Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Simon Kuznets

GDP...16843_5.2_9209625-gdp

Having just come across the “Better Life Index,” I started thinking about Ed Koch, a former mayor of NYC who often asked everyone, “How am I doing?” Here are some thoughts about how to measure how well we are doing.

The GDP:

Frequently condemned as a measure of well-being, the GDP is the value of the goods and services produced in a country during one year. As a dollar amount, some scholars say it ignores too many variables to be a valid measure of economic health and wealth. One gentleman, though, from the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, says ”Hooray for the GDP.”

Here is a brief summary of his arguments from an excellent Timothy Taylor Conversable Economist blog post:

  1. A growing GDP makes it easier to improve our welfare.
  2. We should consider economic growth and income equality separately.
  3. If happiness is a societal goal, we should note that we get pleasure from many contemporary goods and services.
  4. Thinking of environmental damage, we should support GDP growth for the foreseeable future and debate its very long-term impact.
  5. If we had to select one statistic to measure how we are doing, then GDP is a valid choice.

The “Better Life Index:”

In a wonderful interactive exercise, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has presented a “Better Life Index.” At their website, you can weight their variables according to how you believe national well-being should be assessed and then see where the US and other countries rank. It is fun.

Below is the OECD illustration of countries’ ranks when all variables are equally weighted. These are the variables: housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety, work-life balance.

Our Bottom Line: What we measure tends to determine what our fiscal policies will target. Indeed, the yardstick we use to answer, “How are we doing,” influences what our politicians do.

Ranking National Well-Being

Sources and Resources: Here, you can manipulate the “Better Life Index,” see how national rankings change, and decide whether it could work as a well-being yardstick. On the other hand, here is the “Hooray for the GDP” essay with persuasive arguments that support the GDP and its summary at the Conversable Economist. Finally, for some GDP history that explains the decisions behind its components, here is an excellent video from Annenberg/CPB’s Economics USA series.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

For most economists, historians, social scientists, it is tough to avoid research bias

President Obama has been having dinner with historians.

Described by the NY Times as a “largely left tilting group,” the names I consistently discovered that attended the dinners were: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Douglas Brinkley, H. W. “Billam” Brands, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills.

Politico reports that during the May 2011 dinner, historian Robert Dallek asked the President how they could help him. The President replied, “What you could do for me is to help me find a way to discuss the issue of inequality in our society without being accused of class warfare.”

How to discuss inequality? I hope that people look at comments from Branko Milanovic, a former lead economist at the World Bank. Perhaps a dialogue on inequality should involve the key questions that Milanovic presents in The Haves and the Have-Nots.

  1. What is the cause of inequality? For example, does income inequality increase or decrease as the economy grows. (Called the Kuznets Hypothesis, one theory says inequality is like an inverted “U.” As an economy grows, it moves from equality–lots of poverty–to inequality when some prosper, and then as an advanced economy, to more equality because the state redistributes income.)
  2. What is the impact of inequality? For example, does inequality create positive or negative economic incentives? Does it lead to more foreign investment, education and growth? How is governance affected?
  3. What are the ethical implications of inequality? For example, are there good and bad ways to have ascended to affluence? Are the absolute incomes of the poor increasing? Is inequality because of work more acceptable than inequality because of inheritance?

 

How would you connect public policy and your answers to these questions?

And, finally: When the President told the group he was considering “A New Foundation” as the theme for his administration(s), Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of books on Lyndon Johnson, FDR, Abraham Lincoln, the Kennedys suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the best choice. “Why not?” the President asked. “It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

Other slogans? Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, Theodore Roosevelt’s Square Deal, FDR’s New Deal, Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Sources and Resources: My information about the President’s historian dinners was primarily from the NY Times and Politico. But, what I most recommend is the Branko Milanovic book, The Haves and Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. A combination of great vignettes and scholarly ideas, it is a good read.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Trees Reflect Urban Wealth

In one NPR report on trees and income inequality, a senior online NOVA editor showed his sky shots (below) of Piedmont CA and nearby West Oakland. Piedmont, which he described as a “wealthy enclave” was quite green while West Oakland “known to have been very poor and lower class,” was silvery.

The green appears to represent affluence because richer cities and households can afford trees. Improving air quality and property values, trees also control drainage, reduce noise, and generate biodiversity. Some studies have even indicated that trees reduce stress.

Does that mean we can use trees to measure urban affluence?

I did find one empirical study that relates urban “forests” and income. In cities, as income rises, at first the tree population dips because housing, factories and other structures are replacing natural habitation. However, once income reaches a threshold, (at $39,000 in this 2006 paper), we have a reversal whereby the trees start to return. Why? People want to live in a more pleasant and natural environment. There actually is a curve– an Environmental Kuznets Curve–EKC–that illustrates the initial disappearance and then subsequent proliferation of trees in cities.

Several final facts…

US cities are losing their trees. According to the USDA Forest service, our urban tree canopy is shrinking by about 4 million trees a year. Among the 20 cities studied, tree cover ranged from a high of 53.9% in Atlanta to 9.6% in Denver. However, the loss was greatest in New Orleans, Houston and Albuquerque.

And a quote from the USDA Forest Service…

“…urban trees are the hardest working trees in America.”

Sources and Resources: Thanks to this marketplace.org report for the idea that trees connect to affluence and for the photographs that follow. I did then find some academic confirmation here,  facts from the USDA Forest Service, and NYC’s million trees initiative. Also, you might enjoy this EconLife post on urban affluence and one-way streets.

Piedmont

An Affluent Community, Piedmont California Has Many Trees

 

 

 

 

West Oakland

Less Affluent, West Oakland Has few Trees

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

World War II industrial mobilization

The year was 1940. Seeing that war might be imminent, President Roosevelt approached the president of General Motors. Wartime conversion was the issue. To become an “arsenal of democracy,” how could we produce planes instead of Pontiacs?

With GM’s president its informal chair, the National Defense Advisory Committee was created. Serving with other business leaders on the committee, G.M.’s Bill Knudsen helped to facilitate the transition from civilian to defense production. With his friends talking to their friends, private industry was responsible for transforming supply chains and retooling assembly lines.

Auto factories made plane parts, auto bumper assembly lines produced armor plate, Kimberley-Clark in Wisconsin converted from Kleenex to machine-gun mounts. We had to build shipyards and make rifles and bombs. Kellogg’s replaced cereal production with soldiers’ K-rations (that also included a piece of Wrigley’s gum). A new synthetic rubber industry had to replace Japanese controlled natural rubber. The list for the new wartime infrastructure goes on and on and the results were impressive. By December 7, 1941, for example, the US had manufactured 20,000 planes and 4,000 tanks. By 1945 the auto industry alone had produced 100,000 tanks.

While a Barron’s editorial tells this production part of the story, there is more.

I have always been fascinated by the story of Simon Kuznets. A Russian immigrant who received the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics, Dr. Kuznets had been the head of a statistical office in the Ukraine before he arrived in the US in 1922. Within 5 years, he was 26, had a Ph.D from Columbia and a job at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

During the 1930s, led by Dr. Kuznets, a framework for national income accounting was created. That just means we figured out some numbers that we had never known before. Sometimes called a national balance sheet, the data display what is produced and the incomes that producers earn. By knowing the value of what was produced, statisticians could identify economic strengths and weaknesses, learn about government, business and household spending, and make projections.

And this takes us back to the war.

Simon Kuznets served as the associate director of the Bureau of Planning and Statistics at the War Production Board. Responsible for an “input/output” survey, he quantified the resources that would be available for munitions production. You can see how crucial his numbers were. Here we had a civilian manufacturing sector that had to change its output. To switch the factors of production–the land, labor and capital–to their warime tasks, Kuznets figured out our current capability and what we could do.

And then, with the private sector actively engaged and armed with data that would optimize their effort, they transformed a civilian economy that had been in a depression to a super productive war machine. I am sure it did not look as clear and easy and organized as this sounds but they did it.

And this returns us to national income accounting. Whether fighting a war or a recession, knowing our economic potential helps us fight.

Emphasizing private industry this (gated) Barron’s article briefly tells the war production story as does this government document with more on the role of government. For Simon Kuznets, I used facts from my book Econ 101 1/2 and a University of Pennsylvania commemorative article. And here, at the Nobel site, you can read about Dr. Kuznets.

Please note that this entry was slightly edited after it was posted.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Vacuum cleaner.

What if we think of a household as a production unit that does child care, gardening, cooking and cleaning? And, if the work in the home is “outsourced” when people hire a nanny, a housekeeper, a gardener or do take-out for dinner, then the GDP reflects the goods and services that the household makes.

But what if no one is hired and the members of the household do all the work?

Household production has been a dilemma for government statisticians since the 1930s when a group of economists led by Simon Kuznets wanted to quantify the nation’s economic contraction. They felt that if they knew the value of current output, they could figure out potential output, and then connect the two. The results of their research was national income accounting and the groundwork for calculating the GDP. But what to count? Finally, they said, include only legal goods and services that people bought and sold. Household work that had no price, because it had no price, would be excluded.

But, what if we did include non-market household production?

A recent Bureau of Economic (BEA) Analysis paper has some answers. For 1965, if we had included household production, the GDP would have been 39% higher. For 2010, GDP would have been 26% higher. Why the decline? One reason is that more women are in the labor force. Consequently, they do less unpaid work in the home. According to the BEA paper, we even might be able to correlate the recent recession and more household production in states with higher unemployment.

Where does this leave us?

Yes, quarterly GDP stats compare apples to apples by consistently recording government, consumer and business spending and exports minus imports. But there is so much more to ponder. As is true for every statistic, what we learn depends on what we ask.

To see more about the value and implications of household production between 1965 and 2010, the BEA article is here and here is a wonderful discussion of it from University of Massachusetts economist Nancy Folbre. Also, you might enjoy reading more about Simon Kuznets and his Nobel Prize.

This entry was edited after it was posted.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment