En esto todo el encanto!
Sobre nosotros
Group social work what does degree bs stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the moon and back meaning in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to buy black seeds arabic translation.
They have traditionally seen themselves as having a framework, on the basis of which they can determine whether a certain policy increases social welfare or not. Hence they can say how economic policy should be, to increase social welfare. When economists are asked why policy usually deviates from this optimum, for a long time they have said it is due to "politics".
However, without an understanding of how "politics" works the economist may find itself in the equivalent situation of preaching to a monopolist to lower its price. Therefore, economists have felt the need for a positive theory of economic policy. To develop it, economists need to ask questions such as what systematic effects do culture, endowments, external shocks, special interests, and political institutions have on economic policy.
This issue is a collection of papers that explore this area, an area that has had a substantial increase in interest during the last two decades. That is, the attempt to develop a positive theory of economic policy. In this introduction I will briefly describe and summarize some of the literature in what is now called "political economics"; analyze the different strands found in the literature; and locate the four essays of this volume within these strands. In the last few years this area has grown greatly see the references.
It already has some basic insights and robust theoretical results, and even more recently there have been empirical studies that tend to confirm these insights. This literature has different strands, and these are reflected in the essays included in this issue. There is on the one hand an old tradition, that starts with Weberattributing certain economic policies and in general success or failure in the economic realm to "cosmological beliefs" or culture, or to the factor endowment of the country: what is problem of choice in economics that are out of the control of politicians or economists and that have great endurance.
Lal this volume is located in this tradition. In this literature the key question is what explains long run success or failure in development. Some claim, alternatively, that it is unique Asian values which are responsible for the East Asian economic miracles. Who is right, and can we say anything useful about the institutions which promote development? That is the central question Lal and others have sought to answer in the context of the formal institutions as embodied in democracy and the legal infrastructure for a symbiotic relationship of the tundra, as well as the informal institutions of culture as embodied in the family 1.
This literature argues that institutions are determined by historical factors such as culture or the initial resource endowment. The appearance of the institutions of capitalism depends, among other things, on the cultural view of the mission of the State in society. There are two views of the State: one in which it merely facilitates individuals to pursue their own ends; another which views the State as the manager of an enterprise seeking to use the law for its own substantive purposes, and in particular for the legislation of morality see Oakeshott In the Third World, according to Lal due to religious beliefs, the State is seen as an enterprise, which has led to dirigisme and the control of the market.
But dirigisme bred corruption, rent-seeking, tax evasion and illegal activities in underground economies in the same way as it did in the mercantilistic societies see Hecksher The key insight here is that institutional development is a form of cultural evolution. Then there is a what is problem of choice in economics give an example of symbiotic relationship class 7 strand, that enjoyed a surge in the post oil shock era, when many countries what are exploratory descriptive correlational and causal research questions themselves straitjacketed by institutions that were not functional, but unable to reform them.
This literature consists of research that attempts to figure out what conditions are necessary for an LDC to do needed structural reforms see for example Haggard and Kaufman The papers by Edwards et al. Their papers respond to questions such as: Why did reform occur in Colombia? Why did reform occur in Argentina? Why did reform take the form it did in Argentina?
This literature is usually very empirical, based either on regressions or on case studies. There is a also a theoretical tradition, that starts with the time inconsistency literature in the late seventies and early eighties. This literature attempts to respond questions such as what institutions will resolve the credibility problem at the core of the time inconsistency literature this is the normative strand of the political economics literature.
This literature has an empirical side to it, pioneered by AlesinaPersson, Tabellini and others see the referencesthat attempts to actually verify the effects of institutions on economic policy. It also has a positive side, which tries to determine how political institutions determine economic policy.
The paper by Sapelli belongs to this strand of the literature. It asks why the structural reforms that occurred in Chile in the eighties were not changed by the democratic government that followed. It asks which institutions contributed to the permanence of the structural reforms. It is in some way tied to the previous strand, being the logical sequence: once structural reform occurs, then why would the new policies be credible. How can we make them credible? A broad survey of the political economics literature can be found in Persson and Tabellini I do not intend to give a full account of what is a rapidly expanding area, but I believe it is useful to summarise some of the key insights that this literature has to offer.
This strand of the literature grew out of the key credibility problem or time inconsistency problem whose importance was pioneered by Kydland and Prescott and Barro and Gordon The key what is problem of choice in economics is that whenever a stock is accumulated in expectation of the permanence of a certain "optimal" policy be it tax or monetary policyit becomes optimal for a policy maker to renege on its previous promise and increase the tax on the stock be that an investment or money through taxes or inflation.
Since rational economic actors know of this time inconsistency, they will invest suboptimaly or will hold less money stocks than optimal, resulting in less growth or more inflation. Unless a policy maker can make a credible commitment to the initial "optimal" policy rule, nobody will believe him. And so the economy will run along a suboptimal path. This is true independent of whether the policy maker actually cynically plans to reverse his policy or not. This is a key point.
Even benevolent policy makers should ask to be constrained. Both predatory and benevolent policy makers are subject to the costs of the inability of committing to a first best policy rule. Since this literature is a strand of institutional economics and transaction cost economics, the assumption is always that institutions have to be designed to prevent opportunistic behaviour, and that if contracts permit opportunistic behaviour, then this behaviour will occur.
Hence one cannot rely on the benevolence of actors. This dilemma is only solved by an institution that is costly to modify. This institution then benefits everybody. An institution that makes a commitment what does the r in the acronym race stand for clearly has the cost of reducing flexibility.
That lack of flexibility, however, is only a cost when benevolent policy makers govern. The cost of restraining the "devils" is to also restrain the "angels". What is important is that the institutions that are relevant to solve the credibility problem are those that limit the policy makers freedom to renege on their promises and also reform the institutions and re-optimize over time. Those that believe that policy makers are always benevolent, a strand of the public finance literature that predominated until recently, will see only the costs and not the benefits.
Hence all policies that restrain flexibility will appear sub-optimal to them. Not surprisingly, those that usually think like this are those that favor interventionist government policies, and those that favor institutional restrains are those that believe the government is part of is it easy to learn how to play drums problem rather than part of the solution.
Hence in many respects the discussion about the appropriateness of rules, the independence what is the linear regression method the Central Bank, the choice of a truly conservative central banker even though the government may not be conservative Rogoffetc.
There is, however, a reason to oppose too rigid rules. That is, if a government is factional and tries to favor certain interests, it may try to lock in its policies so that if the opposition wins it may not undo the policies that favor their group. In this case to permit too rigid rules is clearly sub-optimal. All this has to remind economists of the principal agent problem. The public choice literature a recent summary is included in Mueller sees the relationship between society the principal and politicians the agent as one in which the key is the "social" contract signed, which is made explicit in the What is linear equation in math with example. To them, once the Constitution is written, the evolution of economic policy is fully determined.
The only way to make normative economic policy is through changes of the Constitution. Another application of principal agent theory comes from the literature on transaction costs. An extremely interesting application of transaction cost theory to politics is included in Dixit In his book Dixit models the relationship between politicians and society as a principal agent problem.
In the parallel he makes, it is clear that this contract is extremely more complex than that normally considered in a firm. It actually approximates only the most complex of contracts, the one that attempts to resolve the question of how to monitor the monitors; the problem of how to provide adequate incentives to a CEO. Piece rates are impossible because of the lack of a clear relationship between output and input.
There is lots what is problem of choice in economics noise between an action and an effect in politics. The politician could apply the best policies and even then an exogenous shock could prevent the economy from growing. Hence the need for a contract with straight pay and supervision. But this still leaves incentive to follow policies that yield benefits only in the short run again similar to the problem of CEO compensation.
In the case of CEOs one solution that has been developed is to provide them with many puts at a high strike price. How do pregnancy tests work gcse aqa could one apply this in the case of politicians? Maybe correlating income to the value of public debt? Pay according to relative performance relative to other relevant countriesusing tournament theory?
It is easy to find parallels in the nature of the problem, but not in the solutions. This is because in reality the similarities are not that many. What would happen in a firm if the CEO where elected by workers, hired at a fixed income, and with a pay that is similar to that of the best paid workers? In a firm these low what is problem of choice in economics incentive contracts require stringent supervision.
How do we supervise? Is the incentive to throw them out of office enough? In many respects, this literature is an extension of economics into political science. The question to be answered here is not only what is the correct incentive system, but which are the optimal political institutions. Grossman and Helpman develop a theory of "Special Interest Politics". Their AER article on "protection for sale" shows the optimal structure of trade policy when politicians maximize a function that includes social welfare but also contributions from lobbies.
They find that this solution depends on factor endowment, product elasticities, and whether certain groups can or cannot solve the free rider problem and constitute an effective lobby. In many respects, this literature is associated what is problem of choice in economics the "capture" theory what is positive association in math regulators and to the idea that policy is determined by deep rooted aspects of the economy, such as the nature of the goods produced in the economy, and the market structure in which they are produced.
Here the problem is again one of principal agent, in which the principal is both society at large and all the lobby groups of the economy. The literature has found incentives to behave sub optimally in the issuance of public debt. Tabelliniand Alesina and Tabellini show how a government may have incentives to issue too much public what is problem of choice in economics.
En esto todo el encanto!
Esto asombra realmente.
Es conforme, este pensamiento tiene que justamente a propГіsito
Soy seguro que le han inducido a error.
es absolutamente conforme con la frase anterior
exactamente, sois derechos