In order to examine people’s utility-maximizing behavior, a few assumptions must be made. First, economists assume that people are rational and seek to maximize their personal utility functions. We also assume that their preferences are consistent and do not change over time. This means that people will behave in a sensible and predictable way. Next, economists often assume that there are diminishing marginal returns. In the consumer theory context, this means that people enjoy something less as they accumulate more of it, which is usually the case. The first pizza you buy will probably bring you a good amount of utility; the fifth, not quite so much. In the case where we’re discussing utility functions, we call this diminishing marginal utility. Fully analyzing utility functions requires the use of mathematical models. Some of the common, core assumptions in consumer theory when deriving equations are: Consumers have perfect information: This assumption states that consumers have complete information about their options, so they can always make the best choice possible for themselves given their budget. Thus people always know how good a new food will taste, how well a new device will work, and how much fun a vacation to a new country will be. Consumers are price-takers. That is, they do not try to negotiate or otherwise change the price or quantity parameters they face. Prices are linear. This means that the price for each unit of a good does not change as more of the good is purchased. No bulk discounts here. Goods are divisible. This simply means that it is possible to purchase a fraction of a good, i.e. 2.5 cars. This assumption mainly serves to simplify the mathematical work for economists. These assumptions can be modified slightly for different scenarios without changing the major takeaways of consumer theory. For instance, the perfect information assumption can be relaxed, and peoples’ maximization problems updated accordingly, but many of the key learnings remain the same. As another example, non-linear price structures and indivisible goods can be considered with slight modifications to the equations used. But again, the main takeaways are not changed very much in this case. As a side note, there are other fields of study where these assumptions are more deliberately challenged to improve economists' models. Behavioral economics is one such field. Psychology and other social sciences can give further insights too. These studies of human behavior lie at the heart of how consumers make choices in reality; every consumer is, after all, only human! Getting back to consumer theory, what are the main takeaways? Much like with market equilibrium, consumers will achieve maximum utility where the marginal benefit per unit of money spent on a good is equal for all goods purchased by the consumer. This is the point where the marginal rate of substitution is equal for all goods consumed To see why this is, imagine that a consumer is at a point on their budget line where the marginal utility of one good (oranges, for example) is greater than the other (apples). This consumer could achieve a higher utility by buying one more orange, for which they will give up a number of apples. Thus, they reach a higher utility without increasing their overall budget. Due to the assumption that goods are purchasable in any quantity (not just integer amounts), the prices of these goods don’t matter in this example. The consumer can buy one tenth of an orange and give up a whole apple to do so, or whatever the pricing situation may be, and still achieve the same outcome. Microeconomics courses will often present mathematical problems from consumer theory that ask you to solve a Lagrangian optimization problem in order to maximize a utility function. These problems are solved using derivatives. To learn more about solving these types of consumer theory problems, see the linked articles. Good to Know Consider an individual’s preferences for oranges compared to all other goods. Given their budget constraint and their preferences, we can use a utility maximization equation to solve the question of how many oranges this individual will purchase at any given price for oranges, ceteris paribus. Now, we can go ahead and solve this same problem for every other consumer in the economy. If we do this, and then add the results for all individuals together, we will generate the entire demand curve for oranges in this economy! Hopefully this example demonstrates that consumer theory is an important piece of microeconomics and lies at the heart of economic theory. For this very reason, many introductory microeconomics courses focus on utility maximization problems and how to use Lagrangian methods to solve them.
Also known as consumer choice, this term refers to the study of how and why people spend their money based on their preferences. This involves analyzing how they maximize the utility of their purchases while working within budget constraints.
The formula for elasticity is straightforward. It can be found by dividing the percentage change in quantity demanded by the percentage change in price. However, this simple formula (known as the point elasticity formula) yields a different answer depending on which point is chosen as the first point. Sometimes, this is undesirable behavior. To correct for this, economists also use a formula for elasticity shown below. This is known as the midpoint formula (sometimes also called arc elasticity). This is a very similar formula to that for elasticity of substitution, cross elasticity of demand and income elasticity of demand. \begin{equation*} \text{Elasticity}= \frac{\frac{\mathit{Q}_{2}-\mathit{Q}_{1}}{(1/2)*(\mathit{Q}_{2}+\mathit{Q}_{1})}}{\frac{\mathit{P}_{2}-\mathit{P}_{1}}{(1/2)*(\mathit{P}_{2}+\mathit{P}_{1})}} = \frac{\text{%}\Delta\mathit{Q}}{\text{%}\Delta\mathit{P}} \end{equation*} Elasticity is a general term, but forms the basis of several important concepts in economics. For more information on these more specific concepts, please see the other terms that have been linked in this article.
Elasticity refers to how much a business, a producer, or a consumer changes its amount of goods demanded or supplied as a result of price and income fluctuation. It provides answers to some useful questions, such as how much more or less a product will sell if the price changes. It’s defined for both quantity demanded (price elasticity of demand) and supplied (price elasticity of supply).
In classical economics, decision making is seen as black and white. People make optimal decisions that always provide them with the best available results in terms of satisfaction and benefit. Additionally, people are assumed to have perfect information. Behavioral economics, however, shows how this often isn’t the case, and that humans also make decisions that are contrary to their self-interest or which don’t maximize benefits. It then tries to explain why this is the case. Behavioral economics concepts are used extensively by businesses to induce behavior in customers. Product designs, special deals, sales, and advertising campaigns are all ways that businesses try to persuade customers to buy or use a certain product. Much research has gone into understanding what factors can convince people to buy something, or what might alter their decision. One example of this is the “decoy effect”. Often, a business will want to sell a certain item - let’s consider the example of a large soda. By including a “medium” size soda that is smaller than the large, but only at a slight price discount, more people will purchase the large soda since that seems like a better deal. There are many other examples of how behavioral economics concepts are used by companies, advertising campaigns, product design, and more to try and induce specific choices. Behavioral economics is closely related to psychology, and as such benefits greatly from collaboration with psychologists or other experts who understand human behavior. In fact, economics itself is built on models of human behavior as participants in markets (which are usually not entirely accurate, as we’ve described above). Psychology, meanwhile, has a long tradition of understanding human behavior not from mathematical models, but from real-world experiments. Bringing the two fields together and updating economic models with more realistic representations of human behavior is an ongoing process. But, it’s one that will continue to improve economics as a whole. Good to Know Since it is concerned with individual decision-making, behavioral economics is mostly a microeconomics concept. However, there are obvious macroeconomic applications, especially when observing events like stock market runs and crashes. Speaking of the stock market, the term “irrational exuberance” was coined by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to describe irrational behavior in the markets. This is a clear application of behavioral economics - why do people continue to invest in a stock well after it has become overvalued? His memoir, The Age of Turbulence, touches on this topic among others and is an interesting read for students of financial economics. Further Reading A popular book about behavioral economics concepts is Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational. In his book, he describes several experiments and shows how they uncover flaws in human decision-making that are both irrational and systematic. These include fascinating observations about everyday decision-making that most people probably don’t think about. We tend to overvalue our own belongings, tend to stick with default options, fall victim to the decoy effect, and much more. The book is interesting and digestible even for non-economists, too, so no previous subject knowledge is required to get started.
This subdiscipline of economics studies how decisions made by individuals and institutions are influenced by psychological, cognitive, emotional, cultural, and social factors. It is concerned with understanding how people actually make decisions, rather than assuming that the decision-making process is perfectly rational.
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics (JEL E)
These concepts are often used in reference to international trade, and are perhaps best demonstrated in that context. Consider two nations - we’ll call them Atlantis and Narnia. Below, we will demonstrate that even with absolute advantages in both goods, Atlantis is better off if it cooperates with Narnia and trades - despite being able to make more of both goods than Narnia can. Suppose that there are only two goods, smartphones and bread. Also assume that each country has 10-hour work days. Atlantis, being a very advanced nation, can produce 15 smartphones per hour, or 150 smartphones per day (since we assume 10-hour work days). It can also make 10 loaves of bread per hour, or 100 loaves of bread per day. Meanwhile, Narnia is not as efficient; it can make 3 smartphones in an hour, or 30 per day, and it can produce 6 loaves of bread per hour, or 60 per day. Smartphones Bread (loaves) Atlantis 150 100 Narnia 30 60 It is clear from the table that Atlantis has an absolute advantage in both goods. That is, Atlantis can produce more than Narnia no matter which good it produces. Let’s consider a scenario where each country uses the 10 hours it has in a day to produce its own goods. How much can each country make on its own? We can use the table above to draw a Production Possibilities Frontier for both countries and answer this question: Figure 1: PPFs for Atlantis and Narnia Any point on this line for either country represents a product mix it can produce on its own. For example, if both countries decide to split their time equally between each good, then Atlantis can produce 50 loaves of bread and 75 smartphones; meanwhile Narnia can produce 30 loaves of bread and 15 smartphones. This gives a total of 80 loaves of bread and 90 smartphones produced in total with both countries in autarky. But, can we do better? If the countries can trade, can we improve overall economic welfare? To answer this question, let’s examine comparative advantage by looking at opportunity costs. If Atlantis produces a loaf of bread, it gives up the chance to produce one and a half smartphones. This is because in one hour, it can produce 15 smartphones or 10 loaves of bread; so, for every loaf of bread produced, it must “give up” 1.5 smartphones. Thus, the opportunity cost for Atlantis of producing a loaf of bread is 1.5 smartphones. By similar logic, the opportunity cost of a smartphone is two thirds of a loaf of bread. Narnia, meanwhile, can produce either 3 smartphones or 6 loaves of bread in one hour. So, Narnia’s opportunity cost of producing a smartphone is 2 loaves of bread, and its opportunity cost for producing a loaf of bread is 1/2 of a smartphone. Let’s examine these opportunity costs in a new table. Opp. Cost of Smartphone Opp. Cost of Loaf of Bread Atlantis 2/3 of a loaf of bread 1.5 smartphones Narnia 2 loaves of bread 1/2 of a smartphone Clearly, it is relatively more expensive for Narnia to produce a smartphone than for Atlantis; much more bread must be given up for Narnia to produce a smartphone. Likewise, Atlantis must give up more smartphones than Narnia to make a loaf of bread. Instead of each country producing both goods, what happens if each country specializes in the good that is relatively cheaper for it to make? This should help the countries minimize difficult tradeoffs within their own economies. In this case, Narnia will spend all of its time making bread, and so it will make 60 loaves of bread. In the example where both countries split their time, 80 loaves of bread were made; so, let’s say that Atlantis brings our total bread up to par by making 20 more loaves of bread using 2 hours. It then has 8 hours left to make smartphones, and so it produces 8*15 = 120 smartphones. The total production from both countries is now 80 loaves of bread like before, but 120 smartphones instead of just 90. By shuffling production around so each country focuses on the good it has a comparative advantage in, we’ve produced 30 extra smartphones and the world is better off (assuming the countries trade)! This is true even though Atlantis can make both more bread and more smartphones than Narnia can. Despite its absolute advantage in both goods, it is better off when it trades with Narnia. Good to Know The above example of comparative advantage is one argument against trade barriers. If Atlantis and Narnia are unable to trade, or if trade is made less efficient by artificial barriers like tariffs, the countries miss out on the full benefits of comparative advantage and free trade. Often in the real world, it is difficult to remove trade barriers like tariffs. This is because they can prop up a domestic industry, which can have political and social advantages. In Narnia’s case, trade barriers could preserve some smartphone production in the country, enriching the phone makers in Narnia. These people would be opposed to free trade in smartphones, because they would lose their entire industry to Atlantis if trade was free.
Comparative advantage means that you can produce a good or service at a relatively lower opportunity cost than that of your competitors. Comparative advantage is different from absolute advantage, which means you can produce a given item more efficiently than someone else.
There are two types of assets, tangible and intangible, which are themselves made up of subclasses. Of the tangible variety, most commonly you’ll hear about current and fixed assets. Current assets refer to things that can be consumed, exhausted or sold. Examples of current assets are cash, stock, and marketable securities. Fixed assets meanwhile are trickier to convert into cash, like land, buildings, equipment and machinery. Fixed assets are used by businesses over a long period of time and they play a crucial role in a company's long-term operations. While they may not be as easily converted into cash as current assets, they hold significant value and contribute to the overall worth of a business. Examples of fixed business assets include real estate, manufacturing equipment, vehicles owned, office buildings, etc. These economic assets are not meant to be sold, but rather they generate revenue by helping the business perform its operations. In contrast to tangible assets, intangible assets don't have a physical form. They are more like ideas or concepts, making it difficult to determine their value accurately. This difficulty sometimes leads to disagreement between the value a company claims it has and its actual market value. Examples of intangible assets include patents, trademarks, goodwill, copyright, trade names, and other intellectual property. For instance, patents offer legal protection for inventions and innovations, giving exclusive rights to the inventor for a specific time period (to distribute and use the invention). However, trademarks are unique symbols, logos, or names that can distinguish a company's products or services from others in the market, and they are valuable assets that help create brand recognition and customer loyalty. Just like how certain logos and colors are known by almost everyone, like the specific dark blue associated with Yves Klein. Meanwhile, goodwill in economics refers to the positive associations that consumers have about the business; this contributes to factors such as reputation, customer loyalty, and brand image. Goodwill can be measured when a company acquires another business (takeover) for a price higher than the net value of its identifiable assets. Copyright is meant to protect original works of authorship, including literature, music, art, and software, giving exclusive rights to their creators. And finally, trade names are names or symbols used to identify and differentiate a company or its products in the marketplace. Intangible assets can have a significant impact on a company's competitive advantage in their field and long-term profitability. They are often crucial in attracting new customers, creating innovation, and establishing a unique position in the market. However, their intangible nature makes it challenging to measure their value accurately, as they are not easily quantifiable like tangible assets are.In summary, intangible assets lack a physical form and include patents, trademarks, goodwill, copyright, and trade names. Even though evaluating intangible assets and their value can be more complex, at the end of the day, they play an important role in a company's success, contributing to its market capitalization and competitive advantage. Further Reading “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk" by William F. Sharpe is a perfect paper to dive more into the topic of assets. This seminal paper introduces the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which provides a framework for understanding the relationship between risk and return in financial markets, explains the general concept of assets, and more. Good to Know Did you know that assets can have negative values? While we typically associate assets with positive values, there are times where an asset can have a negative net worth. This occurs when the liabilities associated with the asset outweigh its original value. One example of this is a mortgage-backed security (MBS). An MBS represents a pool of mortgage loans that are packaged and sold to investors. If the underlying mortgage loans in the MBS default or decrease in value, the MBS itself can have a negative value, representing potential losses for investors. These instruments were one important cause of the Great Recession that began in late 2007.
An asset is ANY resource that produces positive economic value for its owner - its owner being its owner as a result of a past event, most likely a transaction.
Econometrics is a relatively recent revolution. In the past, economists’ ability to test economic relationships was severely limited, since they had to work by hand. Large datasets make working by hand nearly impossible, even for the most simple statistics concepts. Thankfully, the advancement of technology has allowed today’s economists to work with large datasets, complicated models, and cutting-edge statistics using software tools such as R, Python, and Stata, to name but a few. But not every econometrician uses a dataset at all times. Theoretical econometrics is closely related to statistical theory, and studies estimators and other theoretical relationships. This is an important process that helps improve the efficiency of later economic research by discovering better statistical methods to use. Clearly then, this process of searching for better methods uses math and statistics techniques intensively. Key to this theoretical process is the search for unbiased, efficient and consistent estimators. These qualities are desirable in statistics because they usually make an estimator suitable for inference, and so let us “prove” economic relationships via known math and statistics results. <11an>limit:2;categories:Courses|Programs;disciplines:Econometrics, Statistics and Quantitative Methods (JEL C)</11an> The applied branch of econometrics, meanwhile, uses data to describe and predict economic phenomena. An example: a bank might rely on a model using customer characteristics to predict how many customers will default on their debt. Such models are used widely in the credit industry. To illustrate further, an econometrician can build this model using explanatory variables like age, debt to income ratio, credit rating, and employment status in a regression. Once the model is estimated, they can use statistical tests to learn about the relationships among these variables. For example, economic theory tells us that we expect rates of default to decrease if someone has a better credit rating. Through a hypothesis test, the econometrician can confirm if the data supports that theory or not. Naturally then, econometrics is closely related to statistical inference and certain math topics (such as linear algebra). Econometricians utilize tools like regression analysis and statistical software in their work. Math and statistics knowledge is therefore extremely important for econometricians, so that they can build proper models that adequately test their hypotheses. If the analysis is successful, an econometrician will find evidence for or against the question of interest, which is usually an economic relationship. Hopefully, the data match what economic theory would predict. In the case that it doesn’t, the econometrician may have discovered a new truth that could deepen our understanding of the real world! Further Reading Jeffrey M. Wooldridge’s Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach is a classic and widely referenced textbook that offers an introduction to econometrics. It begins by introducing the simple linear regression model, and discusses the assumptions and problems that arise with its use. Gradually, the book builds to more complicated models and situations. For those who want to study econometrics and get a comprehensive introduction, the Wooldridge text is a good choice. However, a knowledge of statistics and math concepts like the expectation operator and probability distributions are necessary to understand econometrics. Students without this background should focus on those fundamentals first; statistics and linear algebra courses can get you up to speed. Good to Know Econometrics offers a promising path for a future career. Econometricians can get hired for a wide variety of roles in finance, research, government, consulting, and even data science. As there are many jobs that might require statistical techniques and an economists’ knowledge, there are even more options beyond these. What differentiates econometricians from “regular” statisticians? The former must also be trained in economic theory. This is important so that econometricians can ensure their models make sense and produce results that are usable, rather than just leaning on data. But the fundamentals of an econometrician’s work come from statistics. For example, an econometrician working for a government might need to conduct a statistical analysis to help design a policy. A statistician without economics training might not be able to set up the model properly or gut-check whether the regression results make economic sense. They might not be able to identify appropriate economic variables for the model, and end up with a model that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Pioneered by Ragnar Frisch, Jan Tinbergen, Lawrence Klein and Simon Kuznets, econometrics is the application of statistical models to economic data. Its aim is the quantitative analysis of economic phenomena, either theoretically or with real data. This gives empirical rigor to economics, and can possibly “prove” economic relationships or discover new ones.
Econometrics, Statistics and Quantitative Methods (JEL C)
Types of capital Financial capital Capital is most commonly thought of as money, specifically money used to buy other goods which are then sold for a profit. An example of this would be the money that a business uses to buy its products, such as a retail business buying its clothes. More generally, financial capital can be thought of as assets a company needs to provide its products for sale. Capital goods These are things which are used to make goods or services, and as such can be a variety of goods. For example, tools would be a capital good to a handyman; oil rigs would be a capital good for an oil company; wind turbines would be a capital good for an energy company. Capital in this sense is considered one of the major “factors of production” (alongside labor) and is a foundational part of many economic models. Natural capital/ecological capital Didn’t think the world had capital? Think again. Natural capital is natural resources, such as air, water, and organisms. This type of capital is arguably the most important, as it includes things like clean drinking water and fertile soil which the world gives us and makes civilization - and life in general - possible. The future of natural capital is dependent on a healthy ecosystem, making the fight against climate change and environmental destruction all the more crucial. Social capital Something a little more abstract, social capital includes intangible things like the relationships between people (i.e. networking), as well as cultural heritage and identity. However, it also refers to more tangible things, such as shared public spaces. Human capital Human capital is perhaps the most self-explanatory of these terms. You have human capital, and so does this writer, because our knowledge enables us to perform labor and therefore helps the economy grow. Instructional capital A controversial definition as it is sometimes thought of as an extension of human capital, this could include the learning materials which make education possible. It is often used to refer to guidance which restricts the actions of people, and is therefore linked to social capital, since guidance often turns into societal norms. Public capital An extremely wide-ranging type of capital that includes all government-owned assets. This covers things like roads and railways (assuming they are publicly owned) as well as education, hospitals, emergency services, and systems such as utilities and sewage. It can be both a government outlay and infrastructure itself. Intellectual capital This generally refers to the intangible assets of a business or economy. It includes the people who work there, the relationships between them, and the actual infrastructure that allows employees to work together. It can also refer to the passing of knowledge between members of the same company. Due to its being intangible and therefore difficult to measure, it can be hard to take into account when judging how much a business is worth. However, in the knowledge economy and Information Age, it is arguably very important. Business capital There are several related forms of capital that businesses may have. These include debt capital, when a business assumes debt; equity capital, which often refers to shares and investors; working capital, meaning the business’s assets and its accounts payable; and trading capital, which is used to buy and sell securities. Theories of capital (Neo)Classical economics Land, labor and capital are the three main factors of production in classical economic theory. Other things which contribute to an economy’s production are referred to as intangibles, and have since been redefined as capital. These include intellectual capital which is part of human capital, and management, which could be subsumed under social capital. Marxian economics In Marxian economics, capital refers to three things: constant capital (capital goods), variable capital (meaning the input of labor), and fictitious capital, which includes stocks, bonds, securities, and the like. Human development theory This theory holds that social, individual, and instructional capital are the three most relevant areas which define human capital. This idea has also been carried over to ecological, welfare and green economics. These all use more abstract ideas of capital rather than referring to tangible objects such as work tools.
The term capital is used differently in different economic contexts. The common theme is that capital usually refers to some productive asset or capability that can be used to contribute to the economy. Below, we will detail some of these different meanings.
Browse our job listings for economics opportunities 1. Journal of Finance Published by Wiley. The official publication of The American Finance Association, which publishes English-language research in all areas of finance. It is one of the most highly cited and broadly read journals in the field. It reaches over 8,000 academics, professionals, libraries and institutions around the world, and is published six times a year. 2. The Review of Financial Studies Published by Oxford Academic. Covering both theoretical and empirical work in finance, the Review publishes high-quality papers which are immediately relevant to the field of finance. It interprets finance as including 'the interface between finance and economics.' It is published once a month. 3. Journal of Financial Economics Published by Elsevier. A top-tier journal which accepts empirical and analytical papers, particularly in the areas of capital markets, financial institutions, corporate finance, corporate governance, and the economics of organizations. It focuses on 'research in the area of... the theory of the firm', and is published monthly. <11an>limit:2;categories:jobs|courses|conferences|Professor;disciplines:Financial Economics (JEL G)</11an> 4. Journal of Accounting and Economics Published by Elsevier. A journal which focuses on the interface between economic theory and the practice of accounting, particularly in how economic analyses can be applied to accounting problems. It covers the role of accounting within firms, the information content and role of accounting numbers in capital markets, the role of accounting in financial contracts and monitoring agency relationships, determining accounting standards, theories of accounting firms, and government regulation of corporate disclosure and the accounting profession. It is published bimonthly. 5. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis Published by Cambridge. Covering theoretical and empirical research, particularly regarding the topics of corporate finance, investments, capital and security markets, and quantitative methods of particular relevance to financial researchers. It has a circulation of 3,000 and accepts less than 10% of the manuscripts submitted to it every year. It is published bimonthly. 6. Journal of Banking and Finance Published by Elsevier. A journal for research on financial institutions and the system in which they operate, with a focus on policy-oriented research and theoretical work. Its aim is on theoretical developments and how these can be implemented, as well as research on domestic and international policy with respect to financial institutions and markets. It aims to improve communication between academic communities and policymakers. It is published on a monthly basis. 7. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Published by Wiley. A professional journal aimed at researchers and policymakers as well as academics, which covers broad areas of money, banking, credit markets, regulation of financial institutions, international payments, portfolio management, and monetary and fiscal policy. It is published seven times each year. 8. Journal of International Money and Finance Published by Elsevier. A journal for those who work in the areas of international monetary economics or international finance, including researchers and financial market professionals. It hopes to provide research that combines both of these areas, and authors are generally focused on exchange rate behaviour, foreign exchange options, international capital markets, international monetary and fiscal policy, international transmission and all related research areas. It is published monthly. 9. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting Published by Wiley. Covers topics in accounting, corporate finance, and corporate governance, with an emphasis on informational problems in financial markets and business organisations and the way in which accounting can help alleviate them. It aims to publish research on accounting, corporate finance, corporate governance and their interfaces. It welcomes theoretical papers, but the theories therein 'should yield novel testable implications'. It is published ten times per year. 10. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting Published by Wiley. For the publication of research on the international aspects of financial management and reporting, banking and financial services, auditing, and taxation. It focuses on expanding knowledge of the impact of imperfections in the world product, factor and financial markets, as well as the impact of institutional, regulatory and accounting differences across countries. It tries to provide a forum for interaction between academics and practitioners. It is published thrice per year.
It's important to keep your finger on the pulse of the latest updates in your field. Otherwise your knowledge could be out of date and your research won't be be topically informed. The finance journals listed here are some of the best in the English-speaking world, offering the latest insights into finance, economics, accounting and business. If you're studying or working in the field of finance, here's our list of the top finance journals you should be reading.
Economists, so the story goes, had successfully grasped the essence of human behaviour: rational, and, therefore, highly predictable. With this discovery, an age-old question whose answer for millennia had eluded humanity was finally laid to rest. Where philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists had failed, economists had struck gold. They had cracked it. As a result, imperfect theories - as economic theories inherently are - started to be treated as laws of nature, like facts, and confidence among economists erred towards hubris. A sense of exclusivity pervaded the field, an unspoken agreement that outsiders were unwelcome, and their contributions unneeded. Economists preferred to work in isolation, adding to what they saw as a body of incrementally growing objective knowledge. When called upon, politicians typically assimilated their prescriptions - who were they to contest it? - and a docile public simply stood by, watching on in ignorant bliss. How could it be any other way? To the untrained, the language of economists is enough to render any growth-guaranteeing model incomprehensible. Indeed, the extent that their work is misunderstood is shocking - Brits were famously unable to distinguish debt from deficit despite enduring waves of austerity justified, in part, by both. Thus, for much of their legitimacy economists have relied upon blind faith, an investment the masses have, for a long time, been more than happy to make. It’s basically a science after all! <11an>limit:2;categories:workshops;disciplines:Economics</11an> A discipline in crisis In the last 10 years, however, things have changed, and in this era defined by populist, anti-establishment politics, economists’ time in the sun looks to be drawing to a close - for the time being at least. Reliance on their theories is withering, and general trust in their practice has waned. Politicians, clearly, have distanced themselves from economic aides. Gone are the days when leaders swore allegiance to economists. Margaret Thatcher’s fawning over Milton Friedman or Bill Clinton’s exaltation of Joseph Steglitz now feel like distant memories. And it’s difficult to imagine Trump invoking the spirit of Robert Lucas Jr. any time soon. To the contrary, much of his policy has been at odds with mainstream economic wisdom - his trade war with China, for instance, widely condemned. Although Trump’s particular ambivalence towards economists is indicative of his own capricious nature, it's also aligned with a general breakdown of trust that has swept society. 2008 Financial Crisis Much can be traced back to the global financial crisis, which left the profession reeling, dealing its reputation an almighty blow. As professor Franklin Allen recalls of economists of the time, ‘it’s not just that they missed it, they positively denied it would happen’ - the banks, consensus dictated, were simply ‘too big to fail’. Following the crash, economists were expected to take centre stage and steer the global economy towards recovery - that was their job. On that front, though, they also failed. The recovery - itself a generous term given the context - has been sluggish and uneven, the Economic Policy Institute calling it ‘the slowest in recent history’. And meanwhile, poverty levels across much of the Western world have been rising. Orthodoxy had long dictated that job creation solves poverty, the dictum to this day forming the basis of many an economist’s outlook. If jobs can be made, things will be okay. Post-recession developments on both sides of the Atlantic, however, have seen this one-time pillar of economic thought gutted of its credibility. The UK city of Sheffield provides an illustrative example. Deindustrialised in the 80s and 90s and then hit hard by the recession, Sheffield was subject to a typical prescription for economic revival: redevelopment of the city centre and an expansion of its university that together were designed to stimulate job creation. Superficially at least, the initiative worked as intended: as of 2018 unemployment was down 50% compared to the 1990s. Statistics like these, though, serve only to mask how little has changed. Indeed, despite more people working, in many parts of the city the exact same social problems persist. The issue is no longer finding a job; it’s finding a job that pays enough to live on, and they, by all accounts, are in short supply. As a result, in-work poverty across Britain has skyrocketed, working families often unable to put food on the table, forcing food banks to make up the shortfall. Data suggests that this trend, far from exclusive to Sheffield, is replicated across the EU, workers in poverty ‘rising steadily since the financial crisis’, according to one Financial Times article. In America the same development is underway, food stamps reaching record levels while employment statistics soar. GDP may be rising but wages have stagnated. Currently in the US over half the households classified as living in poverty contain now at least one working adult. Back in the UK, real wages have actually fallen against a backdrop of slow but steady growth. Across the continent, ‘the lost decade’ - a phrase originally used to refer to Japan’s period of stagnation in the 1990s - is frequently invoked, in an illustration of the widespread nature of the phenomenon. In truth, the decoupling of growth and wage gain has baffled economists, many finding it difficult to comprehend the disintegration of one of their founding myths. ‘An upturn is coming…’ Offering little in the way of remedy, they instead continue to insist that with unemployment falling, the tightening of the labour market will eventually lead to a corresponding rise in wages. While there is fairly widespread consensus supporting this, the economy of Australia encourages scepticism. Sheltered from the recession and approaching 30 consecutive years of productivity growth, its wage growth at the end of 2018 was barely 2%. The upturn is yet to happen. For those experiencing an extended period of wage stagnation, or even decline, constant promises of a just-round-the-corner increase mean little. They are no distraction from the grim realities of life getting harder. To make matters worse, in the few instances where wage growth has been recorded, it’s generally been unevenly spread. Studies of OECD members have shown that when growth occurs, the wage increases of the top 1% typically far exceed that of the median worker. This is consistently supported by statistics from across the developed world, which uniformly show that inequality, in both wealth and income, is deepening - a trend described by UNCTAD Secretary-General Mukhisa Kituyi as a ‘significant obstacle to translating economic growth into inclusive prosperity’. Recent research has even suggested that in certain areas IMF prescriptions have actually exacerbated inequality, the same IMF that boasts its staff are among the ‘best and the brightest’, and has solidified its reputation as ‘an organisation that solves problems’. A glimmer of hope? In many ways, the loss of faith in economists is really not surprising. Their record, quite simply, is a bad one. On the big questions, they have, for over a decade now, given few answers. A culture of overconfidence led to the 2008 crash, and since then the profession’s reputation, like many economies around the world, has been in tatters. Sidelined by politicians and mistrusted by the masses, economists' stock is somewhere close to an all-time low. There is, at least, some sign rehabilitation may be underway. Most notably, a growing number of outsiders have been welcomed into the field, in an overdue tempering of its more exclusive tendencies. The inclusion of historians, psychologists, and sociologists, among others, has afforded economics a methodological dexterity it previously lacked, broadening its scope. Greater interdisciplinary dialogue has also overseen a return of humility, as theories and models previously sacrosanct have been better scrutinised, refined, and sometimes debunked. However, in response to many of the biggest challenges (inequality, stagnant wages, etc.) the discipline remains wanting. Its orthodoxies have been undermined, but are yet to be replaced, and it’s crying out for fresh ideas. Perhaps the saddest thing, though, is that this has been the case for some time.
The reputation gained by economists has been a remarkable feat of PR; a branding job like no other. Quite how it developed remains a mystery, some inexplicable sleight-of-hand. Its consequence, however, is far easier to discern: in the minds of many, economics came to be thought of as a science. Removed from its rough prediction roots, it became a discipline of watertight theory, with a methodology capable of unearthing indisputable truths.
Check out our economics job listings Rebranded as microcredit and more recently, financial inclusion, it has come to dominate the social investment sector, acquiring something of a cult following in the process. Described as transformative, and touted a panacea by its loyalists, the craze has persisted despite growing academic evidence questioning its efficacy. In some ways, such loyalty is unsurprising. There is little shortage of inspiring anecdotes of hardworking individuals pulling themselves up by their bootstraps having put their meagre micro-loan to exceptionally good use. These stories are uplifting and it’s tempting - and all too easy - to conclude that they’re typical of recipients of microfinance. And yet, when the data has been assessed - of which, it should also be said, there is not a huge amount - the results have been inconclusive, at best. Empirically speaking, a resounding endorsement of microfinance is impossible; the research simply isn’t there. ‘On current evidence, the best estimate of the average impact of microcredit on the poverty of clients is zero’ declared development economist David Roodman. The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has expressed similar reservations. Commenting on a systemic literature review into microfinance it concluded that ‘no clear evidence yet exists that microfinance programmes have positive impacts’, also stating that the zealous support it receives is based on ‘foundations of sand’. It’s certainly curious that although formal, government-backed microfinance initiatives are now widely available across much of the developing world, a huge number of loan sharks and predatory lenders still operate in parallel. Surely if microfinance is failing to compete with informal lenders, it’s not functioning as intended? Here the problems it's encountered are explored in an attempt to better grasp why a seemingly so-well-intentioned endeavour has reportedly been so badly misfiring. The issues There are a number of problems that microfinance has run into, problems which Roodman’s sobering book, Due Diligence, has taken great pains to uncover. Some are the result of good intentions gone awry, others the result of mismanagement; most, though, are underpinned by the commercialisation of the industry that took place in the 2000s, when many non-profits involved in microfinance became commercial enterprises. The unleashing of the profit motive saw interest rates rise as boards caved to money-hungry shareholders, while an increase in aggressive marketing and loan collection simultaneously occurred. During the 2000s, in both Zambia and Mexico, interest rates for some microloans were hiked to over 200%. Rather than relieving, they actually exacerbated poverty in the areas where they were taken out. Similar problems were also uncovered in Bangladesh, one of the biggest recipients of microfinance, where women were found borrowing money from relatives, and at times, even forgoing basic necessities in order to repay their loans. Often, this was for fear of the consequences of defaulting. The majority had been lent money through borrowing groups - a means of credit where groups are jointly responsible for one another’s loans - and research revealed that this had created intense peer pressure with regard to repayment, the ‘group’ sometimes taking the law into its own hands when payments went unpaid. The industry has also become a victim of its own monetary success. Massive proliferation of profit-seeking microfinance programs has led to fierce competition in the sector, with some institutions surrendering to a ‘race for clients’ in order to increase their profitability and to attract lenders. As a corollary, background checks made on prospective borrowers’ ability to pay back their loans became less and less stringent. In many cases, this caused spiralling over-indebtedness - microfinance’s long-term foe - as people were unable to pay back the money they’d been lent. Use of the loan This lack of prudential oversight has contributed to another big issue facing microfinance: that many loans are used to fund consumption rather than income-generating initiatives. A study from 2015 showed that in South Africa 94% of microloans were being used simply to fund subsistence. In these instances, those borrowing do not generate any new income, making the repayment of the initial loan difficult, if not impossible, which prompts them to take out further loans, thus accruing further debt. On the occasion that loans are used to bankroll new businesses, the pervasive poverty that often surrounds them can mean a lack of consumer demand, leading to the eventual failure of the venture. A potential solution to this would be to place greater restrictions of those eligible to take out loans. Applicants, for instance, could be obliged to fulfil some kind of financial criteria like providing a credible business plan. This, however, introduces a host of ethical problems, the most prominent being to what degree should rich people be able to determine how poor people spend their money? And relying on the behavioural standards of the rich, as history has repeatedly shown, is rarely a good idea. The ill-judged allocation of credit, as is commonplace across microfinance schemes, also provides entrepreneurship opportunities for ‘middle men’. Borrowers who have greater access to microfinance initiatives have been known to then lend to poorer borrowers at higher interest rates than they themselves received. Consequently, the poorest micro-entrepreneurs benefit less than the comparatively less poor, in a dynamic that reinforces existing socio-economic hierarchies and creates greater room for exploitation. <11an>limit:2;categories:jobs|courses|conferences|Professor;disciplines:Financial Economics (JEL G)|Economic Development, Innovation and Growth (JEL O)</11an> What can be done? Many of these problems arise from a lack of sufficient regulation. Until now the sector has regulated itself, with undue faith placed in the free market’s ‘natural’ efficiency. The main effort to protect clients thus far has come in the form of a global regulatory initiative called The Smart Campaign, described by chief operational officer of Alliance Microfinance, Hugh Sinclair, as offering a ‘watered-down, ineffective set of voluntary principles’. In 2014, it was widely panned when it certified the infamous Banco Compartomas, Latin America’s largest microfinance bank, which had previously made headlines for charging poor Mexicans triple-digit interest rates. This led even Yunus to concede that ‘self-regulation doesn’t really work’, and that many practices really should not continue as they were. Looking forward Perhaps part of its appeal is based on the fact that microfinance does not threaten existing political or economic structures. It is simple and highly seductive: the poor can be saved by the rich, who, by doing so, become richer. What’s not to like? It’s the neoliberal’s dream. Clearly, though, things are not that simple. When the profit motive is involved, exploitation is rarely far behind. Whether it’s extortionate interest rates or general misallocation of funds, the transgressions of this project have been many. For this reason, regulation, currently all too lacklustre, must be rigorously enforced so that the benefits of microfinance are not entirely lost. Countries like Ecuador have recognised the need for a national regulatory framework and offer the beginnings of a roadmap that could be emulated elsewhere. Reasonable interest rate caps, client protection, beefed-up risk management, flexible repayment periods; all must be considered if the true potential of microfinance is ever to be realised. Quite how far that may stretch remains to be seen.
Since its inception in the 1970s, microfinance has become the darling of development organisations the world over - the idea with the potential to save the planet’s poor. Pioneered by Bangladeshi social entrepreneur and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus, it provides the financially marginalized with banking services that, given their impoverishment, would otherwise be out of reach. Such provision, its proponents claim, empowers the poor to take control of their own lives and plot their own path out of poverty - an antidote that is humane, retains the dignity of it recipients, and is lucrative. Aside from bank accounts and insurance, it is mostly implemented in the form of microloans.
Public Economics & Economic Policy (JEL H)
Economic Development, Innovation and Growth (JEL O)
Browse our job listings in international economics 1. Work as an analyst One of the most popular career paths for economists generally, and for international economists specifically, is working as an analyst. This is a broad term which refers to anyone who performs work in which data is analysed in order to find particular patterns or to determine the best course of action. There are many types of analyst role which an international economist could take on – from financial analysts, who analyse businesses' equity and securities, to research analysts, who dig through data which is collected as part of a research project, to policy analysts, who work on investigating the effects of public policies to see whether they are effective. You could find a job as an analyst at a private think tank such as the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a business such as Reis, a commercial real estate analytics company or for the federal or local government. 2. Work in the finance industry Another big employer of economists is the finance industry. Having a knowledge of international affairs and international money systems is highly useful in an increasingly international finance market. You might find work with a bank or an insurance company, working in a role such as financial analyst, financial management, or investment banker. Work in the finance industry tends to be very well compensated but is also high-pressure and with long working hours expected. If you love to throw yourself fully into projects and don't mind putting your social life on the back burner for a time, then you could find work in the finance industry to be very rewarding. However, if you're looking for a job with good work-life balance or a strong social outlook, this may not be the industry for you. <11an>limit:2;categories:jobs|conferences;disciplines:International Economics (JEL F)</11an> 3. Work for a global organisation A way to put your specialist knowledge of international economics to good use is to work for an international organisation such as the IMF. The global money system is vast and complex, and the organisations which try to regulate it are becoming more important as globalisation keeps spreading. In a global organisation you might find a role performing research, promoting particular policies, or navigating national and international law as applied to finance. This kind of work is suited to someone who has an open mind and is understanding of different cultural and political viewpoints. It's the kind of work which requires being able to work with other people from all over the world. 4. Work for the government Finally, one obvious employer for international economists is the government. Economists work in all branches of government, but international economics is a particular match with the governmental branches dedicated to diplomacy and international relations. The United States Foreign Service, for example, employs economics officers who design and oversee economic programs in developing countries. This kind of work is not well paid but can be greatly personally rewarding as it puts the skills of an international economist to direct use in improving the lives of people abroad. It requires the ability to collaborate effectively and to manage complex projects, making it well suited to people who are highly organised and able to juggle many different priorities at once.
If you're an economist and you're thinking about working in the field of international economics, you might be wondering what kind of career options are open to you. Here are a few suggestions for jobs which you could do.
This changed in 2018, in America, when the cause was reinvigorated by political upstart and now darling of the left, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Since sensationally winning New York’s 14th congressional district, Cortez has helped drag green policy, and the GND in particular, to the centre of the race for the Democrat Presidential nomination, gaining it international exposure. Meanwhile, weekly climate marches in many of the world’s major cities, the emergence of Greta Thunberg, and the action of groups like Extinction Rebellion have ensured the climate crisis now tops the news agenda everywhere. Rid of the reputation that had it dismissed as outlandish and unfundable, the GND has surged in popularity, and according to a YouGov Blue poll, its core policies enjoy support from a majority of Americans. Despite this fandom, detractors remain and its future is far from guaranteed. Indeed, upcoming elections in the US and UK, both certain to be polarised, will likely be pivotal in deciding whether this once fledgling and radical idea, seeded in a cramped inner-city living room, ever comes to maturation. Browse our job listings here What does it address? Quite simply: climate change and inequality. The GND is underpinned by two fundamental and interconnected observations. The first is that the current economic system is failing: the pockets of corporate polluters and billionaires are lined, while working class families, communities of colour, and other minorities are exposed to stagnant wages, toxic pollution, and dead-end jobs. The second recognises that the climate crisis magnifies these systemic injustices. Hard-hit communities are typically hit hardest by storms, droughts, flooding etc., as entrenched inequality deprives them of the resources required to adapt, cope and, in some cases, live. It follows that climate change and inequality can only be addressed together. This is the GND’s starting point. Through the mobilisation of vast public resources, the GND plans a transition from an economy built on fossil fuels and exploitation to one driven by clean energy and dignified work. Owing to its scale and widespread appropriation this has been articulated in various ways, with plans citing different costs and diverging deadlines. That said, at its core there remains a set of largely consistent aims which include: transferring 100% of the nation’s power generation to renewables; retrofitting all buildings to ensure they are energy efficient; decarbonising agriculture, transportation and manufacturing; and investing in drawdown technologies that extract carbon and other greenhouse gases from the air. Committed adoption of these goals would, in turn, make green technology, expertise, and services a major U.S. export, increasing GDP and allowing America to assume a leadership role in guiding other countries to carbon-neutral economies. Inequality and empowering workers The nature of the reforms, ubiquitous as they are, mean a diversity of jobs would be created everywhere. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ proposed GND, which borrows heavily from Cortez’, estimates it would generate as many as 20 million ‘good paying, union jobs with strong benefits and safety standards’, many of which would be reserved for low-income families and communities of colour. With unemployment in the US standing at around 6 million, job creation of this magnitude would, in effect, serve as a de facto job guarantee for all those actively seeking work, realising, in the process, a staple-demand of the socialist movement. Such widespread opportunity would also empower the broader working class by defanging the threat of unemployment, the greatest barrier to organising for improved working conditions. The effects of this could be huge, for the fear of perpetual unemployment has long-been the capitalist’s trump card, helping keep the scales tipped, forcibly, in his favour. It’s threat is so potent it routinely cows workers to accept wages too low to provide a decent standard of living, and has all but forbidden them to unionise - they simply have no recourse. The consequences are stark and worsening: 3.1 million Americans in full-time work now live below the poverty-line, and increasing numbers of children are growing up poor. A job guarantee would go some way to arrest this growing exploitation: it would naturally expand trade union rights, and strengthen, more generally, the position of the vulnerable worker. Who is to pay? The chief criticism of its still many detractors is the cost, the claim that it’s financially unfeasible. And it’s true, there’s no doubt it will be expensive. Its proponents, however, suggest that far from bankrupting the country, the ‘suite of economic reforms’, as at times it’s been called, would actually pay for itself - after 15 years if Sanders is to be believed. Although the exact economics of the project are predictably hazy, many remain confident that through a combination of higher taxes, reduced military spending, repealed fossil fuel subsidies, increased revenue from new energy, and income tax generated from millions of new jobs, it can yet be funded. Vagaries aside, it’s clear the cost of inaction will be much, much higher. Every passing day serves as a reminder of why we need change on the scale of the Green New Deal. Every drought, hurricane, or flood, every story of a child going hungry, a parent enduring long-term unemployment, or a worker being exploited, adds to the growing evidence of its necessity. Inequality and climate change threaten not just our dignity but our existence, and continued inaction, which would likely be deadly, makes us all complicit. Yes, a Green New Deal is a huge undertaking and highly ambitious. But does that make it unworkable? Wars have previously mobilised countries on similar scales to that which is now required. Why not again? The mother of two-birds-one-stone solutions may well be in sight; it’s time we grabbed it.
Although recently popularised in America, the Green New Deal (GND) was actually born during the early days of the 2007/8 financial crisis, in a small flat in London. The owner of the flat was analyst and foreseer of the crisis, Ann Pettifor; the occasion was a get-together of environmentalists and economists who had convened to draft a plan they hoped would both ‘transform the economy and protect the ecosystem’. Unfortunately for the London attendees, the prevailing political currents post crash proved especially hostile toward their idea, and prioritised, instead, principles of fiscal discipline and austerity, while largely sidelining issues of climate. And as long as such consensus reigned, the nascent GND was forced to lie dormant, far from political discourse.
Agricultural and Environmental Economics (JEL Q)
The Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy
Compared to the roughly 76,000 jobs in coal in the US, renewable energy is a far greater employer. In the United States alone, the solar and wind industries employ a combined 360,000. As of 2017, less than a thousand people worked in the coal industry in the United Kingdom, and yet around 125,000 work in the renewable energy industries. It’s clear that right now, clean energy is a much more important employer than dirty coal. And these numbers aren’t set to decline; rather, most predictions suggest they will exponentially increase, particularly if countries stick to their given targets for renewable energies. The US Department of Energy wants to achieve 20% wind power by 2030. To get there, around 100,000 more turbines will be needed, which equates to roughly 500,000 more jobs. In 2019, resigning Prime Minister Theresa May set a target of zero emissions by 2030, another goal that will require substantial investment in sustainables. Climate change, as laid out by Senior Editor William Pearse in his piece on the destructive nature of the crisis, has the potential to destroy our economy in ways, and on scales, we are currently unable to fathom. Renewable energies are perhaps the most important answer to the question of how we reverse this trend and save not only our economies, but our entire world as we know it. The creation of jobs is an essential part of how renewables will do this. But that’s not all they’re going to do. Browse our job listings to find your perfect position Renewing the economy Traditionally, the use of fossil fuels has had a weighty financial advantage over renewables. In recent years, though, this has stopped being the case: solar and wind power especially have become financially competitive as suppliers of energy, and their increased usage across the world reflects this. Unfortunately, rather than becoming the replacement for unsustainable energy sources they were once hailed as, they have merely been used to supplement existing supplies as global demand continues to grow. Regardless, as renewables have become more and more competitive, they have become more widely used, and investment in them is exceptionally good for the economy. Aside from the aforementioned employment potential, an IRENA report from 2016 suggested that ‘doubling the share of renewables by 2030 could increase global GDP by 1.1% ($1.3 trillion)’. On top of this, renewable energy can stimulate trade, decrease the costs of fuel imports, inspire capital investment, and increase property tax revenue and lease payments to landlords. The most important of these – the investment opportunities – was roughly $100 billion from 2005-2015. In addition to these numbers are the more indirect, but just as important, effects that a switch to renewable energy, and a subsequent alleviation of the climate crisis, would entail. For example, if air quality was improved, the volume of people across the world who are hospitalised due to breathing conditions would decrease. There are perhaps 12,000 premature deaths due to climate change in the US alone every year, and many more suffer serious health problems which can hospitalise them. The strain on healthcare systems that climate change contributes to is massive; take London, where predictions suggest air pollution causes breathing problems in 4 new adults every day. Fixing these problems would free up funds for treatment and research into cures for the serious endemic health problems that plague society. The above arguments take for granted that GDP is the measure of the economic wellbeing of society, received wisdom that has endured through the ages. And yet some – ecological economists being the prime example – have tried to rebuff this and introduce their own measuring stick: GPI, or Genuine Progress Indicator. GPI includes things like income gaps, poverty levels, and rates of environmental damage to see how well the world economy is really doing. By this yardstick, economic worth per person peaked in 1978, and has been steadily decreasing ever since. Moreover, the ecology itself has a monetary worth. Ecological economists predicted in the late nineties that the environment was worth around $33 trillion, over twice the GDP of the world at the time. Although the figure holds little economic utility, the point of the exercise was to highlight the monetary worth of the environment, while simultaneously revealing GDP’s inadequacy as a measuring stick. Naturally this doesn’t take into account nature’s less tangible aspects, such as its often astounding beauty, or indeed, how essential it is to our survival. Unsustainable wealth inequality Climate change, as one may guess, disproportionately affects the poor. The scientific consensus that climate change intensifies weather conditions is well known, and the effects of this intensification have been seen in recent years. The Californian wildfires and other natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey were at least influenced by the rising temperature, if not directly caused by it. And the economic damage of these ‘acts of God’, as insurance companies so love to name them? In 2017 alone, environmental disasters in the United States cost a total of $306 billion. Naturally, the poor shoulder this burden. As more poorer people are forced to build their homes in at-risk areas and are affected by natural disasters, they are subsequently left high and dry by insurance companies who may not pay out for these types of events. The poor being penalised for a problem that affects them disproportionately is, of course, not only an American phenomenon. In 2019, the ultra low emission zone (Ulez) was extended to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week in central London. While on the face of it this policy is positive, reducing air pollution by taking cars off the road and forcing people to drive cleaner vehicles, it is, inevitably, the working-class who take the brunt of the cost. Those with vehicles over 3.5 tonnes have to now pay a whopping £100 a day on top of the congestion charge. White collar workers whose livelihoods depend on their being able to use their vans and lorries in central London have been put essentially out of work due to these new rules, and those who were told to change their vehicles to supposedly environmentally-friendly options in the past – such as during the diesel tax break of 2001, implemented before diesel became the enemy – have been hit the hardest. Many of those who will have to pay the charge, which could be up to £24 a day between 7am and 6pm, simply don’t have the money to pay for a newer vehicle that fits in with the latest Euro 6 engine standard from 2015. Planned for 2021 is to bring the Ulez into action in all areas inside the North and South Circular, affecting even more of those who cannot afford it. In fairness, in February 2019 a £21 million scrappage scheme to help small businesses upgrade their vehicles was launched; unfortunately, this isn’t enough to help those who are poor but don’t own their own business, like cleaners and care workers, for example. Writing in the Independent, Oliver Barnes argues that Ulez exposes the fact that ‘London remains an unequal and unforgiving place which lets the wealthiest get off scot-free, while pitting its poorest residents against one another.’ It’s hard to argue against this logic. Moving away from the West, the poorest are also hit by climate change in the less-well developed regions of the world. The spread of infectious diseases can be increased by changing environmental conditions as habits are destroyed, causing animals to move closer to human populations, and raising temperatures, which means malaria-spreading mosquitoes have a larger area to inhabit than before. The Zika outbreak of 2014-15, for example, was caused by subtropical mosquitos who thrived above-averagely warm temperatures across South America, arguably caused by climate change. These outbreaks not only mean massive strains on the healthcare systems of developing countries, but also that tourism, on which many of these states depend, is negatively affected. The economic effects of such outbreaks can be devastating for countries which are already struggling financially. Rising temperatures also affect crop growth, causing failures and droughts. For developing countries which depend on agriculture, the loss of a single yield can be catastrophic to the economy, not to mention the tragic loss of life this entails. A changing climate One thing’s for certain: combating climate change will lower the risk of natural disasters and the outbreak of diseases, which means that the poor will suffer less. At the moment, they shoulder most of the burden. To combat this disparity, rather than introducing relatively arbitrary low emission zones, larger, more fundamental changes need to be made on an international level that prevent things like, for example, corporations effecting huge deforestation and militaries devastating ecologies. Alongside these, protections need to be put into place that make sure those who can afford it foot the bill for what are going to be some hard lifestyle and societal changes. This could include something like a green tax on luxury items that are particularly bad for the environment, and the making of green products at affordable prices. Most important, however, will be massive investment in renewable energy. The jobs these industries will create should help ease some of the burden on the poor, particularly those currently in precarious employment; in the meantime, unfair taxes should be discarded. The only way to implement all of this is through a transnational, borderless approach to environmental protection. If the climate crisis is going to be solved, and if renewables are going to be pushed to the forefront of our energy solutions, countries will need to work together in order to conduct research into improving their efficiency and affordability. International legislation needs to be put in place that prevents the expansion of non-sustainable energy sources and encourages (or makes obligatory, even) investment in renewables. The infrastructure that is needed to construct a renewable world will require skill sets from workers across the world, making sustainable immigration an essential piece of this puzzle. Substantial investments need to come from both governments and private funds, and the monetary aspect will be more viable if countries work together to make the climate their utmost priority. Political differences, such as those between China and the United States, will have to be put aside, something easier said than done. Making the world renewable isn’t an easy task; at the same time, it’s by no means impossible. It requires international cooperation – and the making of some tough decisions – to force it to happen. We can only hope that by the time the leaders of this world have got their act together, it isn’t already too late.
In 2018, United States President Donald Trump said his administration was putting more coal miners back into work, having previously rattled on about how important coal jobs were to the future of the US. Perhaps it should be no surprise that his words were empty. The Trump administration has added a negligible 2,000 coal mining jobs since it took control, and whatever bump in coal production 2018 saw was quick to fade away. Obviously, Trump’s pledge to keep the industry alive was a political stunt, not a decision based on the economic realities of the moment; for if it had been, Trump wouldn’t have been talking about coal, but about renewable energy.
The coup was prevented mainly due to a campaign of civil resistance led by newly elected Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin had been the first person in history to resign from the Politburo voluntarily a few years earlier in 1987, and this garnered him a reputation as a rebel and an anti-establishment figure. His involvement in stopping the August Putsch, as it became known, solidified his popularity in the Soviet Union. Although Gorbachev was restored to his previous position as General Secretary of the Communist Party, his power was vastly diminished, the event having destabilised the already-fragile political situation in the USSR. Yeltsin was hailed as a hero and remained President after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. After taking power, Yeltsin implemented a series of capitalist, post-Soviet reforms that privatised huge portions of Russia’s state-owned assets. Swept up in the rushing tide of selling were large portions of the industrial, energy, and financial sectors, marking the first time private ownership of property and enterprise had been legal since the Soviet Union’s creation in the early twentieth century. Massive privatisation in Russia caused two related effects. First, inequality rose sharply, coinciding with a GDP collapse and a decline in industrial output. Second, much of the diminishing wealth of Russian enterprises was concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals – oligarchs – who became even richer, with company stocks of state-owned enterprises being transferred to criminal gangs and mob bosses. Predictably, those who suffered most were the regular citizens of Russia. Despite Yeltsin’s reputation as a charismatic rebel able to win over the hearts of the desperate Russian population, he wasn’t able to successfully run a market economy, and by 1999 his popularity had disintegrated to such an extent that he was forced to resign under intense internal pressure. Just how did it all go so wrong? Download the INOMICS Handbook! Economic catastrophe According to David Satter in The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putin, the start date for Yeltsin’s reforms can be traced to January 2nd, 1992. On this day, Yegor Gaidar, Deputy Prime Minister, freed prices. His prediction, according to Satter, was that prices would increase between three and five times. But this isn’t what happened. Over the course of the next ten months, prices rose by a factor of nearly thirty. The results of this were that the money in regular people’s savings accounts, money that had in some cases been saved for decades, disappeared virtually overnight. Hyperinflation had the added effect of being a perfect environment for a criminal class to take control of the markets and earn huge amounts of money. Due to a shortage of turnover capital as a result of inflation, production was paralysed. The regime’s answer to this was to issue government credits at rates of 10 to 25%. Instead of being used to pay workers’ salaries, though, they were deposited at banks, and bank officials and factory directors split the profits. Some got themselves export licences through bribing government officials, bought raw materials in roubles and then sold them abroad at world prices, making huge amounts of money in the process. Others acquired import permits after the government, fearing famine, began selling them in 1991. Food products were imported at 1% their real value, the rest of the cost subsidised by Western commodity credits, and a small group of traders made enormous sums of money from it: in 1992, import subsidies amounted to 15% of GDP. A second scheme the government put in place was the distribution of vouchers, which were meant to represent ‘a citizen’s share of the national wealth’, valued at ten thousand roubles. Many Russians were uncertain what to do with these vouchers, and so sold them on the street for minuscule returns like a bottle of vodka or ten dollars. Some invested them in voucher funds, which turned out to be scams, or bought shares in their own factories. But organised crime groups realised they could use these vouchers to invest in industry. These groups, who collected thousands of vouchers over a few years, used them to secure around a third of the country’s industrial base, propelling themselves to unimaginable wealth. These measures, implemented apparently in good faith, led to the collapse of the Russian economy. Russia’s GDP fell by 50% between 1992 and 1998. This was worse than the decline faced by the United States during the Great Depression. In the same period, industrial production declined by 56%. (Some estimates say these figures are askew: lack of industrial investment and the stopping of production of non-consumed goods may have distorted this figure. For example, the military sector, which has less weight in a nominally ‘free’ market, experienced a sharp drop in production. Regardless, the number is high.) Since then, things haven’t got huge amounts better: although Russian GDP peaked in 2013 at $2 trillion, it was back down to $1.2 trillion again in 2016 due to a drop in oil prices and exchange rates. Crony capitalism and criminal gangs Russia remains in the top-third most corrupt countries in the world: as of 2018, 138th from 180. Corruption affects all aspects of Russian administration, and it has been argued that it ‘coincided with the illegal dispersal of the equivalent of billions of dollars from the Soviet state treasury into private accounts across Europe and the U.S.’ By 2011, the average bribe had increase to 236,000 roubles from just 9,000 in 2008, many times the inflation rate over the same three year period. Estimates of how much this corruption, judged by Russia’s famous ‘shadow economy’, cost the country in terms of GDP vary, from 3.5-7% as judged by the Russian government, to 48% as judged by the World Bank. That’s right: nearly half of Russia’s GDP is estimated by the World Bank to be caught up in the shadow economy. This economy, which functions through the bribing of government officials not only to vote the right way but simply to do their jobs in the first place, is made up of unreported salaries and astronomical rates of tax evasion. A recurring theme is that the Russian general population pays the biggest price of this corruption. Untenable rises in tariffs for housing, water, gas and electricity outpace the rate of inflation many times, and the main cause of these increases has been attributed to corruption among high-level officials. Public officials become richer and richer as a result. The money they make from these bribes obviously has to be laundered, and although an anti-money laundering initiative was put into place in 2013, it has been largely unsuccessful in preventing the practice. One of the main reforms under Gorbachev was the legalisation of cooperatives, which became the only privately owned businesses in the Soviet Union. These cooperatives were successful, but led to a different problem: the police would only protect state enterprises. This meant that criminal gangs formed across the country which offered ‘protection’ in exchange for money, perhaps better described as extortion. By the time Yeltsin implemented his reforms, almost everybody was paying off someone for protection. But the gangs quickly realised these smaller markets weren’t the most lucrative way to operate. Instead, they began targeting the newly-wealthy business owners and bankers, many ending up victims of contract killings by gang members who wanted to take over these recently-formed enterprises. This criminality led to problems not only domestically but also with foreign businessmen. Trying to invest in a Russian business often led to dealings with gangsters who demanded money for protection, and any attempt to appeal to the authorities revealed that the gangsters had contacts in the police and the government that went all the way to the top. Who takes the fall? Despite still essentially being in competition with the West in much the same vein as it was during the Cold War (at least according to analyses of Russia’s exceptionalism by esteemed historian Stephen Kotkin) Russia still lags behind on some major indicators of country development. Ranking low on labour rights, social spending and tax policy, Russia placed only fiftieth on an international scale of equality, behind all of its Western neighbours and falling short of other former Soviet States like Georgia. A European Parliament study of Russian equality confirmed these conclusions, finding that ‘nearly half of pre-tax national incomes goes to Russia’s top 10%’, and that among large countries it had the highest proportion of billionaires than any other. Further qualification was needed: ‘Given that these figures do not take account of the huge wealth (estimated at up to 75% of Russia’s GDP) hidden in offshore accounts, they probably understate inequality.’ (Emphasis mine.) Demographic results of the Russian economic disaster were no better. The life expectancy of men dropped by more than six years between 1990 and 1994. In 1998, it sat at fifty-seven, ‘the lowest in the industrial world’, according to Satter. Many in the West refused to believe the death rate in Russia in the 1990s: the population dropped by 750,000 per year across the decade. In 1998, when the Russian state defaulted on $40 billion worth of debt, currency exchanges were updating their conversion rates from roubles to dollars by the hour. Estimates suggest that living standards dropped by 40% during the 1998 crisis. The criminal mindset that pervaded life – criminality was everywhere, and it was no longer a surprise that society could only function through criminal means – meant that violence and death became much more common. Russians were much more likely to kill themselves or be murdered than in almost any other industrialised nation, and the main victims of this were regular people, a huge proportion of whom were already living in poverty. Many, unable to pay for their medical bills or for the bare essentials, simply gave up. Others were tricked into racketeering schemes which covered everything from religion to apartments, and plenty of these involved murdering those who became involved. To sedate the population, the Yeltsin government lifted all restrictions on the sale of alcohol, causing massive strain on a healthcare system that wasn’t receiving investment. Post-Soviet Russia may be improving on some fronts, but quality of life for the median Russian only really started getting better in the 2010s. A bleak future By the time Vladimir Putin came to power in 1999 in a period of relative economic growth, Yeltsin’s popularity ratings were astoundingly low. Putin was seem as something new, someone to counteract the squalor of the preceding decade. While the Russian economy has grown, the political system remains unstable and unfair, and though many are out of the poverty they were thrust into by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, more still feel dejected in a system which rewards criminality and violence. Between 2014 and 2017, the Russian rouble collapsed, leading to another financial crisis. A decline in confidence in the Russian economy as a result of the fall in the price of oil in 2014, as well as sanctions imposed on Russia due to its annexation of Crimea, led to many investors selling off their Russian assets. Although since 2017 the Russian economy has been rebounding somewhat, 35% of all financial assets are owned by the 110 richest Russians. Moscow truly is the billionaire capital of the world: its levels of inequality are almost unbelievable for a country with the sixth-largest economy in the world. One of the main results of the economic disaster of post-Soviet Russia is the government’s authoritarian – some would argue dictatorial – character. Yeltsin’s election during the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991, although not totally free and fair, was the closest Russia has come to proper democracy in over a century. The 1996 elections were riddled with electoral problems, such as Yeltsin using government money to fund his campaign, as well as huge amounts of media bias due to the fact that his government owned two of the national television channels and funded most independent newspapers. Media bias has plagued all subsequent elections throughout the 2000s, and although Putin was banned from running for a third term in 2008, a day after Dmitry Medvedev became President Putin was made Prime Minister, power remaining in all but name in his hands. And, after the 2012 election, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe said ‘There were serious problems from the very start of this election. The point of elections is that the outcome should be uncertain. This was not the case in Russia. There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt.’ Much of these problems stem from the economic crisis of the 90s. That being said, if Russia is going to sort itself out, the solution lies with more than just money: it needs to inculcate true democracy. Unfortunately, that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon due to the current leadership's insistence on holding on to power. Instead, the people will continue to suffer, and Russia will remain a country of corruption, criminality, and authoritarianism.
In the early hours of the 21st of August 1991, a putsch in the Soviet Union against Mikhail Gorbachev failed, leaving three men dead and the country in a state of shock. The coup had been staged by members of the Soviet government who had taken issue with Gorbachev’s liberalising, democratising reforms, which he had been slowly putting into place over the previous few years. Those who had planned the attack then fled, and were all taken into custody within three days.
The job market in the North has become much more competitive and much more appealing to talented professionals. It was once London, and only London, that would attract interest from the hottest industry talent - but those days are gone. More professionals are open to living and working outside of the vibrant capital. Now, they're opting for the bigger bustling cities in the North such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh. So why is there a shift in attitudes? Browse our job listings for more opportunities Why professionals are looking north London has a lot to offer young workers, but the cost of living, overpriced accommodation and fast pace of the city can be avoided if workers look at northern cities instead. Young professionals can still enjoy city life at a fraction of the cost of living in London - in both money and time. Data suggests a first-time buyer will have to put down a deposit three times the national average, and this has been the main reason why job opportunities and competition for them is booming in the North. However, the job market in the North has not grown by demand alone: there are also many renowned and international companies looking for new staff in the North. This can be proven with a quick search for jobs in Manchester, or for jobs in the other northern powerhouse cities. Job applications: the facts and figures Research also backs up claims that the North has a healthy and prospering job market. One job search site has been digging around and analysing job opportunities and job applications made to companies in these northern cities. Its findings indicate that there really is a northern job boom. It found a number of cities had received significantly more job applications over the previous two-year period. These cities were Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds and the two major Scottish cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh. In fact, Glasgow had one of the biggest rises in application with a staggering 41% increase. This was followed by Edinburgh (36%), and Sheffield and Liverpool both with 14% rises. Do job advertisements match up? The good news for these applicants is that there was also an increase in job advertisements during the same period. It must be noted that an increase in job applications may well be the result of an increase in job advertisement,- as logic would suggest. However, the sharp rise in applications also suggests more than advertisements are pulling people to the north of the UK. The aforementioned northern cities receiving more job applications also offered more jobs as a collective, with an average increase in jobs of 17%. Edinburgh again was up there and increased the number of advertised jobs by a phenomenal 80%. The North West of England was also offering more jobs and Liverpool’s job listing rates over the same two years rose by 53%. What jobs are on offer? It is also worth noting the types of jobs being offered in the North and in Scotland. Of course, these areas boast a wealth of opportunities in different sectors, but the increase mostly occurred in transport, sales, customer service, and logistics. Not all of these roles were high paying, but the salary goes further in the North compared to southern English counties and Greater London. Not to forget that some of the biggest UK companies have been moving north too - and these companies do have lucrative salaries and employment packages. Channel 4 has set up in Leeds, Boohoo’s Manchester depot was expanded and HSBC moved part of its retail operations out of London and further north. In A Nutshell To sum up the findings of the latest research and the discussion here: - Northern cities have advertised more jobs in the last two years than before. Notable increases were seen in Edinburgh and Liverpool with rates of 80% and 53% respectively - Simultaneously, and somewhat expectedly, job applications in these cities and other cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow have also increased. The latter received 41% more applications over the last two-year period - The northern job market is healthy and booming, offering an affordable alternative to London
Brexit may have created a great deal of anxiety and business uncertainty, yet the UK is enjoying a golden period of employment. With more people in jobs and less out of work jobseekers, the UK is experiencing record employment levels not seen for decades. Some of this achievement is down to a job boom in the north of England and in the two biggest Scottish cities.
Urban, Rural and Transportation Economics (JEL R)
Fast forward to 2019, however, and a cocktail of increasingly unethical business practice, rank inequality, and precarious work have put paid to this reputation. Celebration has been replaced by suspicion, and where reverence was once felt there now exists resentment. It’s hardly surprising either: in a country where medical debt is approaching $81 billion, is it really possible to justify a $129.4 million salary like which was recently paid to Discovery Inc. CEO, David Zaslav? Free-market logic? Many rail against such incomes, branding them a symbol of all that’s wrong with the current economic and political systems. A smattering of others simply can’t make sense of them, the figures, somewhat perversely, too large to hold any value. And then there are the fundamentalist free-marketeers who wonder what all the fuss is about. While conceding that yes CEO pay may sound excessive, they defer to the authority of the market, in all its infallible glory, to explain that incomes are, in fact, exactly where it should be, and merely a reflection of CEOs’ worth. If a boss receives 300 times more pay than their average worker, it because their contribution adds 300 times more value to the company. And with that, typically, the conversation is over. Pushed for more detail, and they’ll likely bristle, accusing the questioner of engaging in unsavoury acts of envy and spite, which, by anyone’s standard is not a good look. ‘Work harder’ the more sassy among them sometimes like to part with, ‘maybe one day you can make it too’. But is this explanation really good enough? And are these ‘market-designated’ earnings actually fair? Suggestion that a CEO contributes 300 times more value to a company than a worker does sound, on first hearing at least, rather outlandish; they remain a human being after all. Is any one individual really that valuable? On investigation, and using the same free-market logic defenders of CEO pay rely on, the answer looks like a resounding no. In fact, three key reasons emerge - discussed below - that reveal exec pay to be far from natural and point instead to it being profligate, unjust, and sometimes even corrupt. The great divergence American CEOs today earn approximately 10 times more than their predecessors of the 1960s and 70s, despite overseeing companies that are, in relative terms, far less successful. During this time, the ratio of CEO compensation to the average worker has also majorly distorted. In the 60/70s, it lay somewhere in the region of 30-40 to 1 - already excessive in some people’s eyes. By the 2000s, owing to rapid rise in the 80s, it had reached a whopping 300-400. Worker wages, on the other hand, were estimated by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) to have grown just 13% between 1973-2006. 13% in 33 years: that is less than half a percent per year; essentially, that is stagnancy. Provided with these statistics, a free-market enthusiast’s only available conclusion would be that CEOs became ten times more productive in a period in which workers’ productivity remained almost exactly the same. Give that a second; let that supposition sink in. A common justification for this steep rise is that as companies have got bigger in size, the importance of the CEO has grown commensurably: shrewd decisions made by the CEO of a billion dollar company, the argument goes, could easily increase company earnings by a few million. Also, to ensure the best candidate is secured, top dollar must be paid, lest they be poached by a rival company. With this in mind, surely it makes sense that these factors are reflected in the size of the pay packet? Well, no, not exactly. Although, there may be some small kernel of truth to the growing importance of the CEO, it doesn't account for the magnitude or manner of wage increase that we’ve seen. For one, it overlooks the fact that wages increased most rapidly in the 80s, even though company size had been growing for some time before. And more importantly, it doesn’t explain why, as bosses lined their pockets, workers’ pay flatlined. By the argument’s own logic, workers, too, should have experienced significant wage increase, as, owing to the complex cooperation and divisions of labour customary in large institutions, they also assume greater importance as a company grows. How else can you explain HR departments? America the anomaly Observations made by Cambridge Professor, Ha-joon Chang, further undermine these justifications. He posits: if ‘the increasing importance of top managerial decisions is the main reason for CEO salary inflation why are CEOs in Japan and Europe running similarly large companies paid only a fraction of what American CEOs are paid?’ Are Americans bringing something priceless to the party simply by virtue of being American? The EPI, again, provide reliable statistics on the matter, showing that in the 2000s German CEOs were paid 55% of what their American counterparts received, the Dutch just 40%, and the Japanes an almost unbelievably low 25%. Notably these figures do not include stock options granted to CEOs, which, in the US, are typically much higher. Chang has estimated that when stock options are included, Japanese CEOs’ compensation totals just to 5% of their US counterparts. More recent data compiled by Harvard’s Forum of Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation has shown that US CEO pay has continued to increase into the 2010s, whereas in Europe pay has been far more volatile, and across the region as a whole has fallen each year since 2015. It’s not that American CEOs are running their companies any better, either. To the contrary, Chang highlights that in many cases they are actually being outperformed by their European and Japanese equivalents. He also discounts American CEOs enjoying better wages because wages, generally, are higher in America, for outside of highly skilled employment, it simply isn't true - wages are, in fact, rather similar. Japanese workers make around 90% of Americans, while in comparison with German workers, Americans actually receive less. Insulated from market forces Their legitimacy aside, there is the question of whether we should even care. If a company are silly enough to pay their CEO fiendish amounts, let them. Thriftier outfits with more sensible compensation packages will eventually outperform, and then eliminate them - market forces will see to it. Unfortunately, history has shown this function cannot be relied on, for two main reasons. First, the process of eliminating excessive CEO pay is incredibly slow: one need only remember the decades prior to General Motors’ bankruptcy, during which top managers continued to receive huge salaries and bonuses even as the business was collapsing - nothing done to check the blatant injustice. The second reason, which partially accounts for the first, is the power the managerial class have acquired, both within their own companies, thanks to their pay, and politically, also thanks to their pay. This phenomenon is particularly acute in the US, where the line between business and politics is so blurry it’s practically invisible - the revolving door connecting Washington and Wall Street now an accepted reality. So close are ties, many private CEOs actually end up heading government departments, and lobbying influence, often funded by those very same CEOs, has never been greater. Wielding such enormous power has allowed them, rather easily it should be said, to insulate their pay from both market forces and governmental regulation. The result: the average salary of a US CEO is $15.6 million, The aftermath of the financial crisis was the clearest demonstration of this in action. Despite known criminal behaviour and major malpractice among the managerial ranks, few of those implicated lost their jobs, even less took a pay cut, and there was high-profile resistance (which ultimately was successful) against attempts made by the US congress to cap the pay of managers of financial firms. Rarely, if ever, has there been such a public display of how unfair the system really is - it’s supposed to punish inefficiency and mismanagement. Instead, it rewarded them, and in doing so, confirmed what the above also argues: that exec pay isn't natural or deserved, and its existence alone is not evidence of its legitimacy. Rather, it’s the result of greed, a lack of regulation, and foul play. It must be changed.
Rising year on year, seemingly irrespective of company performance, US executive pay is eye-watering. For decades now, its increase - the small blip following the financial crisis aside - has been rapid. As their wallets have bulged, however, CEOs’ standing in the public eye, has fallen precipitously - plotted on a graph the relationship between the two would make a big X. And this is a significant shift. It wasn't long ago that the American entrepreneur was heralded as an almost mythical figure: the embodiment of all that was good about the country; the opportunity it afforded; the work ethic it rewarded; the fact that with the right attitude anything was possible. They were the American Dream in action; evidence that it could be made real.
Studying economics or business at Rotterdam Business School
Within Rotterdam is a well regarded business school, the Rotterdam Business School, which is a part of the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (RUAS). The business school offers bachelor's and master's degree programs as well as summer schools for training specific skills. Research specialities at Rotterdam Business School The Rotterdam Business School teaches and conducts all of its business in English, so it has a highly international outlook. As well as programs of study, there are many foreign exchange programs, so you can expect to meet people from all different countries and backgrounds there. There are students from over 50 countries at the school, and it has educational links to Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. The focus is on real-life business skills rather than academic research, so the school teaches real business examples in its courses and partners with local and international businesses to teach the skills which are most available for starting out in businesses. There is also off-campus teaching as well as on-campus teaching, in which students are taken out into real business environments to learn directly rather than spending all of their time in the classroom. The aim is to get students out of university and into the workforce as smoothly as possible, whether the students are starting their own business, working for a small business, or joining a large multinational company. This very practical, hands-on approach may be appealing to those who like to do as well as to think, and who want opportunities to build networks and contacts in business while they are still studying. Programs at Rotterdam Business School There is just one bachelor program available, in International Business, which includes the study of languages like French, German, Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia), Mandarin, Japanese, Spanish, Russian or Dutch as well as business knowledge. That makes it ideal for students who want to travel the world or who are interested in practising their business skills outside of the English-speaking world. The Business School has more of a focus on masters studies, with programs including masters degrees in Consultancy and Entrepreneurship, Finance and Accounting, or International Supply Chain Management. These courses tend toward being practical skills-based rather than more abstract, so they're great for those who want to start their own business or just into running a business as quickly as possible. ➲ Subscribe to find your ideal Master's program in Europe “I like the fact that in my university we have a combination of practice and theory,” a current student at the business school explained. “This combination helps me remember what I need to academically as well as instilling passion in what I am doing. Another advantage of my university is that it offers elective subjects that you can take, many electives are languages but for example, I took Neuro Linguistic Programming and I think it is cool that you can choose by your own extra subjects that can be added to your curriculum.” Tuition fees at Rotterdam Business School Tuition fees in the Netherlands are less expensive than in the U.S., but still represent a significant chunk of money. For a bachelor's program, EU students pay an affordable €2,143 per year, but non-EU students must pay a higher €9,620. These prices are comparable to or cheaper than many universities in Europe. The masters programs, however, are steeply priced. They typically cost around €11,750 for a one-year course, for both EU and non-EU students. There are some discounts available, such as a discount for those who are alumni of RUAS, or a discount to EU student rates for non-EU refugee students. Accommodation in Rotterdam One of the downsides of living in a popular city like Rotterdam is that accommodation can by extremely hard to come by. The apartments available are not cheap and are often small, and when trying to secure an apartment you may well be viewing a place alongside many other people. This can be a problem for those who are studying as many landlords would rather rent their apartments to people with full-time jobs rather than students. You can expect to pay a massive €1150 per month for a one bedroom apartment in the center of the city, so most students opt to share accommodations instead. Even so, a room in a three bedroom apartment in the city center may cost you around €650 per month. You could get lucky and find something for around €450 for a room in a shared apartment which is further out of the city center, but these rooms are often hard to find. The Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences does have some accommodation available for its students, but not many places. It offers around 220 rooms per year through its Foundation for Student Housing, but not everyone is eligible for this housing. The university is aware of the difficulties that accommodation can present to students though, so it offers services like short stay accommodation for when you first arrive and help and advice on how to find accommodation from other housing providers. An inside student tip is to start looking for accommodation as early as possible if you want to study in Rotterdam, as desirable housing gets snapped up quickly. Cost of living and going out in Rotterdam The good news for students is that, unlike the cost of accommodation, other costs of living in the city are relatively low. You can get a great meal for well under €20, and you can expect to pay around €4 for a beer at a bar. The public transportation around the city is excellent, and with a ticket costing under €80 per month you can travel all over the city for not too much money. The city is also very walkable, and of course, being located in the Netherlands, many people ride bicycles. With plenty of bike paths and many other cyclists on the roads, it feels much safer and more enjoyable to cycle around Rotterdam than it does to cycle around comparable large cities in the U.S. There is a European cafe culture, with many people spending time getting coffee and sitting outside to walk the world go by. There are similarly many bars and places to go out, and a budding art and music scene influenced by the industrial vibe of the city. The architecture is one of the most striking things about the city. As a busy port, it sits on the water and has a strong industrial feel. Much of its development has been fairly recent so the building have a very modern look, which is not for everyone but which is exciting and unique. ➲ Discover all study programs in the Netherlands
Rotterdam is a funky, modern city in the southern part of the Netherlands, taking less than an hour to travel to by train from the capital Amsterdam. Although Amsterdam might be the more famous tourist destination to those outside of Europe, Rotterdam has an edgy, exciting quality which makes it a highly desirable location for people to study.<o:p></o:p>
Conference Scholarships to Fund Your Conference Trip
Check out our conference listings 1. Royal Economic Society Conference Grant Scheme Also aimed at economists is the RES conference grant, which is open to members who are presenting an economics paper or giving a talk at a conference. This funding available is up to £500 and applications for awards are accepted three times a year, in January, May, and September. Applicants will have to submit a summary of the impact the funding had on their trip and receipts detailing their expenditure. 2. International Atlantic Economic Society Scholarships Conference grants are available for economists living in Turkey, Eastern Europe, and Africa through the IAES to attend their yearly conference which is held in Europe. Awards of $250 to $350 are available, and recipients are invited to present a paper at the conference. 3. World History Association World Scholar Travel Fund Another organisation which offers a scholarship to cover the cost of attendance at its conference is the WHA, which gives funding primarily to academics from outside of North America to cover travel and other costs. In addition to this, they offer conference registration fee waivers for those who are in economic need. There's also a teacher scholarship which can fund a K-12 or community college teacher who is presenting a paper. 4. International Association for Energy Economics Student Scholarships Students in the field of energy economics who are from developing countries can apply for a scholarship from the IAEE to attend their conference. The scholarship covers travel and accommodation costs of up to $1750 as well as the cost of the conference registration fee. 5. American Political Science Association Travel Grants Those in political science who are US graduate students, international students in the US, international scholars, or unemployed members can apply for a APSA travel grant to attend the organisation's two yearly conferences. They also offer scholarships for Latino/a students and other minority groups. You have to live more than thirty miles from the conference location and of course be a member of APSA for at least through the date of the conference you'll be receiving funds for. 6. DAAD Scholarships in Germany German science researchers or international researchers who are working in Germany may apply for a scholarship from the DAAD to cover the costs of attending an international conference at which they are presenting a poster or giving a talk. The scholarships are available on a rolling basis, but the application form is in German so knowledge of the language is required. 7. Government Finance Officers Association Scholarships Professionals from the United States or Canada who work in government finance can apply for a number of scholarships including a minorities in government finance scholarship from the GFOA which cover travel to their annual conference along with accommodation and registration costs. You'll have to have plans to pursue a career in state, provincial, or local government finance, as well as not have received a scholarship before. Each scholarship also has its own requirements.
If you've got a conference coming up that you want to attend, you'll know that there are lots of costs associated with a trip. You'll need to pay for travel and accommodation as well as the cost of conference attendance, which can all add up to a large amount of cash. Often, your department will pay for conference trips, but what if you run out of travel budget, or you don't have this option? In that case, you might want to consider applying for a conference scholarship. These are awards of money given to fund travel and attendance at a conference, usually for students or early career researchers. Often these scholarships will require that you're actually presenting at a conference, but not always - some have different criteria, such as where you are a resident and whether or not you're a student. In any case, there are large databases available to find scholarships for conference; here is a short list to get you started.
The global credit crunch of 2007-2008 has had significant implications for the lives of many people around the world. This short course aims to provide students with an understanding of conventional macroeconomic thinking so that they can understand the essential principles of how the macroeconomy of nation states functions in a globalised world. Once students have completed this course they will be better placed to understand the causes of inflation and unemployment and the relevance of government monetary and fiscal policy in dealing with such economic problems. Therefore, students will be able to use the knowledge gained to understand everyday macroeconomic events. Furthermore, students will have a solid foundation upon which they can progress to higher level studies in Macroeconomics as well as being able to apply the knowledge gained to other online courses such as ‘Globalisation'and the ‘New Economic Powers’. For information on how the courses work, and a link to our course demonstration site, please click here. Recommended reading To participate in this course you will need to have regular access to the Internet and you will need to buy the following book: Goodwin, N., Nelson, J.A., and Harris, J., Macroeconomics in Context 2nd edition (M.E. Sharpe, 2014) Certification To earn credit (CATS points) for your course you will need to register and pay an additional £10 fee for each course you enrol on. You can do this by ticking the relevant box at the bottom of the enrolment form or when enrolling online. If you do not register when you enrol, you have up until the course start date to register and pay the £10 fee. For more information on CATS point please click on the link below: http://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/studentsupport/faq/cats.php Coursework is an integral part of all online courses and everyone enrolled will be expected to do coursework, but only those who have registered for credit will be awarded CATS points for completing work at the required standard. If you are enrolled on the Certificate of Higher Education you need to indicate this on the enrolment form but there is no additional registration fee. Assignments are not graded but are marked either pass or fail. All students who successfully complete this course, whether registered for credit or not, are eligible for a Certificate of Completion. Completion consists of submitting both course assignments and actively participating in the course forums. Certificates will be available, online, for those who qualify after the course finishes.
his course provides a detailed introduction to, and encompasses the fundamentals of macroeconomics. On completion of the course you will have the ability to critically assess real-world macroeconomic developments at first-year undergraduate level. Moreover, students will be able to better understand the material in other online economics courses such as the ‘New Economic Powers'and ‘Globalisation’.
Plan B: What to do if your PhD Application is Rejected
Assess whether the department was the right fit for you Sometimes, a rejected application can actually be a blessing in disguise. If your research interests do not align well with the interests of the department to which you applied, then it would be difficult for you to bond with the department and to get the support that you need in your PhD. Some departments or institutions have more broad interests than others, but usually the more specifically focused a department is, the easier it will be for you to study that topic there. So take some time to think seriously about whether your proposed project was a good fit for where you were applying. If not, try to find departments that do research which is more closely aligned to what you want to do. Also consider your own profile – it will be easier for you to be accepted onto a program where you have an academic background in common with other researchers there. Maybe you can find a different department to apply to which is more closely suited to your project. Get more experience Some applications will be rejected even though the project proposal has potential, because the applicant does not convince the assessors that they can perform the work. You are not expected to have a complete understanding of how to perform a research project when you apply – after all, the purpose of the PhD is to teach you these skills – but you do need to show that you have some level of experience. This is especially true if you are changing fields between your masters and your PhD. If you want to move from, say, history to economics, then you would be expected to have some experience with statistics, mathematics, or modelling, for example. If you don't have this experience, you can try to get a job as a research assistant or research worker to help you build up your skills and demonstrate that you can perform the kind of work that you want to do. <11an>limit:3;categories:PhD Programs;disciplines:Economics</11an> Reapply next year If you've considered all of the above, and decided that the program which you applied to is still definitely the place at which you want to do you PhD, then you can always apply again next year. While it might be helpful to gain more research experience or to perform some new work, often the best way that you can improve your chances of being admitted to a PhD program is by improving your application. Look again at your research proposal and letter of motivation. Make sure that your proposal is realistic and achievable in the typical three year period. Don't just tell people that you have skills in your motivation letter – rather, show that you have the skills by talking about what you have achieved with them in the past. You can also try to contact people at the department you wish to join and ask them for feedback on your application. This can be a hit-or-miss technique, as many academics are very busy and may not have time to help applicants. This is especially true of departments which receive large numbers of applications, so be prepared that you may not receive an answer, and don't be pushy. However, you may find that someone is willing to help you and suggest improvements to your application. It can sometimes help to talk to the admin staff handling applications as well as the academics, as they may be able to give you additional guidance. Browse our PhD listings to find your next opportunity
If you've applied to do a PhD but have been unsuccessful, don't despair! Although having an application rejected can be disheartening, it isn't unusual, and it can often take people a couple of tries until they get accepted onto a course. Here are a few tips on what to do if your PhD application is rejected. If you plan to improve your PhD application this autumn, download our free guide "How to successfully apply to a PhD in Economics"