「The Impact of the Civil War on Southern Wealth Holders」というNBER論文上がっている。著者はBrandon Dupont(西ワシントン大)、Joshua Rosenbloom(アイオワ州立大)。


The U.S. Civil War and emancipation wiped out a substantial fraction of southern wealth. The prevailing view of most economic historians, however, is that the southern planter elite was able to retain its relative status despite these shocks. Previous studies have been hampered, however, by limits on the ability to link individuals between census years, and have been forced to focus on persistence within one or a few counties. Recent advances in electronic access to the Federal Census manuscripts now make it possible to link individuals without these constraints. We exploit the ability to search the full manuscript census to construct a sample that links top wealth holders in 1870 to their 1860 census records. Although there was an entrenched southern planter elite that retained their economic status, we find evidence that the turmoil of 1860s opened greater opportunities for mobility in the South than was the case in the North, resulting in much greater turnover among wealthy southerners than among comparably wealthy northerners.







という、かなり時事的な国際政治のトピックを扱ったNBER論文上がっている。原題は「What Explains the Flow of Foreign Fighters to ISIS?」で、著者はEfraim Benmelech(ノースウエスタン大)、Esteban F. Klor(ヘブライ大)。


This paper provides the first systematic analysis of the link between economic, political, and social conditions and the global phenomenon of ISIS foreign fighters. We find that poor economic conditions do not drive participation in ISIS. In contrast, the number of ISIS foreign fighters is positively correlated with a country's GDP per capita and Human Development Index (HDI). In fact, many foreign fighters originate from countries with high levels of economic development, low income inequality, and highly developed political institutions. Other factors that explain the number of ISIS foreign fighters are the size of a country's Muslim population and its ethnic homogeneity. Although we cannot directly determine why people join ISIS, our results suggest that the flow of foreign fighters to ISIS is driven not by economic or political conditions but rather by ideology and the difficulty of assimilation into homogeneous Western countries.








Oh, and the model also said positive things about fiscal policy — actually, a multiplier of one even with full Ricardian equivalence, although I bobbled that in the original paper, because I didn’t use the model carefully enough. That was definitely not what I was looking for at the time.







アラン・ブラインダーが貿易に関するWSJ論説を書き、マンキューが「Alan Blinder has a great column」としてリンクした一方で、ディーン・ベーカージャレッド・バーンスタインが反発している。


The U.S. multilateral trade balance — its balance with all of its trading partners — has been in deficit for decades. Does that mean that our country is in some sort of trouble? Probably not. For example, people who claim that our trade deficit kills jobs need to explain how the U.S. managed to achieve 4 percent unemployment in 2000, when our trade deficit was larger, as a share of GDP, than it is today.


米国の多国間貿易収支――すべての貿易相手国との収支――は何十年も赤字である。これは我が国が何らかの問題を抱えていることを意味するのだろうか? おそらく違う。例えば、我々の貿易赤字が職を奪っていると主張する人たちは、我々の貿易赤字が対GDP比率で今日より大きかった2000年に4%の失業率をいかに達成したかを説明する必要がある。


I assume that Blinder knows there is an easy answer to his challenge to explain 4.0 percent unemployment in 2000 "when our trade deficit was larger, as a share of GDP, than it is today." We had a huge stock bubble in 2000. This led to what was at the time a record low savings rate as people spent based on their bubble generated stock wealth. We also had a surge of tech sector investment as tech companies were directly financing investment with stock sales.

When the bubble burst, there was no easy way to make up this demand. The economy had negative job growth for two and half years and didn't make up the jobs lost in the recession until January of 2005, the longest period without positive job growth since the Great Depression (since surpassed by the Great Recession. When job growth eventually did resume it was on the back of the housing bubble, which also did not end well.





No one is saying that trade deficits prevent full employment. What we are saying is that the magnitude of the trade deficits we’ve run—averaging -4% of GDP since 2000 and -2.8% in the most recent quarter—must be offset if we are going to get to full employment.




In short, if the trade deficit is 3.0 percent of GDP (@$540 billion a year) as opposed to its pre-East Asian bailout average of just over 1.0 percent of GDP, then it has an equivalent impact on the economy of cutting annual government spending by $360 billion. And, in the model that Blinder used in his analysis of the bailout and stimulus, that would cost millions of jobs.








For those of us who participated in the austerity debates, that’s pretty amazing and disheartening. Remember when Robert Lucas accused Christy Romer of corruptly producing “schlock economics” to justify government spending? Remember the long fight against the doctrine of expansionary austerity and the mythical cliff at 90 percent debt? There was a huge division between Keynesians and anti-Keynesians, in which people like the Romers faced a torrent of abuse from the right. And there has also been a huge intellectual vindication, with interest rates, inflation, and output looking much more like Keynesian predictions than like what those on the right were predicting.

Oh, and on the issue where Lucas accused Romer of corruption: her estimate of a multiplier of 1.5 turns out to be very close to the numbers most researchers have found in the aftermath of the disastrous turn to austerity.


緊縮財政の議論に参加した者にとって、これは極めて驚くべき、かつ、がっかりさせられる言葉である。ロバート・ルーカスが、クリスティーナ・ローマーは政府支出を正当化するために不道徳にも「くだらない経済学」を使った、と非難した時のことを覚えているだろうか?*2 あるいは、拡張的緊縮策と90%債務の架空の崖というドクトリンとの長い闘いのことは? ケインジアンと反ケインジアンの間には大いなる分断があり、ローマーのような人々は右派からの絶え間ない悪態に曝されてきた。そして、大いなる知的な立証もあった。金利インフレ率、ならびに生産は、右派の人々が予測していたものより、ケインジアンの予測に遥かに近いものとなったのである。



Mark Zandi was McCain’s economic adviser in 2008 who had the good sense to tell the Senator we had a Keynesian problem. Of course the Senator failed to listen to his own economic adviser. Lucas was criticizing Dr. Romer for using Zandi’s model. Now we see criticism from the left for her use of this same model. Go figure! But to be fair – his model is probably best tossed into the waste bin given what we know now. Did I say hindsight is 20/20?


マーク・ザンディは2008年にはマケインの経済顧問で、賢明にも上院議員に、我々はケインズ的な問題を抱えている、と伝えた。そして上院議員は当然のごとく自分の経済顧問に耳を傾けなかった。ルーカスローマー博士をザンディのモデルを使った咎で批判した*3。そして今や左派が、彼女のことをそのモデルを使った咎で批判している。いやはや何たることか! しかし公平を期すならば、我々が今知っていることに鑑みると、彼のモデルはゴミ箱に捨てられたものの中でおそらく最善のものだ。後知恵は洞察力に富む、と先に言ったよね?



*3cf. 前注。ちなみにPGLルーカスのこのローマ批判の問題点を指摘する際にクルーグマン2011年末のエントリを援用しているが、そこでクルーグマンリカードの等価性の話(cf. ここ)を持ち出している。