Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g., the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.

Presenting data on all full-length articles in the three top general economics journals for one year in each decade 1960s–2010s, I analyze changes in patterns of coauthorship, age structure and methodology, and their possible causes. The distribution of number of authors has shifted steadily rightward. In the last two decades, the fraction of older authors has almost quadrupled. Top journals are publishing many fewer papers that represent pure theory, regardless of subfield, somewhat less empirical work based on publicly available data sets, and many more empirical studies based on data collected by the author(s) or on laboratory or field experiments.

The nature and scope of the Federal Reserve's authority and the structure of its decision making are now “on the table” to an extent that has not been seen since 1935, and the Fed's vaunted independence is under some attack. This essay asks what the Federal Reserve should—and shouldn't—do, leaning heavily on the concept of economies of scope. In particular, I conclude that the central bank should monitor and regulate systemic risk because preserving financial stability is (a) closely aligned with the standard objectives of monetary policy and (b) likely to require lender of last resort powers. I also conclude that the Fed should supervise large financial institutions because that function is so closely to regulating systemic risk. However, several other functions now performed by the Fed could easily be done elsewhere.

I wish to express my appreciation to thefollowingfor their comments and suggestions either in their capacity as the referees of this journal or otherwise: Anthony Atkinson, Zvi Griliches, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Rudolph Blitz, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, James Meade, Jacob Mincer, Franco Modigliani, Naomi Perlman, John Rawls, Paul Schultz, Gerald Sazama, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Taubman, Lester Thurow, and Charles Wilson. None of them, however, bears any responsibility for my errors and my appraisal of different theories. I dedicate this paper to the memory of Harry G. Johnson, my teacher, who died at the early age of 53 on 9 May 1977, a few months after we had exchanged correspondence on this survey and had plans for further discussion, especially on the development of his ideas about cultural inheritance. Alas, that was the end.

Film is rapidly becoming in the twentieth century what the popular low-priced pamphlet was in the seventeenth century--an important and influential vehicle by which (as Schumpeter called them) bring their case before the public. This article evaluates the economic content of a sample of a large and rapidly growing stock of viewing literature. Each film surveyed here is distributed and maintained in good repair by a highly efficient network of distributors. With the rapid diffusion of easy-to-use playback equipment both at schools and private organizations, I expect film to continue to grow in importance as one instrument by which the public stays informed about social problems and examines a range of possible solutions. In fact, a number of colleges have already included media centers in their libraries, and the day is rapidly approaching when all but the most traditional professors will include assigned viewings on their course reading lists. (1) The films surveyed here are targeted at groups as diverse as elementary school children, church organizations, college students, community groups, and union locals. Many of these films were designed to acquaint the viewer with the facts about a certain issue while promoting a good image of the sponsoring organization. While these special pleaders light our screens with their points of view, it is still our responsibility as professional economists to monitor these developments before the madmen in authority, which Keynes wrote about so perceptively, become the slaves of some defunct filmmaker. With this purpose in mind I have prepared a bibliography of (mostly) 16 mm documentary film that identifies each film by title and then lists the current (American) distributor followed by the producer and the date the film was released. A second listing of the distributors and their addresses permits any interested reader to track down the film for private viewing or classroom teaching. When preparing the bibliography I was disturbed by the lack of any standard of generally accepted citation practice having to do with film. While it is too much to expect at this stage of technological development that scholars indicate a range of frame numbers analogous to a range of page numbers when footnoting film, it would be useful to identify the author-equivalent of a film, especially when it is a documentary and a particular point of view is being expressed. A large number of the films included in this sample announce the name of a Ph.D. consultant, and since this seems to be a prerequisite for films that are marketed among educators for classroom adoption, I have listed the names of consultants, narrators, script writers, and so on. It is not clear, however, what responsibilities are assumed by the outside consultant. Did the consultant write the script? Did the consultant read the script written by others? Did the consultant choose the visuals? To the best of my knowledge there is no established job description for consultants in the documentary film industry. (2) I have organized my discussion according to six general subject areas that seem to be of as much interest to filmmakers as they are to economists. In each one, I shall identify the special pleaders, their overall mission, the audience to whom the film is directed, and the quality of the economic reasoning employed. I The Serf-Interest Axiom As a general rule, Hollywood has portrayed the impact wealth maximization has on human behavior as dehumanizing and corrupting (19, 56, 58, 59, 64, 91, 103, 136, 173). The POW camp entrepreneur King Rat (91) is certainly not credited with improving economic life among the prisoners. Instead his commodity arbitrage operations destroy him and those around him. In Fountainhead (56), however, integrity-maximization turns out to be (unexpectedly?) wealth-maximizing as Ayn Rand's entrepreneur-architect hero eventually triumphs within a malevolent economic environment. …

Can fintech close the gender gap in access to financial services? Using novel survey data for 28 countries, this paper finds a large and ubiquitous ‘fintech gender gap’: while 29% of men use fintech products, only 21% of women do. This difference exceeds the gender gap in bank account ownership at traditional financial institutions. While country characteristics and individual-level controls explain about a third of the fintech gender gap, the residual gap declines by 60% when accounting for gender differences in the willingness to use new financial technology, the suitability of fintech products, and the willingness to use fintech entrants if they offer cheaper products. The paper concludes by discussing drivers of differences in attitudes and implications for policy to foster financial inclusion with new technology.