Search

Factors affecting the dynamics of income inequality in the US during the 1948-92 period are examined. Specifically, it extends the work of Maxwell, who found that through-time changes in family income inequality are related to demographic and industry factors, and draws upon the insights of other researchers who have recognized that the US national economy is actually a composite of semi-autonomous regional economies. The results provide strong evidence that family income inequality is related to the pattern of regional economic growth and the relative proportion of unmarried families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary purpose of this paper is to show, however, that AREEP models are misspecified because of an inadequate representation of uncertainty in these models. Consider, for example, the error term 蝱 N(0; σ 2ε) in Equation 3. Except for Lucas (1973) and Barro (1976) AREEP models pay little or no attention to the variance of the error term σ 2ε. Most AREEP results are derived by focusing on the zero mean characteristic of the distribution of error terms. Even if economic agents were equally successful on average by making unbiased estimates of the inflation rate in two different periods, their overall behaviour may be significantly different if the variance of this error σ 2ε was significantly different. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The usual measure for the factorlandis the total area. But total area is a flawed measure because land is of unequal quality. To account for land quality, we use an alternative measure calledeffective area. Effective area is based on spatial population distribution which captures both natural conditions and human activity. Theoretically, effective area explains economic growth better than total area that biases the measure of total factor productivity (TFP) growth. Empirically on the basis of 40 years of panel data for the United States, an increase of 10% in effective area is associated with an economic growth of 5%, and the omission of effective area undervalues the growth of TFP by 8.1%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines asymmetric size- and sign-dependent effects of the output gap on the US quarterly inflation rate using data from the last half a century (1959Q2–2013Q1). Consistent with previous studies, it is found that the consumer price index is cointegrated with the unit labour cost and the price of oil. A short-run dynamic model is then estimated in which variations in the output gap are divided into three groups: large-positive; large-negative; and small-medium positive/negative. The results provide convincing evidence that only sufficiently large (positive or negative) variations of the output gap can significantly influence inflation. Put otherwise, relatively small to medium changes in the output gap exert no significant impact on inflation and if not separated, they can somewhat obscure the significant effects associated with large variations of the output gap. This study can lead to greater consensus on the inflation–output gap nexus. The findings remain robust despite the use of different measures of output gap and they are consistent with the modern doctrine but with a new caveat: inflation responds to both positive and negative changes in the output gap as long as such variations are of sizable magnitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses a quasi-Mincerian approach to verify whether the concentration of college-educated individuals employed in the business support services sector and in the own sector contributes to increased productivity in other sectors of the economy. We estimate the returns to education using data from the 2008 US Current Population Survey (March supplement) and from the 2008 Brazilian household survey. This article finds evidence of a positive and significant human capital sectorial spillover effect, which is consistent with Acemoglu’s (1996) conjecture. The sectorial concentration of highly educated workers contributes to increase wages for all workers. This study also finds evidence of increasing returns to education in Brazil and diminishing returns to education in the United States. This finding may be explained by differences in supply of skilled workers in both economies. In addition, the short supply of highly skilled workers in Brazil likely explains the importance of the spillover effect from the business supporting sector. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]