2016年12月22日星期四

经济研究亮点的开胃自助餐

觉得这个博客有趣的读者可能也想看看“研究亮点”由Tim Hyde为美国经济协会运营的博客。AEA出版中国经济观光杂志它还出版其他六种研究型期刊。每周一到两次,该博客从这七种期刊中选择一篇论文,并提供简短、可读的非技术性概述。以下是最近几周的一些例子:

是电动汽车对环境有益的补贴吗?“(2016年12月14日这是Stephen P. Holland Erin T. Mansur,Nicholas Z. Muller和Andrew J. Yates的概述概述,“”驾驶电动汽车的环境效益?地方因素的重要性,“美国经济评论,2016年12月,106:12,PP。3700-3729。Tim Hyde总结:
“When an electric car is charging overnight, it is drawing on a regional power grid and prompting power plants across the network to produce slightly more electricity. Depending on where in the U.S. that car is plugged in, the emissions at those power plants could be pretty dirty in their own right. ... In some cases, electric cars provide a clear win for the environment. The people living in Los Angeles, with its notoriously poor air quality and constricted topography, benefit a lot when a gas-powered car is removed from its freeways. Of course the electric car replacing it has its own emissions, but most electricity generation in the western U.S. is pretty clean. Totaled up across the country, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.
“Then there’s the case of New York City. When more electric cars plug into the power grid there, they are mostly drawing power from relatively dirty coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania – and a lot of the smoke that billows out of those smokestacks eventually gets blown east back to the New York metro area. ... That cycle plays out over hundreds of miles and is quite a bit less visceral than exhaust coming out of a tailpipe, but the ultimate effect on air quality is about the same for the New York area as a whole. Some suburban counties on Long Island and Connecticut are actually worse off with the extra power plant emissions than the local tailpipe emissions. Among the worst places to switch are North Dakota and Minnesota, where air quality is very good to begin with and additional exhaust from gas-powered cars dissipates quickly. The authors calculate that these regions should have a negative subsidy – actually a tax – of thousands of dollars on each electric car. Meanwhile, switching in western cities with bad air quality and a relatively clean power mix (Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix) ends up being hugely beneficial for the environment."

“现代经济中无休止的工作变动是如何影响幸福的?”(2016年12月9日)

这是Philippe Aghion、Ufuk Akcigit、Angus Deaton和Alexandra Roulet的综述,“创造性破坏和主观幸福感”,《美国经济评论》,2016年12月(106:12),第3869-97页。海德写道:
“作者提出了一种通过技术变革驱动的简单工作破坏模型,并预测,对于给定水平的失业率,更具创造性的破坏应该改善自我报告的生活满足。最终,这是因为经济增长导致更多的职位开口和更高未来的收益。换句话说,一个可以在混乱的工作市场面前维持8%失业的城市(每年创造和被创造和摧毁的工作)应该是一个与8个城市的令人满意的地方。失业率和停滞不前的劳动力市场。结果表明,工作营业额和劳动力市场的活力可能是生活质量的低估因素,也许几乎同样重要的是在解释该国不同部分幸福水平的失业率。“
“为超级富豪减税?”(2016年12月5日)

这是劳伦斯啤酒和克里斯托弗瑞利特的概述,“税收顶级首席执行官收入”,美国经济审查,2016年11月(106:11),第3331-66页。Chris Fleisher总结了:
“[S]ome economists have suggested that CEOs earning tens of millions of dollars should be giving back as much as 80 percent of their income to the government. Carnegie Mellon University economists Laurence Ales and Christopher Sleet don’t agree. Their recent paper ... says the marginal tax rate on top earning CEOs should be closer to 20 percent. Why? Because rewarding them for their hard work by letting them keep more of their paycheck leads to “spillover” effects that boost corporate profits, which can then be taxed and grow government coffers more quickly than collecting tax revenue from individual executives."
此链接包括对作者的15分钟采访音频。

“为什么对航运征收碳排放税会损害世界上最贫穷的经济体”(11月230日)。2016)

这是Joseph S. Shapiro的概述,“交易成本,二氧化碳和环境”,《美国经济杂志:经济政策》,2016年11月(8:4),220-54页。海德写道:
“飞机、卡车和货运飞机每年向大气中排放超过10亿吨的二氧化碳。这相当于世界上排名靠后的164个碳排放国家的排放量之和. ...航运业预计在未来几年内仍将受到碳排放税的打击. ...[A]对航运征收碳税可以减少排放,但这样的政策实际上会对一些在气候变化中损失最大的国家造成轻微伤害. ...但命运的残酷扭曲是,同样是赤道国家面临着气温上升的最大风险——尤其是撒哈拉以南非洲、印度次大陆和东南亚——这些国家在全球销售商品时也最依赖化石燃料。”