Archive

New challenges call for fresh responses and bold thinking. From universal basic income to job guarantee, what new policies do we need for inclusive prosperity in the digital era?

Given the mounting need to create good jobs, effect structural change, and modernize the economy, is there a role for industrial policy in the future? How should 21st century industrial policy be designed and implemented?

What are the choices we must make to ensure technology empowers, augments, rewards, and respects the majority, not the few, given its increasing defining role in future economies and societies?

Traditional welfare systems have emphasized the need for redistribution post-production. Are these policies sufficient in the future?

Can developing countries cope with high debt levels? How dire is the situation? Has the policy response been adequate? And what’s the situation in private external debt, and what should be done about private creditors? This edition of Debt Talks will discuss the situation in developing country debt during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

George Soros’ latest op-ed in the Project Syndicate reasserts his view how perpetual bonds could help the European Union overcome its deadlock on fiscal spending.

No one person or perspective holds the key to solving economic problems, says Jay Pocklington of the Institute for New Economic Thinking

The central challenge confronting us in the future of work is this: can we create a future where work exists for all who need one with fair rewards, or will we end up on the path of increasing displacement, leaving workers vulnerable, dispensable, and miserable?

The perverted dreams of western modernity and capitalism may be exhausting themselves, says author Eugene McCarraher. And that’s something to be thankful for.

“Actual experience, as opposed to cost-benefit analyses of theoretical alternatives, further strengthens the case for suppressing the disease fully, where feasible. A recent paper from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, To Save the Economy, Save the People First, suggests why. A chart (reproduced here) shows that countries have followed two strategies: suppression, or trading off deaths against the economy. By and large, the former group has done better in both respects. Meanwhile, countries that have sacrificed lives have tended to end up with high mortality and economic costs.” — Martin Wolf, The Financial Times

“To save the economy, you have to save people first, is the title of a paper by Alvelda, Ferguson and Mallery of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. This work groups countries into three categories, according to the response to the covid: those that gave priority to maintaining economic life; those who focused on taking care of health first and those who wanted to be placed in the middle, but did not do either one well. The best economic results correspond to those who prioritized health. They are countries that are in Asia and Oceania, mainly. The worst are in the other two groups. Those who did not define one or the other, got the worst of both worlds: many deaths and great economic damage. What can be done? Alvelda, Ferguson, and Mallery recommend targeted subsidies by regions and sectors hardest hit; guarantee income for workers in non-essential activities and subsidize health safety measures for all those who cannot stop. This means, among other things, public money to make public transport and some massive workplaces more sanitary. Subsidize supervision / surveillance measures in spaces where many people go: shopping centers and places of religious worship, for example.” — Luis Miguel Gonzalez, El Economista (translated from Spanish)

Carbon pricing still has the potential to be a powerful tool contributing to emissions reductions, but it is clearly no panacea.

“Structural analysis to uncover global trends is what Goodhart and Pradhan’s book does. I’m not sure I completely recommend it, as it gets a little technical in spots, but I certainly recommend learning more about their analysis. (You can hear them interviewed in the podcast, “Economics & Beyond with Rob Johnson.”)” — William Watson

Carbon pricing still has the potential to be a powerful tool contributing to emissions reductions, but it is clearly no panacea.

“Anyone with a pulse knows that in the US today the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy and powerful. One particularly illuminating paper published this month by the Institute for New Economic Thinking quantifies the problem. Building on a persuasive 2014 data set, it shows that when opinion shifts among the wealthiest top 10 per cent of the US population, changes in policy become far more likely. Using AI and machine learning, INET academics Shawn McGuire and Charles Delahunt delved deep into the data. They found that considering the opinions of anyone outside that top 10 per cent was a far less accurate predictor of what happened to government policy. The numbers showed that: “not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all”.” — Rana Foroohar, The Financial Times