Using Italian data combining information on advancements of AI at the occupational level with measures of the required proximity in the job-place and administrative employer-employee data on job flows, a new GLO Discussion Paperfinds thatAI and proximity exhibit an inverse U-shape relationship at the sectoral level, with high advancements in AI that are negatively associated with proximity.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: Social distancing has become worldwide the key public policy to be implemented during the COVID-19 epidemic and reducing the degree of proximity among workers turned out to be an important dimension. An emerging literature looks at the role of automation in supporting the work of humans but the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to influence the need for physical proximity on the workplace has been left largely unexplored. By using a unique and innovative dataset that combines data on advancements of AI at the occupational level with information on the required proximity in the job-place and administrative employer-employee data on job flows, our results show that AI and proximity stand in an inverse U-shape relationship at the sectoral level, with high advancements in AI that are negatively associated with proximity. We detect this pattern among sectors that were closed due to the lockdown measures as well as among sectors that remained open. We argue that, apart from the expected gains in productivity and competitiveness, preserving jobs and economic activities in a situation of high contagion may be the additional benefits of a policy favouring digitization.
A new GLO Discussion Paperfinds that the pandemic makes people unhappy in general, but more disadvantaged people including those poor, rural, female and older are more likely to suffer.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: Does the COVID-19 pandemic cause people unhappy? In this study, we use a recent survey from China, Japan, South Korea, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States to explore this question. We find a relatively large effect: a one per-mille point increase in the incidence of the COVID-19 cases increases the probability of unhappiness by 0.002. Possibly channels through which the COVID-19 pandemic causes unhappiness are negative effects on economic outcomes and social interactions of people. We also find that more disadvantaged people including poor, rural, female and older people are more likely to be affected by the pandemic.
A new article published in the Journal of Population Economicsstudies the occupational selection among generations of immigrants in the United States and shows how their choices are linked to the occupational wage distribution in their country of origin.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: This paper studies the occupational selection among generations of immigrants in the United States and links their choices to the occupational wage distribution in their country of origin. The empirical results suggest that individuals are more likely to take up an occupation in the US that was more lucrative in the origin country, conditional on individual demographics, parental human capital, and ethnic networks. However, the importance of the origin wage declines with the length of time that immigrants spend in the US and over generations. Information friction may be an explanation.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds that immigration has contributed to reducing inequality within the 25 EU countries over the 2003-2017 period.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: This chapter provides the historical context for the past half-century in Europe focusing specifically on the link between migration and economic development and inequality. The literature review suggests that there are several channels through which migration affects economic inequality between countries in one or the other direction. The net effects are an open empirical question and are likely to depend on the economic, demographic and institutional and policy contexts; sources, types and selectivity of migration, as well as responses of the receiving societies as well as migrants themselves. We undertake an empirical analysis and find that immigration has contributed to reducing inequality within the 25 EU countries over the 2003-2017 period. As the EU attracted relatively highly qualified immigrants throughout this period, our results are consistent with the ameliorating effect of skilled migration on within-country inequality, as predicted by theory.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds for the USA that deportations increase overall marriage rates and increase the likelihood of endogamous marriages.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: We investigate the impact of removals under the Secure Communities (SC) program on the marriage patterns of immigrant women living in the U.S. where endogamous marriage is the dominant form of partnership. We focus on enforcement by MSA and country of origin and find evidence that deportations increase overall marriage rates, increase the likelihood of endogamous marriage, decrease rates of exogamous marriage to immigrants from other countries and have indeterminate effects on marriage to natives. When examining channels for behavioral responses, we find evidence pointing towards the desire to mitigate the risk of deportation through the increased importance of networks.
REPORT & VIDEO OF A PAPER PRESENTATION IN THE GLO VIRTUAL SEMINAR SERIES.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds that terrorism had less of an influence on voters than is usually thought.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: This paper examines the impact of terrorism on voting behavior in the United States. We rely on an exhaustive list of terror attacks over the period 1970-2016 and exploit the inherent randomness of the success or failure of terror attacks to identify the political impacts of terrorism. We first confirm that the success of terror attacks is plausibly random by showing that it is orthogonal to potential confounders. We then show that on average successful attacks have no effect on presidential and non-presidential elections. As a benchmark, we also rely on a more naïve identification strategy using all the counties not targeted by terrorists as a comparison group. We show that using this naïve identification strategy leads to strikingly different results overestimating the effect of terror attacks on voting behavior. Overall, our results indicate that terrorism has less of an influence on voters than is usually thought.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds ethnicity not to be the crucial factor behind both the civil and ethnic conflict in Syria in 2011.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: While most civil wars seem to have an economic basis, they are generally pushed by political, ethnic, and religious differences. This paper attempts to identify the drivers of the Syrian civil war of 2011 by investigating the role of ethnic divisions in starting a conflict. We integrate a variety of variables such as excluded population, power-sharing, anocracy, ethnic groups in addition to a number of economic factors. The main results indicate that ethnicity does not seem to be a very important factor in starting both the civil and ethnic conflict in Syria, but it shows that the lack of power-sharing to be the most significant factor. Therefore, where power in Syria was not inclusive and shared among different demographic segments, such as religious or urban groups, it created upheavals between different groups, as some groups dis-identify with the state, paving the way to causing the conflict. Economic factors also provide an explanation of the onset of conflicts in Syria. The paper offers detailed policy suggestions that could serve as a recovery mechanism for the Syrian crisis and a preventive measurement for its re-occurrence.
The Journal of Population Economicsis happy to announce a webinar for January 28, 16:00-18:00 CET (Maastricht/Dutch time) to present highlights from the newly published issue 34(2)/2021. The event is supported by GLO and hosted by UNU-MERIT via Zoom. Alessio J. Brown (Co-Director of POP at UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and GLO) will welcome participants. Managing Editor Michaella Vanore, (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and GLO) will guide through the event. Editor Terra McKinnish (University of Colorado Boulder and GLO) and Editor-in-Chief Klaus F. Zimmermann (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and GLO) will chair the sessions.
The webinar highlights 6 of the 10 articles published in issue 34(2)/2021, three on GENDER (covering Bangladesh, China and developing countries in general) and three on COVID-19 (covering the USA and Australia). All articles are published ONLINE FIRST and are freely accessible already now through the links below the titles; those with a provided READLINK are free to read online, the others are free to download.
A new GLO Discussion Paper examines the effect of USA military service in Vietnamon incarceration outcomes, with effects among white volunteers and veterans in certain birth cohorts.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: Employing nonparametric bounds, we examine the effect of military service on incarceration outcomes using the Vietnam draft lotteries as a possibly invalid instrumental variable for military service. The draft is allowed to have a direct effect on the outcomes independently of military service, disposing of the exclusion restriction. We find: (i) suggestive but not strong statistical evidence that the direct effect of the draft increases the incarceration rate for violent offenses for a particular cohort of draft avoiders, and (ii) military service increases the incarceration rate for violent and nonviolent crimes of white volunteers and veterans in certain birth cohorts.
A new GLO Discussion Paperfinds that lockdowns had a larger impact on the mobility of women and younger cohorts.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: Overall mobility declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of government lockdowns and voluntary social distancing. Yet, aggregate data mask important heterogeneous effects across segments of the population. Using unique mobility indicators based on anonymized and aggregate data provided by Vodafone for Italy, Portugal, and Spain, we find that lockdowns had a larger impact on the mobility of women and younger cohorts. Younger people also experienced a sharper drop in mobility in response to rising COVID-19 infections. Our findings, which are consistent across estimation methods and robust to a variety of tests, warn about a possible widening of gender and inter-generational inequality.
A new GLO Discussion Paper provides an assessment of the targeted approach to COVID-19 containment.Under a targeted policy, the optimal containment reaches a larger portion of the population than under a blanket policy. Compared to a blanket policy, a targeted approach results in a smaller death count.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: The large economic costs of full-blown lockdowns in response to COVID-19 outbreaks, coupled with heterogeneous mortality rates across age groups, led to question non-discriminatory containment measures. In this paper we provide an assessment of the targeted approach to containment. We propose a SIR-macro model that allows for heterogeneous agents in terms of mortality rates and contact rates, and in which the government optimally bans people from working. We find that under a targeted policy, the optimal containment reaches a larger portion of the population than under a blanket policy and is held in place for longer. Compared to a blanket policy, a targeted approach results in a smaller death count. Yet, it is not a panacea: the recession is larger under such approach as the containment policy applies to a larger fraction of people, remains in place for longer, and herd immunity is achieved later. Moreover, we find that increased interactions between low- and high-risk individuals effectively reduce the benefits of a targeted approach to containment.
A new article published in the Journal of Population Economicssuggests that Donald Trump would likely have won re-election if COVID-19 cases in the United States had been 5 percent lower.
COVID-19 brought the change Photo by Charles Deluvio on Unsplash
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Abel Brodeur
The COVID-19 Pandemic and the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election by Baccini, Leonardo & Brodeur, Abel & Weymouth, Stephen Pre-publication revisedGLODP710[pre.].
Author Abstract: What is the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 US presidential election? Guided by a pre-analysis plan, we estimate the effect of COVID-19 cases and deaths on the change in county-level voting for Donald Trump between 2016 and 2020. To account for potential confounders, we include a large number of COVID-19-related controls as well as demographic and socioeconomic variables. Moreover, we instrument the numbers of cases and deaths with the share of workers employed in meat-processing factories to sharpen our identification strategy. We find that COVID-19 cases negatively affected Trump’s vote share. The estimated effect appears strongest in urban counties, in states without stay-at-home orders, in swing states, and in states that Trump won in 2016. A simple counterfactual analysis suggests that Trump would likely have won re-election if COVID-19 cases had been 5 percent lower. We also find some evidence that COVID-19 incidence had a positive effect on voters’ mobilization, helping Biden win the presidency.
A new paper published online in the Journal of Population Economics discusses why it is so vital to understand what drives people to engage in or refrain from health-related behaviors during a pandemic and reveal the role of socioeconomic differences in explaining behavior in the USA.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Socio-demographic factors associated with self-protecting behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic
by Papageorge, Nicholas W.; Zahn, Matthew V.; Belot, Michèle; van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline; Choi, Syngjoo; Jamison, Julian C. & Tripodi, Egon
Published ONLINE FIRST 2021: Journal of Population Economics, scheduled for Issue 2/2021. FREE READLINK: https://rdcu.be/cdCjh OPEN ACCESS.
Author Abstract: Given the role of human behavior in the spread of disease, it is vital to understand what drives people to engage in or refrain from health-related behaviors during a pandemic. This paper examines factors associated with the adoption of self-protective health behaviors, such as social distancing and mask wearing, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in the USA. These behaviors not only reduce an individual’s own risk of infection but also limit the spread of disease to others. Despite these dual benefits, universal adoption of these behaviors is not assured. We focus on the role of socioeconomic differences in explaining behavior, relying on data collected in April 2020 during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The data include information on income, gender and race along with unique variables relevant to the current pandemic, such as work arrangements and housing quality. We find that higher income is associated with larger changes in self-protective behaviors. These gradients are partially explained by the fact that people with less income are more likely to report circumstances that make adopting self-protective behaviors more difficult, such as an inability to tele-work. Both in the USA and elsewhere, policies that assume universal compliance with self-protective measures—or that otherwise do not account for socioeconomic differences in the costs of doing so—are unlikely to be effective or sustainable.
A new paper published online in the Journal of Population Economicsindicates that the negative COVID-19 labour market effects are felt the most by people in the lowest percentiles of the financial wellbeing distributionsuggesting significant increases in financial wellbeing disadvantage and inequality.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Implications of COVID-19 labour market shocks for inequality in financial wellbeing
by Botha, Ferdi; de New, John P.; de New, Sonja C.; Ribar, David C. & Salamanca, Nicolás
Published ONLINE FIRST 2021: Journal of Population Economics, scheduled for Issue2/2021. FREE READLINK: https://rdcu.be/cdBX6 FREE ACCESS to PDF. Previous version GLO DP 661.
Author Abstract: Australia’s economy abruptly entered into a recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. Related labour market shocks on Australian residents have been substantial due to business closures and social distancing restrictions. Government measures are in place to reduce flow-on effects to people’s financial situations, but the extent to which Australian residents suffering these shocks experience lower levels of financial wellbeing, including associated implications for inequality, is unknown. Using novel data we collected from 2078 Australian residents during April to July 2020, we show that experiencing a labour market shock during the pandemic is associated with a 29% lower level of perceived financial wellbeing, on average. Unconditional quantile regressions indicate that lower levels of financial wellbeing are present across the entire distribution, except at the very top. Distribution analyses indicate that the labour market shocks are also associated with higher levels of inequality in financial wellbeing. Financial counselling and support targeted at people who experience labour market shocks could help them to manage financial commitments and regain financial control during periods of economic uncertainty.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds that the decrease in the male to female sex ratio in World War II contributed to a lower decline in fertility and child mortality rates in postwar Japan.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: This study explores the effects of imbalances in the sex ratio, and their impact on intra-household bargaining, on both the quantity and the quality of children. We first present the theoretical model of intra-household bargaining in the presence of conflicting family goals within a couple, and show that male scarcity (a decrease in the male to female sex ratio) induces an increase in the number of children, but a decrease in the quality of children. Second, using the impact of World War II on the sex ratio, as a quasi-natural experiment, we establish empirically that the decrease in the male to female sex ratio in World War II contributed to a lower decline in fertility and child mortality rates in postwar Japan. In particular, the fertility rate would have fallen by an additional 12% and the child mortality rate by an additional 13% between 1948 and 1970, in the absence of the decrease in the sex ratio.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds for Italy that immigrants with stronger feelings of belonging to the societies of both the host and home country have higher employment rates, while those who exclusively identify with the host country culture do not have a net occupational advantage.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: This paper explores the relationship between social identity and labor market outcomes of immigrants. Using survey data from Italy, we provide robust evidence that immigrants with stronger feelings of belonging to the societies of both the host and home country have higher employment rates, while those who exclusively identify with the host country culture do not have a net occupational advantage. Analysis of the potential mechanisms suggests that, although simultaneous identification with host and home country groups can be costly, the positive effect of multiple social identities is especially triggered by the enlarged information transmission and in-group favoritism that identification with, and membership of, extended communities ensure.
A new paper published online in the Journal of Population Economics finds that participating in social activities has significantly positive impacts on cognitive function among the elderly in China.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Does social participation improve cognitive abilities of the elderly?
by Cai, Shu
Published ONLINE FIRST 2021: Journal of Population Economics, scheduled for 2021. FREE READLINK: https://rdcu.be/cdjPu
Author Abstract: This paper examines the effect of social participation on cognitive performance using data from a longitudinal survey of the elderly in China. It addresses the problem of endogenous participation by exploiting the variation in changes in social participation that are driven by changes in community service for social activities. The results show that participating in social activities has significantly positive impacts on cognitive function among the elderly. The point estimates indicate that engaging in social activity raises cognitive scores by 29% of a standard deviation.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds for China that research universities can have negative effects on local economic development.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: This paper studies whether research universities can boost regional economic development through an exogenous shock of a forced relocation of a research university in China. We analyze the development in the treated regions compared with a set of control regions that are created using the synthetic control method and find that research universities can have negative effects on local economic development. We then perform a series of robustness checks. Our main results carry through. By employing a more exogenous shock and more reliable identification strategies, our study provides evidence that research universities do not necessarily promote regional economic development.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds that policies supporting development in low-income countries are associated with less emigration to all destinations, including the rich economies.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: The ‘mobility transition’ hypothesis – with emigration first increasing and then decreasing as a country develops – (Zelinsky, 1971) is often interpreted as a stylised fact, which bears the implication that immigration into rich countries will grow as low-income countries develop. This paper tests the relationships between development and emigration from 130 developing countries during 25 years. Results, robust to different semiparametric and parametric specifications, show that emigration from low to middle-income countries declines as income increases, education improves or population growth slows down. The stage of development at home also affects the main destinations of emigration. Immigration into rich economies increases from countries at intermediate levels of development. Hence, policies supporting development in low-income countries are associated with less emigration to all destinations, including that to rich economies.
Featured image: Photo-by-joshua-hoehne-on-unsplash
With immediate effect, Grégory Ponthière (UCLouvain) joins the group of Editors of the Journal of Population Economics. He will work with Editors Shuaizhang Feng (Jinan University), Oded Galor (Brown University), Terra McKinnish (University of Colorado Boulder), Editor-in-Chief Klaus F. Zimmermann (UNU-MERIT) and with Managing Editors Michaella Vanore (UNU-MERIT) and Madeline Zavodny (University of North Florida).
Interview with Grégory Ponthière
GLO: What brought you to population economics?
Grégory Ponthière: As a Ph.D. student in Economics in Cambridge in the early 2000s, I became interested in the measurement of human welfare across long periods of time. From that perspective, variations in survival conditions play a fundamental role, since the finiteness of life is a major cause of scarcity and deprivation for humans. This definitely oriented my research at the intersection of economic theory and demography.
GLO: Why can micro theory help us to understand demographic processes?
Grégory Ponthière: Demographic outcomes (fertility, mortality, migration) are influenced by economic factors, in particular individual endowments in terms of physical or human capital, and also by prices faced by individuals (e.g. the wage rate, housing prices). Thus demographic processes cannot be understood without considering the economic conditions under which they take place. This makes the microeconomic analysis of demographic trends fundamental: focusing on microeconomic foundations allows us to identify conditions under which existing population trends can be rationalized or explained. But I would go even further, and defend the view that most economic processes – in particular accumulation mechanisms and dynamics – cannot be understood without considering demography. Economic and demographic outcomes are joint products, and this makes population economics a central field of economic analysis.
GLO: Explain us your field of specialization!
Grégory Ponthière: My research lies at the intersection of economic theory and demography. It focuses, from a theoretical perspective, on multidirectional relations between economic variables and demographic outcomes. I published several papers on the economic rationalization of mortality variations (within a population at a given period and across long periods of time), and also on the microeconomic study of the timing of births (in particular the advancement of births in the early 20th century, followed by a postponement of births starting in the 1970s). Besides those positive studies, my research also examined the design of optimal public policies when demographic outcomes are endogenously determined within the economy, and depend on material living conditions faced by individuals. Those normative studies involved the design of prevention policies, pensions, long term care social insurance, family policies (in particular family allowances) and fiscal policies (the taxation of savings and bequests).
GLO: What excites you most in your current research?
Grégory Ponthière: My current research focuses on the construction of a fair Welfare State, and on the normative foundations behind public policies. Since the pioneer works of Bentham and Mill, there is a long tradition, in Economics, which adopts utilitarianism as an ethical benchmark (the principle of “the largest happiness for the largest number”). My current research aims at identifying the unattractive implications of utilitarianism in the context where the population is heterogeneous on important dimensions (e.g. the genetic background determining longevity outcomes or the natural fecundity of individuals), and proposes to rethink the design of the Welfare State while adopting alternative normative foundations, which lay a stronger emphasis on equalizing welfare across individuals (either in ex ante terms or in ex post terms). Taking unequal demographic outcomes into account – beyond the mere “representative agent” – does not leave the design of the Welfare State unchanged.
GLO: Why have you accepted to take the Editor position?
Grégory Ponthière: I have been doing research in population economics since the beginning of my Ph.D. thesis, almost 20 years ago. Thus I have a long-lasting interest in that field of economic research. During that period, my research has greatly benefited from the (indirect) supervision of editors of journals, and also from the work of a large number of anonymous reviewers. It is time for me to contribute to the public good, by participating more actively to the life of scientific journals, not only as an author or as a reviewer, but also as an editor. Joining the Editorial team of the Journal of Population Economics is a unique opportunity to contribute actively to the flourishing of that exciting area of research.
GLO: Where do you see promising fields for population theory the Journal could explore?
Grégory Ponthière: At the micro level, I can see two promising areas of research, which are quite complementary. The first one concerns the modelling of the human life cycle, which faces serious limitations when considering basic decisions (e.g. the long term care insurance puzzle). In particular, the inclusion, within the lifecycle model, of the risk about the duration of life is challenging. A second – related – field concerns the modelling of the interests of economic agents at the two extremities of life: childhood and old-age dependency. Public policies should take the interests of the very young and of the very old into account, but the problem is that those individuals may not have well-defined preferences in the same way as adults can have. The microeconomic analysis of the family thus still faces major challenges, and those challenges are also relevant for the macroeconomic study of demographic trends. Finally, another fundamental challenge for population economics concerns the design of the Welfare State when demographic variables react to public policies, i.e. abstracting from the usual “ceteris paribus” assumption. This last point is most relevant in the context of the corona crisis.
GLO: Will the coronavirus change the world of academic publishing?
Grégory Ponthière: It is too early to know what will be the long-run consequences of coronavirus on the society, and on the world of science in particular. But one thing is certain: the corona crisis does not only affect health and mortality outcomes around the world, but it also deteriorates teaching and learning conditions in all universities. As such, this deteriorates the foundations of science in the future.
*************************** With Editor and GLO FellowGrégory Ponthière spoke Klaus F. Zimmermann, GLO President & Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Population Economics.
Grégory Ponthière
GLO FellowGregory Ponthiereis a Professor of Economics and Philosophy at the Hoover Chair in Economic and Social Ethics, UCLouvain, and an Editor of the Journal of Population Economics. Before joining UCLouvain, he held permanent positions at the Ecole Normale Superieure and at the University Paris XII, and was an Associate Researcher at the Paris School of Economics. His research focuses on relations between economic and demographic outcomes, from a positive perspective (rationalization of stylized facts) and a normative perspective (design of a fair Welfare State). His publications include three books and articles in journals such as the Journal of Economic Theory, the International Economic Review, Social Choice and Welfare and the Journal of Public Economics. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Institut Universitaire de France.
A new GLO Discussion Paper documents unambiguous evidence of a negative spillover of the welfare reforms of UK Welfare Reform Act 2012 at the heart of the government’s austerity program on social welfare, which reinforced the direct inequality-worsening effect of this program.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: The UK Welfare Reform Act 2012 imposed a series of welfare cuts, which disproportionately impacted ex-ante poorer areas. In this paper, we consider the impact of these austerity measures on two different but complementary elements of crime – the crime rate and the less-studied concentration of crime – over the period 2011-2015 in England and Wales, and document four new facts. First, areas more exposed to the welfare reforms experience increased levels of crime, an effect driven by a rise in violent crime. Second, both violent and property crime become more concentrated within an area due to the welfare reforms. Third, it is ex-ante more deprived neighborhoods that bear the brunt of the crime increases over this period. Fourth, we find no evidence that the welfare reforms increased recidivism, suggesting that the changes in crime we find are likely driven by new criminals. Combining these results, we document unambiguous evidence of a negative spillover of the welfare reforms at the heart of the UK government’s austerity program on social welfare, which reinforced the direct inequality-worsening effect of this program. More deprived districts are more exposed to the welfare reforms, and it is these districts that then experience the further negative consequences of the reforms via increased crime. Our findings underscore the importance of considering both multiple dimensions of crime as well as considering different levels of spatial aggregation of crime data. Given that it is violent crime that responds to the (economicallybased) welfare cuts, our work also highlights the need to develop better economic models of non-rational crime.
Featured image: Photo-by-Jose-Antonio-Gallego-Vázquez-on-Unsplash
TheGLO Virtual Seminar is a monthly internal GLO research event chaired by GLO Director Matloob Piracha and hosted by the GLO partner institution University of Kent. The results are available on the GLO website and the GLO News section, where also the video of the presentation is posted. All GLO related videos are also available in the GLO YouTube channel. (To subscribe go there.)
The last seminar was given on January 7, 2021, London/UKat 1-2 pm, by Cynthia Bansak, St. Lawrence University and GLO on Endogamous Marriage among Immigrant Groups: The Impact of Deportations under Secure Communities. Below find a report and the video of the seminar.
Report
Endogamous Marriage among Immigrant Groups: The Impact of Deportations under Secure Communities
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds that the recent increase in the supply of child-care services by immigrants has positively affected native fertility in Italy.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: The availability of child-care services has often been advocated as one of the instruments to counter the fertility decline observed in many high-income countries. In the recent past large inflows of low-skilled migrants have substantially increased the supply of child-care services. In this paper we examine if the flow of immigrants as actually affected fertility exploiting the natural experiment occurred in Italy in 2007, when a large inflow of migrants – many of them specialized in the supply of child care – arrived unexpectedly. With a difference-in-differences method, we show that newly arrived immigrant female workers have increased the number of native births by roughly 2 per cent. We validate our result by the implementation of an instrumental variable approach and several robustness tests, all concluding that the increase in the supply of child-care services by immigrants has positively affected native fertility choice.
A new GLO Discussion Paper discusses evidence and explanations why self-employment is positively associated with job satisfaction.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: Self-employment contributes to employment growth and innovativeness and many individuals want to become self-employed due to the autonomy and exibility it brings. Using “subjective well-being” as a broad summary measure that evaluates an individual’s experience of being self-employed, the chapter discusses evidence and explanations why self-employment is positively associated with job satisfaction, even though the self-employed often earn less than their employed peers, work longer hours and experience more stress and higher job demands. Despite being more satisfied with their jobs, the self-employed do not necessarily enjoy higher overall life satisfaction, which is due to heterogeneity of types of self-employment, as well as motivational factors, work characteristics and institutional setups across countries.
A new paper published online in the Journal of Population Economics finds that Northern Italy around 1650–1799 was a more “Malthusian” society than England at that time.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Malthus in preindustrial Northern Italy?
by Maja Pedersen, Claudia Riani & Paul Sharp
Published ONLINE 2020: Journal of Population Economics, scheduled for 2021. Free Readlink: https://rdcu.be/cdgq1
Author Abstract: The Malthusian model, which implies a long-run interaction between demography and living standards, forms a cornerstone of our understanding of comparative economic development, as postulated by unified growth theory. Its empirical validity has been supported by a number of studies, most of which examine England. In Northern Italy, however, there might have been a reversed “preventive check.” We employ a cointegrated VAR model on Italian data from ca. 1650–1799 and find some evidence for this, but also for diminishing returns and thus a more “Malthusian” society than in, for example, England at that time.
A new GLO Discussion Paper debates the famous Easterlin Paradox that states that at a point in time happiness varies directly with income, both among and within nations, but over time the long-term growth rates of happiness and income are not significantly related.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: The Easterlin Paradox states that at a point in time happiness varies directly with income, both among and within nations, but over time the long-term growth rates of happiness and income are not significantly related. The principal reason for the contradiction is social comparison. At a point in time those with higher income are happier because they are comparing their income to that of others who are less fortunate, and conversely for those with lower income. Over time, however, as incomes rise throughout the population, the incomes of one’s comparison group rise along with one’s own income and vitiates the otherwise positive effect of own-income growth on happiness. Critics of the Paradox mistakenly present the positive relation of happiness to income in cross-section data or in short-term time fluctuations as contradicting the nil relation of long-term trends.
Athens, Greece; January 6-8, 2021. The 34th EBES conference takes place virtually. GLO & EBES President Klaus F. Zimmermann has opened the conference on January 6 together with Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin, Vice President, EBES & Istanbul Medeniyet University, Turkey, and Michael Chletsos, University of Piraeus, Greece. Conference program.
A new GLO Discussion Paper documents a harming effect of the Fox News Channel in the United States on physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: We document a causal effect of conservative Fox News Channel in the United States on physical distancing during COVID-19 pandemic. We measure county-level mobility covering all U.S. states and District of Columbia produced by GPS pings to 15-17 million smartphones and zip-code-level mobility using Facebook location data. Then, using the historical position of Fox News Channel in the cable lineup as the source of exogenous variation, we show that increased exposure to Fox News led to a smaller reduction in distance traveled and smaller increase in the probability to stay home after the national emergency declaration in the United States. Our results show that slanted media can have a harmful effect on containment efforts during a pandemic by affecting people’s behaviour.
A new GLO Discussion Paper finds that the successful lockdown in Vietnam kept mortality amazingly low, but had negative effects on unemployment, the temporary layoff rate, and the quality of employment. It also reduced workers’ numbers of working hours and their monthly incomes and wages.
The Global Labor Organization (GLO) is an independent, non-partisan and non-governmental organization that functions as an international network and virtual platform to stimulate global research, debate and collaboration.
Author Abstract: Vietnam is widely praised for its successful fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. The country has had an extremely low mortality rate of 35 deaths to date (out of a population of approximately 100 million) and currently has no community transmission. We offer the first study that examines the effects of the COVID-19-induced lockdown on various employment outcomes for Vietnam. We employ difference-in-differences econometric models to estimate the causal effects of the lockdown, using rich individual-level data from the quarterly Labor Force Surveys. We find that the lockdown increases the unemployment rate, the temporary layoff rate, and decreases the quality of employment. It also reduces workers’ numbers of working hours and their monthly incomes and wages. Our estimation results remain robust to different model specifications and estimation samples. Further heterogeneity analysis suggests that the effects vary across education levels and occupation sectors but are similar across regions or provinces with different lockdown durations.
Azita Berar is Director Policy of the Global Labor Organization (GLO), and Senior Fellow, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.
GLO Policy Brief No. 4 – Theme 3. Future of Work – Covid-19
From “Future of Work” to “Building Better”: 2021, the year of a Global Policy Rethink ?
by Azita Berar
A year ago, 2019 ended with a pick in analyses, forecasts and policy debates on what the “Future of Work” would or should look like. Hopes and fears were expressed about the implications of the latest technological innovations , labelled “Industry 4.0”, for labour markets and more fundamentally for society and humanity. It is bewildering to see how, in less than 10 months, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as a global threat, the center of focus of both analysis and policy has radically shifted to entrenched inequalities and vulnerabilities and the deep running fault lines in our political and economic systems.
As 2020 closed down, we submit that the COVID-19 crisis has done more in generating a new momentum for paradigm shift and for indicating the avenues for a social reconstruct than all the preceding years of analysis, forecasts and policy negotiations around the Future of Work. ____________________
What we should know
2019 ended with a flurry of publications, national and international policy discussion on the “Future of Work” engaging multiple stakeholders. These discussions had started mid-decade, triggered by the rapid acceleration in a new and – some argued, radically different- generation of technological innovations. [1] Hopes were raised by limitless opportunities that these frontier innovations could bring to all sectors of economy, work and life. Fears concerned “externalities”, in particular regarding the potential job destruction and displacement effects of these technologies as well as the slow pace with which, new norms of governance, including cross-border rules, were developed. The new social construct was lagging far behind the pace of technological innovations and their adoption in advanced and emerging economies.
A year later, as 2020 has closed, it is astounding to see the tremendous shift in perspective and policy debate. The COVID-19 pandemic humbled the humanity by exposing its fragility on a planetary scale. It left no aspect of life and no sector of the economy unaffected. The pandemic is still raging, forcing continuous reevaluation of human losses and multi-faceted political, social, economic and emotional fallouts. In this Brief, we are not focusing on the sobering and evolving socio-economic impact [2], but on what is certain: the powerful revelatory impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has already had in 2020.
The pandemic shed light- like no other crisis before- on the deep running inequalities and vulnerabilities within societies and across countries and continents. By accelerating pre-existing trends and exposing the fault lines on a scale and in such a compelling manner that left no room for denial, the crisis brought to the fore, the inadequacy of policy paradigms, the need for alternative policy approaches and the quest for a better and fairer world.
The unfulfilled promises of globalization, the environmental exhaustion, the rising inequalities in distribution of wealth and income, the crisis of full and decent employment in all of its facets, as much as the persisting structural discriminations based on gender, race, refugee or migrant status, were not a revelation per se. These trends have been well documented and discussed in policy and experts’ circles, over the years. In 2020, since and as the result of the global spread of COVID-19, the statistics and data buried in numerous analytic and policy reports came to life and wore human faces, making it an everyday visible reality for everyone across the globe.
The pandemic showed the insecure work and life patterns of those women and men who work in the informal economy, 62 percent of the global workforce, who cannot exercise social distancing, apply basic hygiene preventive rules, access health services, or stop work under conditions of lockdown, with no access to alternative income support and safety nets. School closures vividly exposed, the deep divides in access to quality education and to digital technology for millions of children and students enrolled at all levels of education.
It was sobering to observe that in 2020, the year that marks the 25th anniversary of the first World Conference on Women and the launch of a most comprehensive platform of action for promoting gender equality, women in advanced and developing economies alike, remained the default unpaid care takers at home, and occupied most of “essential” frontline occupations in underpaid sectors with part time and insecure contracts.
Youth who have not fully recovered from the employment crisis in the wake of 2008/09 global crisis, have been once more, massively impacted, this time with a twin challenge of completing their education under conditions of lockdown, and facing the prospect of another protracted transition and stalled mobility into work, adulthood and autonomy.
Positive trends recorded in some of global indicators of the 2030 SDG agenda, such as reduction in poverty, hunger and malnutrition have reversed course, with a huge humanitarian crisis looming in the horizon.
But the pandemic also brought the “Future of Work” faster and closer to home. The expansion of remote and online work, pointed to a new dualism in the labour markets, jobs that can be performed remotely and online and those renamed- essential services and critical jobs – that could not. The expansion of online teleworking , beyond the flexibility and resilience it enables, is forcing managers and employees alike to re-consider the value of inter-personal and social interactions and to re-think the nature of future workplace arrangements.
As demand expanded exponentially for the digital delivery sector and other on-demand services, the pandemic exposed the ambiguity in the prevailing business models and employment relationships in these sectors. In some instances, this increased visibility of these types of new non-standard forms of employment accelerated the adoption and implementation of new legal and social protection norms including rise in minimum wages.
More significantly, the COVID-19 crisis, by laying bare inequalities and socio-economic divides of various types, questioned the fundamental underpinnings of policies and policy paradigms enacted over last decades, that allowed and deepened such uneven and unfair outcomes. In short, the pandemic diffused across societies, a new sense of urgency and a moral imperative for a rethink of policy.
Will 2021 be the inflection point to unleash and accelerate such a paradigm shift?
2020 was an exceptional year of reflection and soul-searching on what is essential and critical to humans? On the relationship between humans, nature and science? What determines resilience to future shocks and what scope should there be for national sovereignty, and for inter-dependence, solidarity and cooperation?
Exceptional measures and massive stimulus packages, were announced and partially deployed in major economies, to deal with the most immediate impact of the pandemic and to prevent a catastrophic socio-economic collapse. These measures were exceptional not only in size, surpassing tens of Trillion dollars already in June 2020, but also in the range and types of policy levers used. There was not much hesitation to push aside stringent prudential rules introduced by the same economies and institutions with respect to the debt to GDP ratio, or the time limit for the debt payments, for example. [3]
Beyond immediate relief and recovery packages, calls to “Reset Capitalism”, “Renew the social contract”, reinvent solidarity, rethink public- private cooperation…. are emanating from diverse stakeholders with often diverging interests. More significantly, the importance of interventionist role of the state in sustaining the economy and jobs and in leading environmental transitions, is rehabilitated and valued. The demand for a stronger role of public policy and public investment in health, education, universal social protection, basic income have resurfaced to the top of mainstream policy debate and agenda.
The serious consideration in policy circles and political campaigns, of New Green Deal proposals, Public Job Guarantee schemes , local community development strategies in the United States alone, is a testimony of the extent to which, the pendulum has swung away from orthodox market fundamentalism. Although these ideas are not new, they have come out of background, gained in vigor and adherence in a short period of time.
It is yet early to judge, how far and how bold will the recovery plans go and what will be the scope of this “rethink”, beyond remedial and recovery responses. Will recovery plans, as announced and promised, become accelerators of digitalization and transition to low carbon economy and embed fiscal policies that promote greater equality and “just transitions”?
Are these circumstantial crisis-induced responses that will deflate once the health hazard and the ensuing economic recession are seen to have been brought under control? Will once again, reform be stalled and austerity replace stimuli, as in the aftermath of 2008/9 crisis. Or will it be really different this time, as more and more parties think that a return to status quo ante is not an option, and the future cannot be about building back but building better and different!
Will 2021 be seen as an inflection point as much as 1945 ushered a new era of social innovation and reconstruct, following the devastation of the second World War?
In the current global political context of divided societies, weakened democracies, growing mistrust in institutions and fragmented multilateralism, the odds for a collective political will to emerge and to lead a new wave of reform, may not seem very high. However the pandemic and its consequences have also awakened and re-mobilized forces of citizenship, advocates of participatory and solidary development and democracy and re-invigorated labour and social movements. These factors combined have generated such high demands and societal expectations that cannot be left unanswered and are not ready to recede.
Paradigm shifts do not occur overnight, however the COVID-19 crisis by sweeping away with such speed a few more myths associated with market fundamentalism and unleashed globalization, has brought us so much closer to the imperative and possibility of building a new social trust.
The year 2020 has closed with the pandemic still ravaging lives, economies and societies across the globe. Humanity is entering 2021 with the renewed hope in science and in new vaccines- which signal that the end of this pandemic might be in sight- but uncertain about how far away and at what cost. More significantly, the COVID-19 crisis has re-ordered our value system and reshaped the policy debate by pointing out that the problem is not technology but the deep political, economic and social divides. The shock and response have created a new momentum for a fundamental policy rethink and action in a way that all the preceding discussions on the Future of Work had not succeeded. Will the momentum be seized? What is certain is that 2021 will be looked at as the inflection year, where a new course seemed possible through a broad understanding of human agency, embracing multi-layered social mobilizations and political leaderships. __________________
[1] The Policy Brief No. 1 on Automation, inequality and jobs, in this Policy Forum, included references to major reports on Future of Work published since 2013. It also highlighted that most analyses overlooked the specific dynamics of technological adoption and labour markets in low income countries with large swaths of rural and informal economy workers. [2] For regular updates and estimates see the following websites: COVID-19 Worldwide Dashboard – WHO Live World Statistics: Socio-economic impact of COVID-19 | UNDP; ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. 6th edition. [3] It should be noted however that this flexibility, sits in sharp contrast to the lack of solidarity and international financial support to fiscal policies in particular, in middle-income developing countries. Coordinated stimuli response and use of multilateral institutional mechanisms have been disappointing. In particular the combined response of G20, World Bank and IMF are falling short of providing the financial and fiscal space needed for an adequate COVID-19 response in much of mid-income developing countries.
NOTE: The opinions expressed here are those of the author and not of the GLO, which has no institutional position.
Reflected by the GLO Website glabor.org, 2020 has been another very active year of the network. This was based on the hard work of our activists on all levels and on the constructive support of our various partners around the globe.
Thanks to all GLO Fellows, Affiliates and partners! And the wider audience in the profession and the society for your interest!
While the coronavirus is a challenge to globalization, global collaboration is also the best response. Hence, we went on and started a number of initiatives for which the world has become more open and more flexible. Our experience is that the willingness to communicate and interact has increased.
Below I present a short overview on GLO’s major achievements in the past year 2020.
Klaus F. Zimmermann, GLO – President
Overview: GLO Activities 2020
More than daily News(Please register on the GLO cover page to receive email notifications.)
Volume 34, issue 1, 2021 of the Journal of Population Economics is published. See below the list of articles and access links to read or download the contributions.
A Journal of Population Economics Online Workshop hosted by UNU-MERIT, Maastricht took place on November 19, 2020 (2-5 pm CET). The detailed agenda is below presenting highlights on “Covid-19” and “societal conflict” from the new issue.
Journal of Population Economics: Report Klaus F. Zimmermann (Editor-in-Chief; UNU-MERIT & Maastricht University)
Michaella Vanore
Klaus F. Zimmermann
2.15 – 2.45 pm CET Maastricht
Lead paper Issue 1/2021: Session Chair Terra McKinnish (Editor; University of Colorado Boulder)
Terra McKinnish, Editor, Journal of Population Economics
“Names and behavior in a war” presented by Štěpán Jurajda (CERGE-EI, Prague) Co-author: Dejan Kovač (Princeton University and Zagreb)
Discussion
Michaella Vanore
Klaus F. Zimmermann
Terra McKinnish
Štěpán Jurajda
Dejan Kovač
2.45 – 3.15 pm CET Maastricht
Kuznets Prize 2021: “Impacts of social and economic factors on the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China”, published in the Journal of Population Economics (2020), 33(4), pp. 1127–1172. OPEN ACCESS.
Bartel Van de Walle (Director, UNU-MERIT) presented UNU-MERIT & delivered the prize laudation.
Panel with the authors chaired by Klaus F. Zimmermann (Editor-in-Chief; UNU-MERIT & Maastricht University): Yun Qiu (Jinan University), Xi Chen (Yale University), and Wei Shi (Jinan University)
Yun Qiu
From the left: Xi Chen, Wei Shi and Klaus F. Zimmermann
Bartel Van de Walle
Klaus F. Zimmermann
Yun Qiu
Xi Chen
Wei Shi
3.15 – 4.00 pm CET Maastricht
Panel: Publishing in Population Economics Alessandro Cigno (Editor; University of Florence), Shuaizhang Feng (Editor; Jinan University), Oded Galor (Editor; Brown University), Pierre Pestieau (Editor; Université de Liège), Erdal Tekin (Editor; American University), Katharina Wetzel-Vandai (Springer Nature), Junsen Zhang (Editor; Chinese University of Hong Kong), Klaus F. Zimmermann (Editor-in-Chief; UNU-MERIT & Maastricht University)
The Panel debate was organized to honor the contributions of Sandro Cigno to Population Economics and to the success of the Journal of Population Economics. Cigno celebrated his 80th birthday on December 24, 2020 and retired on December 31, 2020 from his position as Editor of the Journal. MORE DETAILS from the Panel see separate post in his honor.
Sandro Cigno, Klaus F. Zimmermann, Katharina Wetzel-Vandai, Erdal Tekin
Shuaizhang Feng
Oded Galor
Pierre Pestieau
Junsen Zhang
Alessandro Cigno (Editor, Journal of Population Economics, 1988 – 2020)
Shuaizhang Feng (Editor; Journal of Population Economics, 2020 – )
Oded Galor (Editor; Journal of Population Economics, 2019 – ; Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Economic Growth)
Pierre Pestieau (Editor; Journal of Population Economics, 1988 – 1995; previously: Co-Editor Journal of Public Economics)
Erdal Tekin (Editor; Journal of Population Economics, 2010 – 2018; Editor-in-Chief Journal of Policy Analysis and Management)
Junsen Zhang (Editor; Journal of Population Economics, 2001 – 2019; Coeditor, Journal of Human Resources)
Klaus F. Zimmermann (Editor-in-Chief; Managing Editor; Journal of Population Economics, 1988 – ; previously: Managing Editor, Economic Policy)
4.00 – 5.00 pm CET Maastricht
Madeline Zavodny, Managing Editor of the Journal of Population Economics
Covid-19 in Issue 1/2021: Session Chair Madeline Zavodny (Managing Editor; University of North Florida)
Fabio Milani (University of California, Irvine): “COVID-19 outbreak, social response, and early economic effects: a global VAR analysis of cross-country interdependencies” Discussion
Domenico Depalo (Bank of Italy): “True COVID-19 mortality rates from administrative data” Discussion
Fabio Milani
Domenico Depalo (
Fabrizio Patriarca (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia): “Identifying policy challenges of COVID-19 in hardly reliable data and judging the success of lockdown measures” Co-authors: Luca Bonacini (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia); Giovanni Gallo (National Institute for Public Policies Analysis) Discussion
Sergio Scicchitano (National Institute for Public Policies Analysis): “Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19” Co-authors: Luca Bonacini (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia); Giovanni Gallo (National Institute for Public Policies Analysis) Discussion
Fabrizio Patriarca
Sergio Scicchitano
Madeline Zavodny
Domenico Depalo
Fabrizio Patriarca
Sergio Scicchitano
Luca Bonacini
Giovanni Gallo
END of the event
Michaella Vanore, Managing Editor of the Journal of Population Economics
