Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
0 Usuarios y 3 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Do Immigrants Import Their Economic Destiny?How migration shapes the prosperity of countriesThis is one of the great policy questions in our new age of mass migration, and it’s related to one of the great questions of social science: Why do some countries have relatively liberal, pro-market institutions while others are plagued by corruption, statism, and incompetence? Three lines of research point the way to a substantial answer: The Deep Roots literature on how ancestry predicts modern economic development, The Attitude Migration literature, which shows that migrants tend to bring a lot of their worldview with them when they move from one country to another, The New Voters-New Policies literature, which shows that expanding the franchise to new voters really does change the nature of government.Together, these three data-driven literatures suggest that if you want to predict how a nation’s economic rules and norms are likely to change over the next few decades, you’ll want to keep an eye on where that country’s recent immigrants hail from....There are three major long-run predictors of a nation’s current prosperity, which combine to make up a nation’s SAT score:S: How long ago the nation’s ancestors lived under an organized state.A: How long ago the nation’s ancestors began to use Neolithic agriculture techniques.T: How much of the world’s available technology the nation’s ancestors were using in 1000 B.C., 0 B.C., or 1500 A.D.When estimating each nation’s current SAT score, it’s important to adjust for migration: Indeed, all three of these papers do some version of that. For instance, without adjusting for migration, Australia has quite a low ancestral technology score: Aboriginal Australians used little of the world’s cutting edge technology in 1500 A.D. But since Australia is now overwhelmingly populated by the descendants of British migrants, Australia’s migration-adjusted technology score is currently quite high.On average, nations with high migration-adjusted SAT scores are vastly richer than nations with lower SAT scores: Countries in the top 10% of migration-adjusted technology (T) in 1500 are typically at least 10 times richer than countries in the bottom 10%....Overall, the relationship between a nation’s percent population of Chinese descent in 1980 and current economic freedom is strongly positive. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, the countries with the largest percentage of post-1500 Chinese immigrants, are the freest. Hong Kong, which had only a few thousand Chinese residents before the British arrival, is now the economically freest country in the world. Malaysia (a third of whose residents are of Chinese descent) and Thailand (10 percent) are next, and Malaysia is clearly the freer of the two. The remaining countries, Laos and Myanmar, are substantially less economically free than Singapore. Of course, including China in this graph would weaken the relationship, but to repeat: we aren’t interested in ancestry per se, but in relatively peaceful migration.Economists have long known that some of the strongest statistical predictors of long-run national prosperity have been “percent Confucian” and “percent Buddhist.” A famed paper coauthored by Xavier Sala-i-Martin demonstrated that conclusively. It’s time for scholars to investigate whether, for most countries, a pro-Confucian migration policy is a good option....trusting attitudes migrate. And the link from trust to economic performance is well-accepted at this point: One famous paper, “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?” [Answer: Yes] is now routinely cited in economics textbooks. And why do low-trust societies generate worse economic performance? One reason is that low-trust individuals demand more government regulation. In “Regulation and Distrust” the authors report: Using the World Values Survey, we show both in a cross-section of countries, and in a sample of individuals from around the world, that distrust fuels support for government control over the economy.The authors suggest that this happens because in low-trust societies, people want someone checking up on untrustworthy businesses and individuals, and a strong government is one way to do just that. Together, this literature suggests that migration from low-trust societies will tend to hurt long-run economic performance, partly because low-trust individuals demand more government regulation.One particular attitude has been well-studied in the migration literature: Strong family ties. This is often known as “amoral familism,” the view that you should help out your family, right or wrong. In comparative anthropology and sociology, it’s well known that cultures strong in amoral familism tend to be places where children live with their parents into adulthood, where corruption is common, and where identity is heavily shaped by one’s extended family. A remarkable handbook chapter by Alesina and Giuliano finds that: …on average familistic values are associated with lower political participation and political action. They are also related to a lower level of trust, more emphasis on job security, less desire for innovation and more traditional attitudes toward working women.It’s safe to predict that voters and politicians with these traits are unlikely to support much Schumpeterian creative destruction. And, unsurprisingly at this point, amoral familism itself tends to migrate: …family values are quite stable over time and could be among the drivers of institutional differences and level of development across countries: family values inherited by children of immigrants whose forebears arrived in various European countries before 1940 [!] are related to a lower quality of institutions and lower level of development today.At this point, it’s clear that attitudes migrate to a substantial degree, and at least in democracies, they’re likely to take those attitudes into the voting booth. There’s an old saying in the migration policy world, a line by Max Frisch: “We wanted workers, we got people instead.” It looks like that saying needs updating: “We wanted workers, we got voters instead.”... It turns out that, contrary to the “New voters = No change” theory, giving the vote to women really did change government in a more progressive, expansionist direction:Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state governmentexpenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patternsfor federal representatives, and these effects continued growingover time as more women took advantage of the franchise…On the basisof these estimates, granting women the right to vote caused expendituresto rise immediately by 14 percent…by 21 percent after 25 years, and by 28 percent after 45 years.Women did not quietly, meekly vote for whatever the men around them supported. They had their own minds, and those minds, when empowered by the vote, moved policy in a more progressive direction. And notice that the longer-run effect was twice the immediate effect: Expanding the franchise to a group that favored more government spending indeed increased government spending, but it took decades to see the full effect. In U.S. history, new voters have mattered.And this is no one-off study: the policy impact of female suffrage has been studied extensively. To quote a study focused on Europe: Using historical data from six Western European countries for the period 1869-1960, we provide evidence that social spending out of GDP increased by 0.6-1.2% in the short-run as a consequence of women’s suffrage, while the long-run effect is three to eight times larger....Government policies don’t radiate from subterranean mineral deposits: they are in large part the product of its voting citizens. And in the long run, new citizens lead to new policies.Together, these three literatures provide a combination of big-picture and close-up evidence that if a country is choosing between high-SAT and low-SAT immigration policies, the high-SAT approach will yield big benefits in the long run. Individual countries will always be exceptions to the rule, so some countries taking the low-SAT immigration path will still look pretty good. But wise citizens don’t bet on being the exception: they bet on being the rule.
Punto preliminar: Lo que diga Al Jazeera sobre este tema lo valoro más o menos igual que lo que diga cualquier medio implicado en la guerra, y de HRW lo mismo te digo. O peor, que encima van de guays y de seres de luz.
Moneda única.Lo mismo cabe decir de esa máquina de cerrar industrias y de impedir su desarrollo que ha sido la moneda única y lo sigue siendo.
Pedro Sanchez... ¿el nuevo Corbyn ?Y no lo digo yo, es el análisis que también voy viendo en medios galos.Es decir: si el PSOE quería quitarse de encima a la cúpula populocapitalista Sanchez no podría hacerlo mejor.Y es cierto que se parece mucho a la forma con que Corbyn acaba de reventar la "casta" de los parlamentarios del Labour. Dimitieron todos de los organos del partido, pero se quedaron en sus escaños, y ahora resulta que Corbyn gana mayoria aplastante.Así que Sanchez convoca elecciones internas, ¿eh? Pues eso, que la base vaya a votar. ¡Diviértanse!
Government debt fell to 91.2% of GDP in euro areaAt the end of the second quarter of 2016, the government debt to GDP ratio in the euro area (EA19) stood at 91.2%, compared with 91.3% at the end of the first quarter of 2016. In the EU28, the ratio decreased from 84.5% to 84.3%.
La justicia británica establece que el Parlamento debe aprobar el ‘Brexit’El fallo rechaza el argumento del Gobierno, que consideraba tener facultad para activar la salidahttp://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2016/11/03/actualidad/1478166206_090858.html
Asustada. Nerviosa. La vieja Europa -“vieja” como piropo- se está convirtiendo en la Europa vieja -“vieja” en el sentido de vejestorio-.Se ha asustado cuando ha aparecido Donald Trump en Estados Unidos. Oigo toda una serie de lamentaciones. Que este señor es impresentable (verdad). Que dónde va con ese peinado (verdad). Que no hace más que amenazar (verdad). Que se va a cargar Europa (una mentira como la copa de un pino).Dos personajes se han unido rápidamente a lo que diga y a lo que haga Donald: Nick Farage y Marine Le Pen. Dicen que hay otros en cola.Europa se ha echado a temblar. ¡Lo que nos faltaba después del Brexit! Y ahora, el referéndum en Italia que, llenos de pesimismo, aseguramos que se va a cargar a Renzi. Y los refugiados, que vienen y vienen y bastante hacemos con intentar que no se ahoguen, porque si se ahogan, nos remuerde la conciencia, como si nosotros tuviéramos la culpa de que unos sinvergüenzas metan 500 personas en una lancha en la que caben 100.Y Cataluña que se quiere ir de España, aunque parece que no de Europa. Y Escocia y Gales, que se quieren quedar.Es el momento de Europa. Apasionante. Ya vale de quejarse. Ya vale de meterse con Trump. Que se metan con él los que le tengan miedo. Nosotros, a lo nuestro, o sea:1. A fortalecer la idea de Europa.2. A fortalecer las instituciones que ya existen, pero que tienen que existir realmente. Un Gobierno fuerte, un Parlamento fuerte, un BCE fuerte…3. A recordar que el objetivo final es la unión política. Que no se nos olvide, porque estamos en un proyecto de un calibre fenomenal y no nos podemos entretener con bagatelas.Necesitamos estadistas. Personas que sepan lo que soñaron los primeros y estén dispuestos a dejarse la piel para llevarlo a cabo.Personas que nos deberían recordar que una empresa así no es para cualquiera. Y lo siento, pero los que veo de cerca –Mariano, François, Enzo– son “cualquiera”. Y si me voy a Bruselas, a Frankfurt, me encuentro con más “cualquieras”, lo que no es un insulto, ni un desprecio. Es la realidad. Porque números 1 hay uno. Los demás son número 2, 3, etc.En Alemania hay una número 1. Ángela ya le ha recordado a Donald cuáles son los valores que hay que defender y se ha ofrecido a trabajar con él “sobre la base de esos valores“. No a soportar sus cosas. A trabajar con él, de igual a igual.Se presenta una temporada preciosa, de fortalecimiento de Europa. Cuanto más “espectacular” se ponga Donald, más Europa.Camino difícil, pero, repito y repito, apasionante. Porque Europa se creó para eso, para ser una potencia mundial. Y es posible que la elección de este chico, tan especial, nos haga dar un paso importante en la creación de esa potencia.No vuelvo a decir lo de “apasionante”, porque alguien puede pensar que tengo pobreza de vocabulario (es verdad) o que soy un pelmazo (quizá).