Knowledge that Transforms

Large fluctuations in energy prices have been a distinguishing characteristic of the U.S. economy since the 1970s. Turmoil in the Middle East, rising energy prices in the United States, and evidence of global warming recently have reignited interest in the link between energy prices and economic performance. This paper addresses a number of the key issues in this debate: What are energy price shocks and where do they come from? How responsive is energy demand to changes in energy prices? How do consumer's expenditure patterns evolve in response to energy price shocks? How do energy price shocks affect U.S. real output, inflation, and stock prices? Why do energy price increases seem to cause recessions but energy price decreases do not seem to cause expansions? Why has there been a surge in the price of oil in recent years? Why has this new energy price shock not caused a recession so far? Have the effects of energy price shocks waned since the 1980s and, if so, why? As the paper demonstrates, it is critical to account for the endogeneity of energy prices and to differentiate between the effects of demand and supply shocks in energy markets when answering these questions.

India's high growth over the last fifteen years has inspired several recent books and papers to examine the growth's source and sustainability—the two-volume study by Arvind Virmani being a case in point. This paper evaluates these recent works. It is argued that the cause of the take-off does not fit into any easy ideological category as suggested by Virmani. The current high growth has been achieved in several steps, with distinct factors of propulsion behind each step. There is reason to expect the growth to be sustainable, although destabilizing political tensions will arise from the increasing inequality. The paper also evaluates how India's growth relates to the global economy.

A Farewell to Alms advances striking claims about the economic history of the world. These include (1) the preindustrial world was in a Malthusian preventive check equilibrium, (2) living standards were unchanging and above subsistence for the last 100,000 years, (3) bad institutions were not the cause of economic backwardness, (4) successful economic growth was due to the spread of “middle class” values from the elite to the rest of society for “biological” reasons, (5) workers were the big gainers in the British Industrial Revolution, and (6) the absence of middle class values, for biological reasons, explains why most of the world is poor. The empirical support for these claims is examined, and all are questionable.

We review the recent but growing economic literature on the worldwide growth of obesity, relating the review to a recent anthology of articles—Obesity, Business and Public Policy. We discuss the competing explanations for the growth of obesity as well as the role of governments in attempting to limit it.

One of the major social policy issues facing the United States in the first decade of the twenty-first century is the large number of Americans lacking health insurance. This article surveys the major economic issues around covering the uninsured. I review the facts on insurance coverage and the nature of the uninsured; explore explanations for why the United States has such a large, and growing, uninsured population; and discuss why we should care if individuals are uninsured. I then examine policy options to address the problem of the uninsured, beginning with a discussion of the key issues and available evidence and then turning to estimates from a micro-simulation model of the impact of alternative interventions to increase insurance coverage.

Forecasts guide decisions in all areas of economics and finance and their value can only be understood in relation to, and in the context of, such decisions. We discuss the central role of the loss function in helping determine the forecaster's objectives. Decision theory provides a framework for both the construction and evaluation of forecasts. This framework allows an understanding of the challenges that arise from the explosion in the sheer volume of predictor variables under consideration and the forecaster's ability to entertain an endless array of forecasting models and time-varying specifications, none of which may coincide with the “true” model. We show this along with reviewing methods for comparing the forecasting performance of pairs of models or evaluating the ability of the best of many models to beat a benchmark specification.

In this paper, we review the recent literature on global interpersonal income inequality. While all estimates agree that the level is very high, with a Gini of between 0.630 and 0.686 in the 1990s, there is no consensus regarding the direction of change. We discuss methodological issues, including the use of national accounts versus survey-based estimates of mean income (or consumption) and the choice of purchasing power parity exchange rates. Findings of a rise or fall in global income inequality are not robust across different estimation methods and datasets. Given the diversity of estimates and various sources of uncertainty, including gaps and errors in the underlying data, we conclude there is insufficient evidence to determine the direction of change in global interpersonal inequality in recent decades.

We review theoretical explanations for in-kind transfers in light of the limited empirical evidence. After reviewing the traditional paternalistic arguments, we consider explanations based on imperfect information and self-targeting. We then discuss the large literature on in-kind programs as a way of improving the efficiency of the tax system and a range of other possible explanations, including the “Samaritan's Dilemma,” pecuniary effects, credit constraints, asymmetric information amongst agents, and political economy considerations. Our reading of the evidence suggests that paternalism and interdependent preferences are leading overall explanations for the existence of in-kind transfer programs but that some of the other arguments may apply to specific cases. Political economy considerations must also be part of the story.

The well-known Easterlin paradox points out that average happiness has remained constant over time despite sharp rises in GNP per head. At the same time, a micro literature has typically found positive correlations between individual income and individual measures of subjective well-being. This paper suggests that these two findings are consistent with the presence of relative income terms in the utility function. Income may be evaluated relative to others (social comparison) or to oneself in the past (habituation). We review the evidence on relative income from the subjective well-being literature. We also discuss the relation (or not) between happiness and utility, and discuss some nonhappiness research (behavioral, experimental, neurological) related to income comparisons. We last consider how relative income in the utility function can affect economic models of behavior in the domains of consumption, investment, economic growth, savings, taxation, labor supply, wages, and migration. Every pitifulest whipster that walks within a skin has had his head filled with the notion that he is, shall be, or by all human and divine laws ought to be, “happy.” Thomas Carlyle

We wish to acknowledge the help of three referees and of John Pencavel on several earlier drafts, as well as the assistance of the modelers, whose work is referred to in the paper. They corrected our lack of understanding of their work and provided many other helpful comments. Excellent research and bibliographical assistance have been provided by Debbie Fretz, Radwan Shaban, and Janet Stotsky. Helpful comments have been made by Charles Ballard, Michael Boskin, Lans Bovenberg, Sylvester Damus, Harvey Galper, Glenn Harrison, Gordon Lenjosek, Jack Mutti, Serena Ng, T. N. Srinivasan, Charles Stuart, and Eric Toder. The authors also acknowledgefinancial support from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the National Science Foundation, International Business Machines, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council: Ottawa, Canada.