Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University Publication Year within 10 Years

11. Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Author:
Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
Proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) emphasize its prospective economic benefits, with economic growth increasing due to rising trade volumes and investment. Widely cited projections suggest modest GDP gains after ten years, varying from less than half a percentage point in the United States to 13 percent in Vietnam. However, these projections assume full employment and constant income distribution in all countries excluding some of the major risks of trade liberalization. In this paper, we provide alternative projections of the TPP’s economic effects using the United Nations Global Policy Model. Allowing for changes in employment and income distribution, we obtain very different results. We find that the benefits to economic growth are even smaller than those projected with full-employment models, and are negative for Japan and the United States. More important, we find that the TPP will likely lead to losses in employment and increases in inequality.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Inequality, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Unemployment
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, Vietnam, North America, and Asia-Pacific

12. Core Support for the New Economy

Author:
Neva Goodwin
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
This paper proposes an income guarantee that would be defined as compensation for household activities such as childcare, food preparation, care of elderly or ill persons in the home, maintenance of the home and of household vehicles and appliances, and household-based transportation. I will call it Core Support, or CS. The Core Support proposal is put forth as a way to achieve a number of important goals, including reduction of poverty and inequality, increased fairness and better old-age security, and improved possibilities for good child care and education. It could replace much of the burdensome and expensive apparatus of welfare and some other government programs. Rather than providing a handout, it would expressly reward and enable some of the unpaid work on which every society depends, validating these activities as legitimate labor. As described in this proposal, it could have a significant impact in healthy redefinition of gender norms. In addition, the proposed program would reduce the requirement for all members of society to take paid work, thus rebalancing power between employers and employees. By reducing the pressure to create jobs, regardless of their quality or their impact, it would make it easier to cease production of socially or environmentally harmful goods and services. However, it would create a not inconsiderable amount of new work in managing the program. Depending on whether there is too much, or too little, demand for labor in the macroeconomy, this could be desirable, or not. This idea builds on literature on Basic Income Guarantees (BIG), as well as on some work in feminist economics. The latter tends to be skeptical of BIG proposals. It is hoped that the CS proposal, by addressing intra-household allocations – a topic normally absent from BIG proposals – can respond to this skepticism by showing how a basic income system can be designed so as to promote deep cultural changes in gender norms and widen respect for those who do the essential core work of a society. If it is assumed that the CS funds depend on taxable income, then it would be necessary for the economy in which it is implemented to have a preexisting flow of money from the sale of privately produced goods and services; thus it would appear that this approach would not be feasible in poor countries. Hence, given a focus on the U.S. context, some attention will be paid to the question of how “wealthy” this country will be in coming decades. It is possible to imagine macroeconomic conditions in which people are “poor” because they lack money to buy needed goods and services that are in fact being produced in the economy. In this case the central bank could create money to be distributed in amounts that would enable local trade, benefiting both producers and households, and possibly leading to higher levels of output.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Poverty, Women, Inequality, and Economic Inequality
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. CETA Without Blinders: How Cutting ‘Trade Costs and More’ Will Cause Unemployment, Inequality and Welfare Losses

Author:
Pierre Kohler and Servaas Storm
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
Proponents of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) emphasize its prospective economic benefits, with economic growth increasing due to rising trade volumes and investment. Widely cited official projections suggest modest GDP gains after about a decade, varying from between 0.003% to 0.08% in the European Union and between 0.03% to 0.76% in Canada. However, all these quantitative projections stem from the same trade model, which assumes full employment and neutral (if not constant) income distribution in all countries, excluding from the outset any of the major risks of deeper liberalization. This lack of intellectual diversity and of realism shrouding the debate around CETA’s alleged economic benefits calls for an alternative assessment grounded in more realistic modeling premises. In this paper, we provide alternative projections of CETA’s economic effects using the United Nations Global Policy Model (GPM). Allowing for changes in employment and income distribution, we obtain very different results. In contrast to positive outcomes projected with full-employment models, we find CETA will lead to intra-EU trade diversion. More importantly, in the current context of tepid economic growth, competitive pressures induced by CETA will cause unemployment, inequality and welfare losses. At a minimum, this shows that official studies do not offer a solid basis for an informed decision on CETA.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, European Union, GDP, and Diversity
Political Geography:
Europe

14. Mandating Food Insecurity: The Global Impacts of Rising Biofuel Mandates and Targets

Author:
Timothy A. Wise and Emily Cole
Publication Date:
02-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
Expanding demand for biofuels, fed significantly by government policies mandating rising levels of consumption in transportation fuel, has been strongly implicated in food price increases and food price volatility most recently seen in 2008 and 2011-2012. First-generation biofuels, made from agricultural crops, divert food directly to fuel markets and divert land, water and other food-producing resources from their current or potential uses for production of feed for animals and food for human consumption. A key policy driver of biofuel consumption is government mandates to increase or maintain rates or levels of biofuel blends in transportation fuel, the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard and the E.U. Renewable Energy Directive being the most prominent cases. In this paper we assess the spread of such mandates and targets, finding that at least 64 countries now have such policies. We estimate the consumption increases implied by full implementation of such mandates in the seven countries/regions with the highest biofuel consumption, suggesting a 43% increase in first-generation biofuel consumption in 2025 over current levels. We compare this to even higher estimates from international agencies. We assess the likelihood of implementation in key countries and regions, which suggests that with reform, particularly in OECD countries, consumption growth could be slowed. We conclude with policy recommendations to reduce the mandate-driven expansion of first-generation biofuels and mitigate their negative social and environmental impacts.
Topic:
Agriculture, Food, Biofuels, Europe Union, and Chemical Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and North America

15. Economics and the Near-Death Experience of Democratic Governance

Author:
June Sekera
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
Non-market public production makes up a quarter to a half or more of all economic activity in advanced democratic nation-states. Yet here in the United States the public economy’s ability to function productively on behalf of the citizenry is seriously imperiled. In this paper I trace the connection between mainstream, market-centric economics and what James Galbraith has called “the collapse of the public governing capacity.” Marketization and its confederate, privatization, have led, sometimes intentionally, to the evisceration of governmental capacity, the downsizing of democracy and the dismantling of traditions of responsible public administration that are grounded in law and the Constitution. Over the last decades, apostles of the market have intruded upon government a pseudo-market with outcomes ranging from the unfortunate to the disastrous. So-called “New Public Management” –“a child of neoclassical economics,” – has colonized and weakened every level of public administration. Hollowed out through the cathartic of a “competition prescription,” the public sector time and again seems to fail us, so systems of performance measurement transplanted from profit-driven business models are being imposed across government, ostensibly to improve results and better supply what the populace wants and needs, but instead often leaving harm in their wake. We find our most basic public services and rights in jeopardy: from clean air and water to unencumbered judicial due process. While government “reinventors” boast about shrinking government, in reality a “submerged state” mushrooms through an explosion of private profit- making contractors and behind the hidden hand of tax expenditures. Yet, as I argue in this paper, there is no viable explanatory theory of the public non-market economy or of production within it, nor any consensus about how to measure public purpose or assess results in the public domain. Instead, a market-centric economics prevails in textbooks, university teaching and public policy, while private, market-mimicking motivations and values displace public purpose in measurement schemes.
Topic:
Governance, Democracy, Public Sector, Private Sector, and Non-Market Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus