2006. This person is my bellwether.<br />
<br />
Given this may be a reason to buy in the near term, before the late adopters get wind (and, damnit!, why didn't I realize early on that this was a good scam!), be warned that just as the positive feedback loop works well on the way up, and it can work in reverse on the way down. A few bad days, and panic selling can ensue. Once it crashes, a generation of people could be so turned off by crypto they'll never touch it again.<br />
<br />
What crypto does is settle the debate over whether fundamentals drive stock prices and exchange rates. I gave a talk at LSE a few weeks ago on my research on exchange rates and manufacturing, and someone stated their belief that exchange rates are driven by fundamentals (monetary policy) and so it was monetary policy which drove my results and not exchange rates, per se. However, as we see with bitcoin, which isn't driven by any kind of fundamental economic value, as it pays no dividends and has high transaction fees, bubbles can happen and markets aren't that efficient. (OK, even if you believe in bitcoin, how much do you believe in Sexcoin, Dogecoin, or "Byteball bites", the latter of which has a market cap of a cool $187 million...) There is never going to be a day when everyday people use "byteball bites" to buy groceries.<br />
<br />
It also shows another reason why governments might want to tax windfall profits or large capital gains at a higher rate. Those profiting from cryptocurrency are incredibly lucky. Their "investments" don't leave any reason to deserve favorable income treatment relative to wage income. Stock market earnings are similar. Luck is involved just as much as skill.<br />
<br />
Lastly, though, let me state my agreement with others that government-sponsored electronic currencies are probably a thing of the near future. If an electronic currency allows every transaction (or most transactions) to be traced by the government, it can cut down on illegal activity, narcotics, and tax evasion. A government could really very easily broaden the tax base, and raise more revenue while cutting taxes on law abiding citizens. This will probably help developing countries (like Russia) where tax evasion is rampant the most. I guess this will happen soon. Greece should do this and leave the Euro system (but not the EU!). Obviously, a digital currency also solves the problem of the zero lower bound on interest rates, reason enough to do it. Were I the Autocrat of All the Russians, I'd have implemented this already.<br />
<br />
In any case, I don't want to give anyone investment advice. I have no clue what will happen to the price of bitcoin, although that should be a warning. I hope none of my friends miss out on the huge boom as bitcoin goes from $10,000 to $100,000 just because they read this. Just be for-warned that what goes up must come down. If you do ride the wave up, think about taking something off the table and try to remain diversified. (That goes for the US stock market too, which also now looks quite overvalued...) Once your parents start to buy bitcoin, that's probably a good time to cash out.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com48tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-83563452740869503532017-11-19T13:37:00.004-08:002017-11-19T13:51:40.684-08:00A comment on "The Long-term Decline in US Manufacturing" by Jeff Frankel<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #444444; line-height: 1.71429; margin-bottom: 1.71429rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Jeff
Frankel guest posts over at <a href="http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/11/guest-contribution-the-long-term-job-decline-in-us-manufacturing#comment-203391">Econbrowser</a> about "The Long-Term Decline in US Manufacturing"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The
theme is a familiar one on this blog. He posts some interesting data, and I agree with him about the determinants of the long-run decline. He shares my "favorite" graph:</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcqVF6SutaNvaTUAG-nJhS3Zck4vKqVpzFJgHVAzGFrynQp2RzJffYvnXbpFZMRPk5arvY3pW2Ycp_J0yFi_bGJRGuB3d1RryIZqraKg7qSWFCFjUSdbk_s84UlGQs6UDMXvgK4Dm-zbw/s1600/manjobshare.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1106" data-original-width="1476" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcqVF6SutaNvaTUAG-nJhS3Zck4vKqVpzFJgHVAzGFrynQp2RzJffYvnXbpFZMRPk5arvY3pW2Ycp_J0yFi_bGJRGuB3d1RryIZqraKg7qSWFCFjUSdbk_s84UlGQs6UDMXvgK4Dm-zbw/s640/manjobshare.png" width="640" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">However, I also had a few other thoughts:</span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(1)
If you extrapolate forward on the US Man. Emp. as a share of total, it becomes
negative within several decades. Obviously, it can’t be negative, and thus the
slope needed to flatten out at some point. Instead, in the early 2000s, it
looks to have been below trend. By contrast, the pace of decline for
agriculture did flatten out. But, since there is no clear counterfactual, I’m
not sure this series tells us that much, in the end. Another problem is that
the sudden loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs may have been part of the reason
for the slow growth in overall employment after 2000, which is the view of Ben
Bernanke. If Detroit loses 80% of its tradable-sector jobs, and as a result,
80% of its retail and government jobs, then it’s share of tradable-sector jobs
wouldn’t change. Then we could conclude that the loss of manufacturing jobs is
not what hurt Detroit.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ5cY5GzgIaESSMs8gD8CVf03J_Mb5dHRuXCLIrpZwk92BMFBi_3D3Aoe1tVtpS7ZZdIZ5vjgdYNqAidUXFSf9iIITKzupGMw7yXmjFp1nrCpuZUMU0Klp_SR2owTYG7RSnHp8xErYMDk/s1600/shareofmanufwtrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="865" data-original-width="1600" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ5cY5GzgIaESSMs8gD8CVf03J_Mb5dHRuXCLIrpZwk92BMFBi_3D3Aoe1tVtpS7ZZdIZ5vjgdYNqAidUXFSf9iIITKzupGMw7yXmjFp1nrCpuZUMU0Klp_SR2owTYG7RSnHp8xErYMDk/s640/shareofmanufwtrend.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(2)
I think it would be good to separate factors affecting the long-run decline as
a share of employment, which is mostly fast technological growth and to a
lesser extent sectoral shift toward services, and factors affecting the level
of manufacturing employment in the early 2000s. The recent decline in the level, which happened alongside the trade deficits, is probably what the public is more concerned with. Trade really does seem to be a
dominant factor in the collapse of the level in that period. And the shock does
seem large enough to have had macro effects and helped push the economy into a
liquidity trap, as Ben Bernanke seems to think.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(3)
If you do another international comparison, between US manufacturing output as
a share of world output, things don’t look as good. Especially vis-a-vis countries
like Germany and Korea, much less China.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I
agree with Jeff that protectionism now isn’t the right policy solution.
However, US-China relative prices have been set in Beijing for the last 30
years, with China having a clearly undervalued exchange rate during much of
that period. Why wouldn’t we have been better off with a free trade regime,
with prices set by market forces? Also, if you believe prices matter, why
wouldn’t this undervaluation have caused a decline in tradable sector jobs over
this period? And, after a long period of the US being overvalued, why do you
think the US tradable sector wouldn’t be smaller than it would have been
otherwise?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I
discussed these issues on this blog previously, and on my own blog:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/08/guest-contribution-the-cause-of-secular-stagnation-relative-prices-trade-and-the-peoples-republic-of-china" style="outline: none;"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #9f9f9f; padding: 0in;">http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/08/guest-contribution-the-cause-of-secular-stagnation-relative-prices-trade-and-the-peoples-republic-of-china</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/11/did-rise-of-china-help-or-harm-us-lets.html" style="outline: none;"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #9f9f9f; padding: 0in;">http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/11/did-rise-of-china-help-or-harm-us-lets.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="border: 1pt none; color: #9f9f9f; font-family: inherit; outline: none; padding: 0in;"><a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/05/is-us-manufacturing-really-great-again.html" style="outline: none;">http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/05/is-us-manufacturing-really-great-again.html</a></span><br />
<br />
Lastly, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/business/china-gac-trumpchi.html?smid=tw-share">Brad Setser links</a> to an interesting NYT article on the new rise in China's protected automotive industry. It's a great reminder how the US and China do not have free trade in practice, but also to the extent which the Chinese government has internalized Hamiltonian infant-industry protection.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-58710339935877142232017-11-16T02:13:00.000-08:002017-11-16T03:51:36.968-08:00Robert Lawrence's New Manufacturing Paper: Confusing Trends and Levels<a href="https://piie.com/system/files/documents/wp17-12.pdf">Perhaps Lawrence's new paper</a> isn't quite as bad as I imagined when I first saw this on twitter, at least with some interesting data, although there isn't much there, as the "analysis" is done by simple plots of aggregate data. My expectations for him were quite low, though, and so I still have plenty of points of contention.<br />
<br />
The main issue is that the central argument is against a straw man. He toggles back and forth seamlessly between two related, but different issues with different causes. One is the long-run decline of manufacturing employment as a share of total employment. This long-run decline is, in fact, caused by faster productivity growth so in that he is correct. However, as far as I know, no economists actually dispute this. And when Trump cites China for the declining in US manufacturing, he is talking about the level, not this "as a share of GDP" bullshit. The rather sudden decline in the level of manufacturing employment in the early 2000s is a different issue than the long-run decline in the share. This was caused mostly by trade, and also by slow demand growth (which isn't necessarily unrelated to the trade shock), but it was not caused by productivity growth. At first, it's unclear which of the two Lawrence is talking about, and given that he says many people believe trade is the cause, it makes it sound as though he is talking about the 2nd. However, then he switches back to arguing the first point.<br />
<br />
He then plots this figure, which is meant to show that China didn't cause a deviation from the US's long-run trend in its share of US manufacturing employment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF8gKbsYiM6Kz30np7aOyKXQO_nw5xRHH0pVe843CMXWN_L5u4T5l5RW_pCj-8J2YjUODsuTcyac0kv1CNxeu8lQfIamA-OArw332vJnupg7fcRV10yBlklc0XEz6wi2XK6NEinEVCvOw/s1600/shareofmanufwtrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="865" data-original-width="1600" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF8gKbsYiM6Kz30np7aOyKXQO_nw5xRHH0pVe843CMXWN_L5u4T5l5RW_pCj-8J2YjUODsuTcyac0kv1CNxeu8lQfIamA-OArw332vJnupg7fcRV10yBlklc0XEz6wi2XK6NEinEVCvOw/s640/shareofmanufwtrend.png" width="640" /></a></div>
However, as I've discussed before on this blog, I don't think one can infer much about the health of the manufacturing sector based on whether manufacturing employment/total employment is above or <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/05/is-us-manufacturing-really-great-again.html">below its long-run trend</a>. The reason is that the long-run trend implies negative employment within several decades (see above), which can't happen, so naturally it must flatten out at some point, precisely like agriculture has done. But, there is no clear counterfactual for what the share of manufacturing employment "should" be. Secondly, the slow growth in overall employment after 2000 was likely caused in part by the swift loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs (see <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/11/did-rise-of-china-help-or-harm-us-lets.html">my previous post</a>, and <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/03/introductory-post-no-us-economy-is-not.html">here</a>). Detroit lost many of its tradable sector jobs, but then also lost lots of retail and government jobs as revenues dried up. Its share of manufacturing jobs could also well be on its long-run trend. One could then conclude, erroneously, that the loss of tradable-sector jobs in Detroit is not what caused its decline.<br />
<br />
Lawrence says that, even in the period of the China shock, fast productivity growth caused the loss of many more manufacturing jobs than China. But, that's not what I found in <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0212.html">my paper</a>. I found instead that productivity growth was normal after 2000, and only a normal number of jobs were lost due to productivity growth after 2000, comparable to any decade before. (Below is the evolution of VA per worker. The growth rate looks pretty constant -- nothing to suggest a very sudden decline in the level of manufacturing employment.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxPhnPmlBOltlVM2OwRiDFSSeLJeaVwo2pmGU08Ni1okfjHyZGXCyqXZqWsWSWTy1T-ZGblIqbeCKPywK7fBIHudFE7CCkXUtPZ_1ou08qWebrSayqbcgYQ14gC_DkSsbp9ffymPrbS3s/s1600/VAperworker.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1444" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxPhnPmlBOltlVM2OwRiDFSSeLJeaVwo2pmGU08Ni1okfjHyZGXCyqXZqWsWSWTy1T-ZGblIqbeCKPywK7fBIHudFE7CCkXUtPZ_1ou08qWebrSayqbcgYQ14gC_DkSsbp9ffymPrbS3s/s400/VAperworker.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In addition, productivity for the <i>median</i> manufacturing sector actually <i>declines</i> in the 2000s. This is offset by very fast productivity growth in the top sector, growth which <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.25.2.111">may not have</a> actually happened.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrbQldFh2bLk-dX4JuPUl57DPWe9gEmqls9UEMhI3qtbBigAxKlvPB6P1LtmLYXy3k1vQVgZb3W3CCWhkqbuei_KSD9dJE1vVVR6v_mwysZpq7t09Q91Cpxu797RhUprJteJanI2NsWmg/s1600/productivitymedian.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1141" data-original-width="1600" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrbQldFh2bLk-dX4JuPUl57DPWe9gEmqls9UEMhI3qtbBigAxKlvPB6P1LtmLYXy3k1vQVgZb3W3CCWhkqbuei_KSD9dJE1vVVR6v_mwysZpq7t09Q91Cpxu797RhUprJteJanI2NsWmg/s640/productivitymedian.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Another hole in the story that after 2000, the main contributor to the decline in manufacturing was fast productivity growth and low demand is that these two factors imply that the US should have had a trade surplus, not a large trade deficit (see the trade balance in blue plotted vs. two measures of real exchange rates, more about the differences between them <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0216.html">here</a>). To be sure, I also find slow demand growth after 2000 (particularly for the 2007-2010 period), although, once again, I believe this was caused in part from the collateral damage from trade and the collapse in manufacturing employment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNXpGDu8Uine8ElYnEQsGn6FdmPlN0ShTwrMNPKKbegnn3QYz7TqclrnPTCve8oClqPv-XtEnGzxOEraPto8seFuuBVaANmhU1pKfjU9tGZGp4GZrR_yXEG2K_nkDJRJaD9XZ-NCS_B8g/s1600/WARPvstradebalance.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1204" data-original-width="1600" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNXpGDu8Uine8ElYnEQsGn6FdmPlN0ShTwrMNPKKbegnn3QYz7TqclrnPTCve8oClqPv-XtEnGzxOEraPto8seFuuBVaANmhU1pKfjU9tGZGp4GZrR_yXEG2K_nkDJRJaD9XZ-NCS_B8g/s640/WARPvstradebalance.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also slightly annoyed that when he cites Autor, Dorn, and Hanson (2013) for 985,000 jobs lost due to China (out of 5 million total) rather than the follow-up paper by Acemoglu, Autor, Dorn, Hanson and Price (2016), which includes a longer time period and arrives at 1.475 million jobs lost due to the China shock and input/output linkages in manufacturing, and 3.1 million jobs overall, but this is a minor quibble. But, even this estimate does not include <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0212.html">the exchange rate shock</a> in the early 2000s, or do anything special for China's WTO accession and the MFA agreement in particular, which almost certainly cost the US jobs in the textile sector. Also, it is also computed with quite conservative methodology -- they multiplied their regression coefficients by the R-squared of the regression.<br />
<br />
There are also holes in his analysis with the international comparison. Most of the manufacturing jobs lost in Germany after 1990 were in East Germany. Second, the only Asian, or "capital account" country in his basket is Japan, a country that has been stuck in a liquidity trap for a quarter of a century. There's no Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, or China. He also doesn't look at levels of manufacturing employment.<br />
<br />
One particularly egregious error he makes is to show the decline in spending on consumer goods using 2010 as the last year, without realizing that this was the end of the worst recession since the Great Depression! The problem is that consumer durables slump badly in a depression, so his table is mostly picking up cyclical effects. He then remarks, that, surprisingly, as countries are coming out of a recession the share of goods consumption picks up, without any trace of irony.<br />
<br />
In any case, the central message of the paper is clear: Robert Lawrence means to let trade off the hook, one way or another. But he builds his case on trickery. And his pro-status quo position is also not likely to be a winning political strategy for the Democrats in the next election -- it's bad economic analysis and bad politics, and, if followed, likely to lead to precisely the outcome Robert Lawrence, and yours truly, want to avoid.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-44432791036560189612017-11-10T08:57:00.002-08:002017-11-10T10:08:03.958-08:00Did the Rise of China Help or Harm the US? Let's not forget Basic Macro This is a question which was posed to me after I presented last week at the Federal Reserve Board in DC. Presenting there was an honor for me, and I got a lot of sharp feedback. It's also getting to the point where I need to start thinking about my upcoming <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/1759?q=eNqrVipOLS7OzM8LqSxIVbKqhnGVrJQMlWp1lBKLi_OTgRwlHaWS1KJcXCArODkjv6QEyE9JrIRKZOamQlhlmanlIEOKCgqAAqYGSrW1XDBcMFwiHc0,">AEA presentation</a> alongside David Autor and Peter Schott, two titans in this field who both deserve a lot of credit for helping to bring careful identification to empirical international trade, and for challenging dogma. After all, before 2011, as far as I know the cause of the "<a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20131578">Surprisingly Swift</a>" decline in US manufacturing employment had not been written about in any academic papers. This was despite the fact that the collapse was mostly complete by 2004, and was intuitive to many since it coincided with a large structural trade deficit. (Try to explain that one with your productivity boom and slow demand growth, <a href="https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/us-employment-deindustrialization-insights-history-and-international">Robert Lawrence</a>...)<br />
<br />
On one hand, there is now mounting evidence that the rise of Chinese manufacturing harmed US sectors <a href="https://economics.mit.edu/files/12751">which compete with China</a>. This probably also hurt some individual communities and people pretty badly, and might also have triggered an out-migration in those communities. On the other hand, typically the Fed offsets a shock to one set of industries with lower interest rates helping others, while consumers everywhere have benefited from cheaper Chinese goods. Which of these is larger? I can't say I'm sure, but of these shocks mentioned so far, I would probably give a slight edge to the benefit of lower prices and varieties. However, I suspect, even more importantly, Chinese firms have also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY">been innovating</a>, more than they would have absent trade, which means the dynamic gains in the long-run have the potential to be larger than any of these static gains/losses you might try to estimate courageously with a model.<br />
<br />
Many (free!) trade economists use the above logic (perhaps minus the dynamic part), and conclude that no policies are needed to help US manufacturing right now. However, I think this view misses 4 other inter-related points, and in addition does not sound to me like a winning policy strategy for the Democrats in 2020. And a losing strategy here means more Trumpian protectionism.<br />
<br />
First, when a trade economists' free trade priors lead them to argue that the rise of China was beneficial for the US, they forget that China and the US do not and did not have free trade between them. Just ask <a href="https://www.techinasia.com/talk/primer-evolving-social-media-landscape-china">Mark Zuckerberg</a>. Or <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/china-google/google-china-hackers-stole-source-code-researcher-idUSN0325873820100303">google</a>, or Siemens, or the numerous other companies who have had their <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/10/mysterious-factory-break-in-raises-suspicions-about-chinese-visit">intellectual property stolen</a>. (Of course, the Bernie folks also need to remember that it is probably rich Americans who have been hit the worst by China's protectionism -- IP piracy certainly harms Hollywood and Silicon Valley, probably quite badly, while Mark Zuckerberg may be the most harmed individual). It might be that the rise of China was beneficial to the US, but would have been even more beneficial had China not <b>had a massively undervalued exchange rate </b>for much of the past 30 years. If you disagree with this assessment, then you, like Donald Trump, are not exactly carrying the torch of free trade. (What's wrong with having the market set prices, <i>tavarish</i>?)<br />
<br />
Another problem with the view that everything is A-OK in trade is that China's surpluses are now reduced, but reduced due to a huge reduction in demand and growth in the US and Europe. That's not a good way to solve imbalances. See diagram below, drawn on assumption that the exchange rate is held fixed: A shift down in US demand (increase in Savings, SI shifts right) left income depressed, but improved the trade balance from CA0 to CA1. However, if US demand increases/savings decline, the US won't go back to the Full Income/Employment and CA(balanced) equilibrium. For that, we'll still need to devalue the exchange rate (shifting up the XM line with a devaluation, it shifts down with an appreciation). As they say, it takes a lot of Harberger triangles to plug an Okun Gap.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBhGSEw_5Rg0UjGxN6lWq124GGYYPOJKbcGnnw_IbPJx8h2TO9aWCVgbB8lZELMhkOE4Hz5lItAT6dlzgxxYFN18ya05cfQrvO8zdxjoCqF6uTDYaigrCkOti4S1bKm94-KOKEy_ZEv3o/s1600/fullempvstradebalance.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="872" data-original-width="1600" height="348" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBhGSEw_5Rg0UjGxN6lWq124GGYYPOJKbcGnnw_IbPJx8h2TO9aWCVgbB8lZELMhkOE4Hz5lItAT6dlzgxxYFN18ya05cfQrvO8zdxjoCqF6uTDYaigrCkOti4S1bKm94-KOKEy_ZEv3o/s640/fullempvstradebalance.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sure, you might object that it is less obvious that China is overvalued now. You might have heard stories about capital wanting to flood out of China, not in. But, this is because the exchange rate is set largely by capital flows and not by the structural trade balance. All this indicates is that monetary policy is relative tight in the US/Europe, not that the structural trade balance is in equilibrium. It isn't.<br />
<br />
The third factor that most economists neglect when they think about the rise of China is the issue of hysteresis, defined weakly as "history matters". Clearly, being overvalued for an extended period of time will shrink your tradables sector. Yes, it can also decrease your exchange rate, but it will for sure decrease the equilibrium exchange rate you need to balance your trade. And if your exchange rate is being set in Beijing, or by the ZLB, then you can forget about a quick return to normality.<br />
<br />
The chart below shows that US dollar appreciations are followed by a shift up in the relation between the US trade balance and the RER. Undervalued periods (just 1979) is followed by a shift to the southwest. Thus, shifts NWs are shifts in the direction of a shrinking (in relative terms) US tradables sector/income. The trade balance itself won't be hysteretic, as movements NW reduce imports, but the intercept of the exchange rate/trade balance slope will be.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1z4RRWE9_m5uM3eX42_ubEcMB1otelrC9GblQVT6JCQatolOsadewYoBiXqqIqk0aJ7leROJPx8A7hyphenhyphenvgXMt6eZS1goY96vLhXWu77-nW-FiAWG8e0EZnx4iuVqD9wdO_WLy413E0nlk/s1600/RERsandtrade.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1190" data-original-width="1600" height="476" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1z4RRWE9_m5uM3eX42_ubEcMB1otelrC9GblQVT6JCQatolOsadewYoBiXqqIqk0aJ7leROJPx8A7hyphenhyphenvgXMt6eZS1goY96vLhXWu77-nW-FiAWG8e0EZnx4iuVqD9wdO_WLy413E0nlk/s640/RERsandtrade.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This is all as Krugman foretold <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w2586">in 1988</a>...<br />
<br />
To put hysteresis another way, consider the event study diagram below of the 1980s US dollar appreciation (from my <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/f/pca584.html">paper here</a>). The dollar appreciated 50% (black), and as a result, employment in the more tradable sectors (blue dotted line) fell about 10% relative to the more closed sectors (red line). The interesting thing, though, is that after relative prices returned to fundamentals, employment in the more open sectors came back only slowly, if at all.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR9EBjJV7bmvpxxMKm2bJ8DolMIaB_P0JlzRZmAxGS0lHqCoPo8fz63junLas23G37bDY7EtA6rhkUAx3CYnJxz3eQPKQwvXq1iwbowYcfROD9zyt6jYR7X7SCC6Wpcs67JzrWp_XkLKQ/s1600/diffndiff.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR9EBjJV7bmvpxxMKm2bJ8DolMIaB_P0JlzRZmAxGS0lHqCoPo8fz63junLas23G37bDY7EtA6rhkUAx3CYnJxz3eQPKQwvXq1iwbowYcfROD9zyt6jYR7X7SCC6Wpcs67JzrWp_XkLKQ/s640/diffndiff.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The above makes clear that a temporary shock has a persistent impact. But, could it actually lower income? Well, imagine for a second what would happen if the US dollar were very overvalued for a long period of time, say, due to policy. Eventually, it would lose all of its tradable sectors. Then, what would happen to income and the exchange rate when it floated again? Would things go back to normal overnight? Or would it take some time to build up the tradable sector capacity back to where it used to be? In the meantime, you would be likely to have a vastly lower exchange rate, which means you can afford less, which means you are poorer. Also, in an inflation-targeting regime, if a period of overvaluation coincides with a recession, and you shoot for just 2% coming out, then you might never recover your hysteretic tradable-sector losses. Thus, it isn't that free trade is bad, but having an artificially overvalued exchange rate is.<br />
<br />
Wait, there's more. You might be thinking -- is there really a Macro effect of a trade shock? Won't the Fed just offset a trade shock by lowering interest rates? In that case, won't a trade shock just alter what gets produced and not how much is produced? For a small shock, the answer is probably yes. But, for a large shock that pushes you close to the zero lower bound, like the 2000-2001 shock did, there is no guarantee. The Fed likely would have responded more aggressively to the 2001 recession if not for the ZLB. Secondly, lower interest rates from the Fed work in part through exchange rate adjustment. If the ZLB comes into play, the exchange rate will be over-appreciated relative to what it needs to be for a full-employment equilibrium. This may imply more tradable-sector job losses. And, if China is pegged to the US, that adjustment won't happen. And, as my students can all tell you, monetary policy becomes ineffective with a fixed exchange rate and open capital market. Sure, the US had a floating rate, but being pegged by China, and essentially by other East Asian economies following the Asian Financial Crisis, leaves you with much the same result.<br />
<br />
So, am I then proposing Trumpian protectionist policies? Not necessarily. You see, while US growth is still slow, the US is not at the ZLB any more. The Fed can cut interest rates, and spur growth and weaken the dollar, helping manufacturing. The beauty of this strategy is that it solves multiple problems at once. And, there are certainly specific trade issues that the US could raise with China, in addition to exchange rates. It would, of course, be strange to push on the issue of exchange rates while US interest rates are too high. A higher inflation target would also be a passive way of discouraging China from holding so many dollar reserves. But, I think a possible winning political strategy would be a high nominal GDP target, which will also weaken the dollar, and also campaign on a push to defend US corporate interests in China on specific trade issues, including the exchange rate.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-16922117687466019042017-11-05T04:20:00.000-08:002017-11-05T09:34:31.335-08:00Ancestry and Development: the Power Pose of Economics?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I was
fortunate to be invited to present at George Mason this week. I was very
impressed with the lively atmosphere of brilliant scholars. George Mason certainly has had an outsized impact on the economics community, and also likely on economic policy in the US given its admirable commitment to participating in the public dialogue.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In any case, they asked me to
present <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0211.html">my work joint with Ju Hyun Pyun</a>,<span style="font-family: inherit;"> taking down the "genetic distance to the US predicts development" research, which Andrew Gelman blogged about <a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/">here</a>.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It was
the first time I had thought about this research in some time. This has evolved into an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html">Amy Cuddy</a> "Power Pose" situation, in which Spolaore and Wacziarg refuse to admit that there is any problem with their research, and continue to run income-level regressions and write papers using genetic distance which do not include a dummy for sub-Saharan Africa, but exclude that region instead. (For example, they <a href="http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/romain.wacziarg/downloads/2017_new_ancestry.pdf">have a paper</a> dated September 2017, "Ancestry and Development: New Evidence", which continues to exclude SSA. Surprise, surprise, they continue not to cite us. Note that here, both I and they are really talking about genetic distance, not ancestry generally...)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In their comments over at Gelman's blog, they also stressed that </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">"</span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444;">our results hold when we exclude Sub-Saharan Africa and so cannot be driven solely by those countries". </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I am skeptical of excluding observations which are essentially counterexamples. Within
sub-Saharan Africa, the correlation between genetic distance to the US and
development is slightly positive (Fig. 3 below), rather than negative, so excluding these observations is self-serving. One can also see that there is a significant positive relationship between genetic distance to the US and development for Asia, another counterexample. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvBt6mjT8Dayk6UDtkwDuPlnh3UwRhczeh7Hz2uWMEvMnFQv6IwMXPXmJd8R7YuAZ-o1uFHm_U5ot5wpmhljNtFGmgqihUJul2BsuBavGFCuGXJZLNBuxXhEa-jy-CjbY7oXlZzGhnEag/s1600/distancevsgenetics.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="clear: left; float: left; font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1035" data-original-width="1600" height="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvBt6mjT8Dayk6UDtkwDuPlnh3UwRhczeh7Hz2uWMEvMnFQv6IwMXPXmJd8R7YuAZ-o1uFHm_U5ot5wpmhljNtFGmgqihUJul2BsuBavGFCuGXJZLNBuxXhEa-jy-CjbY7oXlZzGhnEag/s640/distancevsgenetics.png" width="640" /></span></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzwwdinPZa_aMUKiWnklUnuV5oWRg2lp0SnTs0TjEpp5ZCq7mlZlO-sum8m676J3Y7jfF0J0TaPwvZzSWRjHwDWNYYEOLm_AFA8m2VTz-Md6JyAgHj7ftHU-UmtrdF13IDRlAC-njCj94/s1600/fig4exeurope.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdHikihjlQQJA5_-wI47dZ_PU76hNP1FdjfjnAC4Bsea0h7oNzq7pvzoEkWPeveiee0YxnQQha_pRhW5L5sHxPvWPV05jnfCWHuZdOwY54She7aES5wzVu8YDf2tMYHCq7nl2IBmSt8NE/s1600/tabexeurope.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></a><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
Another reason to be skeptical is that if we exclude sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, there is also not significant correlation, although, to be fair to these guys, the sign is correct.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzwwdinPZa_aMUKiWnklUnuV5oWRg2lp0SnTs0TjEpp5ZCq7mlZlO-sum8m676J3Y7jfF0J0TaPwvZzSWRjHwDWNYYEOLm_AFA8m2VTz-Md6JyAgHj7ftHU-UmtrdF13IDRlAC-njCj94/s1600/fig4exeurope.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1061" data-original-width="1600" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzwwdinPZa_aMUKiWnklUnuV5oWRg2lp0SnTs0TjEpp5ZCq7mlZlO-sum8m676J3Y7jfF0J0TaPwvZzSWRjHwDWNYYEOLm_AFA8m2VTz-Md6JyAgHj7ftHU-UmtrdF13IDRlAC-njCj94/s640/fig4exeurope.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_7" o:spid="_x0000_i1026"
type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:318.05pt;height:225.5pt;visibility:visible;
mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Hamilton\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.png"
o:title="" croptop="8811f" cropbottom="14685f" cropleft="29737f" cropright="2478f"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-no-proof: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-no-proof: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-no-proof: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; mso-no-proof: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><br />Thus, the remaining question is how robust the genetic distance-development relationship is in Europe. In fact, there is already a paper, by <a href="https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/14/1/179/1049543?redirectedFrom=fulltext">Giuliano,Spilimbergo, and Tonon</a>, saying that the impact of genetic distance on both trade and GDP in Europe is not robust. Note, the <a href="https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=366007094000027096002104093083019022001059088011053070123106098125090070071069064029003030051022026006053079065002076106031010083022051020075092016015117095027018039002073066105001115029004102066100113012112069070077099073125090064104098108081022&EXT=pdf">early drafts</a> of that paper also said something about GDP in Europe, while the published version stripped out GDP precisely because the referees -- likely Spolaore or Wacziarg -- wouldn't allow it. <br /><br />I also went back to look at what my referees had said about this paper. Wacziarg has now posted regressions on his website used by this referee, so I gather that he must be the author. Interestingly, Romain had some very choice words for this paper, even though Paula Giuliano is a colleague: “Regarding the paper by Giuliano, Spilimbergo and Tonon, the authors of this paper are clearly referring to an old (2006) version, which contained numerous errors and imprecisions.” <br /><br />I'm curious, Romain, if you're out there, what kind of "errors and imprecisions" this paper by your colleague had.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />In any case, I decided to check if Giuliano, Spilimbergo, and Tonon were really that careless, or whether Spolaore and Wacziarg were, once again, wrong.<br /><br />Thus, on the metro ride from Dupont Circle to George Mason, I fired up Stata to check how robust the results were when we exclude sub-Saharan Africa. Admittedly, it took me several regressions (see below) to get this correlation to disappear. The key control was a dummy for former communist countries, or controlling for Eastern and Western Europe separately. In each of the regressions below, I've excluded sub-Saharan Africa. In column (1), I include controls for absolute latitude and a dummy for Europe. In column (2), I include a dummy for Western Europe instead (excluding former communist countries). In column (3), I include dummies for former Soviet Union countries (FSU) separately, and, unfortunately, the results are no longer significant at 95%. In column (5), I also add in "Percentage of land area in the tropics and subtropics", and now the coefficient on genetic distance falls to -3.7, but with standard errors of 3.6.<br /><br />Hence, it would seem that genetic distance to the US is not a good predictor of income levels, even if you exclude SSA, which are counter-examples. Only caveat here is that I spent about 30 minutes coding this up while extremely jet-lagged. </span></div>
<div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdHikihjlQQJA5_-wI47dZ_PU76hNP1FdjfjnAC4Bsea0h7oNzq7pvzoEkWPeveiee0YxnQQha_pRhW5L5sHxPvWPV05jnfCWHuZdOwY54She7aES5wzVu8YDf2tMYHCq7nl2IBmSt8NE/s1600/tabexeurope.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1083" data-original-width="1600" height="432" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdHikihjlQQJA5_-wI47dZ_PU76hNP1FdjfjnAC4Bsea0h7oNzq7pvzoEkWPeveiee0YxnQQha_pRhW5L5sHxPvWPV05jnfCWHuZdOwY54She7aES5wzVu8YDf2tMYHCq7nl2IBmSt8NE/s640/tabexeurope.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It's amazing to me that these two Harvard PhDs would want to continue to push this, and to stake their reputations on this. To me, there are a lot of ways I would like to spend both my research time, and my free time. Even if I was them, I don't see why continuing with this project appeals to them so much. They now have written an additional 5-6 papers, it seems, repeating the same mistakes, even after they became aware that their results are not robust. The answer must be that now they perceive themselves to be in a life-or-death situation in which their reputations are at stake. They really need this correlation they discovered to be robust. And so they continue to churn out papers using this measure. In fact, I suspect no one really cares. That's why it's surprising they haven't moved on.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Another thing which is strange about their new paper, is that in the comments over at Gelman, they said that their paper was mainly about the country-difference pair regressions. I showed that these results, too, are not robust once one separates out poor sub-Saharan Africa from richer North Africa, and includes a full set of continent fixed effects. I should add that Spolaore and Wacziarg claim that when they run these same regressions, their results are robust. However, they won't provide us with their data or regressions to check. Nevertheless, in their new paper, they've gone back to the cross-country income regressions, which they previously conceded were not robust. I guess they were hoping that their comments over at Gelman's blog (and at Marginal Revolution) would be forgotten.<br /><br />In any case, if Spolaore and Wacziarg want to respond with more gibberish, I'll yield to them the floor. I do wonder what kind of evidence they would want to see that would convince them that there is nothing here. Figures (3) and (4) are already pretty damning, not to mention the table after it. I'm sure they'll continue to be as defiant as ever, which should provide some comic relief for the rest of us. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"
type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:292.75pt;height:190.1pt;visibility:visible;
mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Hamilton\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image005.png"
o:title="" croptop="14685f" cropbottom="14685f" cropleft="30150f"
cropright="4130f"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<b>Update</b>: I have put in another request to Wacziarg and Spolaore for their data. I wouldn't hold your breath. I'd be willing to bet my life savings that they will not provide their data and code. They do provide their new genetic distance data, presumably so that other people can use it and cite them. I downloaded this data to test robustness. Stay tuned for results!<br />
<br />
<b>Update 2</b>: Someone writes in, directing me to a link to the debunked genopolitics work on whether there is a "<a href="https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/10/Genopolitics-and-the-Science-of-Genetics-APSR-Vol-107-No-2-May-2013-.pdf">voting gene</a>". </div>
</div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-51412952508039247152017-08-16T13:41:00.000-07:002017-08-16T13:54:29.156-07:00Alfred Crosby Deserves a Nobel Prize in Economics...<div>
<div>
for his absolutely brilliant insights into Economic History and Development. Arguably, he should share it with Jared Diamond, who really succeeded in popularizing Crosby's ideas and also added quite a bit himself. Although some might say that he could have cited Crosby a bit more than he did. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
This came up recently when Anton Howes started a nice <a href="https://twitter.com/antonhowes/status/894202422272421889">thread on twitter</a> asking for recommendations for items to teach undergrads in economic history. I suggested teaching Crosby. Pseudoerasmus suggested it's easier to just give them Diamond, but agreed that, if there was no Crosby, there would have been no Diamond.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For it was Crosby, a historian by trade who decided he would look into the little-researched field of ecological history. Any grad student in Economic History/Development, or, scratch that, any grad student in economics, should go read at least one of <u><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ecological-Imperialism-Biological-Expansion-Environment/dp/0521546184">Ecological Imperialism</a></u> or <u><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Columbian-Exchange-Biological-Consequences-Anniversary/dp/0275980928">The Columbian Exchange</a></u>. The latter term, coined by Crosby, highlights the very unequal exchange of diseases and technologies between peoples of the old world and new. Europe got potatoes, corn, tomatoes, chocolate, and plastic. Native Americans got grains, livestock, bacon, and a whole host of vicious diseases which leveled their populations. The only disease to come from the Americas was perhaps syphilis, which is still debated. </div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFOP3bR-eFdWKvKKMC5tqfK2nQ4xUxqlQvNYV-v5IfyEW3wBArQI_VH_gcMA54ROzcn3mS4A0xXpb3GGImio9QdsAtJFXiHQGENrTzs8dQgGwuDbzrGM_Zl-JBKaeTCIZ6QU-Tx59-AZs/s1600/columbianexchange.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="1600" height="336" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFOP3bR-eFdWKvKKMC5tqfK2nQ4xUxqlQvNYV-v5IfyEW3wBArQI_VH_gcMA54ROzcn3mS4A0xXpb3GGImio9QdsAtJFXiHQGENrTzs8dQgGwuDbzrGM_Zl-JBKaeTCIZ6QU-Tx59-AZs/s640/columbianexchange.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
Suppose you wanted to believe that Europeans had better institutions, and thus colonized the Americas rather than vice-versa. However, Crosby tells the story of when the first American settlers coming over the Appalachian mountains arrived in Kentucky, and thought that Kentucky blue-grass was a native plant. In fact, Crosby notes that Kentucky bluegrass actually is native to France. It arrived in the Americas aboard a ship, and just happened to colonize the continent even faster than humans. The same was true of European dogs, mice, rabbits, and bees. It would be bizarre to argue that rabbits had better property rights institutions, and thus colonized the Americas. And, given that human's colonization of the Americas was not unique, it seems wrong to focus on unique aspects of humans. Weeds, bugs, and various other animals pulled the same feat. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here's an except from a Crosby essay: </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Europeans in North America, especially those with an interest in gardening and botany, are often stricken with fits of homesickness at the sight of certain plants which, like themselves, have somehow strayed thousands of miles eastward across the Atlantic. Vladimir Nabokov, the Russian exile, had such an experience on the mountain slopes of Oregon:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Do you recognize that clover?<br />
Dandelions, l’or du pauvre?<br />
(Europe, nonetheless, is over.)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A century earlier the success of European weeds in American inspired Charles Darwin to goad the American botanist Asa Gray: “Does it not hurt your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundly? I am sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her whether they are not more honest, downright good sort of weeds.”</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Why was the Columbian Exchange so unequal? Essentially it comes down to the large Eurasian landmass being a far more competitive ecosystem than the north-to-south oriented Americas (admittedly, Diamond deserves credit for noticing the difference in the axes of the continents). Any type of grass in the large Eurasian landmass that adopted a new, useful trait would come to dominate the entire continent, as much of it shared similar climate. By contrast, if a type of grass in New York has some new beneficial trait, it will be unlikely to spread to Mexico or northern Canada given the vastly different climates there. Thus, evolution would play out a little faster in Eurasia, as would technological progress among human societies. On the other hand, the distribution of useful large domesticable animals was probably just random. And this spurred the pandemic diseases. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Crosby notes that most European settlers ended up dominating the "Neo-Europes" -- areas of the world similar to Europe in terms of climate -- but much less so in the tropics. Many economists believe that institutions are the reasons the tropics are poor, <a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/">or genetics</a>. However, Crosby lays out another reason:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The reasons for the relative failure of the European demographic takeover in the tropics are clear. In tropical Africa, until recently, Europeans died in droves of the fevers; in tropical America they died almost as fast of the same diseases, plus a few native American additions. Furthermore, in neither region did European agricultural techniques, crops, and animals prosper. Europeans did try to found colonies for settlement, rather than merely exploitation, but they failed or achieved only partial success in the hot lands, The Scots left their bones as monument to their short-lived colony at Darien at the turn of the eighteenth century. The English Puritans who skipped Massachusetts Bay Colony to go to Providence Island in the Caribbean Sea did not even achieve a permanent settlement, much less a Commonwealth of God. The Portuguese who went to northeastern Brazil created viable settlements, but only by perching themselves on top of first a population of native Indian laborers and then, when these faded away, a population of laborers imported from Africa, They did achieve a demographic takeover, but only by interbreeding with their servants. The Portuguese in Angola, who helped supply those servants, never had a breath of a chance to achieve a demographic takeover. There was much to repel and little to attract the mass of Europeans to the tropics, and so they stayed home or went to the lands where life was healthier, labor more rewarding, and where white immigrants, by their very number, encouraged more immigration.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
One of the big problems with both Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson's (AJR) work on development, and also with Spolaore and Wacziarg's QJE paper on genetic distance, is that they hadn't actually read, or properly internalized, the teachings of Crosby and Diamond. AJR argued that disease climate was a proxy for institutions and not geography, whereas clearly one might make a case that it's also a good proxy for climatic similarity. Areas of the world where European peoples died are also areas of the world where European crops and cattle also died. This was an insight that AJR missed. If Acemoglu got a John Bate's Clark for his work on institutions, then Crosby certainly deserves a Nobel. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, there's more here. The insights of Crosby/Diamond don't end in 1500. First, history casts long shadows. But, aside from that, the world was largely agrarian even long after the Industrial Revolution in 1800. In Malthusian societies, agricultural technologies are very important. If you are a farmer in Angola, those new varieties of wheat, and farming technologies discovered in the American midwest in 1900, or even 1950, are not going to help you. If you live in Australia, the Southern Cone countries, or Europe, they will. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One thing that is fascinating is that, while the US is similar to Europe climatically, it's not 1-for-1. The US is much hotter and more humid in summer. The US south actually does share some similarities with Africa. And it was in the US where air-conditioning was invented. This technology almost certainly was more helpful than the tropics. (Note: I haven't turned on my AC all summer in Moscow, Russia!...) But, again, I see this as a Crosby/Diamond type of affect. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In any case, here's a nice <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/alfred-w-crosby-on-the-columbian-exchange-98116477/">interview of Crosby</a>. Here's a <a href="https://faculty.unlv.edu/wjsmith/smithtest/CROSBYwEuropeansInvasive.pdf">short reading</a> you can give to students. Here's Crosby's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_W._Crosby">wikipedia page</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Alfred Crosby is now 86 years old! He deserves a real Nobel, much less the fake one awarded in Economics, and he deserves it sooner rather than later. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-43340658510178156712017-08-09T00:47:00.000-07:002017-08-09T00:51:35.811-07:00Ranking Academic Economic Journals by Speed<div>
Before, I shared some thoughts for <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/06/how-to-cure-cancer-thoughts-on.html">improving academic journals</a>. One of my complaints is about how long it takes. So, I decided to make a new ranking based on how long journals take to respond using <a href="https://www.econjobrumors.com/journals.php">ejmr data</a> (among the top 50 journals ranked by citations, <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.journals.rdiscount10.html">discounted recursive, last 10 years</a>, although taken from last month). In the table below, # is the a journals rank by citations, and then there is data on acceptance rate, desk rejection rate, average time to first response (how the data is sorted), and then the 25th and 75th percentiles. The sample size is the last column. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not surprisingly, the QJE, who desk rejects 62% of papers, is the fastest, with an average time of little more than two weeks. JEEA, with a 56% desk rejection rate, is up next, followed by JHR, with a 58% rejection rate. Finance journals, who often pay for quick referee reports, tend to be fast, while Macro and econometric journals tend to be the slowest. The JME, which is notorious, clocks in at an average of 7.7 months, with a median of 4 months, but a 75th percentile of 9 months. On the other hand, the acceptance rate for those who report their submission results at ejmr is 21%, and they do not desk reject. It might be worth doing a separate ranking for those papers that actually go out to referees. In any case, among top 5 journals, the JPE is the worst, clocking in at 4.8 months on average.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, when submitting, it's still journal quality/citations that matter most. But review times in excess of 6 to 9 months can be career killers. Probably, it's the right tails which are the most important here, which is why I sorted by average rather than median. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<style type="text/css"><!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--></style><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; table-layout: fixed; width: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><colgroup><col width="24"></col><col width="285"></col><col width="45"></col><col width="45"></col><col width="37"></col><col width="47"></col><col width="61"></col><col width="63"></col><col width="33"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 41px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"#"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">#</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal Name"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal Name</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Accept %"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; word-wrap: break-word;">Accept %</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Desk Reject %"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; word-wrap: break-word;">Desk Reject %</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Avg. Time"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; word-wrap: break-word;">Avg. Time</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Median Time"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; word-wrap: break-word;">Median Time</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"25th Percent. (Months)"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; word-wrap: break-word;">25th Percent. (Months)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"75th Percent. (Months)"}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom; word-wrap: break-word;">75th Percent. (Months)</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"N ="}" style="font-weight: bold; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">N =</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Quarterly Journal of Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Quarterly Journal of Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0140845}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.6197183}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">62%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5915493}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0.6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":71}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">71</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":12}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">12</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of the European Economic Association"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of the European Economic Association</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.04}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.56}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">56%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.153846}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":25}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">25</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":14}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Human Resources"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Human Resources</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1842105}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">18%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5789474}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">58%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.325}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":38}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">38</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"American Economic Journal: Applied Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">American Economic Journal: Applied Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0277778}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3333333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">33%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.555556}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":36}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">36</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":31}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">31</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"European Economic Review"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">European Economic Review</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2941177}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">29%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">50%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.588235}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":34}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">34</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":15}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Review of Financial Studies"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Review of Financial Studies</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.15}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.8}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":20}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":13}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">13</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"American Economic Journal: Economic Policy"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">American Economic Journal: Economic Policy</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0666667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">40%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.833333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":30}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">30</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":42}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">42</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"IZA Journal of Labor Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">IZA Journal of Labor Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">100%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":39}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">39</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3333333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">33%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0666667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.066667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":15}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":44}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">44</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Law and Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Law and Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4166667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">42%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.083333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":12}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">12</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":17}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">17</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Economic Growth"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Economic Growth</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.142857}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":27}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">27</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Financial Intermediation"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Financial Intermediation</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1428571}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2857143}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">29%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.142857}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Finance"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Finance</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3157895}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">32%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.157895}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":19}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":16}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">16</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Economic Journal"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Economic Journal</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1951219}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4634146}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">46%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.214286}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":41}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">41</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":19}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Financial Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Financial Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2857143}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">29%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2142857}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">21%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.214286}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":14}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":34}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">34</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Health Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Health Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1428571}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5714286}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">57%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.25}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":28}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">28</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":38}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">38</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Population Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Population Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2857143}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">29%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4285714}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">43%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.285714}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1052632}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">11%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2631579}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">26%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.315789}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":19}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":32}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">32</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Theoretical Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Theoretical Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0833333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">8%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.333333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":12}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">12</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":49}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">49</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Econometrics Journal"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Econometrics Journal</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">60%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":9}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"American Economic Review"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">American Economic Review</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0704225}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4507042}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">45%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.421053}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":71}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">71</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":45}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">45</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Review of Finance"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Review of Finance</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0909091}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">9%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.454545}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":11}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">11</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":26}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">26</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Urban Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Urban Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1875}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1875}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":16}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">16</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":35}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">35</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Labour Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Labour Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1176471}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">12%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3529412}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">35%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.529412}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":17}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">17</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":24}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">24</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Applied Econometrics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Applied Econometrics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4210526}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">42%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.578947}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":19}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Econometrica"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Econometrica</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0416667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.25}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">25%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.916667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":24}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">24</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":30}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">30</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"American Economic Journal: Microeconomics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">American Economic Journal: Microeconomics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2307692}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">23%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1538462}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.9375}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":13}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">13</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Review of Economic Studies"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Review of Economic Studies</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.031746}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3650794}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">37%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.075758}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":63}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">63</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":21}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">21</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Public Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Public Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0784314}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">8%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.254902}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">25%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.226415}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":51}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">51</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":36}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">36</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"World Bank Economic Review"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">World Bank Economic Review</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">50%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.375}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":8}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">8</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":11}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">11</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Labor Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Labor Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.533333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":15}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":43}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">43</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Risk and Uncertainty</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.75}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">75%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.75}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":10}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">10</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Review of Economics and Statistics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Review of Economics and Statistics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.02}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">50%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.764706}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":50}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">50</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":23}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">23</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Development Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Development Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1388889}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3333333}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">33%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.810811}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":36}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">36</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":25}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">25</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Business and Economic Statistics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Business and Economic Statistics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2222222}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">22%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1111111}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">11%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.888889}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":9}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">9</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":41}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">41</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Environmental Economics and Management</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2380952}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">24%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0952381}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">10%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.954545}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":21}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">21</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":22}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">22</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"RAND Journal of Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">RAND Journal of Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0740741}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1481481}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.142857}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":27}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">27</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":47}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">47</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">50%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1666667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">17%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.157895}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":18}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">18</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":33}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">33</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Economic Theory"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Economic Theory</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.173913}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">17%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1304348}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">13%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.166667}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":23}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">23</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":46}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">46</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of International Money and Finance"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of International Money and Finance</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4117647}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">41%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0588235}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.352941}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":17}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">17</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":50}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">50</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2307692}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">23%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.3846154}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">38%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.615385}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":13}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">13</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Political Economy"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Political Economy</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">60%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.75}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":1.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">1.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":25}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">25</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":18}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">18</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of International Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of International Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1875}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">19%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.0625}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4.8125}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4.8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6.5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6.5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":16}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">16</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":20}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.15}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">15%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5.136364}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5.1</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":8}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":20}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">20</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":40}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">40</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Economic Surveys"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Economic Surveys</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">40%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5.2}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5.2</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":28}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">28</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Experimental Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Experimental Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2857143}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">29%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1428571}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5.857143}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5.9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":6}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">6</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":9}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":29}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">29</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Econometrics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Econometrics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1111111}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">11%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.1111111}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">11%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7.0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":10}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">10</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":9}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">9</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":48}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">48</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Econometric Theory"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Econometric Theory</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7.0</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":5}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">5</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":12}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">12</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":8}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">8</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Journal of Monetary Economics"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Journal of Monetary Economics</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0.2142857}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">21%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":3,"2":"0%","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":0}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">0%</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="{"1":2,"2":"0.0","3":1}" data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":7.736842}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">7.7</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":4}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">4</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":3}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">3</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":9}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">9</td><td data-sheets-value="{"1":3,"3":14}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: center; vertical-align: bottom;">14</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<style type="text/css"><!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--></style>Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-65089540269737277552017-07-30T06:35:00.000-07:002017-07-30T06:35:28.579-07:00The Saga Continues: A New Addition to the Currency Unions and Trade LiteraturePreviously on this blog, I have written about the saga of the <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/03/the-saga-of-currency-unions-and-trade.html">Currency Unions and Trade</a> literature. This literature began with Andrew Rose, the famed discoverer of the finding that currency unions, like the Euro, appear to have an effect on trade that is nothing short of miraculous. Effect estimates range in the 100% to 1,300% range, according to researchers at places like Harvard and Berkeley.<br />
<br />
I published my <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cda/wpaper/12-1.html">very first academic paper</a> about this topic, and found that the earlier large estimates of currency unions (CUs) on trade were driven by rather blunt omitted variables, such as warfare, decolonization, and communist takeovers, and were also sensitive to dynamic controls. I wrote that countries joining the Euro should not expect any large effect on trade.<br />
<br />
A new paper by Glick and Rose <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292116300630">came out last year</a> which used more recent data, and, once again, found a large impact of CUs, including for the Euro. I was, once again, skeptical, so I assigned my undergraduates a search-and-destroy mission. This was aided in part by Andrew Rose's very laudable practice of posting his data online, which allowed my students to <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/04/how-bad-is-peer-review-evidence-from.html">search and destroy</a>. The original authors, to their credit, responded in the comment section of that post. I posted Reuven Glick's thoughtful response <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/04/reuven-glick-responds-currency-unions.html">here</a>, along with my own response.<br />
<br />
In any case, Aleksandr Chentsov and I decided to go ahead and write up a new paper on the topic: "<a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/79973.html">Breaking Badly: The Currency Union Effect on Trade</a>". In the paper, we essentially tested whether these same omitted variables which were driving the effect initially were also driving the effect using this much larger dataset, and whether omitted variables (think the EU) might also be driving the results for the Euro Area as well.<br />
<br />
The basic problem can be seen from the evolution of trade between Pakistan and India (Figure 1 below). After the dissolution of the currency union in 1965, trade did, in fact, plummet. By 99.8%. It would thus seem to provide evidence for a large impact of CUs on trade. If Greece leaves the Euro, one might wonder that something similar might happen. However, it doesn't exactly take an expert in International Relations to know that India and Pakistan haven't always gotten along swimmingly. 1965 also happened to be the year when a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965">brutal border war </a>broke out over the legacy of partition, following Pakistan's "Operation Gibraltar". It provides a better guide to what might happen if Greece defaults on all of its debts, gets kicked out of the Euro Zone, and then the EU invades it in retaliation, but Greece fights it to a stalemate.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxlRcTvtfkMCCbenTvi82T1CHwUmcW1ZZ9LJdVN0F_Vj1jfXzG0Cng5p53-7_bCv18FOLty-b8MJ2jW2jo7T2Oi461ENmKDeM5vaWBZzCs_pui8Po7SMWnivy-fAPKo0FHhka1ERBmJG4/s1600/indopakistanitrade.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="689" data-original-width="1087" height="405" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxlRcTvtfkMCCbenTvi82T1CHwUmcW1ZZ9LJdVN0F_Vj1jfXzG0Cng5p53-7_bCv18FOLty-b8MJ2jW2jo7T2Oi461ENmKDeM5vaWBZzCs_pui8Po7SMWnivy-fAPKo0FHhka1ERBmJG4/s640/indopakistanitrade.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Figure 1: Trade Between India and Pakistan. The vertical red line shows the end of the Currency Union, which also happened to coincide with the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The example of India and Pakistan was hardly an isolated case. We write in the paper that "In addition, all of the countries which left the French Franc -- Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco -- did so after major conflicts resulting in independence (see Thom, 2006). These included separatist bombings in the case of Tunisia, a war of independence in the Algerian case, and anti-colonial rioting in Morocco. All five of Portugal's former colonies which had also shared currency unions likewise had to fight for their independence, some of which included prolonged guerrilla wars." When you exclude these cases, the measured CU effect shrinks.<br />
<br />
This brings us to the Euro. Just as leaving a currency union -- which, like marriage, are meant to be forever -- is typically a sign of geopolitical turmoil, joining a currency union is typically a sign of good/improved/improving political relations. In the Europe case, my students noted that one would want to control for the entire history of European integration, from the Coal and Steel Community, to the EU. One perceptive student noted that prior to the 1990s, some parts of the Euro Zone today, such as East Germany and other late joiners in Eastern Europe, were all part of the Warsaw Pact.<br />
<br />
Our goal, then, was to find appropriate control groups for both Western and Eastern Europe. For Western Europe, we used either (1) other EU countries not in the Euro, or (2) other Western European countries not in the Euro. For Eastern Europe, we compared the evolution of trade between the EE Euro entrants and other EE countries not in the Euro. The results in either case did not suggest a measurable/significant impact on trade. In Figure 2, we plot the evolution of trade in Euro Area countries in Western Europe relative to trade with Non-Euro countries. Relative to 1999, we actually found that Euro members traded slightly more with non-Euro members in 2013, although the difference wasn't even close to statistical significance. However, Euro members had experienced a dramatic increase in trade in the 1950s. Thus, a simple dummy strategy which averages trade before and after the Euro was formed can lead one astray.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmT5sltan43QC_045MLwv2Tx-bZYGCqObUduzFmSEqUB_Eaw7Qoec0VkucWXFfuj-cspM1HncVPi1aEeZ9hY4s5zyimEKl1vxFqSuXPIgchUj-qCrn8MyL41r-Z_RFlifprHSgA5I4As/s1600/euroeffectbyyear.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1001" data-original-width="1268" height="504" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmT5sltan43QC_045MLwv2Tx-bZYGCqObUduzFmSEqUB_Eaw7Qoec0VkucWXFfuj-cspM1HncVPi1aEeZ9hY4s5zyimEKl1vxFqSuXPIgchUj-qCrn8MyL41r-Z_RFlifprHSgA5I4As/s640/euroeffectbyyear.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Figure 2: Trade intensity of Euro Members relative to Non-Members over time. The vertical red line in 1999 denotes the formation of the Euro. </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We do <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/79973.html">much more</a> in our paper. Looking at each major CU separately, we find that there really aren't any clear-cut examples for the CU effect, but there are many counterexamples (such as the Euro above). Often, there were dramatic trade declines in the final years of a CU, and then trade recoveries after dissolution. In addition, we also ran the traditional panel gravity regressions, and once again found that the results are sensitive to omitting the CU switches which coincided with war or other major geopolitical events, and adding in other CU-specific controls (such as for the EU).<br />
<br />
Some general lessons for empirical research in international trade that research on this topic taught me include:<br />
<br />
(1) one should always be mindful of dynamics. Particularly when regressing a level variable that trends on another variable which trends. (Most country pairs have just one CU switch, so any trend in the data could lead to incorrect inference.) This is often my first or second concern when I see papers presented at conferences.<br />
<br />
(2) One should always plot their data. I think many authors do not do enough of this. Doing so can allieve the first concern. In the more recent version, Glick and Rose did at least plot pre-treatment trends, a clear improvement. But the existence of pre-treatment trends implies a non-randomness of the treatment.<br />
<br />
(3) Are the errors clustered appropriately? In this paper we found we could shrink the t-score on the Euro impact by 80% simply by using multi-way clustered errors.<br />
<br />
(4) Is the effect size plausible based on what else we know? In this case, we knew that currency pegs are correlated with much smaller effect sizes, and that indirect pegs -- more likely to be random -- are not correlated with higher trade flows at all. In addition, the effect sizes which have been bandied about in this literature were orders of magnitude larger than, say, the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Simply too large to be believed. And Glick and Rose also had argued that some CUs cause sharp contractions in trade, while others had no effect, even while others had very large positive effects. Why such dramatically different effects for each CU? The answer is that there were simply different historical forces in play for each CU, and these forces overshadowed whatever small effect CUs may have.<br />
<br />
(5) Always think about endogeneity! It's such an obvious, and ubiquitous problem that I don't know if it's necessary to add this point. But I do think this deserves to be a textbook cautionary tale of a non-random treatment leading researchers badly astray.<br />
<br />
Is this research that important in the end? Admittedly, most countries that joined the Euro did not do so based on their belief of the CUs and trade literature. Nevertheless, the Euro has, in my view, been mostly a catastrophe for southern Europe. I believe the first best option for these countries would be more aggressive pro-growth stimulus from the ECB, but, absent that, I think these countries should think seriously about exit. While the Euro is a bit different from most other currency unions (the definition is that two countries have currencies that trade at a 1:1 par value), there is no hard evidence that Euro Area countries will face a trade collapse if they leave the Euro.<br />
<br />
In any case, I did have a senior economist sit me down and tell me not to write this paper. The logic is obvious. You get places in academia by forming close relationships with powerful people, not by pissing them off. These guys no doubt have close relationships with many other economists in the field. They likely also referee lots of papers a year, and will likely be asked to referee this paper. Most editors understandably won't want to touch this controversy with a 10-foot pole, (several websites took a pass on a column about this paper, one on the grounds that my coauthor and myself are at less prestigious institutions than Glick and Rose; how could an MIT Ph.D. be wrong?) while many potential referees are also no doubt close friends with the authors. I expect to submit this paper 7-10 times, but that is relatively normal. The original researchers will no doubt take my criticism of their research personally, and will likely do everything in their power to sabotage my career. Undoubtedly, there are powerful corrupting forces in academia.<br />
<br />
Or, maybe not. Maybe the authors will understand that it wasn't personal. Maybe the editor and referees will judge our paper based on its merits. The only way to find out is to write the paper and submit it. So that's what we did.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-75423874765962568152017-07-15T01:26:00.002-07:002017-07-15T02:57:43.937-07:00Public Service Announcement: The US Labor Market is Still Losing Ground Relative to TrendWe keep hearing how good the labor market is these days. We've created more than 16 million jobs since the financial crisis! Unemployment is the lowest since 2001! Time to raise rates, since the economy is overheating. Of course, this mostly comes from current and former policy makers, all of whom have a stake in trying to tell us that the Obama/Bernanke, or the Trump/Yellen economy has done quite well. However, how does job creation look like these days in terms of the long-run historical rate of job growth in the US? I plot total nonfarm employment relative to the long-run trend below. It looks a bit worse than I imagined, actually. We are now something like 23% below the long-run trend, but the surprise for me is that even in the past couple years, as the Fed tightens MP due to an economy that is supposedly overheating, we seem to still be moving further away from the long-run trend.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYjGEXl5Fm1lqClBiVL-pXAZ6iysu8VH0Hd8tL1Eyg4apVBXGl_M9_mzUxNUeRmc8tdjgQ44R5MnzCkb8CEQwhm00ti2LsgfKqJqxMufv_sRrFhnYL5OoKs53Nhy62yPUFklJwHPaFf9M/s1600/empreltotrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1097" data-original-width="1451" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYjGEXl5Fm1lqClBiVL-pXAZ6iysu8VH0Hd8tL1Eyg4apVBXGl_M9_mzUxNUeRmc8tdjgQ44R5MnzCkb8CEQwhm00ti2LsgfKqJqxMufv_sRrFhnYL5OoKs53Nhy62yPUFklJwHPaFf9M/s640/empreltotrend.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Of course, there are caveats here. Population growth did naturally slow a bit, and the absorption of women into the labor force was a one-time event that was mostly played out by the 2000s; 9/11 exogenously reduced immigration, and thus job growth, and the Boomers have been retiring, etc. Certainly, you could also quibble a bit with the trend. Yet, even if you plot the trend from 1945 to 1995, in recent years we still will not really have been gaining on this slower trend growth. These other events/excuses/caveats are not going to explain the relatively sudden collapse of employment some 20% +/- below trend. And why should exogenous negative shocks to labor supply cause wage growth to slow? I'm afraid I'm losing the plot of these other stories.<br />
<br />
I have another explanation: maybe the economy is not really that overheated. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Note: you can follow me on twitter @TradeandMoney</i><br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-40989629928582419582017-07-12T01:02:00.000-07:002017-07-12T06:52:23.408-07:00In the Idiocy of Kevin Warsh: More Evidence for the 'Self-Induced Paralysis' ThesisI believe it is clear that the main reason the economy has been growing slowly since the financial crisis is overly tight monetary policy. Inflation has been chronically low. The unemployment rate now admittedly looks good, but this is primarily due to workers leaving the labor force. The employment rate has not recovered, as can be seen below. Certainly, things are improving, and things will look better if you limit to prime-age adults, but then again, you could argue that the prime-age employment rate numbers might look better than usual due to baby boomer retirement. Wage growth is also slow, pointing to a still-weak labor market, nearly 10 years after the recession began. And, yet, despite that, the Fed has taken five consecutive tightening actions in terms of ending QE and raising interest rates. The result of this has surely been to help keep inflation below target and GDP growth below its long-run level.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB4zCG0rC-rXgIHQPvqEwhHlF37793kyl1QYFGczMcrx_tfF37XcaUAjroAxeGcS9l7Ig7vhhgePT6Ux80sQGXlk4AgaHFBpd6oLfoQvpCCWnQppovkVJzct-B4oq-45YXg9_N0-mz9Pg/s1600/emptopop.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="637" data-original-width="1600" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB4zCG0rC-rXgIHQPvqEwhHlF37793kyl1QYFGczMcrx_tfF37XcaUAjroAxeGcS9l7Ig7vhhgePT6Ux80sQGXlk4AgaHFBpd6oLfoQvpCCWnQppovkVJzct-B4oq-45YXg9_N0-mz9Pg/s640/emptopop.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In particular, look at the above graph in 2009, when the Fed adopted no new stimulus despite headline deflation and mass job losses, on net (in terms of rates or asset purchases, forward guidance was done), or in 2010, when the Fed raised the discount rate. What on Earth could they have been thinking?<br />
<br />
Despite this logic, I suspect that many economists have a deep respect for Ben Bernanke, who I also like and respect, even if I disagree with him on some things, and thus wonder how he could have gotten things so wrong. Part of the answer might be that Ben Bernanke, ever a consensus builder, would have liked to do more, but was also constrained by other members of the FOMC. Sam Bell provides some evidence for this in <a href="https://medium.com/@sam_a_bell/jared-kushner-for-fed-chair-4d7c33817d8f">a can't miss article</a> on Kevin Warsh, who now appears to be a front-runner for the Fed Chair job, who was still worried about inflation pressures even after Lehman Brothers failed in 2008.<br />
<br />
First, Bell notes that Warsh is a lawyer by training, who was only appointed to the Fed at age 35 with a light resume after his father-in-law, Ronald Lauder, heir to the Est<span style="background-color: white; font-family: , "georgia" , "cambria" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; letter-spacing: -0.063px;">é</span>e Lauder fortune and apparently a confidant of Donald Trump, likely influenced his selection with donations.<br />
<br />
Even as the economy was tanking in 2008 and 2009, Bell writes that "Warsh adopted a skeptical and increasingly oppositional posture. He doubted the Fed could do much good without creating much bigger problems."<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.063px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.063px;">Much bigger problems? What could be a bigger problem than letting the economy burn in a financial crisis?</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.063px;">"In </span><a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20090318meeting.pdf" href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20090318meeting.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.44); background-color: white; background-image: linear-gradient(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) 50%); background-position: 0px 1.07em; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-size: 2px 0.1em; letter-spacing: -0.063px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">March 2009 he told his Fed colleagues</a><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.063px;"> that he was “quite uncomfortable with the idea of purchasing long-term Treasuries in size” because “if the Fed is perceived to be monetizing debt and serving as a buyer of last resort in the name of lowering risk-free rates, we could end up with higher rates and less credibility as a central bank.”"</span></span></blockquote>
The Fed should hold off on more stimulus in the worst recession in 75 years because it might actually end up with higher rates and lose credibility? Why wouldn't the Fed lose credibility if it was perceived as not fighting the recession? Warsh continued to warn about the dangers of both monetary and <b>fiscal stimulus </b>in 2010.<br />
<br />
Warsh was also far and away not the only crazy one at the Fed at that time. In 2011, when I worked as a Staff Economist at the President's Council of Economic Advisors, I had a conversation with Daniel Tarullo, who told me he believed that Jean-Claude Trichet's interest rate hikes in 2010 -- which are widely seen to have been premature and to have helped ignite the European Debt Crisis -- were justified. These comments suggested to me that Tarullo was somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan on monetary policy. Then, there were also worthies like Richard Fisher, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/business/economy/richard-fisher-leave-the-fed.html">Often Wrong but Seldom Boring</a>, who "<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">warned throughout most of 2008 that inflation was the primary danger to the economy".</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 17px;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
And that, my friends, is how the Tea Party was born.<br />
<br />
The other thing to note about the FOMC is that it's a job most people seem to not want to do for very long. It's a revolving door. Most people will do it for 4-5 years, and then quit for greener pastures, as it is not a job that pays that much, particularly by the pornographic standards of finance and banking. Even top university professors can make much more. It's a mix of people who are politically connected, bankers, and academic macroeconomists. And even the latter group can be a mixed bag. And, despite this, (or, should I say, in part because it is a revolving door) the Obama administration never took its appointments seriously. They left in place an FOMC made up mostly of Republicans, including staunch white male MBA-holding Republicans raised in the south in the 1960s. Obama's economic advisors apparently did not see this as potentially problematic.<br />
<br />
And, then we had Bernanke, who apparently <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/07/ben-bernanke-in-denial-re-when-growth.html">still holds the view</a> that economic growth in the US economy is still <a href="https://www.ecbforum.eu/uploads/originals/2017/speakers/Speech/Bernanke%20ECB.pdf">more-or-less OK</a>. In 2011, I also had a conversation with Ben Bernanke. I saw as soon as I began talking to him that he figured I would criticize him for QE, or inciting hyperinflation with all this money printing. He was actually surprised when I asked him why he wasn't doing more, given that core inflation at the time was running around 1.4%. His response is that higher inflation wasn't costless. But I didn't see how inflation of 2% vs. 1.4% would be as costly as millions of people out of work. It seems, few people at the Fed were trying to influence him in the direction of doing more.<br />
<br />
What all of this evidence does is make the thesis of "Self-Induced Paralysis", that the major problem with the US economy is overly tight monetary policy, more plausible. You had the competent, but cautious Bernanke who likely wanted some more stimulus, but was surrounded by a group of idiots concerned about inflation in 2008. And, even Bernanke himself clearly seems to be in a <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/07/ben-bernanke-in-denial-re-when-growth.html">state of denial</a> about US growth prospects. The reality is that the people who controlled monetary policy since 2009 are a mix of those who believed hyperinflation was just around the corner, those who believed monetary stimulus in a severe recession would do more harm than good, and on the dovish side a Chairman who hasn't noticed that the US economy that, since 2008, has consistently been growing slower than it used to.<br />
<br />
In any case, let's return to Kevin Warsh for a minute. How bad would he be as Fed Chair? Likely a disaster. Certainly a disaster on regulation, and likely also a disaster on monetary policy. The only catch here is that he will be a perfect Fed Chair for Trump, as he'll be a yes-man Trump can control 100%. Although Trump sounded hawkish on monetary policy on the campaign trail, I always imagined he would eventually change his tune as President -- particularly once the election is on and he realizes the Fed can deliver faster growth. Thus, he could, in fact, adopt looser monetary policy and pave the way for a second term for Trump. Or, he could be the Kevin Warsh he was during the Financial Crisis, and continue the Yellen tradition of slightly-too tight policy. I think we won't know the answer to this until it happens, although I would probably put higher odds on the latter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Note: you can follow me on twitter @TradeandMoney</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-84618246962677738372017-07-09T01:14:00.000-07:002017-07-10T20:40:55.611-07:00Ben Bernanke, in Denial? "When Growth is Not Enough"<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">"When Growth is Not Enough" is the title of a recent <a href="https://www.ecbforum.eu/uploads/originals/2017/speakers/Speech/Bernanke%20ECB.pdf">Ben Bernanke speech</a> in Portugal. I found it via the NYT article on the "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/business/economy/ecb-automation-robotics-economy-jobs.html">Robocalypse</a>", which contained this bizarre quote from Ben S. Bernanke "</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">as recent political developments have brought home, growth is not always enough."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWKZ7zLydgbltLBQS9_XW-4w9JZpuy1ddgF1cvKLVcoTLHuIAYkuEXW9yo9ptP0xo0Uemmo7nOa90XNjpGt8KzYVmxhOie7yu6h6_r44Kw4fyxUEZOvkkTOqt9WITBVzELeSW3nGTQ5Cw/s1600/RGDPreltotrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1045" data-original-width="1600" height="417" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWKZ7zLydgbltLBQS9_XW-4w9JZpuy1ddgF1cvKLVcoTLHuIAYkuEXW9yo9ptP0xo0Uemmo7nOa90XNjpGt8KzYVmxhOie7yu6h6_r44Kw4fyxUEZOvkkTOqt9WITBVzELeSW3nGTQ5Cw/s640/RGDPreltotrend.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">However, as you can see, something terrible has happened to US GDP growth, which is now more than 20% below its long-run trend, even if it has escaped the attention of our former Fed Chair. On twitter, Kocherlakota and I were both hoping he'd been taken out of context. Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">In his speech, Bernanke is trying to make sense of how his tenure at the Fed was followed by a populist political rebellion. To his credit, early in the essay, he does admit that the "</span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">recovery was slower than we would have liked", but in the round, as the title of his speech suggests, he is a glass-is-half-full kind of guy on the economy "the [Fed] is close to meeting its ... goals of maximum employment and price stability... more than 16 million ... jobs have been created... the latest reading on unemployment, 4.3 percent, is the lowest since 2001." He then writes "So why, despite these positives, are Americans so dissatisfied?" He lists four reasons:</span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;">Slow median income growth, especially for male workers. Hourly wages for males have declined since 1979.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;">Declining rates of intergenerational mobility</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;">Social dysfunction in economically marginalized groups (see Case-Deaton on mortality increases for working-class Americans).</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;">Political alienation.</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;">What were the causes of these? Bernanke pushes the Gordon thesis that wartime technologies led to the boom in the early post-war period. He notes that productivity growth has been slow the past 10 years. He correctly notes that there was a China shock (which is good, would be nice if he also mentioned <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0212.html">exchange rates</a>), and also argues that globalization has led to the rise in inequality. In terms of policy, he argues that more could have been done to secure the safety net and help the downtrodden.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;">There is much to like in the essay, and I'm not opposed to his policy prescriptions. I also agree that inequality could be part of the problem. But that there were several things that struck me.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">First, Bernanke also doesn't buy the Reagan/Thatcher revolution as the cause of the growth of inequality in the US and UK. He seems to think some combination of globalization/SBTC is the cause. At least he is in good company -- Krugman, Avent, DeLong, and David Autor -- all people I respect and have learned a lot from, also don't seem to buy it. I have no idea why. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">In my own research with Lester Lusher (see <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0223.html">here</a> and <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0220.html">here</a>), we concluded that trade almost certainly was not a major cause of the rise of inequality in the US. The aggregate timing just wasn't quite right, inequality increased just as much in sectors not directly affected by trade, and other countries that trade a lot (Germany, Sweden, Japan) did not see anything like the increase in inequality in the US or UK. And when inequality finally did increase in these countries, it followed cuts in top marginal tax rates just like it did in the US and UK.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">Second, reading between the lines, Bernanke seems to have caved a bit in his debate with Summers on the source of Secular Stagnation. Now he seems to be closer to the view that there was some autonomous decline in technological growth. I'm very skeptical of this view, although I'll concede it's hard to prove either way.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">The big one, of course, is that Bernanke does appear to be in a bit of denial that GDP growth really has slowed. He credits the Fed for price stability, without noting that the Fed has undershot its own stated inflation target for nearly a decade now. He also doesn't mention how/why both he and the ECB raised interest rates in 2010 (no, <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTDSRUSM193N">that isn't a typo</a>). Why shouldn't tight money in a recession lead to slow growth? Of course, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to view such a horrible thing such as the election of Donald Trump, which likely was caused in part by a weak economy (the economy always matters for elections), and realize that one's own policies were at fault. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">Unfortunately, in recent months, the US has gotten more bad news on the GDP front. Is the problem that we've already invented everything worth inventing, and growth will just naturally slow, as Robert Gordon suggests? Or is the Robocalypse upon us, as some would have us believe? Or is it that the Fed ended QE prematurely and then raised interest rates four times in a row despite inflation at 1.5%? </span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">I'm going to go with the latter. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 17px;">After all, if GDP growth and inflation are both below target, and the Fed tightens monetary policy, tell me what is supposed to happen?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><br /></span></span></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-63270062395931136932017-06-29T03:29:00.003-07:002017-07-01T01:07:12.744-07:00How to Cure a Cancer: Thoughts on Improving Academic JournalsSo, I currently have a paper that has been under review since last December, coming up on 7 months. A friend of mine recently waited something like 16-17 months at the JME. This is ridiculous. It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to design a system in which this doesn't happen, or happens only very rarely. It's led me to think about all the ways the academic economics publishing system could be improved. Particularly since economists study incentives, you'd think we could design a good system. All economists know and believe there are obvious problems in the academic publishing system, and yet, somehow, the profession soldiers on like a drunken sailor. Thus, here are a few proposals, most of which are obvious and probably not new:<br />
<br />
<div>
1. A recent positive trend is that many journals pay referees for finishing a report within a certain number of days. I approve. However, my paper is currently at such a journal, which has limit of 4-6 weeks (range given to protect the anonymity of the journal). After that, a referee gets nothing. What I wonder, then, is if a referee misses the deadline, they no longer have any incentive to write a report sooner rather than later. I also wonder if this doesn't make them more likely to delay. If the deadline was 30 days, and you wake up on day 31, and realize you've missed a payday, it seems you might be less likely to submit the report on day 31, feeling like a chump. A phase out of the payment over several months would likely be more effective. Here's another idea, why I'm throwing them out: referees should be given an option to have a larger payoff with a short duration of a referee report -- say, two weeks -- while also agreeing to pay if they don't finish a report within two months, with a fee increasing incrementally each month. And would need to provide their credit card information in advance. The fee for backing out could be set to be even worse than submitting a report at each date, to make this incentive compatible.</div>
<div>
<br />2. Another problem is that much research is funded by the government, or by universities paid for by tuition dollars, and yet academic research is not a public good. Academic journals make bank. First, academics write papers and submit them to journals, and not only do they do this free of charge, but they actually pay for the right to have the fruits of their free labor published, for the benefit of the journal owners. We must do this, of course, as our academic careers depend on publishing in fancy journals. Our careers are also helped by prestigious editing positions at journals, which we are also happy to do for free or low wages. Referees then, also, typically work for free or at least below-market wages. Next, the journals charge lots of money to the same universities which pay their professors for access to the same research the universities pay professors to produce. It's a great business to be in, if you can get it. The issue is that the most prestigious journals have near monopolies -- the tradeoff is that one Top 5 publication is seen as being worth 4-5 publications in Top Fields (at least for your first one) -- a crazy ratio, but the profession is obsessed with rank and status. The solution here is some form of collective action. For example, the government should tax academic journal profits, and could use the proceeds to help fund education, or it could regulate the fees that journals charge for libraries or the public to access the research. If the Ivy League, or the UC system were to spell out that only research published in open access journals or which obey some other criterion would result in tenure, this could be a start. The problems and solutions here are so obvious I'm hesitant to write it down. A dream of mine is also to devise a journal ranking system which penalizes journals for bad behavior (<i>e.g</i>., for high fees to libraries, or high submission fees), so that departments could change the ranking system which they use to award tenure and promotion decisions, in order to better incentivize journals. </div>
<div>
<br />3. A third problem is that referees, and even journal editors, have limited incentives to try and do a good job, much less a timely job. One thing I propose here is for journals to ask authors for feedback on how the referee and editorial process went. Clearly, when someone gets a negative referee report, they will give someone a bad ranking, but overall referee scores could be computed controlling for the recommendation of the report. Partly, I think this would be good for purely therapeutic reasons, even if the journals didn't use this for anything. When you're pissed off after getting yet another clueless report, you now have an outlet -- you can kill them in your referee Eval! However, the journals could band together to create a referee ranking. Editors and other referees could also rate referees. There are certainly cases where referees say crazy things, and this is acknowledged by not only the authors, but the editor and other referees. And yet, the said referee pays no penalty at all. On the contrary, they may receive the benefit of not being asked to referee again for some time. If a system were designed to give feedback to departments: "your professor X has a history of providing unprofessional reports", or simply: "here is the rank of your APs in terms of their prowess writing referee reports", this could change incentives for the better. <ol>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
4. Another problem is that journals have no incentives to publish comment papers, which tend to reflect poorly on the journal, and which also tend to be poorly cited. Thus, in the ranking system I devised above, I would penalize journals that don't accept comment papers on papers published in its own journal. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com29tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-43006075998624408902017-05-09T11:36:00.001-07:002017-05-09T12:34:01.738-07:00Is US Manufacturing Really Great Again?One chart, more than any other, has influenced people's beliefs about the US manufacturing sector, as can be see by this debate <a href="http://videostreaming.gc.cuny.edu/videos/video/4983/embed/?access_token=shr00000049839204943398151315087172252494609">here</a>, and <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/manufacturing-jobs-share-of-us-economy-by-j--bradford-delong-2017-05">here</a> (the latter a link to the Autor/Harrison/DeLong/Krugman debate, all of whom I am enormous fans of). This graph (below) apparently exposes the lie that trade has played a significant roll in hollowing out manufacturing jobs. It shows that manufacturing employment as a share of total non-farm employment has been declining on a fairly steady trend. In fact, in recent years, it has even outperformed this long-run trend. Thus, it seems we can forget the idea that US manufacturing is in any kind of a slump, judging by this. On the contrary, since we are now above trend, it seems that manufacturing is great again!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiisbHp5-M0_JpGjFyAI9i-CHi5Woryy0BhtR5CXvmz1LjCyHrtseGrDfC_0AWLhTX6MNdm1I7ohpjxUOluUJPatALzX3h1KOdTnVMvN2HBTNdwLF2eEbkLbZ4WnJaBaZGwvitzWx1bSvo/s1600/manempasshareoftotal.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="524" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiisbHp5-M0_JpGjFyAI9i-CHi5Woryy0BhtR5CXvmz1LjCyHrtseGrDfC_0AWLhTX6MNdm1I7ohpjxUOluUJPatALzX3h1KOdTnVMvN2HBTNdwLF2eEbkLbZ4WnJaBaZGwvitzWx1bSvo/s640/manempasshareoftotal.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
However, there are several problems with this thesis. The first is that, if we extend this trend far out into the future, it will imply that manufacturing employment should soon comprise a <i>negative</i> share of employment. Obviously, that can't happen. It would be more natural to assume that the decline would flatten out over time, as it eventually heads toward zero at a slower rate. Additionally, in terms of output growth, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/staying-rich-without-manufacturing-will-be-hard">Noah Smith notes</a>, the period from 2008 hardly looks like any sort of a renaissance. And if rising above the trend after 2008 in terms of employment share is not evidence of good performance, than staying on the trend can hardly be conclusive evidence that everything was OK before it.<br />
<br />
An additional problem is that, imagine for a second that you have a city -- let's call it Detroit -- that loses 80% of its tradable-sector employment. What could theoretically happen is that the city might soon lose 80% of its non-tradable sector employment as well. Thus, one might infer from its unchanging tradable sector employment share that the decline in tradables was not the cause of the overall decline in jobs. (And, yes, as I pointed out in <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0212.html">my job-market paper</a>, other tradable sectors beside manufacturing do seem to have been hit in the early 2000s.)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHH2mmH7FfSugi9FWq5NPcvOyJJpQlk55bJLBfQkNf7PWwGdBs4MvsQJllJRc3inx0gx5k5B8w6vLoySkGwwrW5F8ZIXM2vbWE63VFeJucowh4XVFBQHoltfNBK599MmGZm0ULcmYR1hA/s1600/manempovertotfuture.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHH2mmH7FfSugi9FWq5NPcvOyJJpQlk55bJLBfQkNf7PWwGdBs4MvsQJllJRc3inx0gx5k5B8w6vLoySkGwwrW5F8ZIXM2vbWE63VFeJucowh4XVFBQHoltfNBK599MmGZm0ULcmYR1hA/s640/manempovertotfuture.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
One example that those who imagine themselves to be sophisticated often use is the decline of agricultural employment. Obviously, one major reason for this is dramatic productivity growth in agriculture over time. We're told then, that the linear decline of manufacturing as a share of total employment is just like agriculture. However, agricultural employment did not continue a linear decline all the way to negative territory. That would be impossible! after all. What happened is that in recent decades the decline as a share of total employment has slowed tremendously. Thus, the question could be why this didn't happen earlier for manufacturing -- why manufacturing was <i>not</i> like agriculture.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTuBXUUmG-Xlrh4b85h7UfkzLLwF-2U75JaRX1JYz_8NEDqjCionyqZQVfPl2ZAgND6i0QTY-w1cilzB0iRbKZcX2C1aqSBMLwhZO_O8LVe0Vp6_baVElIO9HOCIUoILeKpR3UE6ba4eI/s1600/agemptototal.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTuBXUUmG-Xlrh4b85h7UfkzLLwF-2U75JaRX1JYz_8NEDqjCionyqZQVfPl2ZAgND6i0QTY-w1cilzB0iRbKZcX2C1aqSBMLwhZO_O8LVe0Vp6_baVElIO9HOCIUoILeKpR3UE6ba4eI/s640/agemptototal.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: I believe the steep dropoff in agricultural employment around 2000 was related to a change in the classification system.)<br />
<br />
However, I do think it is true that while trade is a major driver of the decline in manufacturing employment (see my own research <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0212.html">here</a> and <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0223.html">here</a>), and was dominant up until the Great Recession, since then slow overall GDP growth is now likely to be the dominant factor holding back manufacturing. And thus, those who care about the US economy should be more focused on monetary policy than trade. Incidentally, a focus on monetary policy will also weaken the dollar and help solve that problem as well.<br />
<br />
In any case, let me plot real manufacturing output relative to trend to make the case that not all is well in this sector. (Frequent readers of this blog or my twitter feed @TradeandMoney are no doubt already familiar.)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMV5-gsDABQ2lgmjlHn2Lg7XFiCk_18bXKk1K-HYQXkZJc7OQoKY_wrPcFrxfNiZ75WISJ-0DVqLS6lNwsf5Z6gQJtRiFZJYkCmtJFHz8mWWvAKTwN3OtM3KUA55-QThzlfhKnyGRz2Kc/s1600/realmanoutputreltrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="408" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMV5-gsDABQ2lgmjlHn2Lg7XFiCk_18bXKk1K-HYQXkZJc7OQoKY_wrPcFrxfNiZ75WISJ-0DVqLS6lNwsf5Z6gQJtRiFZJYkCmtJFHz8mWWvAKTwN3OtM3KUA55-QThzlfhKnyGRz2Kc/s640/realmanoutputreltrend.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMV5-gsDABQ2lgmjlHn2Lg7XFiCk_18bXKk1K-HYQXkZJc7OQoKY_wrPcFrxfNiZ75WISJ-0DVqLS6lNwsf5Z6gQJtRiFZJYkCmtJFHz8mWWvAKTwN3OtM3KUA55-QThzlfhKnyGRz2Kc/s1600/realmanoutputreltrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a>
<br />
And, here is Real GDP relative to the long-run trend.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1IEsVe3T-ehegk3Sd3Kki36ZjJAy6RqLq6Bcwi9Hcw-UHGnKmpylZTQXMNY17HGZeC6NvzTP09t0NyRY_LgN1m4pnoT2TS1cyAw5iV0HVSlDuCTrIQs9ajoc5Cdym-pYngGWKL8vg_K4/s1600/RGDPreltotrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="418" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1IEsVe3T-ehegk3Sd3Kki36ZjJAy6RqLq6Bcwi9Hcw-UHGnKmpylZTQXMNY17HGZeC6NvzTP09t0NyRY_LgN1m4pnoT2TS1cyAw5iV0HVSlDuCTrIQs9ajoc5Cdym-pYngGWKL8vg_K4/s640/RGDPreltotrend.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Lastly, haven't we heard that manufacturing is declining "everywhere" as a share of GDP? Let's do an international comparison of employment, exports, and value-added in that case (see below). Indeed, one sees problems here as well.<br />
<br />
The idea that everything is OK in US manufacturing is a cockroach idea that, no matter how much it is at odds with basic facts, can't seem to die. In a future post, I'll write a bit more about <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0212.html">my thesis</a> on what went wrong. Spoiler alert: it has to do with real exchange rates. If true, then a massive tax cut from Trump would be the worst thing to happen to the US manufacturing sector since, well, the last two massive tax cuts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTA_2dhY51oHJoXywrg0TYn36izzQ-0Q7Ev_wPTK2mleew2tAW_ZoLe6ekbPpiHc2MQri9aLv5WY2cSIDR-ldGP-JVlKTl8Er4d_Xca2pT-C4I6OIXWGBYYDy2yXFB3KKlbkDPhcz6Mxo/s1600/USmanhardhit.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="564" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTA_2dhY51oHJoXywrg0TYn36izzQ-0Q7Ev_wPTK2mleew2tAW_ZoLe6ekbPpiHc2MQri9aLv5WY2cSIDR-ldGP-JVlKTl8Er4d_Xca2pT-C4I6OIXWGBYYDy2yXFB3KKlbkDPhcz6Mxo/s640/USmanhardhit.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbGI1ok44dAIJFl6Vs_o6gWjwyOusRQfDuCc9tyR8bAcSCltVvjl92caN-xL3pkWfHVxHGHLVNSvQjZAGYP8j1QDUpgZU7LQe0CNQEDW4reTj_lM86FDqAJqRchPa5jA0Ug6rK_xZ7uAM/s1600/USlosingexportshare.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbGI1ok44dAIJFl6Vs_o6gWjwyOusRQfDuCc9tyR8bAcSCltVvjl92caN-xL3pkWfHVxHGHLVNSvQjZAGYP8j1QDUpgZU7LQe0CNQEDW4reTj_lM86FDqAJqRchPa5jA0Ug6rK_xZ7uAM/s640/USlosingexportshare.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiedTc2IWibsbgQSB57CCxl0fzkPSSourBBCZ1KKLhi85q2rKHrHP60fqztJiOLuCmuG_ZT4juHlXJobFkuETcLcuGZ6BCrb-lkPfKAvthG-zEgtLx353ifZ4LginiXYNbteSklRjyLUnM/s1600/manufacturingVAUSvsgerchina.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="468" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiedTc2IWibsbgQSB57CCxl0fzkPSSourBBCZ1KKLhi85q2rKHrHP60fqztJiOLuCmuG_ZT4juHlXJobFkuETcLcuGZ6BCrb-lkPfKAvthG-zEgtLx353ifZ4LginiXYNbteSklRjyLUnM/s640/manufacturingVAUSvsgerchina.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-75453545605407304732017-04-27T23:09:00.002-07:002017-04-28T03:32:54.980-07:00Reuven Glick Responds! The Currency Unions and Trade Debate Rages On... Previously, I reviewed the Currency Unions and Trade Literature <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/03/the-saga-of-currency-unions-and-trade.html">here</a>, and then shared some of my students' referee reports of a recent Glick and Rose (2016) paper <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/04/how-bad-is-peer-review-evidence-from.html">here</a>. My undergraduates were quite skeptical.<br />
<br />
In fact, I first wrote a paper on currency unions and trade as my class paper when I was a grad student in Alan Taylor's excellent course in Open-Economy Macro/History. A doubling of trade due to a currency union looked like a classic case of "endogeneity" to me. Currency Unions are like marriages, they don't form or break apart for no reason. They are as non-random a treatment as you'll find. In addition, we know from <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w10696">Klein and Shambaugh</a>'s excellent work that direct pegs seem to have a much smaller impact on trade, and that indirect pegs -- which probably are formed randomly -- have no effect at all. Thus we know that the effect of currency unions doesn't operate via exchange rate volatility, the most plausible channel. Also, the magnitude of the effects bandied about are much too large to be believed. Consider that Doug Irwin finds that the <a href="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465398557410#.WQK_H2l97sU">Smoot-Hawley tariff</a> reduced trade by 4-8%. How plausible is it that currency unions have an impact at least 12 times larger? Or the Euro six times larger? It isn't. A 5% increase in trade still implies an increase of tens of billions of dollars for the EU -- probably still too large. My intuition is that something on the order of .05-.5% would be plausible, but too small to estimate.<br />
<br />
Since I was skeptical, I fired up Stata. It then took me approximately 30 minutes to make the magical -- yes, magical -- effect of currency unions on trade disappear, at least for one major sub-sample -- former UK colonies. It took only a bit more time to notice that the results were also driven by <a href="http://dougcampbell.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/2/10227422/cupaper_12_3_2012.pdf">wars and missing data</a>, but it was still a quick paper.<br />
<br />
In any case, to his credit, Reuven Glick responds, making many thoughtful points. Here he is:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">My co-author, Andy Rose, already responded to the comments on your blogsite about our recent EER paper. I'd like to offer my additional one-shot responses to your comments of March 24, 2017 and your follow-up on April 24, 2017.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">•As Andy noted, we find significant effects for many individual currency unions (CUs), not just for those involving the British pound and former UK colonies. Yes, the magnitude of the trade effects varies across these unions, but that’s not surprising. So the “magical” currency union effect doesn’t disappear, even when attributing the UK-related effects to something other than the dissolution of pound unions. </span><br />
<br />
There is a pattern in this literature. You guys find a large trade impact result, and then somebody points out that it isn't robust -- in short, that the effect does disappear. For example, Bomberger (no paper on-line; but Rose helpfully posted his referee report <a href="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/arose/Bomberger.PDF">here</a>) showed that your earlier results go away for the colonial sample with the inclusion of colony-specific time trends, while <a href="http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2005/wp-cesifo-2005-03/cesifo1_wp1435.pdf">Berger and Nitsch</a> have already showed that a simple time trend kills the Euro impact on trade. Each time you guys then come back with a larger data set, and show that the impact is robust. However, the lessons from the literature curiously do not get internalized; the controls which reversed your previous results forgotten.<br />
<br />
Since you mention the UK, let's have a look at a simple plot of trade between the UK and its former colonies vs. the UK and countries which it had currency unions. What you see below are the dummies plotted in a gravity regression for the UK with its former colonies vs. countries that ever had a UK currency union. Note that the UK had something like 60+ colonies while there are only 20-something countries which had currency unions, only one of them a non-colony. What it shows is that the evolution of trade between the UK and its former colonies is quite similar to the evolution of trade between the UK and countries which shared a CU with. The blue bars (axis at left), then show the dates of UK currency union dissolutions, mostly during the Sterling Crisis of the 1960s. What one sees is that there was a gradual decaying of trade for both UK colonies and countries ever in a currency union.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTkWdc8SpMWqhMZLRObxUi0KCBWsmAvKbQW2kxEU8476GyRDQJEZdwmphs7uTOBAJDRqoJWAP2y-e_KDRUYwdh2wT3151PsqEaapvsGtppWbIZubwPa0PYjksfAyzJXSlulMMXHgCM7dc/s1600/UKCUs.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="473" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTkWdc8SpMWqhMZLRObxUi0KCBWsmAvKbQW2kxEU8476GyRDQJEZdwmphs7uTOBAJDRqoJWAP2y-e_KDRUYwdh2wT3151PsqEaapvsGtppWbIZubwPa0PYjksfAyzJXSlulMMXHgCM7dc/s640/UKCUs.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>So, yes, including a time trend control does in fact make the "magical" result go away. <a href="http://dougcampbell.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/2/10227422/cupaper_12_3_2012.pdf">In my earlier paper</a>, I got an impact of 108% for UK Currency Unions with no time trend control, but -3.8% (not statistically significant) when I include a simple UK colony*year trend control. That's a fairly stark difference from the introduction of a mild control. And, in your earlier paper (Glick and Rose, 2002), the UK colonial sample comprises one-fifth of the CU changes with time series variation in the data. In addition, the disappearance of the CU effect for UK CUs raises the question of how robust it is for other subsamples, where CU switches are also not exogenous -- think India-Pakistan. It turns out that almost none of it is robust. Yet, you do nothing to control for the impact of decolonization in your most recent work, nor do you ask what might be driving your results in other settings.<br />
<br />
The thing is, it isn't just that you didn't see my paper (which I emailed to you). Your coauthor clearly refereed Bomberger's paper, which looks to me like a case of academic gatekeeping. I love academia, damnit! Bomberger deserved better than what he got. I want the profession to produce results people can believe in. With all due respect, you guys are repeat offenders at this stage. If this was your first offense, I would not have been so aggressive. And yes, I'll confess to having been put off by the fact that you thanked me, even though I did not comment on the substance of your paper, but did not cite me.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">•We tried to control for as many things as possible by including the usual variables, such as former colonial status, as well as appropriate fixed effects, such as country-year and pair effects. Yes, one can always think of something that was left out. For example, if you’re concerned about the effects of wars and conflicts, check out my paper with Alan Taylor (“Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption And The Economic Impact Of War,” RESTAT 2010), where we find that that currency unions still had sizable trade effects, even after controlling for wars (see Table 2). Granted the data set only goes up to 1997 in that paper, and we don’t address the effects of the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the USSR, and the Balkan wars. That might make an interesting project for one of your graduate students to pursue.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
OK, sure. I would like to believe that figuring out what was driving the CU effect on trade was incredibly difficult to figure out, and that I was able <a href="http://dougcampbell.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/2/10227422/cupaper_12_3_2012.pdf">to solve the puzzle</a> only via genius, but the reality is that others (such as Bomberger; others also mentioned decolonization as a factor too, or reversed <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9701.00443/full">earlier versions of the CU effect</a>, and let's not forget my undergraduates), also had prescient critiques. I don't get the sense that you guys really searched very hard for alternative explanations (India and Pakistan hate each other!) for the enormous impacts you were getting. It looks to me more like you included standard gravity controls and then weren't overly curious about what was driving your results. As my earlier paper notes, it's actually quite difficult to find individual examples of currency unions in which trade fell/increased only right after dissolution/formation, without having a rather obvious third factor driving the results (decolonization, communist takeover, the EU). Even in your recent paper, you find strong "pre-treatment trends" -- that trade is declining long before a CU dissolution. In modern Applied Micro, the existence of strong pre-treatment trends is more evidence that the treatment is not random. It should have been a red flag.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">•I agree that it is important to disentangle the effects of EMU from those of other forms of European trade integration, such as EU membership. In our EER paper we included an aggregated measure that captures the average effect of all regional trade agreements (RTAs). Of course, aggregating all such arrangements together does not allow for possible heterogeneity across different RTAs. To see if this matters, see a recent paper of mine (“Currency Unions and Regional Trade Agreements: EMU and EU Effects on Trade,” Comparative Economic Studies, 2017) where I separate out the effects of EU and other RTAs so as to explicitly analyze how membership in EU affects the trade effects of EMU. I also look at whether there are differences in the effects between the older and newer members of the EU and EMU, something that should be of interest to your students interested in East European transition economies. I find that the EMU and EU each significantly boosted exports, and allowing separate EU effects doesn't "kill" the EMU effect. Most importantly, even after controlling for the EU effects, EMU expanded European trade by 40% for the original members. The newer members have experienced even higher trade as a result of joining the EU, but more time and a longer data set is necessary to see the effects of their joining EMU. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
OK, but a 40% increase that you find in your 2017 paper is already 25% smaller than the 50% you guys argue for in your 2016 paper. At a minimum, the result seems sensitive to specification. I'm not convinced that a single 0/1 RTA dummy for all free trade agreements is remotely enough to control for the entire history of European integration, from the Coal & Steel Community, to the ERM and EU. Also, 0/1 dummies imply that the impact happens fully by year 1, and ignores dynamics -- part of my earlier critique. If two countries go from autarky to free trade, the adjustment should take more than just one year. On a quick look at your 2017 paper, I'd say: I'd like to see you control for an Ever EU*year interactive fixed effect. If you do that, you'll kill the EMU dummy much like the EMU did to the Greek economy. I'd also like to see you plot the treatment effects over time, as I did in my previous post. (Here it is again:)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMf0F0m9bn3CVOwceqWxj0w1V4aB-lMyrMS9UnCL7sIYw80TLC5AYy3sn49L93lqv6UAKC4bYU8pvnXcaWKdoKs9BYncxVlH6qHFKqCVuR-93UvYB4fBYpZ7GeeCxfKUXAynC4EY4mF0c/s1600/europevseu.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="534" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMf0F0m9bn3CVOwceqWxj0w1V4aB-lMyrMS9UnCL7sIYw80TLC5AYy3sn49L93lqv6UAKC4bYU8pvnXcaWKdoKs9BYncxVlH6qHFKqCVuR-93UvYB4fBYpZ7GeeCxfKUXAynC4EY4mF0c/s640/europevseu.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>Once again, I don't know how you can look at this above and cling to a 40 or 50% impact of the EMU. The pre-EMU increase in trade mostly happens by 1992. This increase happens for all EU countries, and indeed all Western European countries. Those that eventually joined the Euro even have trade increasing faster than EU or all Western European countries even <i>before</i> the EMU. If you ignore this pre-trend, you could get an impact of several percent at most for the difference between the Euro vs. EU/Europe in the graph above by 2013, but that difference won't be statistically significant.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">•Andy and I agree that the endogeneity of CUs could be a concern, and suggested that employing matching estimation might be one way to approach the issue. Perhaps this would be another good assignment for one of your graduate students, who are interested in doing more than “seek and destroy.”</span><br />
<br />
I agree with this. The point shouldn't be to destroy, but to provide the best estimate possible. I would be more than happy to join forces with you guys and one of my graduate students in writing a proper <i>mea culpa,</i> to nip this literature in the bud. It certainly would take a lot of intellectual integrity to do this, and you should be commended for it if you would like to do this. (Although, I'd note that this your results have <a href="http://dougcampbell.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/2/10227422/cupaper_12_3_2012.pdf">already been reversed</a>.) Your new paper has a larger data set, but is sensitive to the same concerns already extant in the literature.<br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">•Lastly, our recent EER paper has over 40 references; sorry we didn’t include you. Please note that your citation date for our paper should be corrected; the paper was published in 2016, not 2017.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
OK. You also should have added in a citation for Bomberger's unpublished manuscript, who killed your results on a key subsample.<br />
<br />
One question -- now that you guys have my earlier paper in hand, and know that a time trend kills the UK CU effect, for example, and know that missing data and wars are driving the other result, and now that you've seen my figure above showing that the EMU increased trade by at most a couple percent, do you still believe that currency unions double trade, on average? Or, which part of my earlier paper did you not find convincing? And which parts were convincing?Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-55385341418010170932017-04-24T03:30:00.003-07:002017-04-30T02:29:34.339-07:00How Bad is Peer Review? Evidence From Undergraduate Referee Reports on the Currency Unions and Trade LitIn a recent paper, Glick and Rose (2016) suggest that the Euro led to a staggering 50% increase in trade. To me, this sounded a bit dubious, particularly given my own participation in the previous currency unions and trade literature (which I wrote up <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/03/the-saga-of-currency-unions-and-trade.html">here</a>; my own research on this subject is <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v36y2013i10p1278-1293.html">here</a>). This literature includes papers by Robert Barro that imply that currency unions increase trade on a magical 10 fold basis, and a QJE paper which suggests that currency unions even increase growth. In my own eyes, the Euro has been a significant source of economic weakness for many European countries in need of more stimulative policies. (Aside from the difficulty of choosing one monetary policy for all, it also appears that MP has been too tight even for some of the titans of Northern Europe, including Germany. But that's a separate issue...) <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSx9BZ8YTYBI6gZRQoSScAOXRVjVxuC5oUQNjoagmZLQTt4fqRZ0nuKAokvluag-dydemzwNLtm_5CITmaVWMOdvatMTBllMNrWjI5FfYzkj4NpedjC51Ggu_R1TB2ME6L8MpVsj3cckA/s1600/warsawpact.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSx9BZ8YTYBI6gZRQoSScAOXRVjVxuC5oUQNjoagmZLQTt4fqRZ0nuKAokvluag-dydemzwNLtm_5CITmaVWMOdvatMTBllMNrWjI5FfYzkj4NpedjC51Ggu_R1TB2ME6L8MpVsj3cckA/s320/warsawpact.png" width="318" /></a>Given my skepticism, I gave my sharp undergraduates at NES a seek-and-destroy mission on the Euro Effect on trade. Indeed, my students found that the apparent large impact of the Euro, and other currency unions, on trade is in fact sensitive to controls for trends, and is likely driven by omitted variables. One pointed out that the Glick and Rose estimation strategy implicitly assumes that the end of the cold war had <i>no impact</i> on trade between the East and the West. Several of the Euro countries today, such as the former East Germany, were previously part of the Warsaw Pact. Any increase in trade between Eastern and Western European countries following the end of the cold war would clearly bias the Glick and Rose (2016) results, which naively compare the entire pre-1999 trade history with trade after the introduction of the Euro. Indeed, Glick and Rose assume that the long history of European integration (including the Exchange Rate Mechanism) culminating with the EU had no effect on trade, but that switching to the Euro from merely fixed exchange rates resulted in a magical 50% increase. Several of my undergraduates pointed out that this effect goes away by adding in a simple time trend control. Others noted that the authors only clustered in one direction, rather than in two or three directions one might naturally expect. In some cases, multi-way clustering reduced the t-scores substantially, although didn't seem to be critical. One student reasoned that the preferred regression results from GR (2016) don't really suggest that CUs have a reliable impact on trade. The estimates from different CU episodes are wildly different -- GR found that some CUs contract trade by 80%, while others have no statistically significant effect, some have a large effect, while others have an effect that is simply too large to be believed (50-140%). Many of my students noted that there is an obvious endogeneity problem at play -- countries don't decide to join or leave currency unions randomly -- and the authors did nothing to alleviate this concern. The currency union breakup between India and Pakistan is but one good example of the non-random nature of CU exits.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1TESJYah8KYBfkLi95hh10E1MmCrqUTK6jB8xl1nTkuzHg3BerKJmiEQvah2px001eZWC-kSIpdmlLaM0TNiAWPCTbZn8gyLCmHFNj5XPPP8owNILzXot4AZ97bi-TH6QcKpPZSCz0i0/s1600/mapoftheeuro.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1TESJYah8KYBfkLi95hh10E1MmCrqUTK6jB8xl1nTkuzHg3BerKJmiEQvah2px001eZWC-kSIpdmlLaM0TNiAWPCTbZn8gyLCmHFNj5XPPP8owNILzXot4AZ97bi-TH6QcKpPZSCz0i0/s320/mapoftheeuro.png" width="320" /></a>You'd think that a Ph.D.-holding referee for an academic journal which is still ranked in the Top 50 (<a href="https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.journals.rdiscount10.html">Recursive, Discounted, last 10 years</a>) might at least be able to highlight some of these legitimate issues raised by undergraduates. You might imagine that a paper which makes some of the errors above might not get published, especially if, indeed, <a href="http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/03/is-academia-biased-against-stars.html">star economists face bias</a> in the publication system. You might also imagine that senior economists, tenured at Berkeley/at the Fed, might not make these kinds of mistakes which can be flagged by undergraduates (no matter how bright) in the first place. You'd of course be wrong.<br />
<br />
The results reported and the assumptions used to get there are so bad that you get the feeling these guys could have gotten away with writing "<a href="http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf">Get me off your fucking mailing list</a>" a hundred times to fill up space.<br />
<br />
Before ending I should note that I do support peer review, and also believe that economics research is incredibly useful when done well. But science is <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/">also difficult</a>. This example merely highlights that academic economics still has plenty of room for improvement, and that a surprisingly large fraction of published research is probably wrong. I should also add that I don't mean to pick on this particular journal -- if a big name writes a bad article, it is only a question of which journal will accept it. However, this view of the world suggests that comment papers, replications, and robustness checks deserve to be more valued in the profession than they are at present. Much of the problem with that line of work also stems from almost a willful ignorance of history. Thus, it's also sad to see departments such as MIT scale back their economic history requirements in favor of more math. I don't see this pattern resulting in better outcomes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Update</i></b>: Andrew Rose responds in the comments. Good for him! Here I consider each of his points.<br />
<br />
Rose wrote: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">-Get them to explain how that they could add a time trend to regression (2), which is literally perfectly collinear with the time-varying exporter and importer fixed effects."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
Sorry, but a Euro*year interactive trend, or, indeed, any country-pair trend, is not going to even close to co-linear with time-varying importer and exporter year fixed effects. The latter would be controlling for a general country trend, but not for trends in country-pair specific relationships. To be fair, regression of one trending variable on another with no control for trends is the most common empirical mistake people make when running panel regressions.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">-Explain to them how time-varying exporter/importer fixed effects automatically wipe out all phenomena such as the effects of the cold war and the long history of European monetary integration.</span><br />
<br />
Sorry, but that's also not the case. A France year dummy, to be concrete, won't do it. That would pick up trade between France and all other countries, including EU, EMU, and former Warsaw Pact countries. You'd need to put in a France*EU interactive dummy, for example. But such a dummy will kill the EMU. Below, I plot the evolution of trade flows over time (dummies in the gravity equation) for (a) all of Western Europe, (b) Western European EU countries, and (c) the original entrants to the Euro Area (plus Greece). What you can see is that, while trade between EMU countries was much higher after the Euro than before (your method), most of the increase happened by the early 1990s, in fact. Relative to 1998, trade even declined a bit by 2013. There's nothing here to justify pushing a 50% increase.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLHKW6EoftY_wrmn6-Gsyz2SOvjxg7uuLTMXIcMoSP9kV0U3znodA-BvqXCzFpSsBg5HddVaE94es-g8cpeow_e8sc_PkNA3xrMPGbL2eqSTNJ0BLK7wiVjU6Xtupg9dvqqOYUYB00Ed4/s1600/europevseu.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="534" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLHKW6EoftY_wrmn6-Gsyz2SOvjxg7uuLTMXIcMoSP9kV0U3znodA-BvqXCzFpSsBg5HddVaE94es-g8cpeow_e8sc_PkNA3xrMPGbL2eqSTNJ0BLK7wiVjU6Xtupg9dvqqOYUYB00Ed4/s640/europevseu.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Rose also indicated that my undergraduates should "<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">Read the paper a little more carefully. For instance, consider</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">; and</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">a) the language in the paper about endogeneity</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">b) Table 7 which explicitly makes the point about different currency unions.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"> "</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "trebuchet" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
Actually, let's do that. When I search for "endogeneity" in the article, the first hit I get is on page 8, where it is asserted that including country-pair fixed effects controls for endogeneity. Indeed, it does control for time-invariant endogeneity. But if countries, such as India and Pakistan, have changing relations over time (such as before and after partition), this won't help.<br />
<br />
The second hit I get is footnote 7: "Our fixed‐effects standard errors are also robust. We do not claim that currency unions are formed exogenously, nor do we attempt to find instrumental variables to handle any potential endogeneity problem. <b>For the same reason</b> we do not consider matching estimation further, particularly given the sui generis nature of EMU." [the bold is mine.]<br />
<br />
Actually, a correction here: my undergrads reported that the FE standard errors are actually clustered, but this is a minor point. You may not claim that currency unions are formed exogenously, but, as you admit, your regression results do nothing to try to reduce the endogeneity problem. And, this, despite the fact that I had already <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v36y2013i10p1278-1293.html">shared my own research</a> with you (<a href="https://ideas.repec.org/p/cda/wpaper/12-1.html">ungated version</a>), which showed that your previous results were sensitive to omitting CU switches coterminous with Wars, ethnic cleansing episodes, and communist takeovers.<br />
<br />
Also, the "<b>For the same reason</b>" above is a bit strange. The sentence preceeding it doesn't give a reason why you don't try to handle the endogeneity problem. The reason is? In fact, a matching-type estimator would be advisable here.<br />
<br />
Lastly, in your discussion of Table 7, I see you note that it implies widely varying treatment effects of CUs on trade. But I like my undergraduates interpretation of this as casting doubt on the exercise. Many of the individual results, including an 80% contraction for some currency unions, are simply not remotely plausible. The widely varying results are almost certainly due to wildly different endogeneity factors affecting each group of currency unions, not due to wildly different treatment effects.<br />
<br />
Update 2: Reuven Glick points out that their paper was published in 2016, not 2017. I've fixed this above.<br />
<br />
<br />Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-56102736144474521542017-04-13T12:22:00.000-07:002017-04-13T12:23:34.835-07:00Why You Should Come Study at NES!I talk up the merits of the New Economic School at a recruiting event <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NewEconomicSchool/videos/1603504066331406/">here</a>.Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.com0