Tag: inequality

11 November 201611 November 2016

Trump and trade

President-elect Donald Trump has blamed free trade for much of America’s economic problems. He argues that cheap imports from China, partly from an undervalued yuan, have led to a loss of jobs and to large-scale income flows from the USA to China. “They have taken our jobs; they have taken our money; and on top of that they have loaned the money to us and we actually pay them interest now on money,” he claimed to The Economist.

And it’s not just trade with China that he criticises. He sees cheap imports from developing countries generally as undermining US jobs. The solution he advocates is the imposition of tariffs on imports that threaten US jobs and scrapping, or fundamentally renegotiating, trade deals.

He refers to NAFTA – the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico – as the worst trade deal in US history and blames it for the loss of thousands of US manufacturing jobs. He has said that he will demand better terms from Mexico and Canada. If they don’t agree to them, he’d pull the USA out of NAFTA altogether.

A more recent trade agreement is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 11 other Pacific rim countries (but not including China). The agreement was signed on 4 February 2016, but is awaiting ratification from member countries. Amongst other things, the agreement cuts over 18,000 tariffs. Donald Trump has said that he would block the deal, even though it would lead to the elimination of tariffs on most US manufactured and agricultural products exported to the other countries. He argues that it would lead to a large-scale loss of US jobs from cheap imports.

Another major trade deal criticised by Trump is that being negotiated between the USA and the EU – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It has already faced fierce opposition in Europe, with many fearing that it would give too much power to US corporations in their operations in Europe. With the opposition from Trump, it looks unlikely that the agreement will be signed, even in an amended form.

So is this more protectionist stance by Donald Trump in America’s interests? The main argument against restricting imports is that people generally in the USA would be poorer. This is the prediction from the law of comparative advantage. Trade allows a country to consume beyond its production possibility curve by specialising in the production of goods with relatively low opportunity costs and importing goods which would have had a higher opportunity cost if they were produced domestically (see, for example, Economics, 9th edition, pages 711–4). By imposing tariffs or other restrictions on cheap imports, consumers would end up paying more for such goods if they now have to be produced domestically. Cheap Chinese t-shirts would be replaced by expensive US ones. Real US incomes would be lower.

Another danger of pursuing protectionist policies is that other countries might retaliate. Trade wars might result, with the world ending up poorer.

Then there is a problem of locating products. It is not a simple question of saying a product is made in the USA or elsewhere. With complex modern supply chains, many products use components and services, such as design and logistics, from many different countries. Imposing restrictions on imports may lead to damage to products which are seen as US products.

An open trade policy, by contrast, not only leads to higher consumption, it stimulates economic growth and the extra competition it creates improves domestic productivity. As the pro-free trade article by Graeme Leach, linked below, argues:

There is overwhelming evidence that free trade improves economic performance by increasing competition in the domestic market. Trade disciplines domestic firms with market power, and simultaneously promotes productivity growth. Research also shows that a 10 per cent increase in trade leads to a 5 per cent increase in per capita income. More open trade policies are associated with higher per capita incomes.

And as the article by Clark Packard argues:

There is no question that America’s middle and lower classes have benefited from our trade liberalization. Through the widely accepted principle of comparative advantage in our trade policies, productivity has surged and prices have declined. Lower prices save the average American family thousands of dollars a year on goods they consume, raising the standard of living through enhanced purchasing power.

Despite these arguments, there is one crucial problem with free trade. Although overall levels of consumption may be higher, trade may make some people poorer. If workers in the US steel or garment industries lose their jobs because of cheap imports, they will certainly feel worse off, especially if there is no prospect of them getting another job elsewhere. They may lack transferable skills or have too many family or personal ties to move elsewhere in the country.

The government could help to ameliorate the problems of those made unemployed by providing retraining or resettlement grants or by investing in infrastructure projects that require relatively low skilled, but local, construction workers. But, as the Forbes article states:

It is in helping displaced workers of all types that US government, as well as the leaders of other rich countries, have largely failed. Little has been done to assist laid-off workers whose industries simply cannot compete in developed countries anymore.

What is more, inequality has been growing in the USA, and in most other developed countries too. International trade and investment and the growing concentration of power in large corporations has meant that most of the gains from trade have gone to the richest people. Many of the poor blame trade for their plight and the argument that they have still made some gains is either not believed or is not enough to appease them.

An interesting insight into why people may have voted for Trump and his policy of protectionism is provided by the Ultimatum Game (see also). As the final article below explains:

The game itself involves two players. The first player receives a sum of money, and gets to propose how to divide it between the two players. The second player can do only one thing: accept or reject the proposal. If the second player accepts, then the money is divided between the two players as proposed. But if the second player rejects the proposal, then neither player gets anything.

It might seem that the rational thing for the second person to do is to accept whatever the first person proposes, however little it gives to the second person providing it is something – after all, even a little is better than nothing. But experiments show that people playing the second person do not behave in that way. They seek a fair distribution. If the proposed distribution is perceived as unfair, they would prefer to reject the proposal, with both players getting nothing.

This may help to explain the psychology of poor blue-collar workers. They would rather punish the rich a lot, and possibly themselves a little, than let the rich continue getting richer while they are stuck on low wages with little prospect for improvement. But, of course, they may also believe Trump’s rhetoric that they will indeed be better off from protectionist policies that help save their jobs.

What precisely Donald Trump will do about trade agreements and protection, we will have to wait and see. Often what is pledged in an election campaign is not carried out in office or is substantially watered down.

Articles

How Donald Trump thinks about trade The Economist (9/11/16)
What President Trump’s victory means for the most important trade deal in the world Independent, James Moore (9/11/16)
Trump and trade: A radical agenda? BBC News, Ben Morris (9/11/16)
Trump could change trade stance, says former Bush adviser BBC News, Tom Espiner (11/11/16)
3 Ways President-Elect Trump May Shake Up Trade Policy NPR, Marilyn Geewax (9/11/16)
Donald Trump Win to Upend Trade Policy Nasdaq, William Mauldin and John Lyons (9/11/16)
Stiglitz Grades Donald Trump an F on Economics Bloomberg, Enda Curran and Angie Lau (19/9/16)
Trump can kill trade deals but he can’t kill globalisation The Conversation, Remy Davison (10/11/16)
Anti-free trader Donald Trump is on a collision course with economic reality City A.M., Graeme Leach (9/11/16)
What Trump And Clinton Both Get Wrong On Trade Forbes, Simon Constable (4/11/16)
The Rabble Understands Trade Pretty Well Huffington Post, Brad Miller (4/11/16)
Contrary to Donald Trump’s claims, free trade benefits the poorest Americans U.S.News, Clark Packard (27/10/16)
The Meaning of Open Trade and Open Borders The New Yorker, Bernard Avishai (17/10/16)
We just saw what voters do when they feel screwed. Here’s the economic theory of why they do it. Quartz, James Allworth (9/11/16)

Questions

Use a simple two-product production possibility diagram to demonstrate the possible consumption gains to a country from trading with another country and specialising in exporting the good in which it has a comparative advantage.
Search Donald Trump’s speeches to identify statements he has made about the trade policies he will pursue as president.
Explain why some people may gain more from free trade than others. Why do the people who have gained the most tend to be the richest people?
What are the arguments for and against the free movement of labour (a) within countries; (b) between countries?
Compare the relative benefits and costs of tariffs and various forms of administrative constraints on trade.
If the second player in the ultimatum game rejects an ‘unfair’ offer, should this behaviour be described as ‘irrational? Explain.
Find out the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. In what ways, other than through increased trade, would the agreement benefit the residents of the member countries?
Does free trade threaten employment in the long term? Explain.

27 August 201624 September 2016

The UK gender wage gap

Women in the UK on average earn less per hour than men. According to the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, the mean hourly pay for women in 2015 was 17.5% less than that for men. This figure is for all employees, full and part time. As far as full-time employees is concerned, the gap was slightly smaller at 13.9%. Nevertheless, as you can see from Table 6 in the linked Excel file, these gaps have decreased in recent years – but only slightly.

A recent paper from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has disaggregated the figures to give a better picture of this wage gap. It finds that having children is a major contributing factor to the gap. It also finds that this has a bigger impact on the earnings of graduates and those without a degree but with A levels.

On entry to the labour market, men and women earn roughly the same. People’s wages tend to rise during their 20s, but men’s rise slightly faster than women’s, causing a pay gap to open and widen – but slowly at first. Average (mean) men’s wages continue to grow during their 30s and a bit during their 40s. However, average women’s wages flatline. Thus the wage gap grows substantially, especially for the higher educated.

The paper argues that the arrival of children is a major contributing factor to this picture. It looks at the gap before and after the arrival of children. “The crucial observation is that the gap opens up gradually after the first child arrives and continues to widen for many years after that point.” By 12 years after the first child is born, the wage gap has widened to 33%.

The paper does not offer reasons for the small gap that exists before the arrival of children. But it does give possible reasons for the widening gap after having children. A major one, it suggests, has to do with labour market experience.

“As women are likely to do less paid work after the arrival of children, the level of labour market experience they have falls further and further behind that of their male counterparts, and the wage gap therefore widens.” They may also miss out on promotions.

Each year a woman spends away from the labour market is associated with an average 2% drop in pay compared with those who remain in work. For those with at least A levels, the penalty is 4%; but there is no drop in pay for those without A levels.

Other possible explanations include mothers taking work that requires a lower skill level, and at lower hourly pay, in order to gain flexibility in working hours. However, the evidence suggests that women who move to part-time work on having a child suffer no immediate drop in pay. But their hourly pay does grow more slowly, thus contributing to a widening of the gap.

Another explanation is employers exercising market power to discriminate against women with children. The paper does not consider this explanation.

The articles discussing the paper look at policy implications and identify various things that can be done to narrow the gap. Read the paper and articles and try answering the questions below.

Videos and podcasts

IFS: gender pay gap widens after first child Compendium of News Reports from BBC News at Six, Channel 4 News, ITV News at Ten and BBC Newsnight from Incorrigible Forever on YouTube (23/8/16)
Gender Pay Gap Hits Women With Children Hardest Sky News (23/8/16)
In Business: Supportive partner = success at work World of Business, BBC Radio 4, Peter Day (25/8/15)
Gender Pay Gap More or Less, BBC Radio 4, Tim Harford (26/8/16)
Gender pay gap: Why do mums increasingly earn less? BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme (23/8/16)

Questions

Identify possible reasons for the wage gap between men and women.
Why is the median wage gap different from the mean wage gap?
Why is the wage penalty for periods without work greater for more highly educated women?
To what extent is the gender wage gap a reflection of marginal productivity differences?
Is the gender pay gap primarily about men and women being paid differently for doing the same job?
What evidence is provided by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) on women’s lack of pay progression?
What could the government do to reduce the wage gap?
Discuss the relative effectiveness of different policy alternatives.

24 July 20162 August 2016

Perspectives on poverty

In this post we focus on three aspects of poverty around the world. The first is the definition of poverty. Is it an absolute or a relative concept? Does its definition change as the world develops. The second is the extent of poverty. Is the problem getting worse as inequality deepens, or are the numbers (absolutely or proportionately) getting smaller despite increased inequality? The third is policy to tackle the problem. What can be done and is being done? What answers are being given by policymakers in different parts of the world?

As far as the measurement of poverty is concerned, the simplest distinction is between absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty could be measured as income below a certain real level deemed necessary to achieve a particular standard of living. This could be specified in terms of sufficient income to have adequate food, shelter, clothing and leisure time, and adequate access to healthcare, clean water, sanitation, education, etc. An obvious problem here is what is considered ‘adequate’, as this is partly culturally determined and will also depend on physical and geographical features, such as climate.

The World Bank defines extreme absolute poverty as living on under $1.90 per day in purchasing-power parity terms. However, even after adjusting for purchasing power, what is considered the poverty threshold differs enormously from country to country. As the Wikipedia entry states:

Each nation has its own threshold for absolute poverty line; in the United States, for example, the absolute poverty line was US$15.15 per day in 2010 (US$22,000 per year for a family of four), while in India it was US$1.0 per day and in China the absolute poverty line was US$0.55 per day, each on PPP basis in 2010.

Relative poverty is normally taken to mean when a person’s income falls below a certain percentage of the mean or median. Thus in richer countries, for a given percentage, the poverty threshold would be at a higher absolute income. In the EU, people in relative poverty are defined as those with disposable income (after monetary benefits) less than 60% of the median.

Both approaches focus on consumption. Other approaches include social and cultural exclusion as dimensions of poverty.

What is clear is that poverty has a number of definitions. One problem with this is that politicians can focus on whatever definition suits them. Thus in the UK, with relatively high levels of employment, but often at low wages and only part-time employment, the Conservative government has redefined poverty as where no-one in a family is in work. Yet many working families have very low levels of income, considerably below 60% of the median.

The second aspect of poverty is its extent and whether it is growing. According to the United Nations, globally ‘extreme poverty rates have been cut by more than half since 1990. While this is a remarkable achievement, one in five people in developing regions still live on less than $1.25 a day, and there are millions more who make little more than this daily amount, plus many people risk slipping back into poverty.’

Despite this progress, in many countries extreme poverty is increasing. And in others, although the number in extreme poverty may be declining, it is still high and inequality is increasing so that more people are living only just above the extreme poverty line. The articles look at dimensions of poverty in different countries.

For example, the first The Conversation article argues that the financial crisis of 2008–09 led to a substantial increase in poverty across the European continent.

The impoverishment of Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Spain and Portugal has been so severe that these southern European countries, taken together, had higher levels of poverty and deprivation than many of the former Communist nations that joined the European Union in 2004.

The third aspect is how to tackle the problem of poverty. There are three broad policy approaches.

The first is the use of cash transfers, such as unemployment benefits. The second is providing free or subsidised goods and services, such as healthcare or education. The ability of a country to support the poor in either of these ways depends on its tax base. Also, clearly, it depends on its priorities. There is also the issue of incentives. Do benefits encourage or discourage the recipients from seeking work? This depends on the design of the system. For example, if childcare is subsidised, this may both aid poor parents and also encourage parents responsible for looking after young children to seek work.

The third is to attempt to improve the earning power of the poor. This may in part be by the second approach of improving education, training and health. But it may also involve removing restrictions to employment, say by making various forms of discrimination illegal. It may also involve increasing land rights. In many developing countries land is very unequally distributed; redistribution to the poor can make a substantial contribution to relieving poverty. Another approach is to encourage agencies which supply microfinance for poor people wishing to set up their own small business.

The articles below look at a number of dimensions of poverty: its measurement, its extent and its alleviation. They look at the problem from the perspective of different countries. It is interesting to see to what extent the problems and solutions they identify are country-specific or general.

Articles

Extreme poverty affects 1 in 8 globally Buenos Aires Herald (20/7/16)
How poverty has radically shifted across Europe in the last decade The Conversation, Rod Hick (20/7/16)
The economics of poverty The Tribune of India, S Subramanian (22/7/16)
Poverty Chains and Global Capitalism. Towards a Global Process of Impoverishment Global Research (Canada), Benjamin Selwyn (20/7/16)
Asia’s cost of prosperity The Nation, Karl Wilson (24/7/16)
Private rental sector is the ‘new home of poverty’ in the UK The Guardian, Brian Robson (20/7/16)
Challenges in maintaining progress against global poverty Vox, Martin Ravallion (23/12/15)
California, sixth largest economy in the world, has highest poverty rate in US wsws.org, Marc Wells (22/7/16)
How gross inequality and crushed hopes have fed the rise of Donald Trump The Conversation, Nick Fischer (21/7/16)

Information
Sustainable Development Goals – Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere United Nations
Children of the Recession: Innocenti Report Card 12 UNICEF, Gonzalo Fanjul (September 2014)
Listings on Poverty Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Poverty The World Bank
Hunger and World Poverty Poverty.com

Questions

Distinguish between absolute and relative poverty. Give examples of specific measures of each and the extent to which they capture the complex nature of the problem.
Discuss the appropriateness of the seven measures of poverty used in the first The Conversation article.
How did the financial crisis affect the proportion of people living in poverty? Explain.
What is the relationship between poverty and inequality? Does a more unequal society imply that there will be a greater proportion of people living in poverty?
How has international poverty changed in recent years? What explanations can you give?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using income per head as a measure of poverty, whether absolute or relative?
Why is poverty so high in (a) the USA as a whole; (b) California specifically?
How does globalisation affect poverty?
Are adverse environmental consequences an inevitable result of reducing poverty in developing countries?
Is freer trade likely to increase or decrease poverty? Explain

18 May 201618 May 2016

Is a competitive market the wrong model for analysing capitalism?

In the following article, Joseph Stiglitz argues that power rather than competition is a better starting point for analysing the working of capitalism. People’s rewards depend less on their marginal product than on their power over labour or capital (or lack of it).

As inequality has widened and concerns about it have grown, the competitive school, viewing individual returns in terms of marginal product, has become increasingly unable to explain how the economy works.

Thus the huge bonuses, often of millions of pounds per year, paid to many CEOs and other senior executives, are more a reflection of their power to set their bonuses, rather than of their contribution to their firms’ profitability. And these excessive rewards are not competed away.

Stiglitz examines how changes in technology and economic structure have led to the increase in power. Firms are more able to erect barriers to entry; network economies give advantages to incumbents; many firms, such as banks, are able to lobby governments to protect their market position; and many governments allow powerful vested interests to remain unchecked in the mistaken belief that market forces will provide the brakes on the accumulation and abuse of power. Monopoly profits persist and there is too little competition to erode them. Inequality deepens.

According to Stiglitz, the rationale for laissez-faire disappears if markets are based on entrenched power and exploitation.

Article

Monopoly’s New Era Chazen Global Insights, Columbia Business School, Joseph Stiglitz (13/5/16)

Questions

What are the barriers to entry that allow rewards for senior executives to grow more rapidly than median wages?
What part have changes in technology played in the increase in inequality?
How are the rewards to senior executives determined?
Provide a critique of Stiglitz’ analysis from the perspective of a proponent of laissez-faire.
If Stiglitz analysis is correct, what policy implications follow from it?
How might markets which are currently dominated by big business be made more competitive?
T0 what extent have the developments outlined by Stiglitz been helped or hindered by globalisation?

12 February 201621 February 2016

Equal pay for equal work?

The earnings gap between men and women is well-documented and depending on how we measure it, we get different figures. One of the most common measures is mean earnings per hour. The latest estimates suggest that women are paid around 20% less than men, though other data does give lower figures. Though actions have been taken to reduce the inequality between men and women, it still persists in many areas and this has led to plans for new league tables from Nicky Morgan.

The inequality gap has certainly come down. Back in 1970, the wage differential was around 37 per cent, so progress has been made, although the wage gap in the UK has stabilised somewhat. The gender wage gap is at least in part explained by occupations, as women have tended to be prevalent in some of the more poorly paid occupations. However, significant earnings differentials still exist within occupations. We see fewer women in the more senior positions; women tend to take career breaks and hence this can cause more investment into training and promoting men. Furthermore, we often simply see some form of prejudice or discrimination whereby women are just paid less than men, despite the Equal Pay Act.

As a means of combatting this inequality, Nicky Morgan, the Women and Equalities Minister, has announced plans that will require private companies and voluntary organisations employing more than 250 workers to reveal their pay gap. They will have to produce this information online and this will a means to bring down the inequality that exists between men and women in the same occupations. The first League Table of this pay gap will be published in April 2018 so companies will have to begin compiling the information from April 2017. This has received criticism from some, as it is not starting soon enough, but it is seen as a step in the right direction.

Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI Director-General warned that these League Tables shouldn’t be used to name and shame firms, as many factors might explain wage differentials. She noted:

“Where reporting can be useful is as a prompt for companies to ask the right questions about how they can eradicate the gender pay gap … The government should consult closely with business to ensure that this new legislation helps close the gender pay gap, rather than ending up as a box-ticking exercise.”

Clearly there are some close links between the gender pay gap and concerns about poverty and minimum wages and although the League Tables perhaps should not be used to name and shame, one might think it is inevitable that this is how they will be viewed. The following articles consider Nicky Morgan’s inequality plans.

Reports
Gender Pay Gap European Commission
Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2015 Provisional Results Office for National Statistics (November 2015)
Pay gap reporting Equal Pay Portal2016

Articles

Gender pay gap reporting for big firms to start in 2018 Guardian, Rowena Mason (12/02/16)
Gender pay gap to be revealed by employers to tackle inequality Financial Times, Sarah O’Connor (12/02/16)
Firms forced to reveal gender pay gap BBC News (12/02/16)
Gender pay gap League Tables to ‘name and shame’ companies Telegraph, Steven Swinford (12/02/16)
UK companies must reveal gender pay gap under new plans Independent, Oliver Wright (12/02/16)
Companies told to publish gender pay gap Sky News (12/102/16)
Gender pay gap: Business groups mixed on Nicky Morgan’s new name-and-shame plans International Business Times, Bauke Schram (12/02/16)
Now every firm with more than 250 staff must put gender pay gap data online in move to encourage companies to reward staff equally Mail Online, Jack Doyle and Rosie Taylor (12/02/16)

Questions

Use a labour market diagram to explain how gender pay gaps can emerge based on different marginal products.
How can gender pay gaps emerge because of women taking career breaks and being less geographically mobile?
Use information on the ONS website to compare pay differentials across occupations. Are the biggest and smallest differentials where you would expect?
There are numerous reasons why men have traditionally been paid more than women. Which reasons could be said to be irrational and which are rational?
If employers were forced to give genuinely equal pay for equal work, how would this affect the employment of women and men? What would determine the magnitude of these effects?
Do you think this naming and shaming will be effective in reducing the gender pay gap amongst the largest companies? Can you suggest any other policy options?
If the Equal Pay Act is in place, why can companies still pay women less?

Tag: inequality

Articles

Questions

Videos and podcasts

Articles

Papers and Reports

Data

Questions

Articles

Questions

Article

Questions

Articles

Questions