Knowledge that Transforms

Between 1800 and 1940 the U.S. went through a dramatic demographic transition. In 1800 the average woman had 7 children, and 94 percent of the population lived in rural areas. By 1940 the average woman birthed just 2 kids, and only 43 percent of populace lived in the country. The question is: What accounted for this shift in the demographic landscape? The answer given here is that technological progress in agriculture and manufacturing explains these facts.

In this paper, we investigate the impact of economic incentives on the international supply of big-screen movies. More particularly, we also study the impact of a 1998 increase in the term of copyright on U.S. movie production.

Strategic complementarity games have found applications in many fields, including macroeconomics, development, and labor economics.' They provide a useful framework within which to address questions like: What generates the disparity across regions and countries? Why are there booms and recessions? and What causes gender and race discrimination in the labor market? In short, they help us think about the diversity and variations across space, time, and groups. The literature on complementarity games has emphasized coordination failures as the key notion to understand these questions. This paper argues that such emphasis is misplaced; the key to understand the diversity is symmetrybreaking. The notion of coordination failures is not only irrelevant, but also misleading when thinking about the diversity.

This paper evaluates the effects of fiscal policy on investment using a panel of OECD countries. We find a sizeable negative effect of public spending—and in particular of its wage component— on profits and on business investment. This result is consistent with different theoretical models in which government employment creates wage pressure for the private sector. Various types of taxes also have negative effects on profits, but, interestingly, the effects of government spending on investment are larger than those of taxes. Our results can explain the so-called “non-Keynesian” (i.e., expansionary) effects of fiscal adjustments.

Specially collected data on adults in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics are used to provide evidence on the longer-term effects of Head Start, an early intervention program for poor preschool-age children. Whites who attended Head Start are, relative to their siblings who did not, significantly more likely to complete high school, attend college, and possibly have higher earnings in their early twenties. African-Americans who participated in Head Start are less likely to have been booked or charged with a crime. There is some evidence of positive spillovers from older Head Start children to their younger siblings.

Plenary talk delivered at the annual meeting of the Society for Economic Dynamics.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Prosperity and depression are relative concepts. Today both France and Japan are depressed relative to the United States; equivalently, the United States is prosperous relative to these countries. I say these countries are depressed relative to the United States because their output per working-age person is 30 percent less than the U.S. level. An interesting and important policy question is: Why are these countries depressed? The answers for these two countries turn out to be very different. The United States is prosperous relative to France because the U.S. intratemporal tax wedge that distorts the trade-off between consumption and leisure is much smaller than the French wedge. I will show that, if France modified its intratemporal tax wedge so that its value was the same as the U.S. value, French welfare in consumption equivalents would increase by 19 percent. Consumption would have to increase by 19 percent now and in all future periods to achieve as large a welfare gain as that resulting from this tax reform. The United States is prosperous relative to Japan because production efficiency is higher in the United States. In the United States, total factor productivity is approximately 20 percent higher than in Japan. If Japan suddenly became as efficient in production as the United States, its welfare gain in consumption equivalents would be 39 percent. Equally interesting and important are big changes over time in relative output (per working-age person) across countries. Why are New Zealand’s and Switzerland’s economies depressed by over 30 percent relative to their 1970 trend-corrected levels? Both of these countries have small populations, but depressions are not restricted to small countries. Japan, with its 125 million people, is now depressed by 20 percent relative to its 1991 trend-corrected level. On the prosperity side, why are Ireland and South Korea so prosperous now relative to their 1970 trend-corrected levels? This lecture is concerned primarily with big international differences among relatively rich industrial countries and changes in these differences over time. The countries that receive primary attention all have market economies and healthy, well-educated populations. In the countries considered, the variations in aggregate output per working-age person are large, and reasonably good measures of the factor inputs are available. This permits, in many cases, the identification of the change in policy or the difference in policy that gave rise to prosperity or depression. This is in contrast to business-cycle theory, which provides little guidance to policy except for the important policy implication that a stabilization effort will have either no effect or a perverse effect. The output variations studied and analyzed in this lecture are big: an order of magnitude larger than the much-studied business-cycle fluctuations. The variations studied, however, are an order of magnitude smaller than the muchstudied differences between the richest and poorest countries. Surprisingly, only recently have depressions been systematically studied from the perspective of growth theory, which is the theory used * University of Minnesota and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. I thank my colleagues at the University of Minnesota and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis for helpful discussions and comments. In particular, I thank Tim Kehoe, Ellen McGrattan, and Nancy Stokey for their help. I also thank Martin Weale and Franck Portier for providing some British and French tax information used in this lecture. Thanks also go to Sami Alpanda and James MacGee for research assistance and helpful discussions. This lecture draws heavily on collaborative research with Fumio Hayashi. I thank the Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan and the U.S. National Science Foundation for financial support. The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis or the Federal Reserve System.

What are the welfare effects of enhanced dissemination of public information through the media and disclosures by market participants with high public visibility? We examine the impact of public information in a setting where agents take actions appropriate to the underlying fundamentals, but they also have a coordination motive arising from a strategic complementarity in their actions. When the agents have no socially valuable private information, greater provision of public information always increases welfare. However, when agents also have access to independent sources of information, the welfare effect of increased public disclosures is ambiguous.

We develop a model linking maximum damage awards available to plaintiffs in wrongful termination lawsuits, workers' propensity to sue as a function of experience, and returns to experience. Using Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data on protected-worker discrimination complaints and labor-market data from the Current Population Survey, we examine how returns to experience among protected workers changed around the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. We show that employers' reactions to employment protections may induce redistributive effects. Furthermore, these effects operate not merely across groups of differing protected status, but also within groups of identical protected status.

Charitable Giving, Income, and Taxes: An Analysis of Panel Data by Gerald E. Auten, Holger Sieg and Charles T. Clotfelter. Published in volume 92, issue 1, pages 371-382 of American Economic Review, March 2002