Page 2 of 3

Accounting for the Ocean Economy

The oceans are an important part of any economy, even those economies that are landlocked. The obvious importance comes from the food and entertainment options the oceans provide, but the oceans also provide invaluable environmental and ecosystem services that certainly have profound economic effects. Maintaining healthy oceans that are sustainable for future generations is vital for continued economic success, but accurately accounting for the ocean or “blue” economy is vital to accomplishing this. The immediacy of achieving this accurate measurement of the ocean economy, including the environmental and ecosystem services the oceans provide, must also be recognized as the effects of climate change are upon us. If we don’t create these measures as accurately and completely as possible, I don’t see how we can fully understand the economic importance of the oceans and move forward with policies and initiatives that will improve their health and sustainability.

This is why I think the special edition recently published by the Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics is so important. The journal is published by the Center for the Blue Economy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California. This special edition, titled Oceans and National Income Accounts: An International Perspective, is a publication of the papers presented at a meeting hosted by the Center for the Blue Economy in October 2015 “to explore ways in which the economic values of oceans and marine resources can be incorporated into national income accounts.”¹

If you are reading this blog, you obviously have an interest in economics, and I highly recommend you read this special edition because if you truly want to understand how the economy functions, you have to understand how it is measured, or not measured. This is especially true for the oceans and the important contributions they make to all economies. As you get into the articles, you will get a deeper understanding of these contributions and the complexities involved in measuring them. It may not seem like the most interesting reading, but given your interest in economics, I think you will find it more engaging than you might think after you start reading the article. The Center for the Blue Economy is a leader in conducting research on the blue economy, disseminating that information through this journal, conferences, and other means, educating future researchers, and raising awareness about the importance of the blue economy, so I also encourage you to follow their other activities. Their website is a treasure trove of information.

Enjoy.

SN logo no name

¹Colgan, Charles S. (2016) “Introduction to Special Edition: The Oceans and National Income Accounts: An International Perspective,” Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: Vol. 2, Article 1.

Blind Pursuit of the Free Market Does not Lead to Prosperity

While I think the perfectly competitive model as it is presented in economics has some uses in helping us understand economic behavior, I believe the way it is presented in economics classes has lead to a vast misunderstanding of the workings of the economy. The presentation typically gives the impression that government intervention in the economy is only bad, except for instances where market failures exist. The problem, in my opinion, is that very little attention is given to the assumptions necessary to make the model work. Sure, these are most often covered quickly at the beginning of the presentation of the model, but the rest of the course or discussion of this model is spent showing who this leads to equilibrium in the markets and how government intervention pulls the market away from this equilibrium and leads to a loss of welfare. However, if one stops and thinks about it, the assumptions of the model (e.g., economic agents act rationally, perfect information, perfectly mobile resources) mean that the free market really never exists. By its very inherent nature, market failure is always present, and because of this and the fact that markets and the economy are huge complex systems, not the isolated static mechanisms of the perfectly competitive model, they are rarely, if ever, in equilibrium.

I want to stress again that there are still some valuable lessons that can be taken from the perfectly competitive model. It is an elegant model that lead to some intoxicating conclusions, but because of this and the lack of emphasis of the assumptions underlying the model, it has lead to a lot of misguided economic policy. This is especially the case with respect to macroeconomic policy, which has been misguided by the absurd dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model. This has lead to the belief by many that all regulations and government intervention are bad and that if we would only get rid of almost all regulations, cut taxes, and minimize the size of government, markets would be able to operate freely leading to more prosperity and a better society.

To be clear, I am not arguing that government is the answer to everything, nor am I arguing that we should raise taxes to exorbitant levels. But, this blind pursuit of the free market based on the misapplication of economic theory or just bad economic theory does not lead to prosperity either. There has to be a balance between the two. Even Adam Smith (one of the greatest, if not the greatest, political economists, to have ever lived), whose Wealth of Nations is the standard bearer for all those in blind pursuit of the free market, recognized the need for balance, as he thoroughly discussed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.

This has lead to the belief that the ideas of cutting taxes (mostly for those in the upper income strata and the wealthy) and shrinking the government will lead to prosperity and improved social outcomes. Two articles recently published in the New York Times provide even more evidence that this is not the case. One of the articles was written by two political science professors, Jacob S. Hacker of Yale University and Paul Pierson at the University of California, Berkeley. The article, “The Path to Prosperity Is Blue,” is a brief summary of their book, American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America ProsperI think the following quote from the article summarizes their argument.

Mr. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan are united by the conviction that cutting taxes – especially on corporations and the wealthy – is what drives growth.

A look at the states, however, suggests that they’re wrong. Red states dominated by Republicans embrace cut and extract. Blue states dominated by Democrats do much more to maintain their investments in education, infrastructure, urban quality of life and human services – investments typically financed through more progressive state and local taxes. And despite what you have heard, blue states are generally doing better.

Work by Jon Bakija, Lane Kenworthy, Peter Lindert, and Jeff Madrick in their book, How Big Should Our Government Be?provides some evidence against the argument that small government facilitates economic growth. They show evidence that there is a direct relationship between the growth of government and economic growth. Over the past fifty years, those countries where governments have grown the largest over the  past fifty years have also experienced some of the fastest economic growth (see the chart here).

While governments are certainly not perfect, and as I have already mentioned, government is not the answer to every issue or problem, but it seems clear to me that government has an important role to play in the proper functioning of an economy and society. Blind pursuit of the neoclassical notion of the free market with the wildly unrealistic assumptions at its foundation can be very appealing, but it leads to bad economic policy in many cases.

SN logo no name

Insights from The Wealth and Poverty of Nations

I recently finished reading The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are so Rich and Some so Poor by David S. Landes. It was originally published in 1998, so it is a bit dated, and it is still very much worth the read. The themes that run through the book, as I understand them, are still very relevant today. Plus, it is always good to learn more about our economic history. Some of the main themes/points are:

(1) The ability for one society to take over another society through force has often not only meant the decline of the nation being taken over but also the decline of the imperialist nation. Access to steel and the ability to manipulate it, especially into weapons like quick-loading or more automatic guns, and the introduction of foreign germs was often the key to success in battle. (Jared Diamond wrote an entire book on this premise titled Guns, Germs, and Steel, of course. While I found the book to be somewhat redundant, I do think it is worth a read.)

(2) Institutions, including culture and values, are very important factors in determining whether or not a country has or will reach an advanced level of development.

(3) A society’s ability to innovate and its willingness to transfer and accept technologies from other countries also plays a big role in its ability to grow and develop.

(4) Orthodox economics lacks much in trying to explain economic development (see following points).

(5) The market is a powerful force that needs to be harnessed for economic development to occur, but even Adam Smith argued that the market has serious flaws, and there is a role for government to play in the proper functioning of a market economy. He also argues that governments can make as big, or bigger, mistakes than the businesses they are trying to regulate.

(6) There is not one approach to economic development that is appropriate across all countries, and yesterdays “virtues” or “factors” that drove some countries out of poverty may not be relevant (or as relevant) today. “Different strategies in different circumstances” (page 391).

(7) “And what of the poor themselves? History tells us that the most successful cures for poverty come from within. Foreign aid can help, but like windfall wealth, can also hurt. It can discourage effort and plant a crippling sense of incapacity. As the African saying has it, ‘The hand that receives is always under the one that gives.’ No, what counts is work, thrift, honesty, patience, tenacity. To people haunted by misery and hunger, that may add up to selfish indifference. But at bottom, no empowerment is so effective as self-empowerment” (page 523). I would add, and I think Landes would agree given his emphasis on the importance of institutions and culture, that this requires having the institutions that support empowerment, such as access to quality education and healthcare, workforce training programs, small business development support, etc.

(8) He has some very interesting insights on the gains from trade, and in my opinion, this is yet another example of how economic theory (or maybe the misunderstanding or mis-application of economic theory) has misguided the making of economic policy. Furthermore, his understanding of how the pursuit of trade and globalization has played out through history leads to some prescient forecasts of our current economic conditions, as shown in the following quote (keep in mind the book was first published in 1998).

“The present tendency to global industrial diffusion will entail, for the richer countries, a leveling down of wages, increased inequality of incomes, and/or high levels of (transitional?) unemployment. No one has abrogated the law of supply and demand. Many, if not most, economists will disagree. They rely here on the sacred certainty of gains from trade for all. International competition, they tell us, is a positive sum game: everyone benefits.

In the long run. This is not the place to attempt, in a few pages, a survey of the differences of opinion on this issue, which continues to generate a library of material. I would simply argue here, from the historical record, that

  • The gains from trade are unequal. As history has shown, some countries will do much better than others. The primary reason is that comparative advantage is not the same for all, and that some activities are more lucrative and productive and than others. (A dollar is not a dollar is not a dollar.) They require and yield greater gains in knowledge and know-how, within and without.
  • The export and import of jobs is not the same as trade in commodities. The two may be fungible in theory, but the human impact is very different.
  • Comparative advantage is not fixed, and it can move for or against.
  • It always helps to attend and respond to the market. But just because markets give signals does not mean that people will respond timely or well. Some people do this better than others, and culture can make all the difference.
  • Some people find it easier and more agreeable to take than to make. This temptation marks all societies, and only moral training and vigilance can hold it in check” (page 522).

If for no other reason, it is worth reading the book to gain these insights on the notion of free trade and the theory of comparative advantage. International trade brings to the forefront many very complex issues that are ignored or given very little attention if we just grab onto the gains from trade derived from comparative advantage as presented in the mainstream economics textbooks, which typically give very little mention, if any at all, to many of these other issues.

SN logo no name

Brexit’s Potential Impact on the San Antonio Economy

With the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union, it is worth considering the impact it might have on the San Antonio economy. This basically translates to how it might affect the U.S. and Texas economies because I don’t think it will have any direct effects on the San Antonio economy since there is not a very strong connection between the San Antonio and United Kingdom economies. However, there is a reasonable chance that the uncertainty and chaos caused by Brexit throws the United Kingdom and European Union economies into recession. The best I think we can hope for it that it has no effect. I can’t envision a scenario where Brexit increases economic growth in the U.K or the E.U.

While the United Kingdom’s economy is not big enough to throw the U.S.into recession, according to The Economist, “…Britain is big enough for a recession there to have a meaningful effect on Europe’s economy. As a rule of thumb, whatever the reduction in Britain’s GDP growth, Europe’s economy will suffer a drop of about half as much.”

If a recession in Britain does drag Europe into a recession, the ripples across the pond could drag the U.S. economy into a period of slower growth possibly leading to a recession because the European Union taken together is the largest economy in the world. GDP in the European Union was $18.51 trillion in 2014 compared to GDP in the United States of $17.42 trillion in 2014.

In 2015, U.S. exports to the European Union amounted to $272 billion which equated to 13.36% of all exports (See Trade data). This makes the European Union the second largest export market for the U.S. behind Canada at $281 billion. Mexico is the third largest export market receiving $236 billion in exports from U.S. companies. Exports to the United Kingdom were $56 billion in 2015 (2.76% of all exports). While Texas has the largest volume of exports among all states (See Exports by state 2015), the United Kingdom accounted for 1.8% of total exports from Texas in 2015. This relatively low volume of trade does not mean Texas and the San Antonio economies will be immune from the effects of Brexit. If growth in the U.S. economy slows, it is likely that growth in the Texas and San Antonio economies will follow suit.

SN logo no name

 

The Importance of Arts Education to Economic Development

Many people, including myself, have argued that it is important to include an enhanced focus (or even a focus at all) on the arts within a curriculum that is focused on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In other words, the focus on STEM should be expanded to be STEAM. Even with these arguments being made, there has been a relatively recent movement to minimize the importance of a liberal arts education across some states. For example, the governors of both Kentucky and North Carolina have made such proposals.

I think this is a grave mistake. To be upfront, I received my bachelor’s degree from a small liberal arts college, and I am currently an associate professor of economics at a liberal arts university. Thus, I admittedly may be biased. But based on my experience, I know that my liberal arts education allowed me to achieve a deeper understanding and view problems from different perspectives. And in my work with artists on various projects and through my teaching of arts students, I know that they see the world from a different perspective that allows them to approach problems from varied angles.

I think J. Bradford Hipps discusses this very eloquently in his New York Times article, “To Write Software, Read Novels,” published in the May 22 paper edition (published May 21 online under the title “To Write Better Code, Read Virginia Woolf“). In the article, he provides examples where liberal arts graduates working within technology companies applied their abilities to “see” things differently to solve problems that the “techies” were finding to be intractable.

This is not arts for arts sake. This is arts for the economy’s sake.

I am confident that if we continue down this path of gutting liberal arts education from Pre-kindergarten through university, our economy is going to suffer because we will severely diminish the productive abilities of our labor force.

SN logo no name

 

Economic Impact of LiftFund

Along with many other economists, I have long argued that entrepreneurial activity is a key driver of economic development, and recently, I completed an economic impact study of LiftFund that provides a bit more evidence in support of this idea. “For more than 21 years, LiftFund, a 502(c)(3) nonprofit organization, has helped individuals achieve the American Dream by providing small business loans to those who do not have access to capital from typical lending sources, such as traditional banks” (Source: http://www.liftfund.com/about/). The study analyzed the impacts across their markets in Texas and Louisiana from 2010 through 2015.  Along with the direct effects of the LiftFund lending, the analysis also took into account the multiplier effects, but the impacts for a specific business are only counted in the year in which the new jobs were created (i.e., the impacts were cumulative into the future years).

Here is a summary of the results showing the rather substantial impacts that LiftFund and the small businesses they fund are having on their local economies.

In Texas, LiftFund issued $104 million in loans during this time period, and the loans to these businesses supported 10,758 jobs and earned incomes of $500 million. These businesses produced output valued at $1.4 billion. This means that for each dollar loaned by LiftFund, $13.21 in output was created in the local economy.

In Louisiana, loan volume during this period amounted to $10.6 million. This supported employment of 1,495 earning incomes of $70 million. The businesses impacted by this LiftFund support generated $181 million in output resulting in a return of $17.03 in output per dollar loaned in Louisiana.

SN logo no name