Economics links
Oxfarm is down on the biofuels switch as increasing poverty. (At last, definite evidence of humans being harmed by global warming: oh, wait …)
Trying to do philanthropy well.
About the tragedy of the anti-commons.
Attempting to empirically analyse the connection between trade and war.
About the bases of globalisation: … globalisation is as much a political as a technological phenomenon, which can thus be easily reversed, and has been so in the past. … The pax Britannica and pax Americana which provided the geopolitical stability underlying the globalisations of the 19th and late 20th centuries have their counterpart in the pax Mongolica of the 13th and 14th centuries, which produced an impressive integration of the Eurasian economy. The Muslim conquests, which unified a vast region stretching from India to the Atlantic, provide an earlier example, while the Iberian conquests of the 16th century provide an even more spectacular later one.
Examining whether trade reduces conflict: Another way to put it is that two countries that trade more with each other pacify their bilateral relations but make it more likely that a conflict will arise with a third country. The interpretation of this seemingly provocative result is that when two countries are very open to trade, the bilateral economic dependence and therefore the opportunity cost of a bilateral conflict are lowered. The incentive to make concessions in order to avert escalation is weakened when globalisation provides economic insurance during bilateral conflicts by diversifying trade partners.
Looking at the different long-run patterns of urbanisation in Europe and the Arab world: Arab cities were part of the ‘predatory’ structure of the state. When the region was unified under the Abbasids, this worked well and the region experienced its ‘Golden Age of Islam’. Efficient institutions regulated exchange, allowing high levels of commercialisation and urbanisation. When state systems disintegrated, so did the urban system and the underlying commercial networks.
In Europe, after a period of disintegration, a different urban system more or less independent of ‘predatory’ states emerged. These managed to claim their own niche in the political economy of the period and developed increasingly effective ways of organising commercial exchange in spite of the fragmented political system.
Putting economic progress in the US in perspective (particularly for the poor). Globalisation helps low income folk: Inflation of the richest 10 percent of American households has been 6 percentage points higher than that of the poorest 10 percent over the period 1994 - 2005. This means that real inequality in America, if you measure it correctly, has been roughly unchanged. And the reason is just as dramatic as the result. Why has inflation for the poor been lower than that for the rich? In large part it is because of China and Wal-Mart!
The education levels of the American population appear to be falling.
There are wage costs in “sounding black”, even if you are white, and in “sounding Southern”: One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.. Further discussion here.
Trying to do philanthropy well.
About the tragedy of the anti-commons.
Attempting to empirically analyse the connection between trade and war.
About the bases of globalisation: … globalisation is as much a political as a technological phenomenon, which can thus be easily reversed, and has been so in the past. … The pax Britannica and pax Americana which provided the geopolitical stability underlying the globalisations of the 19th and late 20th centuries have their counterpart in the pax Mongolica of the 13th and 14th centuries, which produced an impressive integration of the Eurasian economy. The Muslim conquests, which unified a vast region stretching from India to the Atlantic, provide an earlier example, while the Iberian conquests of the 16th century provide an even more spectacular later one.
Examining whether trade reduces conflict: Another way to put it is that two countries that trade more with each other pacify their bilateral relations but make it more likely that a conflict will arise with a third country. The interpretation of this seemingly provocative result is that when two countries are very open to trade, the bilateral economic dependence and therefore the opportunity cost of a bilateral conflict are lowered. The incentive to make concessions in order to avert escalation is weakened when globalisation provides economic insurance during bilateral conflicts by diversifying trade partners.
Looking at the different long-run patterns of urbanisation in Europe and the Arab world: Arab cities were part of the ‘predatory’ structure of the state. When the region was unified under the Abbasids, this worked well and the region experienced its ‘Golden Age of Islam’. Efficient institutions regulated exchange, allowing high levels of commercialisation and urbanisation. When state systems disintegrated, so did the urban system and the underlying commercial networks.
In Europe, after a period of disintegration, a different urban system more or less independent of ‘predatory’ states emerged. These managed to claim their own niche in the political economy of the period and developed increasingly effective ways of organising commercial exchange in spite of the fragmented political system.
Putting economic progress in the US in perspective (particularly for the poor). Globalisation helps low income folk: Inflation of the richest 10 percent of American households has been 6 percentage points higher than that of the poorest 10 percent over the period 1994 - 2005. This means that real inequality in America, if you measure it correctly, has been roughly unchanged. And the reason is just as dramatic as the result. Why has inflation for the poor been lower than that for the rich? In large part it is because of China and Wal-Mart!
The education levels of the American population appear to be falling.
There are wage costs in “sounding black”, even if you are white, and in “sounding Southern”: One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.. Further discussion here.