Knowledge that Transforms

Monetary Instability, the Predictability of Prices, and the Allocation of Investment: An Empirical Investigation Using U.K. Panel Data by Paul Beaudry, Mustafa Caglayan and Fabio Schiantarelli. Published in volume 91, issue 3, pages 648-662 of American Economic Review, June 2001

Growth economists have spent more than forty years slowing chipping away at the Solow residual, largely by attributing increasingly larger chunks of it to investment in human capital. A few years ago we were reasonably certain that this was the way to go. But an increasing number of studies seem to be telling us that the effect of schooling variables on productivity vanishes when we turn to what seem to be the appropriate econometric techniques for the purpose of estimating growth equations. Should we take these results at face value? Before we do so and abandon the only workable models we have, it seems sensible to search for ways to reconcile recent empirical findings with some kind of plausible theory. In this paper we argue that we can make a fair amount of progress in this direction by combining two ingredients: better data on human capital, and a further extension of the human capital-augmented neoclassical model that allows for cross-country productivity differentials and for technological diffusion.

Between 1973 and 1978, the Indonesian government engaged in one of the largest school construction programs on record. Combining differences across regions in the number of schools constructed with differences across cohorts induced by the timing of the program suggests that each primary school constructed per 1,000 children led to an average increase of 0.12 to 0.19 years of education, as well as a 1.5 to 2.7 percent increase in wages. This implies estimates of economic returns to education ranging from 6.8 to 10.6 percent. (JEL I2, J31, O15, O22)

The fiscal theory of price determination suggests that if primary surpluses evolve independently of government debt, the equilibrium price level “jumps” to assure fiscal solvency. In this non-Ricardian regime, fiscal policy—not monetary policy—provides the nominal anchor. Alternatively, in a Ricardian regime, primary surpluses are expected to respond to debt in a way that assures fiscal solvency, and the price level is determined in conventional ways. This paper argues that Ricardian regimes are as theoretically plausible as non-Ricardian regimes, and provide a more plausible interpretation of certain aspects of the postwar U.S. data than do non-Ricardian regimes. (JEL E60, E63)

A Test of Game-Theoretic and Behavioral Models of Play in Exchange and Insurance Environments by Cary A. Deck. Published in volume 91, issue 5, pages 1546-1555 of American Economic Review, December 2001

International Trade and Business Cycles: Is Vertical Specialization the Missing Link? by M. Ayhan Kose and Kei-Mu Yi. Published in volume 91, issue 2, pages 371-375 of American Economic Review, May 2001

This paper focuses on pure redistribution among two regional governments. We abstract from mobility of tax bases and externalities in public goods not because they are unimportant, but because they are already well understood. Under conditions of full information, unlimited commitment capacity, and no spillover effects across regions, optimal redistribution is lump sum But these ideal circumstances are seldom met. One of the central results of the paper is that, to cope with asymmetric information, optimal regional redistribution must distort the tax rate chosen by the poor region away from the second best.

Does Buffer-Stock Saving Explain the Smoothness and Excess Sensitivity of Consumption? by Sydney C. Ludvigson and Alexander Michaelides. Published in volume 91, issue 3, pages 631-647 of American Economic Review, June 2001

This study assesses five common explanations for the large decline in U.S. total factor productivity (TFP) during the Great Depression: changes in capacity utilization, factor input quality, and production composition; labor hoarding; and increasing returns to scale. The study finds that these factors explain less than onethird of the 18 percent TFP decline between 1929 and 1933. The rest of the decline remains unexplained. The study offers a potential explanation: declines in organization capital, the knowledge firms use to organize production, caused by breakdowns in relationships between firms and their suppliers, for example. As some firms failed during the Depression, efficiency in surviving firms decreased; managers had to shift time away from production in order to establish new relationships, and firms had to shift to unfamiliar technologies that initially were operated inefficiently. This article originally appeared in the American Economic Review. © 2001 by the American Economic Association. The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Federal

Economics instruction in U.S. high schools is basically delivered in two ways. About half of high-school students take a required or elective course in economics, according to transcript data. The great majority of these students (about 95 percent) enroll in a regular course that focuses on basic economic concepts with applications. The remaining small percentage of students take a college-oriented course that is often called “honors” or Advanced Placement (AP) economics. Economics instruction for the other half of high-school students, if it is provided at all, is typically delivered in the context of other courses in the high-school curriculum in what is sometimes called the “infusion” or “integrative” approach. These courses would most likely be required courses taught in the social studies, such as U.S. history or American government, or in elective courses taught in business education. This study investigates what high-school students know about basic economics given the different types of economics instruction. The primary focus is on the achievement of students who complete a basic course in high school economics. These results are important because they supply insights into what high school students who have received direct instruction in economics know about the subject. For comparison purposes, the achievement of students who have not taken a formal course in economics will be investigated to identify what they know about economics. The comparison of those students with and without instruction in a separate course in economics gives the best estimate of the importance of direct instruction in economics to the economic understanding of most high-school graduates. In addition, similar comparisons between those students with and without direct instruction in economics will be made for two groups of higher-ability students: those who enroll in honors or AP courses in economics and those who enroll in such courses for other social-studies subjects.