Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Health and Health Care for Women of Reproductive Age: How the United States Compares with Other High-Income Countries

Author:
Munira Z. Gunja, Shanoor Seervai, Laurie Zephyrin, and Reginald D. Williams II
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Commonwealth Fund
Abstract:
The maternal mortality crisis in the United States has been well documented: U.S. women have the highest rate of maternal deaths among high-income countries, while Black women are nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women are.1 But maternal deaths and complications may be a bellwether for the U.S.’s wider failures with respect to women’s health and health care. Using data from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2020 International Health Policy Survey and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), this brief compares selected measures of health care access and outcomes for women of reproductive age (18 to 49) in 11 high-income countries. After identifying gaps in U.S. health system performance for women in this age group, we explore some of the policies other nations have put in place to ensure more equitable access and better health outcomes. We also suggest policy options for the United States.
Topic:
Health Care Policy, Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Health, and Abortion
Political Geography:
United States

2. The Divide between Economic History and History: From Ideology to Methodology

Author:
Gavin Wright
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
I attended grad school at Yale in the late 1960s, when the New Economic History was on the ascendancy. Although the NEH was mainly in economics, the broader field of economic history clearly included members of both parent disciplines. At Yale, history grad students like Jan de Vries and Fred Carstensen could do an economic history track by taking a few core econ courses. There was also fair amount of common cause with a movement called the New Social History, interested in pursuing quantification to write “history from the bottom up.” Membership and presidents of the Economic History Association were about equally divided between the two disciplines. When I started at Michigan in 1972, there were two card-carrying economic historians in the history department (Sylvia Thrupp and Jacob Price), and similar lineups were not unusual elsewhere. The era of coexistence came to an abrupt end with the publication of Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman in 1974. The book was controversial not just because of its claims about slavery in the United States — that slavery was efficient, productive, and not all bad for the slaves — but because these claims were presented as a summation of research by cliometric economic historians over the previous decade or more. Even though some of the most robust critiques came from within economic history — consolidated in Reckoning with Slavery, published in 1976 — many historians felt that any discipline that could generate such an offensive brand of history did not deserve respectful intellectual status. In truth, History was probably going its own way towards the “cultural turn” anyway. To the extent that economic history had something to do with this move, it would have been a reaction to the observation that much of the new work seemed drawn moth-like to the discovery of markets and market processes in history, concluding that “markets worked.” Bill Parker remarked on this tendency in his presidential address to the EHA: “From Old to New to Old in Economic History” (JEH 1971), describing the NEH as “a gigantic test of the hypothesis of economic rationality of a system and of the behavior of individuals within it.” Robert Lucas wrote: “The central lesson of research in economic history is that neoclassical economics applies anytime, anywhere.” This now seems like something of a caricature, but for the NEH roughly through the 1970s, Lucas was largely correct. A case in point that mattered to many historians was the agricultural regime of the postbellum South. Works published in the 1970s by Joseph Reid, Stephen DeCanio and Robert Higgs all concluded that sharecropping was not an exploitive economic form, and that any racial oppression that did occur was rooted in politics rather than markets. Small wonder that historians found little to attract them to this style of research.
Topic:
Economics, Education, History, Slavery, Ideology, and Macroeconomics
Political Geography:
United States

3. A Policy Matrix for Inclusive Prosperity

Author:
Dani Rodrik and Stefanie Stantcheva
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
One of the biggest challenges that countries face today is the very unequal distributions of opportunities, resources, income and wealth across people. Inclusive prosperity – whereby many people from different backgrounds can benefit from economic growth, new technologies, and the fruits of globalization – remains elusive. To address these issues, societies face choices among many different policies and institutional arrangements to try to ensure a proper supply of productive jobs and activities, as well as access to education, financial means, and other endowments that prepare individuals for their participation in the economy. In this paper we offer a simple, organizing framework to think about policies for inclusive prosperity. We provide a comprehensive taxonomy of policies, distinguishing among the types of inequality they address and the stages of the economy where the intervention takes place. The taxonomy clarifies the differences among contending approaches to equity and inclusion and can help analysts assess the impacts and implications of different policies and identify potential gaps.
Topic:
Economics, Labor Issues, Economic Inequality, Macroeconomics, Job Creation, Polarization, Productivity, Inclusion, Workforce, and Production
Political Geography:
United States

4. Majoritarian versus Proportional Representation Voting

Author:
Ethan Kaplan
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
What kind of voting system should countries have? This policy brief discusses the two main electoral systems in modern political democracies. It makes an argument that majoritarian systems such as what exists in the United States fail to properly represent voters. It suggests replacing the U.S. majoritarian political system with a proportional representation system and shows how this could be done within the context of current U.S. law. Both economists and political scientists have worked on the impact of electoral systems. Empirical methods from economics as well as economic analysis of the incentives created by different political systems have contributed to our understanding of the consequences of electoral systems on representation. Additionally, economists have estimated the impact of electoral system on fiscal expenditures, something we will discuss towards the end of the policy brief. There are two main voting systems in modern democratic societies: majoritarian systems and proportional representation systems. Federal voting in the United States is majoritarian though some states such as Maryland have proportional representation at the state level. In a majoritarian system, also known as a winner-take-all system or a first-past-the-post system, the country is divided up into districts. Politicians then compete for individual district seats. The candidate who receives the highest vote share wins the election and represents the district.
Topic:
Economics, Democracy, Representation, Macroeconomics, Voting, and Electoral Systems
Political Geography:
United States

5. EfIP Online Panel: A New Macroeconomics?

Author:
Jón Steinsson
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
There is a narrative within our field that macroeconomics has lost its way. While I have some sympathy with this narrative, I think it is a better description of the field 10 years ago than of the field today. Today, macroeconomics is in the process of regaining its footing. Because of this, in my view, the state of macroeconomics is actually better than it has been for quite some time. The most important problem with macro over the past few decades has been that it has been too theoretical. When I say this, I don‘t at all mean to say that theory is useless. To the contrary, theory is an essential element of a healthy science. But a healthy science needs a balance between theory and empirical work. Macro lost this balance in the 1980s and is only regaining it now. Most narratives about the evolution of macro focus on the evolution of macroeconomic theory and the rational expectations revolution in particular. An under-appreciated part of this story is that the rational expectations revolution shifted the field away from empirical work. This was partly because building models that met the higher standards of rigor set by Lucas and his co-revolutionaries was a challenging and therefore highly absorbing task. But that isn’t the only reason. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, a very substantial fraction of macroeconomists came to believe that the Lucas critique implied that quasi-experimental empirical methods could not be used in macro. The idea that changes in policy could radically alter empirical regularities (i.e., the Lucas critique) somehow came to be interpreted to mean that the only way to do empirical work in macro was to write down fully specified general equilibrium models of the whole economy and evaluate the entire model (either by full-information inference methods or moment matching). Sargent, for example, placed enormous emphasis on the idea of “cross-equation restrictions.“ It seems that this line of thinking led large numbers of macroeconomists astray in terms of how to think about empirical work in macro for several decades.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, and Macroeconomics
Political Geography:
United States

6. New Directions in Macroeconomics

Author:
Gillian Brunet
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
Without being overly prescriptive, macro research must meet two standards to keep the field moving in a productive direction: models must be tested empirically and researchers must think carefully about how underlying assumptions restrict the set of questions that can be answered with a given model. Models move knowledge forward through rigorous empirical testing. Matching moments in model calibration is not enough—nor should it be considered true empirics. When economics is done well, theory and empirics are complements: empirical research disciplines models and theory disciplines empirical research. In recent decades, macro research has tilted very heavily towards theory, forgoing the feedback generated by rigorous empirical testing and, as a consequence, dramatically reducing the ratio of insight to effort. Macro as a field must value empirical contributions to flourish fully. There has been significant progress in the last decade, but the balance still tilts heavily towards theory. Macroeconomists must stop dismissing empirical contributions as trivial for macro theory to reach its potential. It’s not an accident that many of today’s best macroeconomists stand out for their work in both theory and empirics: empirical work disciplines their theoretical research. Over the past 40-50 years, research in short-run macroeconomics has focused on the goal of creating unified, internally consistent models of the macroeconomy. While this is a worthy goal, it has perhaps become too dominant—and imposes hidden costs on research. The emphasis on developing a central baseline model to which idiosyncratic features are added for addressing a specific problem discourages many researchers from considering the suitability of the underlying model to the specific question being asked. As economists we are taught that every model is a simplification, so that the relevant question is not whether a model is good or bad but whether it is good or bad for answering a specific question. Yet choosing a single baseline model of the macroeconomy tends to obscure the closeness of the relationship between the model and the question it is used to answer. Often macroeconomists think carefully about the relationship between their question and the idiosyncratic features they add to the baseline model, but many of the assumptions underlying the baseline model become invisible and thus unquestioned. This is understandable given the complexity of modern macro models, but it has high costs. More careful consideration of the assumptions underlying baseline models and their appropriateness to individual research questions can help move the field forward.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Macroeconomics, and Models
Political Geography:
United States

7. AUKUS Security Pact: Setting the Rivalry with China in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
The announcement of the trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, known by the acronym AUKUS, intended to enhance cooperation between the three countries in the Indo- Pacific region in defense and security, has sent shockwaves throughout the world, especially the UK for the Royal Navy of Australia. The nuclear fueled submarines will be armed by conventional weapons, the number of acquired vessels will be at least eight, and as a typically Australian request, part of the vessels will be constructed in Australia’s naval shipyards. So far, the US, the UK, Russia, China, France in China and Europe. The key element of the AUKUS pact, signed on 15th September 2021, is the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines from the US and and India are the only six countries that have commissioned nuclear-powered submarines. Furthermore, before signing the AUKUS pact, the UK was the only country in the world with which the US was sharing the nuclear propulsion technology, under the Mutual Defense Agreement signed back in 1958. The supply of Australia with British and American nuclear-powered attack submarines, as the most delicate part of the AUKUS pact, attracted by far the most of media attention and provoked China’s aggressive reaction. Even more, the three nations security pact, which is in principal intended to bring “enhanced trilateral security partnership for the 21st century”, has made Beijing particularly worried as China fears that this triple alliance is pointed directly against it. The three countries intend to step up their cooperation in the security and defense sector, and apart from cooperation in industrial production of new military equipment, AUKUS also envisages a broad cooperation in the fields where the three countries feel particularly threatened by China’s staggering growth, and they include cyber security, quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Alliance, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
United States, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and Indo-Pacific

8. Digital Futures for Europe

Author:
Meelis Kitsing
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
There isn’t one model for success in the digital future; there are many. Europe is now debating what policies that could help to power entrepreneurship and growth in Europe’s economy, and some are arguing that Europe should make itself technologically sovereign – independent from the big platforms from the US. This is not the right approach – partly because there cannot be just one model applied in Europe if it is to become more successful in technology and competitiveness. This briefing paper argues that is far more important for Europe to create a better environment for companies to experiment and discover with new business models, and to learn from the past platform success while they do so. That requires a much greater space for entrepreneurship and that the EU and national governments stay away from excessive regulations that strain new business growth. Europe can be a powerful region that shapes rules and standards globally – “the Brussels effect”. But that isn’t the future for Europe if it ensnares entrepreneurs in red tape – “the Brussels defect”.
Topic:
International Political Economy, Digital Economy, Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

9. Nuclear Challenges for the New U.S. Presidential Administration: The First 100 Days and Beyond

Author:
Kelsey Davenport, Daryl G. Kimball, and Kingston Reif
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
Upon taking office, the new presidential administration of Joseph Biden will confront a dizzying array of major challenges, not the least of which are related to the risks posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons. Tensions between the world’s nuclear-armed states are rising; the risk of nuclear use is growing; billions of dollars are being spent to replace and upgrade nuclear weapons; and key agreements that have kept nuclear competition in check are gone or are in serious jeopardy. The situation has been complicated by the neglect and poor policy choices of President Donald Trump and his administration. Over the past four years the Trump administration made nearly every nuclear policy challenge facing the United States worse. Fortunately, Biden has a long and distinguished track record when it comes to dealing with nuclear weapons-related security issues. Unlike his predecessor, Biden possesses a strong personal commitment to effective nuclear arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament that dates back to his early days in the Senate and continued through his last days as vice-president under President Barack Obama. In this analysis we have outlined what we believe to be the five most important sets of nuclear weapons policy challenges and decisions that the new Biden administration will need to address in its first 100 days and beyond, along with recommendations for effectively dealing with each of these policy challenges: Reviving and Advancing the Nuclear Arms Control Enterprise Reducing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Excess Stabilizing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Jump-starting Denuclearization and Peace Diplomacy with North Korea Restoring U.S. Leadership on Multilateral Nonproliferation and Disarmament If pursued, these actions and decisions would make the United States and the world safer from the threats posed by nuclear weapons. These initial steps would also put the administration in a better position to pursue more lasting and far-reaching nuclear risk reduction and elimination initiatives over the next four years.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Peace, Denuclearization, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

10. Toward an Inclusive Security Arrangement in the Persian Gulf

Author:
Trita Parsi
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• Abandon dominance. For many of the United States’ security partners, even a dysfunctional Pax Americana is preferable to the compromises that a security architecture would inevitably entail. The preconditions for creating a successful security architecture can emerge only if the United States begins a military withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and credibly signals it no longer seeks to sustain hegemony. • Encourage regional dialogue, but let the region lead. The incoming Biden administration’s hint that it will seek an inclusive security dialogue in the Persian Gulf is a welcome first step toward shifting the burden of security to the regional states themselves. For such an effort to be successful, the United States should play a supporting role while urging regional states to take the lead. • Include other major powers. The regional dialogue should include the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and major Asian powers with a strong interest in stability in the Persian Gulf. Including them can help dilute Washington’s and Beijing’s roles while protecting the region from inter–Asian rivalries in the future.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, United Nations, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Military Affairs, and Grand Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, and Persian Gulf

11. The Dominance Dilemma: The American Approach to NATO and its Future

Author:
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Despite the Biden administration’s push to revitalize U.S. alliances, U.S. relations with NATO are due for a reset. The United States should incentivize European members of NATO to take on additional responsibilities for their defense. Encouraging the European allies to take initiative will help the United States focus on its other domestic and international priorities and may facilitate improving relations with Russia. This approach will also prove attractive to European states concerned about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. Recalibrating the U.S. role in Europe would conform with the United States’ post–World War II efforts to stabilize European security — and stand as the fruit of Washington’s success in this regard.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, International Security, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Global Focus

12. Responsible Statecraft Requires Remaking America’s Foreign Relations Tool Kit

Author:
Gordon Adams
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
To meet today’s foreign policy challenges, the United States needs to end its overreliance on military superiority and intervention and instead put creative and persistent diplomacy in the lead to promote locally owned solutions to national, bilateral, and regional security issues and to address global challenges not amenable to military force. This rebalancing will not succeed if civilian statecraft is dysfunctional and unprepared. More funding and more diplomats will not solve this problem. What is needed is fundamental reform of structures, processes, and personnel practices, particularly at the State Department. These include strategic planning, resource planning, institutional integration, clear authority over security assistance programs, and moving away from nation-building and toward conflict prevention. Far-reaching changes in the way diplomats are recruited, trained, and promoted are also required. Without such changes, there is substantial risk that our diplomatic tools will be ineffective, resulting in even greater militarization of U.S. foreign policy when diplomacy fails.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, International Security, Bilateral Relations, Military Affairs, Grand Strategy, Alliance, and Statecraft
Political Geography:
United States

13. De-Risking the India Relationship: An Action Agenda for the United States

Author:
Sarang Shidore
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
In the wake of a sharp deterioration in U.S.–China and India–China relations, there is an increasing emphasis in U.S. relations with India on military-to-military ties and bloc formation over other forms of relationship-building. Washington is steadily militarizing the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” a four-member security group that is intended to counter Beijing, of which New Delhi is a member. This, combined with India’s stalled economy and the outlook for longer-term post-pandemic weakness, is accentuating a risk-prone asymmetry in U.S.–India relations. There also remain key divergences in the specifics of U.S. and Indian interests, even on the question of countering China. Over-militarized U.S.–India relations could help push Asia closer to a paradigm of military blocs, frontline states, and zero-sum games, while also planting seeds for a nationalist backlash against the United States in South Asia as a whole. The United States should therefore reorient its vital partnership with India according to these four recommendations: Limit the relationship’s increasing militarization and instead emphasize nontraditional areas of security cooperation such as climate change and peacekeeping, which lend themselves to inclusion rather than exclusion. The Quad should be returned to its original political-normative focus; Create conditions favorable to India’s comprehensive development, particularly in the energy, environmental, and supply-chain spaces, as a lower-risk path toward catalyzing a multipolar Asia; Drop demands on India to scale back ties with U.S. adversaries such as Russia and Iran; Resist the temptation to use India as a force-multiplier to pressure smaller South Asian states as to their global alignments.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United States and India

14. Advancing Gender Integration into Global Fragility Act Country Strategies

Author:
Liz Hume, Megan Schleicher, Sahana Dharmapuri, and Erin Cooper
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
This brief provides a summary of key recommendations from civil society on how to integrate gender into the GFS. It is critical that the GFA country and regional plans go beyond the individual empowerment of women in a society and aim to transform the societal power structures that fuel instability and inequality.
Topic:
Security, Civil Society, Gender Issues, Women, Inequality, Peace, and WPS
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

15. Security for All: Applying the Women, Peace and Security Lens to the COVID-19 Pandemic Response in the U.S.

Author:
Kelly Case, Sahana Dharmapuri, Hans Hogrefe, Miki Jacevic, Jolynn Shoemaker, Moira Whelan, and Erin Cooper
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Our Secure Future
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic does not respect borders or power. Armies, weapons, and fortifications will not destroy it. COVID-19 is a national security threat of a different kind. It has killed tens of thousands of Americans so far and has resulted in the complete shutdown of the American economy in just a few months. The United States and countries around the world need to reexamine what it takes for people to be safe. Policymakers can look to the Women, Peace and Security agenda (WPS) for guidance and urgently needed solutions. Policymakers have primarily focused on the Women, Peace and Security agenda exclusively in the foreign policy arena. It has important application for domestic policy as well, especially for achieving policy goals that link to security and prosperity for American families and communities.
Topic:
Security, Women, Peace, and WPS
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

16. Maternal Mortality and Maternity Care in the United States Compared to 10 Other Developed Countries

Author:
Laurie Zephyrin, Molly FitzGerald, Munira Z. Gunja, and Roosa Tikkanen
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Commonwealth Fund
Abstract:
The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. Obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) are overrepresented in its maternity care workforce relative to midwives, and there is an overall shortage of maternity care providers (both ob-gyns and midwives) relative to births. In most other countries, midwives outnumber ob-gyns by severalfold, and primary care plays a central role in the health system. Although a large share of its maternal deaths occur postbirth, the U.S. is the only country not to guarantee access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period.
Topic:
Health, Health Care Policy, Women, and Reproductive Health
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

17. Flattening the Pandemic and Recession Curves

Author:
Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
In the short run, the capacity of any country’s health system is finite (capacity of Intensive Care Units, number of hospital beds, number of skilled health professionals, ventilators….). This puts an upper bound on the number of patients that can be properly treated, at any given point in time and is represented by the flat line in the Figure. Unchecked, and given what we know of the transmission rate of the coronavirus, the pandemic would quickly overwhelm any health system, leaving many infected patients with deteriorating pulmonary conditions without any treatment. The fatality rate would surge. The threat is almost beyond comprehension. With a 2% case fatality rate baseline for overwhelmed health systems, and 50% of the world population infected, 1% of the world population -76 million people- would die. This scenario corresponds to the red curve in Figure 1. The part of the curve above the capacity of the health care system faces a sharply higher mortality risk (shaded red area).
Topic:
Economics, International Political Economy, Health Care Policy, Economic Growth, Macroeconomics, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Global Health
Political Geography:
United States

18. Coronavirus and Managing Your Organization’s Response

Author:
Anton Korinek
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Nkafu Policy Institute
Abstract:
Organizations around the world are working through how to respond to the novel coronavirus, posing one of the greatest challenges to leaders in a long time. Do they restrict travel? Doing so would have substantial financial implication, make months of preparation worthless and lower the morale of many stakeholders who enjoy travel. However, travel is what brought the coronavirus to the country in the first place — and what continues to spread it to new communities within the country. What about instituting remote work procedures? In-person meetings and events may be a critical part of an organization’s activities and an important part of the value it offers. Perhaps there are no known cases of the virus in a given community. However, once it does gain a foothold, social distancing is the only way to slow the spread. Carriers of the virus may unwittingly spread it for days before symptoms manifest themselves. Above all, one of the greatest challenges is to balance an organization’s economic concerns with the question of what is ethically the best course of action.
Topic:
Economics, International Political Economy, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

19. Racial Inequality

Author:
Lisa D. Cook and Trevon Logan
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
The origins of American capitalism in the institutions of slavery continues to cast a long shadow. As the economist William Darity Jr. has written, the dead hand of history weighs heavily on us because the dead hand of history remains fitfully alive. Contemporary racial inequality can be thought of as the product of a long historical process with at least two reinforcing sets of policies. The first would be policies governing the spatial distribution of the black population. The second would be policies that had a disparate impact on black individuals because of their locations. Understanding current black-white gaps in income, wealth and education require understanding the complex relationship between regional inequality, race and policies at the local, state, and national levels. In this article, we outline the ways that the spatial distribution of the black population has evolved over time and the ways that spatial distribution has interacted with policy to, at times, reduce and exacerbate levels of inequality. Recognizing the ways that past policies explicitly stymied black economic mobility and how current policies have explicitly or inadvertently done the same provides a basis for understanding how to craft future policies to reduce racial inequalities. Furthermore, recognizing the interconnection of discrimination and the spatial distribution of the black population is important for understanding certain components of regional and spatial inequality. The difference in location within regions makes it inevitable that policies that differentially affect urban and rural areas will have disparate effects by race. A recent example of this is the proposed Medicaid work requirement in Michigan. The original version of Michigan Senate Bill 897 exempted individuals from this work requirement conditional on residing in a county with an unemployment rate above 8.5 percent. The spatial distribution of the white and black populations of Michigan meant that this exemption would have racially disparate impacts; given that poor white individuals disproportionately live in rural areas and black individuals live in urban areas, the higher unemployment rates in rural counties would disproportionately exempt white Medicaid recipients from the work requirement within the bill. Although—after considerable negative press—the exemption was dropped from the final version of the work requirement bill, this incident reveals the complex interplay between policy, inequality across space, and inequality between races. Even if a policy like the unemployment rate exemption in the Michigan bill is crafted without discriminatory intent, it can nonetheless increase racial inequality. In the following sections we explore the how policy has shaped the geographic and economic mobility of the black population over the past century and a half, drawing from the large literatures on regional inequality and racial discrimination that have all too often been treated in isolation from one another.
Topic:
Economics, Race, Capitalism, Inequality, Slavery, Macroeconomics, Reparations, Racism, and Systemic Racism
Political Geography:
United States

20. Why, When, and How to Teach the Fundamentals of Inequality in Principles

Author:
Can Erbil and Geoffrey Sanzenbacher
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
The continued rise of economic inequality in the U.S. has been on the radar of economists and policymakers for the last few years. New initiatives and platforms like EfIP (Economics for Inclusive Prosperity) have emerged, where economists work on creating fresh and useful policy ideas to promote more “inclusive” models of generating prosperity. Yet, students still face a lot of confusion, “noise,” and disagreement when it comes to the topic of inequality.[1] Especially in the age of easy access to information online, students not fully literate in economics struggle to sift through the literature and separate rigorous scientifically based research from opinion pieces. This article discusses a way to introduce some recent trends in U.S. inequality to students, and then delve into a specific topic (e.g., racial inequality) in a two-lecture module at the end of an introductory economics course. After all, it is not that the students are not interested in this topic. But, left alone, many of them become confused. Students do not make distinctions between different broad types of inequalities, such as income inequality, wealth inequality, or inequality of opportunity. They do not understand differences in the underlying causes of inequality, which vary depending on whether the topic is inequality across educational groups, gender-based groups, or racial/ethnic groups. And, they make basic mistakes in reading articles or viewing data, such as mixing-up correlation with causation or looking at graphs with different scales. Fortunately, introductory economics courses have a chance to reach students early in their careers, and correct many of these deficiencies. Indeed, recent events in the US compel us to cover inequality and its consequences in our introductory classes. The economic impact of the COVID-19 epidemic falls significantly more on minorities, women, people with lower income levels and people of color.[2] And, the disparities in poverty and opportunity rates between black and non-black populations is at the root of racial discrimination which re-ignited the BLM movement.[3] Indeed, economic inequality is also related to other disciplines in Social Sciences, such as Sociology, Political Science and even Liberal Arts courses such as History and English. However, Economics faculty are well-equipped to cover the empirical outcomes and the underlying economic models – and lay out their strengths as well as short-comings. Given that teaching about economic inequality is an important task, this article will first discuss when it makes sense to teach it. The article will then spend the majority of its time providing some tips for covering the material, as well as some suggested assignments.
Topic:
Economics, Education, Inequality, Economic Inequality, Macroeconomics, and Models
Political Geography:
United States