Competition, Concentration, and Anti-Trust Laws in the USA

Competition, Concentration, and Anti-Trust Laws in the USA

 

Currently the US FTC has been having hearings on concentration, competition, and anti-trust laws in the USA.  Several conferences are organized starting with September 2018.  I present links to hearings details and videos of the sessions.  As of now, two hearings have already taken place.  I have given the links to the third hearing below.  Economists Joe Stiglitz and Jason Furman have given speeches and presentations during first and second hearings.

Key Sources of Research:

Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century

Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century

The Federal Trade Commission will hold a series of public hearings during the fall and winter 2018 examining whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies, or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection law, enforcement priorities, and policy. The PDF version of this content includes footnotes and sources. All the hearings will be webcast live.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection

Click to access hearings-announcement_0.pdf

 

 

Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century: Opening Session

September 14, 2018

DAVIS POLK

 

Click to access 2018-09-14_hearings_on_competition_consumer_protection_in_21st_century.pdf

 

 

FTC Hearing #1: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century

Hearing #1 On Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century, September 13-14, 2018

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2018/09/ftc-hearing-1-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century

Click to access agenda-hearings-georgetown_3.pdf

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-welcome-session-1

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-welcome-session-2

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-welcome-session-3

 

 

 

 

FTC Hearing #2: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century

FTC Hearing #2: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/09/ftc-announces-second-session-hearings-competition-consumer

Click to access hearings-agenda-cc-sept_0.pdf

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/ftc-hearing-2-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-state-us-0

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/ftc-hearing-2-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-state-us

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/ftc-hearing-2-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-monopsony

 

FTC Hearing #3: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century

FTC Hearing #3: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century - George Mason University

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2018/10/ftc-hearing-3-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century

 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1413712/hearings-agenda-gmu_5.pdf

THE UNITED STATES HAS A MARKET CONCENTRATION PROBLEM

REVIEWING CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES IN ANTITRUST MARKETS, 2000-PRESENT

 

ISSUE BRIEF BY ADIL ABDELA AND MARSHALL STEINBAUM

SEPTEMBER 2018

 

Click to access ftc-2018-0074-d-0042-155544.pdf

 

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the US has a major monopoly problem

https://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-stiglitz-says-the-us-has-a-major-monopoly-problem-2018-9

 

 

Competition Conference 2018

What’s the Evidence for Strengthening Competition Policy?

Boston University

http://sites.bu.edu/tpri/news-and-events/competition-conference-2018/

http://sites.bu.edu/tpri/competition-conference-2018-program-and-papers/

 

Slower Productivity and Higher Inequality: Are They Related?

Jason Furman and Peter Orszag

June 2018

 

Click to access wp18-4.pdf

 

 

 

Market Power and Monetary Policy

Speech given by

Andrew G Haldane Chief Economist Bank of England

Co-authors: Tommaso Aquilante, Shiv Chowla, Nikola Dacic, Riccardo Masolo, Patrick Schneider, Martin Seneca and Srdan Tatomir.

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Policy Symposium Jackson Hole, Wyoming

24 August 2018

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2018/market-power-and-monetary-policy-speech-by-andy-haldane.pdf?la=en&hash=ECC7B63705847EC5E68DEFC86C56B887B9DBD0CD

Shareholder Capitalism: Rising Market Concentration, Slower Productivity Growth, Rising Inequality, Rising Profits, and Rising Equities Markets

Shareholder Capitalism: Rising Market Concentration, Slower Productivity Growth, Rising Inequality, Rising Profits, and Rising Equities Markets

 

Public traded companies are always under pressure to show earnings growth and sales revenue growth to enhance shareholder value.

 

How do they do it when markets have matured and economy has slowed?

  • Lower Costs
  • Increase Market Share
  • Find New Markets
  • Diversify
  • Create New products and servicces

 

How do then companies lower their costs?

  • Vertical Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Outsourcing (Sourcing parts and components / Intermediate Goods / Inputs from cross border)
  • Offshoring (Shifting Production cross border)
  • Vertical Integration

 

How do then companies increase their market share?

  • Horizontal Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Cross Border Markets Share (Sales in other countries)

 

In the last thirty years, this is exactly what has happened in US economy.

Macro Trends of increase in Outsourcing/Offshoring, Increase in Market Concentration, Increase in Inequality, Increase in Corporate Profits, Rising Equity Prices, Slower Productivity Growth, Lower Interest Rates, Low Labor Share, and Capital Share.

Please see my other posts expanding on these issues.

Please note that these forces are continuing and trends will remain on current trajectory.

 

Key Terms:

  • Stakeholder vs Shareholder Capitalism
  • Short Termism
  • Slow Productivity Growth
  • Rising Market Concentration
  • Rising Profits
  • Rising Equities Market
  • Rising Inequality
  • Dupont Ratio Analysis
  • Financial Planning (Micro – Firm Level)
  • Economic Planning (Macro- Aggregate Level)
  • Quarterly Capitalism

 

From SHAREHOLDER CAPITALISM: A SYSTEM IN CRISIS

Our current, highly financialised, form of shareholder capitalism is not just failing to provide new capital for investment, it is actively undermining the ability of listed companies to reinvest their own profits. The stock market has become a vehicle for extracting value from companies, not for injecting it.

No wonder that Andy Haldane, Chief Economist of the Bank of England, recently suggested that shareholder capitalism is ‘eating itself.’1 Corporate governance has become dominated by the need to maximise short-term shareholder returns. At the same time, financial markets have grown more complex, highly intermediated, and similarly shorttermist, with shares increasingly seen as paper assets to be traded rather than long term investments in sound businesses.

This kind of trading is a zero-sum game with no new wealth, let alone social value, created. For one person to win, another must lose – and increasingly, the only real winners appear to be the army of financial intermediaries who control and perpetuate the merry-goround. There is nothing natural or inevitable about the shareholder-owned corporation as it currently exists. Like all economic institutions, it is a product of political and economic choices which can and should be remade if they no longer serve our economy, society, or environment.

Here’s the impact this shareholder model is currently having:
• Economy: Shareholder capitalism is holding back productive investment. Even the Chief Executive of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has admitted that pressure to keep the share price high means corporate leaders are ‘underinvesting in innovation, skilled workforces or essential capital expenditures.’ 2
• Society: Shareholder capitalism is driving inequality. There is growing evidence that attempts to align executive pay with shareholder value are largely responsible for the ballooning of salaries at the top. The prioritisation of shareholder interests has also contributed to a dramatic decline in UK wages relative to profits, helping to explain the failure of ordinary people’s living standards to rise in line with economic growth.
• Environment: Shareholder capitalism helps to drive environmental destruction. It does this by driving risky shortterm behaviour, such as fossil fuel extraction, which ignores long-term environmental risks.

The idea that shareholder capitalism is the most efficient way to mobilise large amounts of capital is no longer tenable.

We need both to create new models of companies, and implement new ways of organising investment that are fit for building an inclusive, equal, and sustainable economy.

Companies should be explicitly accountable to a mission and a set of interests beyond shareholder returns. Equally, investment must provide long-term capital for socially and environmentally useful projects, and damaging forms of speculation must be restricted.

For most people, our economy simply is not working, and the damaging aspects of shareholder capitalism are at least in part responsible. Reforming shareholder capitalism must not be dismissed as too difficult – the crisis is too urgent for that. We can take the first steps towards a better economic model right now. It’s time to act.

 

 

A Crash Course in Dupont Financial Ratio Analysis

 

  • What happens when economic growth slows ?
  • What happens when profit margins decline ?
  • What happens when Sales growth is limited ?
  • What does lead to Mergers and Acquisitions ?
  • What is the impact of Cost of Capital ?
  • What is EVA (Economic Value Added) ?
  • What is impact of Outsourcing/Offshoring on Financial Ratios ?
  • What is impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on Financial Ratios ?
  • What is impact of Stock Buy Backs on Financial Ratios ?
  • What is impact of Dividends on Financial Ratios ?
  • ROS (Return on Sales)
  • ROE (Return on Equities)
  • ROA (Return on Assets)
  • ROIC (Return on Invested Capital)
  • EVA (Economic Value Added)
  • MVA (Market Value Added)

From The DuPont Equation, ROE, ROA, and Growth

The DuPont Equation

The DuPont equation is an expression which breaks return on equity down into three parts: profit margin, asset turnover, and leverage.

Learning Objectives

Explain why splitting the return on equity calculation into its component parts may be helpful to an analyst

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • By splitting ROE into three parts, companies can more easily understand changes in their returns on equity over time.
  • As profit margin increases, every sale will bring more money to a company’s bottom line, resulting in a higher overall return on equity.
  • As asset turnover increases, a company will generate more sales per asset owned, resulting in a higher overall return on equity.
  • Increased financial leverage will also lead to an increase in return on equity, since using more debt financing brings on higher interest payments, which are tax deductible.

Key Terms

  • competitive advantage: something that places a company or a person above the competition

The DuPont Equation

image

DuPont Model: A flow chart representation of the DuPont Model.

The DuPont equation is an expression which breaks return on equity down into three parts. The name comes from the DuPont Corporation, which created and implemented this formula into their business operations in the 1920s. This formula is known by many other names, including DuPont analysis, DuPont identity, the DuPont model, the DuPont method, or the strategic profit model.

The DuPont Equation: In the DuPont equation, ROE is equal to profit margin multiplied by asset turnover multiplied by financial leverage.

Under DuPont analysis, return on equity is equal to the profit margin multiplied by asset turnover multiplied by financial leverage. By splitting ROE (return on equity) into three parts, companies can more easily understand changes in their ROE over time.

Components of the DuPont Equation: Profit Margin

Profit margin is a measure of profitability. It is an indicator of a company’s pricing strategies and how well the company controls costs. Profit margin is calculated by finding the net profit as a percentage of the total revenue. As one feature of the DuPont equation, if the profit margin of a company increases, every sale will bring more money to a company’s bottom line, resulting in a higher overall return on equity.

Components of the DuPont Equation: Asset Turnover

Asset turnover is a financial ratio that measures how efficiently a company uses its assets to generate sales revenue or sales income for the company. Companies with low profit margins tend to have high asset turnover, while those with high profit margins tend to have low asset turnover. Similar to profit margin, if asset turnover increases, a company will generate more sales per asset owned, once again resulting in a higher overall return on equity.

Components of the DuPont Equation: Financial Leverage

Financial leverage refers to the amount of debt that a company utilizes to finance its operations, as compared with the amount of equity that the company utilizes. As was the case with asset turnover and profit margin, Increased financial leverage will also lead to an increase in return on equity. This is because the increased use of debt as financing will cause a company to have higher interest payments, which are tax deductible. Because dividend payments are not tax deductible, maintaining a high proportion of debt in a company’s capital structure leads to a higher return on equity.

The DuPont Equation in Relation to Industries

The DuPont equation is less useful for some industries, that do not use certain concepts or for which the concepts are less meaningful. On the other hand, some industries may rely on a single factor of the DuPont equation more than others. Thus, the equation allows analysts to determine which of the factors is dominant in relation to a company’s return on equity. For example, certain types of high turnover industries, such as retail stores, may have very low profit margins on sales and relatively low financial leverage. In industries such as these, the measure of asset turnover is much more important.

High margin industries, on the other hand, such as fashion, may derive a substantial portion of their competitive advantage from selling at a higher margin. For high end fashion and other luxury brands, increasing sales without sacrificing margin may be critical. Finally, some industries, such as those in the financial sector, chiefly rely on high leverage to generate an acceptable return on equity. While a high level of leverage could be seen as too risky from some perspectives, DuPont analysis enables third parties to compare that leverage with other financial elements that can determine a company’s return on equity.

ROE and Potential Limitations

Return on equity measures the rate of return on the ownership interest of a business and is irrelevant if earnings are not reinvested or distributed.

Learning Objectives

Calculate a company’s return on equity

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • Return on equity is an indication of how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth.
  • Returns on equity between 15% and 20% are generally considered to be acceptable.
  • Return on equity is equal to net income (after preferred stock dividends but before common stock dividends) divided by total shareholder equity (excluding preferred shares ).
  • Stock prices are most strongly determined by earnings per share (EPS) as opposed to return on equity.

Key Terms

  • fundamental analysis: An analysis of a business with the goal of financial projections in terms of income statement, financial statements and health, management and competitive advantages, and competitors and markets.

Return On Equity

Return on equity (ROE) measures the rate of return on the ownership interest or shareholders’ equity of the common stock owners. It is a measure of a company’s efficiency at generating profits using the shareholders’ stake of equity in the business. In other words, return on equity is an indication of how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth. It is also commonly used as a target for executive compensation, since ratios such as ROE tend to give management an incentive to perform better. Returns on equity between 15% and 20% are generally considered to be acceptable.

The Formula

Return on equity is equal to net income, after preferred stock dividends but before common stock dividends, divided by total shareholder equity and excluding preferred shares.

Return On Equity: ROE is equal to after-tax net income divided by total shareholder equity.

Expressed as a percentage, return on equity is best used to compare companies in the same industry. The decomposition of return on equity into its various factors presents various ratios useful to companies in fundamental analysis.

ROE Broken Down: This is an expression of return on equity decomposed into its various factors.

The practice of decomposing return on equity is sometimes referred to as the “DuPont System. ”

Potential Limitations of ROE

Just because a high return on equity is calculated does not mean that a company will see immediate benefits. Stock prices are most strongly determined by earnings per share (EPS) as opposed to return on equity. Earnings per share is the amount of earnings per each outstanding share of a company’s stock. EPS is equal to profit divided by the weighted average of common shares.

Earnings Per Share: EPS is equal to profit divided by the weighted average of common shares.

The true benefit of a high return on equity comes from a company’s earnings being reinvested into the business or distributed as a dividend. In fact, return on equity is presumably irrelevant if earnings are not reinvested or distributed.

Assessing Internal Growth and Sustainability

Sustainable– as opposed to internal– growth gives a company a better idea of its growth rate while keeping in line with financial policy.

Learning Objectives

Calculate a company’s internal growth and sustainability ratios

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • The internal growth rate is a formula for calculating the maximum growth rate a firm can achieve without resorting to external financing.
  • Sustainable growth is defined as the annual percentage of increase in sales that is consistent with a defined financial policy.
  • Another measure of growth, the optimal growth rate, assesses sustainable growth from a total shareholder return creation and profitability perspective, independent of a given financial strategy.

Key Terms

  • retention: The act of retaining; something retained
  • retention ratio: retained earnings divided by net income
  • sustainable growth rate: the optimal growth from a financial perspective assuming a given strategy with clear defined financial frame conditions/ limitations

Internal Growth and Sustainability

The true benefit of a high return on equity arises when retained earnings are reinvested into the company’s operations. Such reinvestment should, in turn, lead to a high rate of growth for the company. The internal growth rate is a formula for calculating maximum growth rate that a firm can achieve without resorting to external financing. It’s essentially the growth that a firm can supply by reinvesting its earnings. This can be described as (retained earnings)/(total assets ), or conceptually as the total amount of internal capital available compared to the current size of the organization.

We find the internal growth rate by dividing net income by the amount of total assets (or finding return on assets ) and subtracting the rate of earnings retention. However, growth is not necessarily favorable. Expansion may strain managers’ capacity to monitor and handle the company’s operations. Therefore, a more commonly used measure is the sustainable growth rate.

Sustainable growth is defined as the annual percentage of increase in sales that is consistent with a defined financial policy, such as target debt to equity ratio, target dividend payout ratio, target profit margin, or target ratio of total assets to net sales.

We find the sustainable growth rate by dividing net income by shareholder equity (or finding return on equity) and subtracting the rate of earnings retention. While the internal growth rate assumes no financing, the sustainable growth rate assumes you will make some use of outside financing that will be consistent with whatever financial policy being followed. In fact, in order to achieve a higher growth rate, the company would have to invest more equity capital, increase its financial leverage, or increase the target profit margin.

Optimal Growth Rate

Another measure of growth, the optimal growth rate, assesses sustainable growth from a total shareholder return creation and profitability perspective, independent of a given financial strategy. The concept of optimal growth rate was originally studied by Martin Handschuh, Hannes Lösch, and Björn Heyden. Their study was based on assessments on the performance of more than 3,500 stock-listed companies with an initial revenue of greater than 250 million Euro globally, across industries, over a period of 12 years from 1997 to 2009.

image

Revenue Growth and Profitability: ROA, ROS and ROE tend to rise with revenue growth to a certain extent.

Due to the span of time included in the study, the authors considered their findings to be, for the most part, independent of specific economic cycles. The study found that return on assets, return on sales and return on equity do in fact rise with increasing revenue growth of between 10% to 25%, and then fall with further increasing revenue growth rates. Furthermore, the authors attributed this profitability increase to the following facts:

  1. Companies with substantial profitability have the opportunity to invest more in additional growth, and
  2. Substantial growth may be a driver for additional profitability, whether by attracting high performing young professionals, providing motivation for current employees, attracting better business partners, or simply leading to more self-confidence.

However, according to the study, growth rates beyond the “profitability maximum” rate could bring about circumstances that reduce overall profitability because of the efforts necessary to handle additional growth (i.e., integrating new staff, controlling quality, etc).

Dividend Payments and Earnings Retention

The dividend payout and retention ratios offer insight into how much of a firm’s profit is distributed to shareholders versus retained.

Learning Objectives

Calculate a company’s dividend payout and retention ratios

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • Many corporations retain a portion of their earnings and pay the remainder as a dividend.
  • Dividends are usually paid in the form of cash, store credits, or shares in the company.
  • Cash dividends are a form of investment income and are usually taxable to the recipient in the year that they are paid.
  • Dividend payout ratio is the fraction of net income a firm pays to its stockholders in dividends.
  • Retained earnings can be expressed in the retention ratio.

Key Terms

  • stock split: To issue a higher number of new shares to replace old shares. This effectively increases the number of shares outstanding without changing the market capitalization of the company.

Dividend Payments and Earnings Retention

Dividends are payments made by a corporation to its shareholder members. It is the portion of corporate profits paid out to stockholders. On the other hand, retained earnings refers to the portion of net income which is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to its owners as dividends. Similarly, if the corporation takes a loss, then that loss is retained and called variously retained losses, accumulated losses or accumulated deficit. Retained earnings and losses are cumulative from year to year with losses offsetting earnings. Many corporations retain a portion of their earnings and pay the remainder as a dividend.

A dividend is allocated as a fixed amount per share. Therefore, a shareholder receives a dividend in proportion to their shareholding. Retained earnings are shown in the shareholder equity section in the company’s balance sheet –the same as its issued share capital.

Public companies usually pay dividends on a fixed schedule, but may declare a dividend at any time, sometimes called a “special dividend” to distinguish it from the fixed schedule dividends. Dividends are usually paid in the form of cash, store credits (common among retail consumers’ cooperatives), or shares in the company (either newly created shares or existing shares bought in the market). Further, many public companies offer dividend reinvestment plans, which automatically use the cash dividend to purchase additional shares for the shareholder.

Cash dividends (most common) are those paid out in currency, usually via electronic funds transfer or a printed paper check. Such dividends are a form of investment income and are usually taxable to the recipient in the year they are paid. This is the most common method of sharing corporate profits with the shareholders of the company. For each share owned, a declared amount of money is distributed. Thus, if a person owns 100 shares and the cash dividend is $0.50 per share, the holder of the stock will be paid $50. Dividends paid are not classified as an expense but rather a deduction of retained earnings. Dividends paid do not show up on an income statement but do appear on the balance sheet.

image

Example Balance Sheet: Retained earnings can be found on the balance sheet, under the owners’ (or shareholders’) equity section.

Stock dividends are those paid out in the form of additional stock shares of the issuing corporation or another corporation (such as its subsidiary corporation). They are usually issued in proportion to shares owned (for example, for every 100 shares of stock owned, a 5% stock dividend will yield five extra shares). If the payment involves the issue of new shares, it is similar to a stock split in that it increases the total number of shares while lowering the price of each share without changing the market capitalization, or total value, of the shares held.

Dividend Payout and Retention Ratios

Dividend payout ratio is the fraction of net income a firm pays to its stockholders in dividends:

The part of the earnings not paid to investors is left for investment to provide for future earnings growth. These retained earnings can be expressed in the retention ratio. Retention ratio can be found by subtracting the dividend payout ratio from one, or by dividing retained earnings by net income.

Dividend Payout Ratio: The dividend payout ratio is equal to dividend payments divided by net income for the same period.

Relationships between ROA, ROE, and Growth

Return on assets is a component of return on equity, both of which can be used to calculate a company’s rate of growth.

Learning Objectives

Discuss the different uses of the Return on Assets and Return on Assets ratios

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • Return on equity measures the rate of return on the shareholders ‘ equity of common stockholders.
  • Return on assets shows how profitable a company’s assets are in generating revenue.
  • In other words, return on assets makes up two-thirds of the DuPont equation measuring return on equity.
  • Capital intensity is the term for the amount of fixed or real capital present in relation to other factors of production. Rising capital intensity pushes up the productivity of labor.

Key Terms

  • return on common stockholders’ equity: a fiscal year’s net income (after preferred stock dividends but before common stock dividends) divided by total equity (excluding preferred shares), expressed as a percentage
  • quantitatively: With respect to quantity rather than quality.

Return On Assets Versus Return On Equity

In review, return on equity measures the rate of return on the ownership interest (shareholders’ equity) of common stockholders. Therefore, it shows how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth. Return on assets shows how profitable a company’s assets are in generating revenue. Return on assets is equal to net income divided by total assets.

Return On Assets: Return on assets is equal to net income divided by total assets.

This percentage shows what the company can do with what it has (i.e., how many dollars of earnings they derive from each dollar of assets they control). This is in contrast to return on equity, which measures a firm’s efficiency at generating profits from every unit of shareholders’ equity. Return on assets is, however, a vital component of return on equity, being an indicator of how profitable a company is before leverage is considered. In other words, return on assets makes up two-thirds of the DuPont equation measuring return on equity.

ROA, ROE, and Growth

In terms of growth rates, we use the value known as return on assets to determine a company’s internal growth rate. This is the maximum growth rate a firm can achieve without resorting to external financing. We use the value for return on equity, however, in determining a company’s sustainable growth rate, which is the maximum growth rate a firm can achieve without issuing new equity or changing its debt-to-equity ratio.

Capital Intensity and Growth

Return on assets gives us an indication of the capital intensity of the company. “Capital intensity” is the term for the amount of fixed or real capital present in relation to other factors of production, especially labor. The underlying concept here is how much output can be procured from a given input (assets!). The formula for capital intensity is below:

Capital Intensity=Total AssetsSales

The use of tools and machinery makes labor more effective, so rising capital intensity pushes up the productivity of labor. While companies that require large initial investments will generally have lower return on assets, it is possible that increased productivity will provide a higher growth rate for the company. Capital intensity can be stated quantitatively as the ratio of the total money value of capital equipment to the total potential output. However, when we adjust capital intensity for real market situations, such as the discounting of future cash flows, we find that it is not independent of the distribution of income. In other words, changes in the retention or dividend payout ratios can lead to changes in measured capital intensity.

 

 

1280px-DuPontModelEng.svg

Please see my related posts:

Rising Market Concentration and Declining Business Investments in the USA – Update June 2018

Why do Firms buyback their Shares? Causes and Consequences.

FDI vs Outsourcing: Extending Boundaries or Extending Network Chains of Firms

Trading Down: NAFTA, TPP, TATIP and Economic Globalization

On Inequality of Wealth and Income – Causes and Consequences

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

Low Interest Rates and Business Investments : Update August 2017

Low Interest Rates and Monetary Policy Effectiveness

Low Interest Rates and Banks’ Profitability : Update July 2017

Short term Thinking in Investment Decisions of Businesses and Financial Markets

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

The Decline in Long Term Real Interest Rates

Low Interest Rates and Banks Profitability: Update – December 2016

 

 Key Sources of Research:

 

 

 

The DuPont Equation, ROE, ROA, and Growth

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-finance/chapter/the-dupont-equation-roe-roa-and-growth/

 

 

Short-Termism in business: causes, mechanisms and consequences

EY Poland Report

 

Click to access Short-termism_raport_EY.pdf

 

 

Shareholders vs Stakeholders Capitalism

Fabian Brandt

Goethe University

Konstantinos Georgiou

University of Pennsylvania

 

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=fisch_2016

 

 

Hedrick Smith Speaks to the Community about Who Stole the American Dream.

 

http://nhlabornews.com/2013/10/hedrick-smith-speaks-to-the-community-about-who-stole-the-american-dream/

 

 

Let’s Talk About “Maximizing Shareholder Value”

https://www.pragcap.com/lets-talk-about-maximizing-shareholder-value/

 

 

SHAREHOLDER CAPITALISM: A SYSTEM IN CRISIS

 

New Economics Foundation

 

Click to access NEF_SHAREHOLDER-CAPITALISM_E_latest.pdf

 

 

 

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SHAREHOLDER VALUE CAPITALISM

 

Mark S. Mizruchi and Howard Kirneldorf

 

Click to access 191bbc2b82f351633c7379deea7b9ccad0e9.pdf

 

 

Shareholder capitalism on trial

 

By Robert J. Samuelson

 

Click to access 03-19-15_WashingtonPost.pdf

 

 

 

The real business of business

McKinsey

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Corporate%20Finance/MoF/Issue%2053/MoF53_The_real_business_of_business.ashx

 

 

 

Managers and Market Capitalism

 

Rebecca Henderson Karthik Ramanna

HBR

 

Click to access Henderson_Ramanna___Managers_and_Market_Capitalism___March_2013.pdf

 

 

The Embedded Firm: Corporate Governance, Labor, and Finance Capitalism

Peer Zumbansen

Cynthia A. Williams

 

http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=clpe

 

 

 

 

Andrew G Haldane: Who owns a company?

Speech by Mr Andrew G Haldane,

Executive Director and Chief Economist of the Bank of England,

at the University of Edinburgh Corporate Finance Conference, Edinburgh,

22 May 2015.

 

Click to access r150811a.pdf

 

 

 

 

Capitalism for the Long Term

MARCH 2011
HBR

The Short Long

 

Speech by
Andrew G Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, and Richard Davies

29th Societé Universitaire Europeene de Recherches Financieres Colloquium: New Paradigms in Money and Finance?

Brussels

May 2011

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2011/the-short-long-speech-by-andrew-haldane

 

 

 

 

Is short-termism wrecking the economy?

Redefining capitalism

By Eric Beinhocker and Nick Hanauer

Fast finance and slow growth

 

Andy Haldane

http://progressive-policy.net/2015/09/fast-finance-and-slow-growth/

 

Beyond Shareholder Value

The reasons and choices for corporate governance reform

Click to access BSV.pdf

 

 

AN ECONOMY FOR THE 99%

It’s time to build a human economy that benefits everyone, not just the privileged few

OXFAM

 

Click to access bp-economy-for-99-percent-160117-en.pdf

 

 

Short-Termism

By Douglas K. Chia

 

Click to access 01181_millstein_10th_anniversary_essay_2_chia_v2.pdf

 

 

 

The Future of Finance

THE LSE REPORT

 

Click to access future-of-finance-chapter-3.pdf

 

 

 

Is Short-Term Behavior Jeopardizing the Future Prosperity of Business?

 

Click to access IsShortTermBehaviorJeopardizingTheFutureProsperityOfBusiness_CEOStrategicImplications.pdf

 

 

 

 

How Effective Capital Regulation can Help Reduce the Too‐Big‐To‐Fail Problem

Anat Admati

Stanford University

 

Click to access Minn-Fed-combined.pdf

 

 

 

Business School’s Worst Idea: Why the “Maximize Shareholder Value” Theory Is Bogus

Yves Smith

http://evonomics.com/maximize-shareholder-value-theory-yves-smith/

 

 

 

When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town

The American Prospect

http://prospect.org/article/when-shareholder-capitalism-came-town

 

 

 

Competition Conference 2018

What’s the Evidence for Strengthening Competition Policy?

Boston University

July 2018

http://sites.bu.edu/tpri/competition-conference-2018/

 

 

 

Market Concentration

Issues paper by the Secretariat
6-8 June 2018

This document was prepared by the OECD Secretariat to serve as an issues paper for the hearing on market concentration taking place at the 129th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 6-8 June 2018

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2018)46/en/pdf

 

 

 

 

Monopoly’s New Era

In today’s economy, many industries can’t be analyzed through the lens of competition.

Chazen Global Insights
May 13, 2016

 

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/chazen-global-insights/monopoly-s-new-era

 

 

 

Market power in the U.S. economy today

Washington Center for Equitable Growth

http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/market-power-in-the-u-s-economy-today/

 

 

 

Don’t Panic: A Guide to Claims of Increasing Concentration

Gregory J. Werden

Luke Froeb

 

Date Written: April 5, 2018

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3156912

 

 

 

Market concentration

OECD

http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/market-concentration.htm

 

 

 

 

A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality

Jason Furman Peter Orszag1

October 16, 2015

Click to access FurmanOrszag15.pdf

 

 

 

Do the Productivity Slowdown and the Inequality Increase Have a Common Cause?

Jason Furman (joint work with Peter Orszag)

Peterson Institute for International Economics
Washington, DC
November 9, 2017

Click to access 4-1furman20171109ppt.pdf

 

 

 

Is There a Connection Between Market Concentration and the Rise in Inequality?

https://promarket.org/connection-market-concentration-rise-inequality/

 

 

 

Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share

David; Dorn, David; Katz, Lawrence F; Patterson, Christina; Reenen, John Van

Click to access b8d7a989cab4b76e7fe795bf4572dbcdd0bc.pdf

 

 

 

 

Business Investment Spending Slowdown

April 9, 2018

FAS Congressional Research Services

Marc Labonte

Click to access IN10882.pdf

 

 

 

 

Market Power and Inequality: The Antitrust Counterrevolution and Its Discontents

Lina Khan and Sandeep Vaheesan

Click to access HLP110.pdf

 

 

 

Five Myths about Economic Inequality in America

By Michael D. Tanner
September 7, 2016

 

Cato Institiute

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america

 

 

 

 

Is the US Public Corporation in Trouble?

Kathleen M. Kahle and René M. Stulz

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.31.3.67

 

 

 

Declining Labor and Capital Shares

Simcha Barkai

Click to access FeijooOnBarkai17.pdf

 

 

 

Growing Productivity without Growing Wages: The Micro-Level Anatomy of the Aggregate Labor Share Decline

Kehrig, Matthias; Vincent, Nicolas

(2017)

Click to access cesifo1_wp6454.pdf

 

 

 

 

Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.

Germán Gutiérrez† and Thomas Philippon‡

March 2017

Click to access IK_Comp_v1.pdf

 

 

 

ACCOUNTING FOR RISING CORPORATE PROFITS: INTANGIBLES OR REGULATORY
RENTS?

James Bessen

Boston University School of Law

November 9, 2016

Click to access Accounting-for-Rising-Corporate-Profits.pdf

 

 

 

 

Kaldor and Piketty’s facts: The rise of monopoly power in the United States

Gauti Eggertsson
Jacob A. Robbins
Ella Getz Wold

Feb 2018

Click to access 02052018-WP-kaldor-piketty-monopoly-power.pdf

 

 

 

 

Is There an Investment Gap in Advanced Economies? If So, Why?

Robin Döttling

German Gutierrez Gallardo

Thomas Philippon

 

Date Written: July 2017

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3002796

 

 

 

 

Antitrust in a Time of Populism

Professor Carl Shapiro

CRESSE 2017 Heraklion – Crete, Greece

2 July 2017

Click to access 2017_Key_SHAPIRO.pdf

 

 

 

The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks

The Causes and Consequences of Fewer U.S. Equities

Credit Suisse

March 2917

Click to access document_1072753661.pdf

 

 

 

Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S

German Gutierrez Gallardo

Thomas Philippon

 

Date Written: December 2017

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3095586

 

 

 

 

The Fall and Rise of Market Power in Europe

John P. Weche and Achim Wambach

Click to access dp18003.pdf

Click to access 1011811367.pdf

 

 

 

 

On the Formation of Capital and Wealth: IT, Monopoly Power and Rising Inequality

Mordecai Kurz,

Stanford University

2018

Click to access e50bf8be5c75f1cca2e9e3d4afa4b8b8ac84.pdf

 

 

 

 

Appendix for \Investment-less Growth: An Empirical Investigation”

 

German Gutierrez and Thomas Philippony

March 2018

Click to access gutierrezappendixfa17bpea.pdf

 

 

 

 

WP 18-4 Slower Productivity and Higher Inequality: Are They Related?

Jason Furman and Peter Orszag

June 2018

PIIE

Click to access wp18-4.pdf

 

 

 

 

THE FUTURE OF PRODUCTIVITY

OECD

2015

 

Click to access OECD-2015-The-future-of-productivity-book.pdf

 

 

 

 

OECD Study on the Future of Productivity

Video

PIIE

 

 

 

 

 

A productivity perspective on the future of growth

By James Manyika, Jaana Remes, and Jonathan Woetzel
McKinsey
2014

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-productivity-perspective-on-the-future-of-growth

 

 

 

 

The future of productivity in manufacturing

Anne Green, Terence Hogarth, Erika Kispeter, David Owen

Peter Glover

February 2016

Click to access ier_2016_manufacturing_sector_productivity_report.pdf

 

 

 

 

THE PRODUCTIVITY OUTLOOK: PESSIMISTS VERSUS OPTIMISTS

August 2016

Zia Qureshi
at the Brookings Institution

Click to access productivity-outlook.pdf

 

 

 

The Slowdown in Productivity Growth: A View from International Trade

Development Issues No. 11

UN

April 2017

Click to access dsp_policy_11.pdf

 

 

 

 

Five Puzzles in the Behavior of Productivity, Investment, and Innovation

Robert J. Gordon

NBER

August 2004

http://www.nber.org/papers/w10660

 

 

 

 

AN OECD AGENDA ON ISSUES IN PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT

Paul Schreyer

OECD Statistics Directorate
2016 World KLEMS Conference
Madrid, May 23-24 2016

Click to access worldklems2016_Schreyer_slides.pdf

 

 

 

THE FUTURE OF PRODUCTIVITY

Chiara Criscuolo
Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation OECD

Understanding the Great recession: from micro to macro
Bank of England
London | 24 September 2015

Click to access CCriscuolo.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Industry 4.0

The future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industries

BCG

Click to access media.media.72e472fb-1698-4a15-8858-344351c8902f.original.pdf

 

 

 

 

The waning of productivity growth

Raymond Van der Putten

http://economic-research.bnpparibas.com/Views/DisplayPublication.aspx?type=document&IdPdf=29178

 

 

The Impact of Robots on Productivity, Employment and Jobs

A positioning paper by the International Federation of Robotics

April 2017

Click to access IFR_The_Impact_of_Robots_on_Employment.pdf

 

 

 

 

The fall in productivity growth: causes and implications

Speech given by Silvana Tenreyro, External MPC Member, Bank of England

Peston Lecture Theatre, Queen Mary University of London

15 January 2018

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2018/the-fall-in-productivity-growth-causes-and-implications

 

 

 

Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy

Science and Technology Council

Executive Office of the President

December 2016

Click to access EMBARGOED%20AI%20Economy%20Report.pdf

 

 

 

 

Long-term growth and productivity projections in advanced countries

Gilbert Cette, Rémy Lecat & Carole Ly-Marin

Working Paper #617

December 2016

Bank of France

Click to access DT617.pdf

 

 

 

ARE WE APPROACHING AN ECONOMIC SINGULARITY?
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

By
William D. Nordhaus

September 2015

Click to access d2021.pdf

 

 

 

Challenges for the Future of Chinese Economic Growth

Jane Haltmaier

Federal Reseve Bank USA

2013

Click to access ifdp1072.pdf

 

 

 

Innovation, research and the UK’s productivity crisis.

Richard Jones

SPERI Paper No. 28

Click to access SPERI-Paper-28-Innovation-research-and-the-UK-productivity-crisis.pdf

 

 

 

Think Like an Enterprise: Why Nations Need Comprehensive Productivity Strategies

BY ROBERT D. ATKINSON

MAY 2016

Click to access 2016-think-like-an-enterprise.pdf

 

 

 

Solving the productivity puzzle

By Jaana Remes, James Manyika, Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Woetzel, Jan Mischke, and Mekala Krishnan

McKinsey

Feb 2018

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/meeting-societys-expectations/solving-the-productivity-puzzle

 

 

 

Solving the productivity puzzle: the role of demand and the promise of digitization

DR. JAN MISCHKE

McKinsey Global Institute

May 2018

Click to access 20180523-MGI_Solving-the-productivity-puzzle_Bruegel.pdf

 

 

Worried about Concentration? Then Worry about Rent-Seeking

By Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles
This article appeared on ProMarket on April 18, 2017.

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/worried-about-concentration-then-worry-about-rent-seeking

 

 

 

Online platforms, distortion of markets, social impacts and freedom of expression

Oxford Centre for Competition law and policy

22 May 2017

Tim Cowen.

Click to access Tim_Cowen_Oxford_Centre_for_Competition_Law_and_Policy_speech_22May2017—updated-21.09.2017.pdf

 

 

 

What’s Behind the Increase in Inequality?

By Eileen Appelbaum*

September 2017

Click to access whats-behind-the-increase-in-inequality-2017-09.pdf

 

 

 

A NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY: UNPACKING THE PROBLEM OF DECLINING COMPETITION AND SETTING PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD

American Antitrust Institute

September 28, 2016

Click to access AAINatlCompPolicy.pdf

 

 

 

AI and the Economy

Jason Furman
Harvard Kennedy School
Cambridge, MA

Robert Seamans
NYU Stern School of Business
New York, NY

29 May 2018

Click to access c14099.pdf

 

 

 

The United States and Europe: Short-Run Divergence and Long-Run Challenges

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

Remarks at Bruegel
Brussels, Belgium
May 11, 2016

Click to access The-United-States-and-Europe-Short-Run-Divergence-and-Long-Run-Challenges-Jason-Furman.pdf

 

 

 

 

Business Investment Spending Slowdown

April 9, 2018

Marc Labonte

CRS Insights

Click to access IN10882.pdf

 

 

 

 

ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

Together With
THE ANNUAL REPORT
of the
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

Feb 2016

Click to access ERP-2016.pdf

 

 

Keynote Remarks of Commissioner Terrell McSweeny

Washington Center for Equitable Growth

Making Antitrust Work for the 21st Century

Washington, DC

October 6, 2016

Click to access mcsweeny_-_keynote_remarks_at_equitable_growth_10-6-16.pdf

 

 

Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story

Jason Furman

November 28, 2005

Click to access walmart.pdf

 

 

“America Without Entrepreneurs: The Consequences of Dwindling Startup Activity”

Testimony before
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
United States Senate
June 29, 2016

John W. Lettieri
Cofounder
& Senior Director for Policy and Strategy
Economic Innovation Group

Click to access 7F75741C1A2E6182E1A5D21B61D278F3.lettieri-testimony.pdf

 

 

 

 

A reading list on market power, superstar firms, and inequality

BLOG

http://www.beyondthetimes.com/2017/08/16/a-partial-reading-list-on-market-power-superstar-firms-and-inequality/

 

 

 

 

 

Productivity Growth in the Advanced Economies:The Past, the Present, and Lessons for the Futures

Jason Furman

Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

July 2015

Click to access 20150709_productivity_advanced_economies_piie_slides.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Forms and sources of inequality in the United States

Jason Furman

17 March 2016

VOXEU

 

https://voxeu.org/article/forms-and-sources-inequality-united-states

 

 

 

 

Business Investment in the United States: Facts, Explanations, Puzzles, and Policies

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
Progressive Policy Ins9tute

September 30, 2015

Click to access 2015.09.30-Jason-Furman_Business-Investment-in-US-Facts-Explanations-Puzzles-Policies.pdf

 

 

 

 

Can Tax Reform Get Us to 3 Percent Growth?

Jason Furman
Harvard Kennedy School & Peterson Institute for International Economics

New York, NY
November 3, 2017

Click to access furman20171103ppt.pdf

 

 

 

 

Structural Challenges and Opportunities in the U.S. Economy

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

London School of Economics
November 5, 2014

Click to access 20141105_1830_structuralOpportunitiesUSEconomy_tr.pdf

 

 

Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

Remarks at AI Now: The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near Term
New York University
New York, NY

July 7, 2016

Click to access 20160707_cea_ai_furman.pdf

 

 

 

 

Rebalancing the U.S. Economy

Jason Furman

Click to access TIE_Sp15_Furman.pdf

 

 

 

 

Should Policymakers Care Whether Inequality Is Helpful or Harmful For Growth?

Jason Furman

Harvard Kennedy School & Peterson Institute for International Economics
Rethinking Macroeconomic Conference, October 11-12 2017

Preliminary Draft: October 5, 2017

Click to access furman20171012paper.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

A Political Economy of Oligarchy: Winner-take-all ideology, superstar norms, and the rise of the 1%

Yochai Benkler

September, 2017

Click to access Political%20economy%20of%20oligarchy%2001.pdf

 

 

 

 

Can Trump Overcome Secular Stagnation?
Part One: The Demand Side *

James K. Galbraith

Click to access can_trump_overcome_secular_stagnation.pdf

 

 

 

 

The macroeconomic effects of the 2017 tax reform

Robert J. Barro, Harvard University
Jason Furman, Harvard University

March 2018

Click to access 4_barrofurman.pdf

 

 

 

 

A FUTURE THAT WORKS: AUTOMATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND PRODUCTIVITY

McKinsey Global Institute

January 2017

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/Digital%20Disruption/Harnessing%20automation%20for%20a%20future%20that%20works/A-future-that-works-Executive-summary-MGI-January-2017.ashx

 

 

 

A MISSING LINK: THE ROLE OF ANTITRUST LAW IN RECTIFYING EMPLOYER POWER IN OUR HIGH-PROFIT, LOW-WAGE ECONOMY

ISSUE BRIEF BY MARSHALL STEINBAUM

APRIL 2018

Click to access Monopsony-issue-brief.pdf

 

 

 

Inclusive Growth

For once, some good news

by jason furman

Click to access 16-29-MR64.pdf

 

 

 

 

The Outlook for the U.S. Economy and the Policies of the New President

Jason Furman
Senior Fellow, PIIE
Peterson Institute for International Economics |

SNS/SHOF Finance Panel

Stockholm

June 12, 2017

Click to access furman20170612ppt.pdf

 

 

 

 

The Role of Economists in Economic Policymaking

Jason Furman
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Arnold C. Harberger Distinguished Lecture on Economic Development
UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations
Los Angeles, CA

April 27, 2017

Click to access furman20170427.pdf

 

 

 

 

Market Concentration – Note by the United States

Hearing on Market Concentration
7 June 2018

OECD

Click to access market_concentration_united_states.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/WD(2018)59&docLanguage=En

 

 

 

 

The fringe economic theory that might get traction in the 2016 campaign

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/02/the-fringe-economic-theory-that-might-get-traction-in-the-2016-campaign/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.77c5e3479485

 

 

 

ACHIEVING INCLUSIVE GROWTH IN THE FACE OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND THE FUTURE OF WORK

OECD

Click to access achieving_inclusive_growth_in_the_face_of_digital_transformation_and_the_future_of_work_oecd_0.pdf

Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics

Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics

 

 

Wassily Leontief: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

From the time he was a young man growing up in Saint Petersburg, Wassily Leontief devoted his studies to input-output analysis. When he left Russia at the age of nineteen to begin the Ph.D. program at the University of Berlin, he had already shown how leon walras’s abstract equilibrium theory could be quantified. But it was not until many years later, in 1941, while a professor at Harvard, that Leontief calculated an input-output table for the American economy. It was this work, and later refinements of it, that earned Leontief the Nobel Prize in 1973.

Input-output analysis shows the extensive process by which inputs in one industry produce outputs for consumption or for input into another industry. The matrix devised by Leontief is often used to show the effect of a change in production of a final good on the demand for inputs. Take, for example, a 10 percent increase in the production of shoes. With the input-output table, one can estimate how much additional leather, labor, machinery, and other inputs will be required to increase shoe production.

Most economists are cautious in using the table because it assumes, to use the shoe example, that shoe production requires the inputs in the proportion they were used during the time period used to estimate the table. There’s the rub. Although the table is useful as a rough approximation of the inputs required, economists know from mountains of evidence that proportions are not fixed. Specifically, when the cost of one input rises, producers reduce their use of this input and substitute other inputs whose prices have not risen. If wage rates rise, for example, producers can substitute capital for labor and, by accepting more wasted materials, can even substitute raw materials for labor. That the input-output table is inflexible means that, if used literally to make predictions, it will necessarily give wrong answers.

At the time of Leontief’s first work with input-output analysis, all the required matrix algebra was done using hand-held calculators and sheer tenacity. Since then, computers have greatly simplified the process, and input-output analysis, now called “interindustry analysis,” is widely used. Leontief’s tables are commonly used by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Early on, input-output analysis was used to estimate the economy-wide impact of converting from war production to civilian production after World War II. It has also been used to understand the flow of trade between countries. Indeed, a 1954 article by Leontief shows, using input-output analysis, that U.S. exports were relatively labor intensive compared with U.S. imports. This was the opposite of what economists expected at the time, given the high level of U.S. wages and the relatively high amount of capital per worker in the United States. Leontief’s finding was termed the Leontief paradox. Since then, the paradox has been resolved. Economists have shown that in a country that produces more than two goods, the abundance of capital relative to labor does not imply that the capital intensity of its exports should exceed that of its imports.

Throughout his life Leontief campaigned against “theoretical assumptions and nonobserved facts” (the title of a speech he delivered while president of the American Economic Association, 1970–1971). According to Leontief too many economists were reluctant to “get their hands dirty” by working with raw empirical facts. To that end Wassily Leontief did much to make quantitative data more accessible, and more indispensable, to the study of economics.


Selected Works

1941. The Structure of American Economy, 1919–1929. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1966. Essays in Economics: Theories and Theorizing. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

From NY Times

Wassily Leontief, Economist Who Won a Nobel, Dies at 93

 

Wassily Leontief, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 1973 for his analyses of America’s production machinery, showing how changes in one sector of the economy can exact changes all along the line, affecting everything from the price of oil to the price of peanut butter, died Friday night at the New York University Medical Center. He was 93.

His analytic methods, as the Nobel committee observed, were adopted and became a permanent part of production planning and forecasting in scores of industrialized nations and in private corporations all over the world.

Following the model of his so-called input-output analysis, General Electric, for example, was able to load data from 184 sectors of the economy — such as energy, home construction and transportation — into a mammoth computer to help it predict how the energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil boycott in 1973 would affect public demand for its products and services, from light bulbs to turbines.

A well-known academic figure, Mr. Leontief was the director of the Institute for Economic Analysis of New York University from 1975 until 1991; even after his retirement he still taught at the university into his 90’s. Before coming to N.Y.U. he taught economics at Harvard for 44 years and directed large research projects there as well.

Mr. Leontief was a thinker who often complained that too many of his academic colleagues spent too much time staring out their office windows instead of being out in the field, as any good economist ought to be, counting things. ”Facts,” he said. ”You have to have facts. Theories aren’t good unless you have facts to back them.”

When asked how he developed the input-output analysis recognized by his Nobel memorial prize, he would invariably begin, ”Oh, it’s really very simple — what I wanted to do was collect facts.” The facts he sought were those that explained how segments of production were interconnected.

He showed that if you carefully studied changes in the cost and components of one type of product, you could determine the resulting changes in cost and components of others along the production chain.

Suppose you have a sudden rise the price of oil or steel? Mr. Leontief taught government officials and corporate executives to track how this influenced the costs of production in other segments of a local or national economy, both within an industry or more broadly across many industries and many nations.

Wassily Leontief was born Aug. 5, 1905, in St. Petersburg, the son of Wassily W. Leontief, an economist, and the former Eugenia Bekker. A brilliant student, he was allowed to enroll when he was only 15 at the newly renamed University of Leningrad. But he got in trouble by expressing vehement opposition to the lack of intellectual and personal freedom under the country’s Communist regime, which had taken power three years earlier. He was arrested as he was nailing up anti-Communist posters on the wall of a military barracks and placed in solitary confinement. Released after several days, he promptly resumed his anti-Communist activities and was arrested several more times.

Finally, in 1925, he was allowed to leave the country, a turn of fate he attributed to a growth on his neck. He said the authorities believed that the growth was cancerous and that he would die and be of no use to the state. He left Russia to resume his studies in economics at the University of Berlin, and his parents soon followed. The growth was benign and he completed his doctorate in 1929. He spent a year as an economist advising the Government of China, particularly on the planning of a new railroad network.

Then he came to the United States and worked briefly in New York at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where his published work quickly attracted attention, and Harvard invited him to join its economics faculty. He agreed, provided the university help him develop his ideas about production. Harvard gave him a research assistant and a $2,000 grant to develop the system of input-output analysis that the world was to adopt. He and his assistant began constructing a table covering 42 American industries, taking months to compile figures and perform calculations that computers would latter handle in fractions of seconds.

During the war, he helped the United States Government with planning for industrial production, worked as a consultant to the Office of Strategic Services and supervised compilation of a 92-economic-sector table for the Department of Labor. In 1948, Mr. Leontief set up the Harvard Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy with the aid of large grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Air Force to expand and refine his input-output models. Soon he had a staff of 20 — and a 650-punch-card computer from I.B.M., then the state-of-the art.

He did not, however, keep the Air Force grant long once the Eisenhower Administration came to power; some of its officials were critical of his input-output theory as smacking too much of a planned economy. That was precisely what he thought it should smack of.

One of his goals in studying the nature of changes in industrial production was to enable nations to plan in ways that would be economically beneficial and help them avoid periods of economic hardship. But to some economists the idea of national economic planning was ill advised: not only would it not work, they said, but it might make matters worse and also might open the door to excessive Government control. They maintained it would be better to let the private sector and the free market determine the course of future economic events.

To Mr. Leontief, it seemed short-sighted for nations to devote little or no thought to the analysis of the future of the overall economy, especially after what he regarded as the effective work of modern economists in devising projections that are mathematically and statistically sound. He spoke out often on the subject in the 1970’s and 80’s.

He and Leonard Woodcock, then president of the United Auto Workers, proposed that the Federal Government establish an Office of National Economic Planning to help coordinate economic projects and make recommendations on policies they said could avert unnecessary unemployment, inflation, failures in health care, shortages in affordable housing, energy, public transportation and other requirements of a civilized society.

The idea never materialized. If anything, the generation of younger economists who followed him, many of whom he taught, developed less respect for the abilities of national Governments to plan for the long term. It bothered him greatly that toward the end of the century many Americans seemed to have lost broad faith in their Government’s ability to improve the lot of its citizens, particularly through economic programs.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992, he said there was little doubt that the United States Government had played an important role in a generally prosperous economy for more than half the century, from ending the Great Depression in the 30’s to guiding the nation through most of the rest of the century in generally sounder economic health than most of the rest of the world.

Mr. Leontief was always fearful that employment problems would accompany widespread use of the high-speed computers that he himself relied on almost from the moment they first became applicable for nonmilitary purposes after World War II. He warned that computers would be for many workers what the tractor was to the horse — great for the farmer but not great for the horse.

In an interview in 1996, when he was 90, Mr. Leontief, noting the trend toward corporate downsizing, said: ”Individual entrepreneurs will continue to do better and better and better, but significant segments of the work force will do worse and worse. Ultimately, Governments will have to play a role in arbitrating and correcting this.”

Mr. Leontief seemed to grow more liberal with age. During the student protests on the Harvard campus in 1969, he split with most senior faculty members and joined with a younger group more sympathetic to the protesting students. In 1975, he resigned from Harvard, where he was the Henry Lee Professor of Economics and chairman of the university’s Society of Fellows, its most distinguished group of scholars. He left a year ahead of schedule, complaining that too often teachers at the graduate level did not teach and researchers did not do research.

Shortly before he resigned, he joined an internal report criticizing Harvard’s economics department, which had long been regarded as among the world’s best. The report said that the department had failed to adequately recruit minority faculty members, that it took an overly narrow approach in scholarship and that a ”deterioration in attitudes and relationships” had occurred.

At N.Y.U., he continued to expand his work on input-output analysis and helped foreign nations adopt it. China was among the last to do so, as it intensified its industrialization in the late 1980’s.

Wassily Leontief, a balletomane and connoisseur of fine wines, said he also thought of himself as a squire of Willoughby Brook in northern Vermont, where he and his family had a summer home. It was all very well to be an internationally regarded scholar, but landing a beautiful brook trout, he would say with his sly smile, was his passion.

He is survived by his wife, Estelle Helena Marks, a writer, whom he married in 1932, his daughter, Svetlana Alpers, the art historian, author, and professor of fine arts at the University of California at Berkeley, and two grandsons.

 

 

Please see my related posts

Classical roots of Interdependence in Economics

George Dantzig and History of Linear Programming

 

 

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

 

STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY

Outline of a Simple Input-Output Formulation*

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 11, 1973
WASSILY LEONTIEF

 

Click to access b541e3fec34aa38c09c9eec41a46981e8fb9.pdf

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1973/leontief-lecture.html

 

 

 

 

How is the global economy interconnected?

https://www.ubs.com/microsites/together/en/nobel-perspectives/laureates/wassily-leontief.html

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief

Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

Wassily Leontief

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Leontief.html

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief and the discovery of the input output approach,

Bjerkholt, Olav

(2016) :

Memorandum, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, No. 18/2016

Click to access 877412162.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884686

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief and Léon Walras: The Production as a Circular Flow

 

Amanar AKHABBAR*
Jérôme LALLEMENT

2011

Click to access Wassily-Leontief-and-Leon-Walras-the-Production-as-a-Circular-Flow.pdf

Click to access MPRA_paper_30207.pdf

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief, the Input-Output model, the Soviet National Economic Balance
and the General Equilibrium Theory

Fidel Aroche

 

Click to access Ponencia_Aroche_Fidel_1.pdf

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief: In appreciation

William J. Baumol and Thijs ten Raa

Euro. J. History of Economic Thought 16:3 511–522

September 2009

 

Click to access leontief%20ejhet.pdf

Click to access Thijs.pdf

 

 

 

 

Social Technology and Political Economy:  The debate about the Soviet origins of Input Output Analysis

Amanar Akhabbar

2006

Click to access 2006-12-21_Akhabbar.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

The National Accounts as a Tool for Analysis and Policy; History, Economic
Theory and Data Compilation Issues

Frits Bos
2009

Click to access MPRA_paper_23582.pdf

Click to access The-National-Accounts-as-a-Tool-for-Analysis-and-Policy-History-Economic-Theory-and-Compilation-Issues.pdf

 

 

 

 

The national accounts as a tool for analysis and policy; past, present and
future

Frits Bos

CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis
2006

Click to access MPRA_paper_1235.pdf

 

 

 

 

Three centuries of macro-economic statistics

Frits Bos

December 2011

Click to access MPRA_paper_35391.pdf

 

 

 

 

Wassily Leontief and His Contributions to Economic Accounting

BEA

1999

Click to access 0399leon.pdf

 

 

 

 

A Review of Input-Output Analysis

CARL F. CHRiST

Volume Title: Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal
Volume ISBN: 0-870-14173-2

Click to access c2866.pdf

 

 

STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY
Outline of a Simple Input-Output Formulation

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 11, 1973
by
WA S S I L Y LE O N T I E F

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Click to access b541e3fec34aa38c09c9eec41a46981e8fb9.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

THE INPUT-OUTPUT MODELING APPROACH TO THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY

Viorel GAFTEA

Click to access rjef2_2013p211-222.pdf

 

 

 

 

“Input-Output Analysis in an Increasingly Globalised World:
Applications of OECD’s Harmonised International Tables”,

 

Wixted, B., N. Yamano and C. Webb

(2006),

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers,
2006/07, OECD Publishing

Click to access input-output-analysis.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

System Dynamics and Input Output Analysis

Charles Braden

Click to access brade166.pdf

 

 

 

 

ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE AND INPUT-OUTPUT THEORY

Ángel Luis Ruiz
Inter American University of Puerto Rico
Pedro F. Pellet
Nova Southeastern University

 

Click to access archivo5_vol5_no2.pdf

 

 

 

Leontief and the Future of the World Economy

Emilio Fontela

Catedrático Emérito

Universidad de Ginebra

2002

Click to access FIIRS006.PDF

 

 

 

Classical’ Roots of Input-Output Analysis: A Short Account of its Long Prehistory

By Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori

 

Click to access Kurz&Salvarodi_IOsClassicalRoots.pdf

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL: CARBON FOOTPRINT AND INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS – AN INTRODUCTION,

Thomas Wiedmann

(2009)

Economic Systems Research, 21:3, 175-186

Click to access Wiedman2009_Carbon_footprint_MRIO_introduction_ESR.pdf

 

 

 

Introduction: the History of Input–Output Analysis, Leontief’s Path and
Alternative Tracks

OLAV BJERKHOLT & HEINZ D. KURZ

Economic Systems Research
Vol. 18, No. 4, 331–333, December 2006

Click to access 2006_The_History_of_Input_Output_Analysis__Leonthiefs_Path_and_Alternative_Tracks__in_Economic_Systems_Research_.pdf

 

 

 

 

Sraffa, Leontief, Lange: The political economy of input–output economics

 

2017

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758016301035

 

 

 

 

 

Trends in Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Trends in Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

 

From The Location of Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions in the USA

The vast majority of foreign direct investment (FDI) takes place in the form of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As), see Evenett (2004). Analyzing the determinants and consequences of M&As is part of a large and growing literature in both (international) economics and (international) business. In economics, the dominant industrial organization (IO) literature does, however, typically not deal with the cross-border aspect of M&As, but instead concentrates on national M&As (Salant et al., 1983; O’Brien and Shaffer, 2005; Davis and Wilson, 2008; Egger and Hahn, 2010). A relatively small literature explicitly tries to include the cross-border aspect of M&As, but neglects the role of country factors that are central in international economics and international business to explain the structure and variation of cross-border transactions (Anand and Delios, 2002; Nocke and Yeaple, 2007, 2008, Bertrand and Zitouna, 2006; Fugmagalli and Vasconcelos, 2009, Halverson, 2012). The impact of country wide differences on cross-border M&As is taken explicitly into account by Neary (2004, 2007) who focuses on differences in comparative advantage between countries in a general equilibrium model to explain the occurrence of cross-border M&As. Empirical support for this idea is found by Brakman et al (2013), see also Blonigen et al (2014). In the international business literature – ever since the introduction of Dunning’s Ownership-Location-Internalization (OLI) framework – the mode of foreign entry and the choice of a foreign location have been central, but not explicitly modelled, as the OLI framework is more a taxonomy of relevant elements for location choice than a model (see for example Dunning, 2000).2

Both for the modern international business and international economics literature, however, whenever the location of cross-border M&As is taken into account, it usually refers to the host country as a whole. Where to locate the M&A within the host country is not analyzed. This amounts to assuming that if foreign firms have decided to engage in an M&A they choose a country but are indifferent regarding the target location within that country. This observation is the starting point for the present paper. In contrast to this observation with respect to cross-border M&As, the within country location choice with respect to greenfield FDI has been analyzed in depth. The seminal study by Head et al. (1995) was pivotal, and initiated a large and growing body of literature; see for example Fontagne and Mayer (2005); Basile et al., (2008); Defever, (2006); or Mataloni, (2011). Similar analyses for cross-border M&As are largely absent and this is striking because the bulk of FDI is in the shape of cross-border M&As. A priori, there is no reason to assume that the location decision of greenfield investments and M&As are similar. M&As, by definition, merge with or acquire existing firms at a specific location, whereas greenfield investments can, in principle, locate anywhere.

 

From Economic and Financial Integration and the Rise of Cross-Border M&As

FDI8

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI

  • Most of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is in the form of Cross Border M&A.

 

The motivation for Cross Border M&A can be several:

  • Horizontal Integration ( Seeking Market Share)
  • Vertical Integration ( Control of Supply Chain)
  • Diversification (Market Seeking)

Research indicate that most of the cross border M&A are for seeking markets.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI2

  • Cross Border Mergers have been rising since 1985.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI3

 

  • Europe and North America dominate regions in which cross borders M&A are taking place.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI4

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI6

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI5

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI7

 

From  M&A Today: A Quick Pre-Financial Crisis Comparison

FDI9FTD10FDI11

Sources of M&A Data:

From Exploration of Mergers and Acquisitions Database: Deals in Emerging Asian Markets

There are four popular mergers and acquisitions databases,

  • SDC Platinum Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) database,
  • Bloomberg M&A database,
  • Mergerstat M&A database,
  • ZEPHYR M&A database.

The SDC Platinum M&A Database covers domestic deals from 1979 to present and international deals from 1985 to present. Thomson Reuters states that the SDC includes more transactions than any other source and is widely used by the industry professionals and academic researchers.

The Bloomberg M&A database began putting the mergers and acquisitions product together in January 1998, with the intention of providing “100 percent coverage of all global deals as they were announced” (Ide, 2001). Bloomberg states that it has mergers and acquisitions staff in 12 offices worldwide compiling M&A data and relationships with over 800 legal and financial firms.

According to the Zimmerman (2006), the Mergerstat database covers both acquisitions and divestitures where at least one significant party is a U.S. company.

the ZEPHYR database covers transactions both inside and outside the U.S. and is particularly useful to study M&A deals in Europe (from 1997 forward for European transactions; from 2000 forward for North American transactions; global coverage begins in 2003).

 

Academic Libraries

 

Deloitte Consulting M&A Services

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/mergers-and-acquisitions/solutions/merger-and-acquisition-services.html

 

KPMG Consulting

https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/kpmg-advisory/deal-advisory/ma-spotlight/ma-spotlight-june-2017.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwo4jOBRBmEiwABWNaMQAFeh6oDkE3FAlfCTiA8yKJkpHwuRPwcvBQlnZpFbm_JpODEt1AuRoC8t4QAvD_BwE

 

Thomson Reuters

https://financial.thomsonreuters.com/en/markets-industries/investment-banking-financial-advisory/mergers-and-acquisitions.html

 

PITCHBOOK.COM

http://get.pitchbook.com/mergers-and-acquisitions-data/?utm_term=mergers%20and%20acquisitions&utm_source=adwords&utm_campaign=ma&utm_content=ma&_bt=166828976390&_bm=p&_bn=g&gclid=CjwKCAjwo4jOBRBmEiwABWNaMSspbwSShK79f6OskgjShGv0_8c8qgrnqF35qv2Fu9t9ZvgwfzfTpxoCaa8QAvD_BwE

White and Case

http://mergers.whitecase.com

 

IMAA-Institute.org

https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/

FACTSET / MERGERSTAT

https://www.factset.com/data/company_data/mergers_acq

 

Bureau Van Dijk/ZEPHYR

https://www.bvdinfo.com/bvd/media/reports/global-fy-2016.pdf

 

STATISTA

https://www.statista.com/topics/1146/mergers-and-acquisitions/

UNCTAD / World Investment Report

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/World%20Investment%20Report/World_Investment_Report.aspx

Wilmer and Hale Law Firm

https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/2017-WilmerHale-MA-Report.pdf

 

Dealogic.com

http://www.dealogic.com/insight/ma-outlook-2017/

Please also see other related posts:

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

External Balance sheets of Nations

Low Interest Rates and International Investment Position of USA

 

Key sources of Research:

CROSS-BORDER MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS:
ON REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND MERGER WAVES

Steven Brakman
Harry Garretsen
Charles van Marrewijk

2008

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087886https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087886

 

Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions: The Facts as a Guide for International Economics

CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1823

 

Steven Brakman

Harry Garretsen

Charles van Marrewijk

 

Date Written: October 2006

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=940348

 

Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions: Their Role in Industrial Globalisation

2000

Nam-Hoon Kang and Sara Johansson

 

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/137157251088.pdf?expires=1505877469&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BA90C157DC1196BE6E7C3CE1726D31FF

 

 

Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future

Katsuhiko Shimizua,*, Michael A. Hittb,1, Deepa Vaidyanathc,2, Vincenzo Pisanod,3

Available online 24 July 2004

 

 

 Determinants of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Isil Erel / Rose C. Liao /  Michael S. Weisbach

March 15, 2011

https://fisher.osu.edu/supplements/10/9864/ELW_JFRound3Revision.pdf

The Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions Wave of the Late 1990s

Simon J. Evenett

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9545.pdf

 

 

 

The Macroeconomic Determinants of Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments

Paula Neto; Antonio Brandão; António Cerqueira

2010

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Brandao3/publication/46466162_The_Macroeconomic_Determinants_of_Cross_Border_Mergers_and_Acquisitions_and_Greenfield_Investments/links/0912f50c5ab64daab5000000.pdf

 

 

The Impact of FDI, Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments on Economic Growth

Paula Neto; Antonio Brandão; António Cerqueira

2010

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Brandao3/publication/24111675_The_Impact_of_FDI_Cross_Border_Mergers_and_Acquisitions_and_Greenfield_Investments_on_Economic_Growth/links/0912f50c5ab651626b000000.pdf

 

Exploration of Mergers and Acquisitions Database: Deals in Emerging Asian Markets

 

http://www.myacme.org/ijmtp/IJMTPV14N1/3%20IJMTP14005%20Draft%203%20final.pdf

 

 

Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Scott Whitaker

2016

 

 

Economic and Financial Integration and the Rise of Cross-Border M&As

STEVEN BRAKMAN

GUS GARITA

HARRY GARRETSEN

CHARLES VAN MARREWIJK

March 2009

 

 

 

The Location of Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions in the USA

Steven Brakman
Harry Garretsen
Charles Van Marrewijk

CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 5331

APRIL 2015

 

 

M&A Today: A Quick Pre-Financial Crisis Comparison

2017

 

https://financial.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/financial/pre-financial-crisis-comparison.pdf

 

 

 

 

Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Financial Development:
Evidence from Emerging Asia

Douglas H. Brooks and Juthathip Jongwanich

No. 249 | February 2011

 

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28703/economics-wp249.pdf

 

 

 

MERGERS AND ACQISITIONS (M&As)

Prepared by
Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Investment Division, OECD

May 2004

 

https://www.imf.org/External/NP/sta/bop/pdf/diteg4a.pdf

 

 

 

OECD BENCHMARK DEFINITION OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT:

FOURTH EDITION –

ISBN 978-92-64-04573-6 – © OECD 2008

 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentstatisticsandanalysis/40193734.pdf

 

 

 

Economic and Other Impacts of Foreign Corporate Takeovers in OECD Countries

 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/40476100.pdf

 

 

 

A Comparative Analysis of the Economic Effects of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in European Countries

Anita Maček

 

https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/38482.pdf

 

 

Trading Down: NAFTA, TPP, TATIP and Economic Globalization

Trading Down: NAFTA, TPP, TATIP and Economic Globalization

Top Institutions and Economists Now Say Globalization Increases Inequality

World Bank, IMF, BIS, NBER, McKinsey Now Admit that Globalization Increases Inequality

We’ve all heard that globalization lifts all boats and increases our prosperity …

But mainstream economists and organizations are now starting to say that globalization increases inequality.

The National Bureau of Economic Research – the largest economics research organization in the United States, with many Nobel economists and Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers as members –  published,  a report in May finding:

Recent globalization trends have increased U.S. inequality by disproportionately raising top incomes.

***

Rising import competition has adversely affected manufacturing employment, led firms to upgrade their production and caused labor earnings to fall.

NBER explains that globalization allows executives to gain the system to their advantage:

This paper examines the role of globalization in the rapid increase in top incomes. Using a comprehensive data set of thousands of executives at U.S. firms from 1993-2013, we find that exports, along with technology and firm size, have contributed to rising executive compensation. Isolating changes in exports that are unrelated to the executive’s talent and actions, we show that globalization has affected executive pay not only through market channels but also through non-market channels. Furthermore, exogenous export shocks raise executive compensation mostly through bonus payments in poor-governance settings, in line with the hypothesis that globalization has enhanced the executive’s rent capture opportunities. Overall, these results indicate that globalization has played a more central role in the rapid growth of executive compensation and U.S. inequality than previously thought, and that rent capture is an important part of this story.

A World Bank document says globalization “may have led to rising wage inequality”. It  notes:

Recent evidence for the US suggests that adjustment costs for those employed in sectors exposed to import competition from China are much higher than previously thought.

***

Trade may have contributed to rising inequality in high income economies ….

The World Bank also cites Nobel prize-winning economist Eric Maskin’s view that globalization increases inequality because it increases the mismatch between the skills of different workers.

A report by the International Monetary Fund notes:

High trade and financial flows between countries, partly enabled by technological advances, are commonly cited as driving income inequality …. In advanced economies, the ability of firms to adopt laborsaving technologies and offshoring has been cited as an important driver of the decline in manufacturing and rising skill premium (Feenstra and Hanson 1996, 1999, 2003) ….

***

Increased financial flows, particularly foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows have been shown to increase income inequality in both advanced and emerging market economies (Freeman 2010). One potential explanation is the concentration of foreign assets and liabilities in relatively higher skill- and technology-intensive sectors, which pushes up the demand for and wages of higher skilled workers. In addition, FDI could induce skill-specific technological change, be associated with skill-specific wage bargaining, and result in more training for skilled than unskilled workers (Willem te Velde 2003). Moreover, low-skill, outward FDI from advanced economies may in effect be relatively high-skilled, inward FDI in developing economies (Figini and Görg 2011), thus exacerbating the demand for high-skilled workers in recipient countries. Financial deregulation and globalization have also been cited as factors underlying the increase in financial wealth, relative skill intensity, and wages in the finance industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in advanced economies (Phillipon and Reshef 2012; Furceri and Loungani 2013).

The Bank of International Settlements – the “Central Banks’ Central Bank” – also notes  that globalization isn’t all peaches and cream.  The Financial Times explains :

A trio of recent papers by top officials from the Bank for International Settlements goes further, however, arguing that financial globalisation itself makes booms and busts far more frequent and destabilising than they otherwise would be.

McKinsey & Company notes:

Even as globalization has narrowed inequality among countries, it has aggravated income inequality within them.

The Economist points out:

Most economists have been blindsided by the backlash [against globalization]. A few saw it coming. It is worth studying their reasoning ….

***

Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York believes such costs perpetuate a cycle of globalisation. He argues that periods of global integration and technological progress generate rising inequality ….

Supporters of economic integration underestimated the risks … that big slices of society would feel left behind ….

The New York Times reported:

Were the experts wrong about the benefits of trade for the American economy?

***

Voters’ anger and frustration, driven in part by relentless globalization and technological change [has made Trump and Sanders popular, and] is already having a big impact on America’s future, shaking a once-solid consensus that freer trade is, necessarily, a good thing.

“The economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded trade is a double-edged sword,” wrote Jared Bernstein, former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

What seems most striking is that the angry working class — dismissed so often as myopic, unable to understand the economic trade-offs presented by trade — appears to have understood what the experts are only belatedly finding to be true: The benefits from trade to the American economy may not always justify its costs.

In a recent study, three economists — David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn at the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California, San Diego — raised a profound challenge to all of us brought up to believe that economies quickly recover from trade shocks. In theory, a developed industrial country like the United States adjusts to import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that can successfully compete in global markets.

They examined the experience of American workers after China erupted onto world markets some two decades ago. The presumed adjustment, they concluded, never happened. Or at least hasn’t happened yet. Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets. Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What’s more, they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.

In another study they wrote with Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from M.I.T., they estimated that rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs.

“These results should cause us to rethink the short- and medium-run gains from trade,” they argued. “Having failed to anticipate how significant the dislocations from trade might be, it is incumbent on the literature to more convincingly estimate the gains from trade, such that the case for free trade is not based on the sway of theory alone, but on a foundation of evidence that illuminates who gains, who loses, by how much, and under what conditions.”

***

The case for globalization based on the fact that it helps expand the economic pie by 3 percent becomes much weaker when it also changes the distribution of the slices by 50 percent, Mr. Autor argued.

And Steve Keen – economics professor and Head of the School of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University in London – notes:

Plenty of people will try to convince you that globalization and free trade could benefit everyone, if only the gains were more fairly shared. The only problem with the party, they’ll say, is that the neighbours weren’t invited. We’ll share the benefits more equally now, we promise. Let’s keep the party going. Globalization and Free Trade are good.

This belief is shared by almost all politicians in both parties, and it’s an article of faith for the economics profession.

***

It’s a fallacy based on a fantasy, and it has been ever since David Ricardo dreamed up the idea of “Comparative Advantage and the Gains from Trade” two centuries ago.

***

[Globalization’s] little shell and pea trick is therefore like most conventional economic theory: it’s neat, plausible, and wrong. It’s the product of armchair thinking by people who never put foot in the factories that their economic theories turned into rust buckets.

So the gains from trade for everyone and for every country that could supposedly be shared more fairly simply aren’t there in the first place. Specialization is a con job—but one that the Washington elite fell for (to its benefit, of course). Rather than making a country better off, specialization makes it worse off, with scrapped machinery that’s no longer useful for anything, and with less ways to invent new industries from which growth actually comes.-

Excellent real-world research by Harvard University’s “Atlas of Economic Complexity” has found diversity, not specialization, is the “magic ingredient” that actually generates growth. Successful countries have a diversified set of industries, and they grow more rapidly than more specialized economies because they can invent new industries by melding existing ones.

***

Of course, specialization, and the trade it necessitates, generates plenty of financial services and insurance fees, and plenty of international junkets to negotiate trade deals. The wealthy elite that hangs out in the Washington party benefits, but the country as a whole loses, especially its working class.

Some Big Companies Losing Interest In Globalization

Ironically, the Washington Post noted in 2015 that the giant multinational corporations themselves are losing interest in globalization … and many are starting to bring the factories back home:

Yet despite all this activity and enthusiasm, hardly any of the promised returns from globalization have materialized, and what was until recently a taboo topic inside multinationals — to wit, should we reconsider, even rein in, our global growth strategy? — has become an urgent, if still hushed, discussion.

***

Given the failures of globalization, virtually every major company is struggling to find the most productive international business model.

***

Reshoring — or relocating manufacturing operations back to Western factories from emerging nations — is one option. As labor costs escalate in places such as China, Thailand, Brazil and South Africa, companies are finding that making products in, say, the United States that are destined for North American markets is much more cost-efficient. The gains are even more significant when productivity of emerging countries is taken into account.

***

Moreover, new disruptive manufacturing technologies — such as 3-D printing, which allows on-site production of components and parts at assembly plants — make the idea of locating factories where the assembled products will be sold more practicable.

***

GE, Whirlpool, Stanley Black & Decker, Peerless and many others have reopened shuttered factories or built new ones in the United States.

 Key Sources of Research

 

Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

 

Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta

with Jomo Kwame Sundaram

January 2016

 

Click to access 16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf

 

 

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Disintegration, Unemployment and Instability

Jeronim Capaldo

October 2014

 

Click to access 14-03CapaldoTTIP.pdf

 

 

 Revisiting the Link between Trade, Growth and Inequality:
Lessons for Latin America and the Caribbean

by Kimberly Beaton, Aliona Cebotari, and Andras Komaromi

 

 

ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES

 

Click to access inequality.pdf

 

 

Data Fail: The Divergence between Rosy International Trade Commission Projections and U.S. Trade Agreements’ Actual Outcomes

Tradewatch.com

May 2016

Click to access usitc-tpp-prebuttal.pdf

 

Globalization, Outsourcing, and Wage Inequality

Robert C. Feenstra, Gordon H. Hanson

NBER Working Paper No. 5424
Issued in January 1996

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5424

Economic Inequality in the United States

Janet Yellen

2006

http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/yellen-speeches/2006/november/economic-inequality-in-the-united-states/

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2006/december/economic-inequality-in-the-united-states/

 

 

What’s caused the rise in income inequality in the US?

WEF

2015

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/whats-caused-the-rise-in-income-inequality-in-the-us/

 

Worsening American Income: Inequality: Is world trade to blame?

Gary Burtless

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/worsening-american-income-inequality-is-world-trade-to-blame/

 

 

Income inequality in the United States: What do we know and what does it mean? Issues by the Numbers, July 2017

Dr. Daniel Bachman

July 12, 2017

https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/economy/issues-by-the-numbers/july-2017/rising-income-inequality-gap-united-states.html

 

 

Top Institutions and Economists Now Say Globalization Increases Inequality

August 20, 2017

Washington Post Blog

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/08/globalization-increases-inequality-destabilizes-economies-political-systems.html

On Inequality of Wealth and Income – Causes and Consequences

 On Inequality of Wealth and Income – Causes and Consequences

 

Disparity in Wealth and Income of American workers/household is a hot public policy/economic/social/political issue.

  • Wealth (Stock)
  • Income (Flow)

what are the causes and consequences of Inequality on economics and society?

 

From TRENDS IN INCOME INEQUALITY AND ITS IMPACT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH (OECD)

The disparity in the distribution of household incomes has been rising over the past three decades in a vast majority of OECD countries and such long-term trend was interrupted only temporarily in the first years of the Great Recession. Addressing these trends has moved to the top of the policy agenda in many countries. This is partly due to worries that a persistently unbalanced sharing of the growth dividend will result in social resentment, fuelling populist and protectionist sentiments, and leading to political instability. Recent discussions, particularly in the US, about increased inequality being one possible cause of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to its relevance for policy making. But another growing reason for the strong interest of policy makers in inequality is concern about whether the cumulatively large and sometimes rapid increase in inequality might have an effect on economic growth and on the pace of exit from the current recession. Is inequality a pre-requisite for growth? Or does a greater dispersion of incomes across individuals rather undermine growth? And which are the short and long-term consequences of redistributive policies on growth?

From Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective (IMF)

Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain. Not surprisingly then, the extent of inequality, its drivers, and what to do about it have become some of the most hotly debated issues by policymakers and researchers alike. Against this background, the objective of this paper is two-fold.

First, we show why policymakers need to focus on the poor and the middle class. Earlier IMF work has shown that income inequality matters for growth and its sustainability. Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels.

Second, we investigate what explains the divergent trends in inequality developments across advanced economies and EMDCs, with a particular focus on the poor and the middle class. While most existing studies have focused on advanced countries and looked at the drivers of the Gini coefficient and the income of the rich, this study explores a more diverse group of countries and pays particular attention to the income shares of the poor and the middle class—the main engines of growth. Our analysis suggests that

  • Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs. Globalization has played a smaller but reinforcing role. Interestingly, we find that rising skill premium is associated with widening income disparities in advanced countries, while financial deepening is associated with rising inequality in EMDCs, suggesting scope for policies that promote financial inclusion.

  • Policies that focus on the poor and the middle class can mitigate inequality. Irrespective of the level of economic development, better access to education and health care and well-targeted social policies, while ensuring that labor market institutions do not excessively penalize the poor, can help raise the income share for the poor and the middle class.

  • There is no one-size-fits-all approach to tackling inequality. The nature of appropriate policies depends on the underlying drivers and country-specific policy and institutional settings. In advanced economies, policies should focus on reforms to increase human capital and skills, coupled with making tax systems more progressive. In EMDCs, ensuring financial deepening is accompanied with greater financial inclusion and creating incentives for lowering informality would be important. More generally, complementarities between growth and income equalityobjectives suggest that policies aimed at raising average living standards can also influence the distribution of income and ensure a more inclusive prosperity.

From World changes in inequality: an overview of facts, causes, consequences and policies (BIS)

Public concern about inequality has grown substantially in recent years. Politicians and journalists descant with increasing frequency on the increase in inequality as a threat to social stability, laying the blame on globalisation and its attendant so-called neo-liberal policies. There is certainly much truth in such views. However, the lack of rigour in the public debate is striking, and one may doubt whether a constructive discussion of inequality, its causes and its economic, social and political consequences can take place without more clarity. Is it really the case that inequality is everywhere increasing more or less continuously, as actually seems to be happening in the United States? What type of inequality are we talking about: earnings, market income, household disposable income per consumption unit, wealth? What matters most: the inequality of opportunity or the inequality of economic outcome, including income? What kind of measure should be used? The recently highly publicised share of the top 5, 1.1% taken from tax data may not evolve in the same way as the familiar Gini coefficient defined on disposable incomes. And, then, what is known about the nature of the unequalising forces that seem to affect our economies and what tools might be available to counteract them?

In an international survey conducted in 2010, people were asked how they thought inequality had changed over the previous 10 years.1 In few countries was the perception of inequality trends in agreement with what could be observed from standard statistical sources about inequality. US citizens felt inequality had remained the same, whereas it was surging by most accounts, Brazilians found it was also increasing despite the fact that, for the first time in over 40 years, inequality was declining, while French and Dutch people thought that inequality had increased although the usual inequality coefficients were remarkably stable.

Good policies must rely on precise diagnostics. It is the purpose of this paper to take stock of what is known at this stage about the evolution of inequality around the world. In so doing, it will be shown that an ever-increasing degree of inequality at all times and everywhere over the last 30 years is far from the reality, and that there is a high degree of specificity across countries. In turn, this suggests that the combination of equalising and unequalising forces may be quite different from one country to another. Some factors may be common and truly global but others may be country-specific, the outcome being quite variable across countries. It also follows that tools to correct inequality, if need be, may have to differ in nature depending on the causes of increased inequality.

Tackling all these issues in depth is beyond the scope of this paper. My aim is only to offer an overview of what is observed and the main ideas being debated in the field of economic inequality. The paper is organised as follows. It starts with a quick “tour d‘horizon“ of the evidence for the evolution of various dimensions of economic inequality. It then tackles the issue of the potential causes, identifying what may be seen as common to most countries and what may be specific. Finally, it touches upon the consequences of excessive inequality and the tools available to counter it, emphasising the rising constraints imposed by globalisation.

Causes of Inequality

  • Shareholder Capitalism
  • Focus on Cost Minimization
  • Focus on ROIC and Economic Value Added (EVA)
  • Consolidation – Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Free Trade Agreements – NAFTA
  • Increased Outsourcing
  • Global Commodity Chains
  • Global Production Networks
  • Global Value Chains
  • Lack of Educated Workforce
  • Lack of protection for Low income earners
  • Compensation for Executives vs Labor
  • Unemployment, Underemployment
  • Value of High Skilled Technical Workers
  • Technological Change
  • Skills Obsolescence

Consequences of Inequality

  • Impact on Effective Demand
  • Slows Economic Growth
  • Decreased Economic Mobility
  • Health and Social effects
  • Living Standards at the Bottom (Poverty)
  • Intergenerational Mobility
  • Democratic Process and Social Justice
  • Reduced Consumption
  • Financial Crisis
  • Social Cohesion
  • Global Imbalances
  • Hampers Poverty reduction
  • Access to Health services
  • Access to Financial Services
  • Access to Education

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

The Age of Inequality

Edited by Jeremy Gantz

2017

 

 

The Price of Inequality

Joseph Stiglitz

2012

A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality

Jason Furman

Peter Orszag

October 16, 2015

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/teaching/FurmanOrszag15.pdf

Firming Up Inequality

Jae Song, David J. Price Fatih Guvenen, Nicholas Bloom

2015

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62587/1/dp1354.pdf

 

 

 TOWARDS A BROADER VIEW OF COMPETITION POLICY

 

Joseph E. Stiglitz

University Professor, Columbia University,

Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute

June 2017

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/sites/jstiglitz/files/Towards%20a%20Broader%20View%20of%20Competition%20Policy_0.pdf

 

 

ACCOUNTING FOR RISING CORPORATE PROFITS: INTANGIBLES OR REGULATORY RENTS?

Boston University School of Law
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 16-18

November 9, 2016

https://www.bu.edu/law/files/2016/11/Accounting-for-Rising-Corporate-Profits.pdf

Inequality: Facts, Explanations, and Policies

Jason Furman
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

City College of New York New York, NY

October 17, 2016

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20161017_furman_ccny_inequality_cea.pdf

Domestic Outsourcing, Rent Seeking, and Increasing Inequality

 Eileen Appelbaum

First Published July 21, 2017

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0486613417697121

 

Global Concentration and the Rise of China

Caroline Freund and Dario Sidhu

Peterson Institute for International Economics

http://econ.au.dk/fileadmin/Economics_Business/Research/Seminars/2016/Global_Concentration_Final.pdf

How Could Wage Inequality within and Across Enterprises Be Reduced?

Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 17-62

Posted: 10 Jun 2017 Last revised: 17 Aug 2017

Christian Moser

Columbia University

Date Written: December 15, 2016

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2983691

 

 

 

The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms

David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Patterson, John Van Reenen

NBER Working Paper No. 23396
Issued in May 2017

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23396

Inequality: A Hidden Cost of Market Power

Posted: 29 Mar 2017 Last revised: 31 Mar 2017

Sean F. Ennis  Pedro Gonzaga  Chris Pike

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) – Competition Division

Date Written: March 6, 2017

https://papers.ssrn.com/Sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2942791

 

 

Wealth and Income Inequality in the Twenty-First Century

Joseph E. Stiglitz
International Economic Association World Congress
Mexico City
June 2017

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/sites/jstiglitz/files/Wealth%20and%20Income%20Inequality%2021st%20Century.pdf

 

 

The Globalization of Production and Income Inequality in Rich Democracies

Matthew C Mahutga
Anthony Roberts
Ronald Kwon

Social Forces, Volume 96, Issue 1, 1 September 2017, Pages 181–214,

 

INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY: EVIDENCE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

EMMANUEL SAEZ

Contemporary Economic Policy

Vol. 35, No. 1, January 2017, 7–25
Online Early publication October 14, 2016

 

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezCEP2017.pdf

 

 

Consequences of Rising Income Inequality

BY KEVIN J. LANSING AND AGNIESZKA MARKIEWICZ

October 17, 2016

Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

 

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/el2016-31.pdf

 

 

 

Top Incomes, Rising Inequality, and Welfare

Kevin J. Lansing
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

Agnieszka Markiewicz

June 2016

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp12-23bk.pdf

 

 

Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective

Era Dabla-Norris, Kalpana Kochhar, Frantisek Ricka, Nujin Suphaphiphat, and Evridiki Tsounta
(with contributions from Preya Sharma and Veronique Salins)

IMF

June 2015

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

 

 

Piketty, Thomas. 2014.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

 

Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007

Edward N. Wolff

Levy Economics Institute of Bard College

March 2010

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

 

 

 

CONSUMPTION AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE U.S. SINCE THE 1960S

Bruce D. Meyer James X. Sullivan

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH

August 2017

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23655.pdf

 

 

Top Income Inequality in the 21st Century: Some Cautionary Notes

Fatih Guvenen Greg Kaplan

April 2, 2017

https://gregkaplan.uchicago.edu/sites/gregkaplan.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/top_income_inequality_web_April2_2017.pdf

 

FIFTY YEARS OF GROWTH IN AMERICAN CONSUMPTION, INCOME, AND WAGES

Bruce Sacerdote

May 16, 2017

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23292.pdf

 

 

The Inequality Puzzle

BY LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS

 

http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/33/the-inequality-puzzle/

 

 

 

 GLOBAL INEQUALITY DYNAMICS: NEW FINDINGS FROM WID.WORLD

Facundo Alvaredo Lucas Chancel Thomas Piketty Emmanuel Saez Gabriel Zucman

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
February 2017, Revised April 2017

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23119.pdf

 

 

 

Power and inequality in the global political economy

NICOLA PHILLIPS

March 2017

https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ia/iix019

 

 

 Outsourcing governance: states and the politics of a ‘global value chain world’

Frederick W. Mayer & Nicola Phillips

04 Jan 2017

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2016.1273341

 

 

What’s caused the rise in income inequality in the US?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/whats-caused-the-rise-in-income-inequality-in-the-us/

Why are American Workers getting Poorer? China, Trade and Offshoring

Avraham Ebenstein, Ann Harrison, Margaret McMillan

NBER Working Paper No. 21027
Issued in March 2015

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21027

 

 

 

The Geography of Trade and Technology Shocks in the United States

David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson

American Economic Review

May 2013

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.3.220

 

Economic Consequences of Income Inequality

Jason Furman
Joseph E. Stiglitz

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cee6/1573cd50b9c8eae3379cf1f1c92301f40927.pdf

 

Labor’s Declining Share of Income and Rising Inequality

https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2012-economic-commentaries/ec-201213-labors-declining-share-of-income-and-rising-inequality.aspx

 

 

World changes in inequality: an overview of facts, causes, consequences and policies

by François Bourguignon
Monetary and Economic Department
August 2017

BIS working paper

http://www.bis.org/publ/work654.pdf

“Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth”

OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 163

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth-SEM-WP163.pdf

 

Causes of income inequality in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_income_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

Economic inequality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

 

 

Income inequality in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

 

Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth

Prepared by Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg, Charalambos G. Tsangarides

 

April 2014

IMF

 

Click to access sdn1402.pdf

 

 

 

Understanding the Economic Impact of the H-1B Program on the U.S.

John Bound† Gaurav Khanna‡ Nicolas Morales§

April 20, 2017

 

Click to access c13842.pdf

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

 

There is a need for holistic/systemic understanding of causal relations among

  • Low Economic Growth
  • Low Real Long Term Interest Rates
  • Decreased Business Investment
  • Mergers and Acquisitions Activity
  • Industry Concentration
  • Decreased Competition
  • Rising Profits
  • Income Inequality
  • Shareholder Capitalism
  • Dividends Payouts
  • Buyback of Shares
  • Superstar Firms
  • Too Big to Fail
  • Oligopoly Economy / Oligarchy
  • Decreased Number of Stocks/Equities
  • Focus on Costs Minimization
  • Increased Outsourcing
  • Global Value Chains
  • Free Trade Agreements
  • Market Power (Increased Market Share)
  • Decreased Dynamism
  • Herding by Suppliers
  • Labor Vs Executive Compensation
  • Unemployment
  • Concentration in Occupations

And don’t forget managerial focus on

  • Economic Value Added (EVA) since 1990s

 

There are two views to look at these issues

  • Aggregated View – Corporate Agglomeration and Spatial Dispersion / Extension
  • Disaggregated View – Micro Motives, Macro Behavior ( Bottom up Agent based view)

 

As the research papers below indicate, the scholarship is recent and need much more attention by the Economists and Policy makers.

 

From Is There a Connection Between Market Concentration and the Rise in Inequality?

The rise in wealth and income inequality has been at the forefront of the political debate in the U.S. in the last few years. At the same time, issues like market power and concentration, bigness, and antitrust have also come back into prominence, propelled by a growing body of research that points to diminishing competition across multiple American industries.

The possible connection between inequality and market concentration, however, has been relatively understudied for many years—until recent years, that is, when a sheafof new studies examining the interactions between concentration, market power, and inequality began to appear.

A 2015 paper by Jonathan Baker and Steven Salop, for instance, examined the connection between inequality and market power and argued that “because the creation and exercise of market power tend to raise the return to capital, market power contributes to the development and perpetuation of inequality.” Harvard Law School’s Einer Elhauge also found that horizontal shareholding likely leads to anti-competitive price raises and has regressive effects. Daniel Crane of the University of Michigan, however, contends that the connection between antitrust and wealth inequality has been grossly oversimplified by advocates of tougher antitrust enforcement.

Asked if there was a connection between concentration and inequality, Chicago Booth professors Austan Goolsbee, Steven Kaplan, and Sam Peltzman pointed to data being inconclusive. Goolsbee said: “Probably [there is a connection]. But we don’treally know more than correlations at this point.” Kaplan said his own research “suggests that winner-take-all markets (driven by technology and scale) play a rolein inequality. However, they may not play the most important role.” And Peltzmansaid that “The timing suggests so, but there are a lot of unconnected dots in this question.”

Is rising inequality connected to monopolies, rent-seeking, and concentration, or is it a result of larger forces like globalization and technology? Can antitrust be used effectively to mitigate inequality, or is concentration a sign of greater efficiency? These questions, and others, were debated by economists and legal scholars during a panel at the recent Stigler Center conference on concentration in America.

The panel featured Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the financial advisory and asset management firm Lazard Freres; Justin Pierce, a Senior Economist at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; Lina Khan, a fellow at Open Markets program at New America; Sabeel Rahman, an Assistant Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School; Simcha Barkai, a PhD Candidate at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business; and German Gutierrez, a PhD Candidate at the New York University Stern School of Business. The panel was moderated by Matt Stoller of the Open Markets program at New America, who opened by observing that “a new kind of Brandeis School of antitrust is emerging, in terms of thinking about political economy.”

Much of the panel focused on the dramatic rise in corporate profits. A recent, much-discussed Stigler Center working paper by Simcha Barkai found that over the past 30 years, as labor’s share of output fell by 10 percent, the capital share declined even further. This finding goes against the argument that the labor share went down due to technological changes, or as Barkai put it: “We used to spend money on people, today we’re spending money on robots.”

Barkai’s paper finds no evidence to support the technological argument. “We’re spending less on all inputs. If you think of this from the perspective of a firm, this is terrific. After accounting for all of my costs—material inputs, workers, capital—I am left with a large amount of money, much more so than in the past.” What Barkai does find, however, is that profits have gone way up. From 1984 to 2014, the profit share increased from 2.5 percent of GDP to 15 percent.

“To give you a sense of how large these profits are, if you look over the past 30 years and you ask, ‘How much have profits increased?’ you can give a number in dollars. A better way to think about that is, “Per worker, how much have these dollars increased?” It’s about $14,000 per worker. That’s a really large number because, in 2014, personal median income was just over $28,000. It’s about half of personal median income,” said Barkai.

Barkai went on to say that these findings were more pronounced in industries that experienced an increase in concentration. “Those industries that have a large increase in concentration also have larger declines in the labor share,” he said. Barkai’s conclusions were echoed by a separate study that was recently published by David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen, in which they found that higher concentration is connected to the fall in the labor share.

One way to consider the question of concentration and inequality, said Pierce, is to look at what happens to firms’ efficiency and markups as a result of a merger. In a recent paper with Bruce Blonigen, Pierce was able to utilize new techniques in order to isolate the effects of mergers in the manufacturing sector. Comparing data from factories that were acquired during mergers to similar factories that weren’t, and to factories where an acquisition has been announced but not yet completed, Pierce and Blonigen found no evidence of the standard argument that mergers benefit consumers by increasing efficiency, reducing production costs, and, in turn, lowering prices. Quite the opposite: they found evidence that mergers increase market power, allowing firms to generate higher profits by raising prices.

“What we find when we do this is that mergers on average are associated with increases in markups in a magnitude of 15 to 50 percent. When we look at the effect on productivity, we actually don’t find a statistically significant effect on productivity associated with mergers,” said Pierce.

Gutierrez, meanwhile, spoke about his 2016 paper with Thomas Philippon, in which the two found that concentrated industries with less entry and more concentration invest less. Before 2000, he explained, firms funneled about 20 cents of every dollar of surplus into investments. Since 2000, however, investments dropped by half—to 10 cents on the dollar.

Their findings, he said, rule out the argument that the drop in investments is related to control by the stock market. The data also rule out other theories, such as financial constraints, safety premiums, or globalization. “What we’re left with is competition, or lack of competition and governance,” said Gutierrez.

“What we find is that most industries have become more concentrated. That leads to a decrease in investment. It means less investment by leaders in particular, and at the industry as a whole. Some manufacturing industries have seen increased competition from China. For the U.S. in particular, we see that leaders invest more. They try and hold onto their position, but the overall effect is somewhat negative on aggregate investment in the U.S.”

How is this drop in investments connected to an increase in concentration? Gutierrez offered two hypotheses: one, that superstar firms, such as digital platforms, are more productive and are therefore capturing more market share. The second, he said, is increased regulation: “In particular, if you look at the cross section of industries, industries where regulation has increased have also tended to become more concentrated and have invested less.”

Orszag, the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, co-authored a 2015 paper with former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman that explored the rise in “supernormal returns on capital” among firms that have limited competition. In the panel, he spoke about what he described as a “dramatic rise” in dispersion among firms in productivity and wages as an understudied driver of inequality.

“In general, if you look at most textbooks on economics and most discussions of public policy, firms are seen as this uninteresting thing that you have to deal with but don’t want to really get into the innards of. Why do some firms behave differently than others? Having now spent a bunch of time in the private sector, the culture in firms really is quite different. Firms do behave differently from one to another beyond just market structure. Within the same market in the same field, Firm A is not the same as Firm B, as people who work inside those firms know.”

Orszag pointed to OECD data that showed that top global firms have been largely exempted from the decline in productivity that advanced economies experienced over the last 10-15 years. “If there’s a structural explanation for that, whether it’s polarization or market structure or innovation, why is it affecting only the laggards in the industry and not those at the frontier? Secondly, why aren’t there more spillovers from the frontier firms within each sector to others? What is happening to the flow of information or the flow of technique or what have you that’s causing this broad, significant rise in productivity deltas across firms, even within the same sector?” he asked.

Orszag also suggested that contrary to media narratives that present growing gaps between CEO wages and median workers within each firm as a prominent driver of inequality, the bulk of the rise in wage gaps is happening between firms, and not within the firms themselves. Studies, he said, show a dramatic increase in between-firm wage inequality “and very little movement except at the very, very largest firms in within-firm inequality.”

Orszag added: “We don’t know exactly what’s causing this. This may be a sorting of workers. It may be sharing of rents in the form of wages for the top firms. It may be a whole variety of different things. What I do suggest is the vast majority of the discussion on income-and-wage inequality seems to just glide over this whole thing as if it doesn’t exist.”

A holistic approach to inequality and concentration

Khan, who in a recent paper with Sandeep Vaheesan explored the role of monopoly and oligopoly power in perpetuating inequality, argued that the way to understand the connection between market concentration and inequality is to take a more holistic approach.

The connection between excessive market concentration and inequality, she said, has been understudied for a long time. “We were really surprised to see that at the time, in 2014, there really wasn’t much research on this connection at all. The most comprehensive paper that we found was from 1975 by William Comanor and Robert Smiley, which found that monopoly power did in fact transfer wealth to the most affluent members of society and suggested that a more competitive economy would have more progressive redistributive effects,” said Kahn. “One way to understand why this connection between market concentration and inequality has been understudied is that the law decided that it wasn’t really important. Once we shifted from an antitrust approach that took a more holistic and multidimensional view of the effect of market power to an approach that privilege means prices, the research on these effects also took a hit.”

In their paper, Khan and Vaheesan argue that inequality not only harms efficiency, but also that firms use their market power to raise prices “above competitive levels to consumers and push prices below competitive levels for small producers.” The paper makes a case for more rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws, arguing that reinvigorating antitrust could be one possible remedy for the regressive redistributive effects of concentration and the political power of monopolies.

“I think at a very basic level, our current political economy reflects 30 years of doing antitrust in a very particular way,” said Khan, who listed several industries such as airlines, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and telecom, where prices have risen following mergers and industry consolidation.

“New business creation and growth have been on a secular decline. It’s worth recalling that in an earlier era, owning one’s own business was a form of asset building for the middle class, a way of passing on wealth to one’s children. This is especially still true in immigrant communities, where owning your own bodega or your own dry-cleaning service is a path of upward mobility. You can imagine how markets that shut out independent businesses are also effectively closing off that path of asset building,” said Khan.

Khan went on to discuss the political implications of excessive market power and how they can further entrench inequality. “Big firms and concentrated industries enjoy a level of political power that they can use to further entrench their economic dominance. Politics is another vessel by which we see this,” she said.

Rahman, author of the book Democracy Against Domination (Oxford University Press, 2016), also advocated for a wider view of the issue. “When we’re worried about the problem of concentration, I think it goes much broader than the specific areas of mergers and firm size, although that’s a big part of it,” he said.

“When we think about the good things that we want from the economy, we want it to be dynamic, we want it to be innovative, we want it to enable mobility. These things are not natural products. They are a property of the underlying structure of firms, of labor markets, of financial markets, and of policies, including antitrust,” said Rahman, who went on to discuss two aspects of the rise in concentration: digital platforms and the “Uber-ization” of more and more economic sectors, and what he described as a “growing geographic concentration of wealth, income, and opportunity between rural and urban.”

Rahman suggested that other tools, not just antitrust, could be used to combat excessive market power—particularly when it comes to the power of digital platforms. “The way I want to frame this is as a problem of concentration and inequality that warps the structure of opportunity in our economy,” said Rahman. “You have antitrust and public utility law, corporate governance, and labor law as three parts of the larger ecosystem of law and regulation that, coming out of that Progressive era debate about power, were the three complements that together, it was hoped, would produce a high-opportunity, a high-mobility economy that was open to all.”

 

Please also see my related post.

Low Interest Rates and Business Investments : Update August 2017

 

In addition to papers listed above, also see papers and articles mentioned in the references below.

Key sources of Research:

 

Rising Corporate Concentration, Declining Trade Union Power, and the Growing Income Gap: American Prosperity in Historical Perspective

Jordan Brennan

March 2016

 

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Brennan2016.pdf

They Just Get Bigger: How Corporate Mergers Strangle the Economy

Jordan Brennan

Feb 2017

http://evonomics.com/corporate-mergers-strangle-economy-jordan-brennan/

 The Oligarchy Economy: Concentrated Power, Income Inequality, and Slow Growth

Jordan Brennan

April 2016

http://evonomics.com/the-oligarchy-economy/

Declining Labor and Capital Shares

Simcha Barkai

November 2016

 

https://research.chicagobooth.edu/~/media/5872FBEB104245909B8F0AE8A84486C9.pdf

 

Lack of market competition, rising profits, and a new way to look at the division of income in the United States

Nov 2016

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/lack-of-market-competition-rising-profits-and-a-new-way-to-look-at-the-division-of-income-in-the-united-states/

Rising U.S. business concentration and the decline in labor’s share of income

January 2017

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/rising-concentration-declining-labor-share/

 

Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share

By DAVID AUTOR, DAVID DORN, LAWRENCE F. KATZ, CHRISTINA PATTERSON AND JOHN VAN REENEN

January 2017

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23108

Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.

German Gutierrez and Thomas Philippon

March 2017

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty-research/sites/faculty-research/files/finance/Macro%20Lunch/IK_Comp_v1.pdf

 

Dynamism in Retreat:  Consequences for Regions, Markets, and Workers

2017

 

https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dynamism-in-Retreat.pdf

 

The Oligopoly Problem

 

NewYorker

 

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-oligopoly-problem

 

 

DOES INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION MATTER?

John J. Phelan

2014

Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, Volume 15, Number 1, 2014

 

 

http://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/does-industry-concentration-matter.pdf

 

 

Increased Concentration of Occupations, Outsourcing, and Growing Wage Inequality in the United States

Elizabeth Weber Handwerker

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

April, 2017

 

http://www.sole-jole.org/17733.pdf

 

 

Measuring occupational concentration by industry

2014

 

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/pdf/measuring-occupational-concentration-by-industry.pdf

 

 

Rising wage dispersion between white-collar and blue-collar workers and market concentration: The case of the USA, 1966-2011,

D. Ilhan

(2017)

 

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/162859/1/893982539.pdf

 

 

 

Rising Profits Don’t Lift Workers’ Boats

2016

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-05/rising-profits-don-t-lift-workers-boats

Is There a Connection Between Market Concentration and the Rise in Inequality?

 A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality

Jason Furman Peter Orszag
October 16, 2015

 

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/teaching/FurmanOrszag15.pdf

 Evidence for the Effects of Mergers on Market Power and Efficiency

Blonigen, Bruce A., and Justin R. Pierce

(2016).

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016082pap.pdf

 

 

Market Power and Inequality: The Antitrust Counterrevolution and its Discontents

11 Harvard Law & Policy Review 235 (2017)

24 Apr 2016Last revised: 22 Feb 2017

Lina Khan / Sandeep Vaheesan

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769132

 

Too much of a good thing

Economist

March 26 2016

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing

 

 The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms

David Autor, MIT and NBER

David Dorn, University of Zurich

Lawrence F. Katz, Harvard University and NBER

Christina Patterson, MIT

John Van Reenen, MIT and NBER

May 1, 2017

https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979

 

 

BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS OF MARKET POWER

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160502_competition_issue_brief_updated_cea.pdf

 

 

 Market Concentration Grew During Obama Administration

SAM BATKINS, CURTIS ARNDT, BEN GITIS |

APRIL 7, 2016

 

https://www.americanactionforum.org/print/?url=https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/market-concentration-grew-obama-administration/

 Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Inequality

JONATHAN B. BAKER AND STEVEN C. SALOP

2015

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2474&context=facpub

Horizontal Shareholding, Antitrust, Growth and Inequality

Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?

Gustavo Grullon   Yelena Larkin   Roni Michaely

Date Written: April 23, 2017

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2612047

Horizontal Shareholding

109 Harvard Law Review 1267 (2016)

Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 16-17    22 Apr 2016

 

Einer Elhauge

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632024

IS THERE A CONCENTRATION PROBLEM IN AMERICA?

MARCH 27–29, 2017

Conference at University of Chicago / Stigler Center

https://research.chicagobooth.edu/stigler/events/single-events/march-27-2017

 

 

“Reigniting Competition in the American Economy”

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Keynote Remarks at New America’s Open Markets Program Event June 29, 2016

 

https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warren_Antitrust_Speech.pdf

 

 

The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications

Jan De Loecker† Jan Eeckhout‡

August 24, 2017

http://www.janeeckhout.com/wp-content/uploads/RMP.pdf

The Rise of Market Power and the Decline of Labor’s Share

The Financialization of the U.S. Economy Has Produced Mechanisms That Lead Toward Concentration

 June 2017

“No Convincing Evidence That Concentration Has Been a Major Factor in Explaining Poor U.S. Economic Performance”

 March 2017

Economists: “Totality of Evidence” Underscores Concentration Problem in the U.S.

“I Suspect the Major Reason for the Rise in Concentration Is Technological Change, Particularly in IT”

“The Increase in Common Ownership Corresponds to the Concentration Increase That Several Large Mergers Would Create”

Worried About Concentration? Then Worry About Rent-Seeking

“There Is Unambiguous Evidence That Concentration Is on the Rise and Widespread Over Most Industries”

A Second Gilded Age: The Consolidation of Wealth and Corporate Power

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY

JUNE 16, 2017

 

Why are Macro-economic Growth Forecasts so wrong?

Why are Macro-economic Growth Forecasts so wrong?

 

There are several institutions which publish economic forecasts annually/quarterly.

  • IMF
  • OECD
  • EC

Central Banks of Nations also publish economic Forecasts.  For Example:

  • Federal Reserve Bank of USA
  • Bank of England
  • Bank of Canada
  • Riksbank of Sweden
  • European Central Bank

 

There are several surveys of professional forecasters which create consensus forecasts to improve the accuracy of forecasts.

  • US Fed Reserve Survey of Professional Forecasters
  • ECB Survey of Professional Forecasters
  • Consensus Forecasts by Consensus Forecasts
  • Federal Reserve Blue Book
  • Federal Reserve Livingston Survey
  • Blue Chip Economic Forecasts by Wolters Kluwers

 

International Forecasting organizations (Private and Government)

  • IMF, “World Economic Outlook”;
  • EC, “European Economic Forecast”;
  • OECD, “OECD Economic Outlook”;
  • Consensus Economics, “Consensus Forecasts”;
  • The Economist, “The Economist pool of forecasters”.

 

USA Private and Government Economic Forecasters

  • Fed Reserve Survey of Professional Forecasters
  • Blue Chip Economic Indicators ( Wolters Kluwer)
  • Green Book
  • Livingston Survey
  • CBO
  • FOMC
  • Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
  • Western Blue Chip Economic Forecast

 

From Swiss Re Report May 2017

imfforecast

From Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic Outlook Using Historical Forecasting Errors: The Federal Reserve’s Approach

RMSE GDP

 

Surveys of Economic Forecasters:

list

 

USA Private Economic Forecasters

There are many private forecasters who also publish forecasts.  For Example:

  • The Conference Board
  • Wells Fargo Bank
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Citi Group
  • Haver Analytics
  • RSQE Forecasts at University of Michigan

 

See the lists below for almost all of professional forecasters.

private forecasters USA

 

From Blue Chip Economic Forecast:

bluechip2bluechip

From Social Learning, Strategic Incentives and Collective Wisdom: An Analysis of the Blue Chip Forecasting Group

forecastersforecasters2

 

There is also in UK:

  • NIESR ( National Institute of Economic and Social Research)

 

From time to time many of these organizations review quality of their forecasts.  Results of these studies are published in papers many of which are listed in references below.

After the global financial Crisis of 2008-2009, many institutions have taken another look at their models used for forecasting economic variables.

See recent papers by

  • Bank of Canada
  • IMF
  • OECD
  • Fed Reserve
  • Bank of England
  • Riksbank of Sweden
  • US CBO
  • Bank of Portugal
  • European Commission

 

From Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic Outlook Using Historical Forecasting Errors: The Federal Reserve’s Approach

Since late 2007, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the U.S. Federal Reserve has regularly published assessments of the uncertainty associated with the projections of key macroeconomic variables made by individual Committee participants.1 These assessments, which are reported in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) that accompanies the FOMC minutes once a quarter, provide two types of information about forecast uncertainty. The first is qualitative in nature and summarizes the answers of participants to two questions: Is the uncertainty associated with his or her own projections of real activity and inflation higher, lower or about the same as the historical average? And are the risks to his or her own projections weighted to the upside, broadly balanced, or weighted to the downside? The second type of information is quantitative and provides the historical basis for answering the first qualitative question. Specifically, the SEP reports the root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of real-time forecasts over the past 20 years made by a group of leading private and public sector forecasters.

 

Some have blamed the entire economics profession.  Several attempts are being made to improve economic analysis.  Examples include work being done at

  • INET ( Institute for New Economic Thinking)
  • NAEC  at OECD

Heterodox schools of economics are making claims to accuracy of their approach after failure of main stream orthodox New Classical economics in predicting the Global Financial Crisis.

I will create another post later for some of these issues.

  • GDP forecasts errors have been attributed to errors in GDP components of business investments and exports.
  • Variability of GDP forecasts from short term to long term
  • Variability of GDP forecasts between forecasters – private and governments

 

Key Sources of Research:

 

The Case of Serial Disappointment

Justin‐Damien Guénette, Nicholas Labelle St‐Pierre, Martin Leduc and
Lori Rennison

Bank of Canada Staff Analytical Note 2016-10
July 2016

The Case of Serial Disappointment

 

ToTEM: The Bank of Canada’s New Quarterly Projection Model

Stephen Murchison and Andrew Rennison

Research Department
Bank of Canada

2006

ToTEM: The Bank of Canada’s New Quarterly Projection Model

 

 

ToTEM II: An Updated Version of the Bank of Canada’s Quarterly Projection Model

José Dorich, Michael Johnston, Rhys Mendes, Stephen Murchison and Yang Zhang

Canadian Economic Analysis Department
Bank of Canada

2013

ToTEM II: An Updated Version of the Bank of Canada’s Quarterly Projection Model

 

 

Introducing the Bank of Canada’s Projection Model for the Global Economy

Jeannine Bailliu, Patrick Blagrave, and James Rossiter

International Economic Analysis Department
Bank of Canada

2010

Introducing the Bank of Canada’s Projection Model for the Global Economy

Introducing the Bank of Canada’s Projection Model for the Global Economy

 

 

BoC-GEM: Modelling the World Economy

René Lalonde, International Economic Analysis Department

Dirk Muir, International Monetary Fund

BANK OF CANADA REVIEW SUMMER 2009

BoC-GEM: Modelling the World Economy

 

 

MUSE: The Bank of Canada’s New Projection Model of the U.S. Economy

Marc-André Gosselin and René Lalonde
International Department
Bank of Canada

2005

MUSE: The Bank of Canada’s New Projection Model of the U.S. Economy

 

 

OECD FORECASTS DURING AND AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: A POST MORTEM

OECD Economics Department
Policy Note no. 23
February 2014

OECD FORECASTS DURING AND AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: A POST MORTEM

 

 

THE USE OF MODELS IN PRODUCING OECD MACROECONOMIC FORECASTS

OECD ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPERS NO. 1336
By David Turner

2016

THE USE OF MODELS IN PRODUCING OECD MACROECONOMIC FORECASTS

 

 

Lessons from OECD forecasts during and after the financial crisis

Christine Lewis and Nigel Pain

OECD Journal: Economic Studies
Volume 2014

Lessons from OECD forecasts during and after the financial crisis

 

 

How accurate are OECD forecasts?

12 February 2014
by Brian Keeley

 

Home Glossary About Contact Disclaimer How accurate are OECD forecasts?

 

 

Debate the Issues: Complexity and Policy making

OECD

Edited By:Patrick Love, Julia Stockdale-Otárola

06 June 2017

Debate the Issues: Complexity and Policy making

 

 

We need an empowering narrative

OECD Insights
23 June 2017
Gabriela Ramos

 

 

Final NAEC Synthesis : New Approaches to Economic Challenges

OECD

2015

Final NAEC Synthesis New Approaches to Economic Challenges

 

Debate the Issues: New Approaches to Economic Challenges

OECD

2016

Debate the Issues: New Approaches to Economic Challenges

 

OECD Forecasts During and After the Financial Crisis

A Post Mortem

Nigel Pain, Christine Lewis, Thai-Thanh Dang, Yosuke Jin, Pete Richardson

17 Mar 2014

OECD Forecasts During and After the Financial Crisis A Post Mortem

 

 Outlook for the Budget and the Economy

CBO USA

Outlook for the Budget and the Economy

 

CBO’s Economic Forecasting Record: 2015 Update

US CBO

CBO’s Economic Forecasting Record: 2015 Update

 

“Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic
Outlook Using Historical Forecasting Errors: The Federal Reserve’s Approach,”

Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-020.

Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

“Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic Outlook Using Historical Forecasting Errors: The Federal Reserve’s Approach

 

 The FRB/US Model: A Tool for Macroeconomic Policy Analysis

lint Brayton, Thomas Laubach, and David Reifschneider

2014

The FRB/US Model: A Tool for Macroeconomic Policy Analysis

 

 

 Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic Outlook from Historical Forecasting Errors

David Reifschneider and Peter Tulip

federal Reserve

2007-60

Gauging the Uncertainty of the Economic Outlook from Historical Forecasting Errors

 

The IMF/WEO Forecast Process

Hans Genberg, Andrew Martinez, and Michael Salemi

IMF

2014

The IMF/WEO Forecast Process

 

 

On the Accuracy and Efficiency of IMF Forecasts: A Survey and Some Extensions

Hans Genberg and Andrew Martinez

IMF

2014

On the Accuracy and Efficiency of IMF Forecasts: A Survey and Some Extensions

 

 

An Evaluation of Commissioned Studies : Assessing the Accuracy of IMF Forecasts

Prepared by Charles Freedman
February 12, 2014

IMF

An Evaluation of Commissioned Studies : Assessing the Accuracy of IMF Forecasts

 

 

An Assessment of IMF Medium-Term Forecasts of GDP Growth

Carlos de Resende

2014

IMF

An Assessment of IMF Medium-Term Forecasts of GDP Growth

 

 

THE POLITICS OF IMF FORECASTS

AXEL DREHER
SILVIA MARCHESI
JAMES RAYMOND VREELAND

CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 2129

OCTOBER 2007

THE POLITICS OF IMF FORECASTS

 

 

Macroeconomic Forecasting: A Survey

K Wallis

1989

Macroeconomic Forecasting: A Survey

 

 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS’ VS. PRIVATE ANALYSTS’ FORECASTS:

AN EVALUATION

Ildeberta Abreu

Banco de Portugal
July 2011

International organisations’ vs. private analysts’ forecasts: an evaluation

Click to access ab201105_e.pdf

 

 

On Macroeconomic Forecasting

Simon Wren-Lewis

2014

On Macroeconomic Forecasting

 

Why central banks use models to forecast

Simon Wren-Lewis

2014

Why central banks use models to forecast

USA Survey of Economic Professional Forecasters

ECB Survey of Economic Professional Forecasters

 

Trading Economics

 

Oxford Economics

 

Consensus Economics

IHS Markit

 

Evaluating forecast performance

Bank of England

Independent Evaluation Office | November 2015

Evaluating forecast performance

 

 

 Does the FederaL Reserve Staff Still beat Private Forecasters?

Makram El-Shagi, Sebastian Giesen and Alexander Jung

2014

 

DoeS THe FeDeraL reSerVe STaFF STiLL beaT PriVaTe ForeCaSTerS?

 

 

Modern Forecasting Models in Action: Improving Macroeconomic Analyses at
Central Banks

Malin Adolfson, Michael K. Andersson, Jesper Lind´e,
Mattias Villani, and Anders Vredina

Sveriges Riksbank
CEPR
Stockholm University

Modern Forecasting Models in Action: Improving Macroeconomic Analyses at Central Banks

 

 

Updated Historical Forecast Errors (4/9/2014)

Federal Reserve

Updated Historical Forecast Errors (4/9/2014)

 

 

How good is the forecasting performance of major institutions?

Riksbank of Sweden

Monetary Policy Department.

How good is the forecasting performance of major institutions?

 

 

Best Economic Forecaster Awards

Focus Economics

Best Economic Forecaster Awards

 

Has Output Become More Predictable? Changes in Greenbook Forecast Accuracy

Federal Reserve

Has Output Become More Predictable? Changes in Greenbook Forecast Accuracy

 

Green Book

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Green Book

 

US Federal Reserve Livingston Survey

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Livingston Survey

 

 

The IMF and OECD versus Consensus Forecasts

by
Roy Batchelor
City University Business School, London
August 2000

The IMF and OECD versus Consensus Forecasts

 

 

CBO’s January 2017 Budget and Economic Outlook

CRFB

CBO’s January 2017 Budget and Economic Outlook

 

 

Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers

Prepared by Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh

January 2013

IMF

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18779

Central Bank Macroeconomic Forecasting during the global Financial Crisis: the European Central Bank and Federal Reserve Bank of New York experiences

no 1688 / july 2014

 

 

Economic Forecasting and its Role in Making Monetary Policy

RB Australia

1999

 

https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/1999/sep/pdf/bu-0999-1.pdf

 

Are Forecasting Models Usable for Policy Analysis?

1986

Chris Sims

Minneapolis Federal Reserve

 

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR1011.pdf

 

Persistent Overoptimism about Economic Growth

BY KEVIN J. LANSING AND BENJAMIN PYLE

2015

 

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/el2015-03.pdf

 

 

Federal Reserve economic projections: What are they good for?

Ben S. Bernanke

Monday, November 28, 2016

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/11/28/federal-reserve-economic-projections/

 

Reassessing Longer-Run U.S. Growth: How Low?

John G. Fernald
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

August 2016

 

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp2016-18.pdf

 

 

Recent declines in the Fed’s longer-run economic projections

by Jonas D. M. Fisher,

Christopher Russo,

2017

https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2017/375

 

 

“How Accurate Are Private Sector Forecasts? Cross-Country Evidence from Consensus Forecasts of Output Growth.”

Prakash Loungani

2000

IMF

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0077.pdf

 

The Failure to Forecast the Great Recession

Simon Potter

 

Liberty Street Economics / New York Federal Reserve Bank

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2011/11/the-failure-to-forecast-the-great-recession.html

 

 

Social Learning, Strategic Incentives and Collective Wisdom: An Analysis of the Blue Chip Forecasting Group

J. Peter Ferderer Department of Economics Macalester College
St. Paul, MN 55105 ferderer@macalester.edu

Adam Freedman Chicago, IL 60601 freedman.adamj@gmail.com

July 22, 2015

 

http://muse.union.edu/lamacroworkshop2015/files/2015/01/34-Ferderer-Blue-Chip-Collective-Wisdom.pdf

 

 

CBO’s Economic Forecasting Record 2013 Update

 

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/43846-ForecastingRecord.pdf

 

CBO’s Economic Forecasting Record 2015 Update

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/49891-Forecasting_Record_2015.pdf

 

CBO Recurring reports

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/major-recurring-reports#7

 

European Commission’s Forecasts Accuracy Revisited: Statistical Properties and Possible Causes of Forecast Errors

Marco Fioramanti, Laura González Cabanillas, Bjorn Roelstraete and Salvador Adrian Ferrandis Vallterra

2016

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2753854

 

 

Western Blue Chip Economic Forecast

Arizona State University

JPMorgan Chase Economic Outlook Center

https://research.wpcarey.asu.edu/economic-outlook/western-blue-chip/state-forecasts-archive-download?type=pdf&year=2017&month=08&state=Summary