Tag Archives: economic growth

Collapse

A 2012 article in Scientific American quotes Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers (it’s a little unclear which is speaking when) on how they think a collapse will play out:

For the coming few decades, Randers predicts, life on Earth will carry on more or less as before. Wealthy economies will continue to grow, albeit more slowly as investment will need to be diverted to deal with resource constraints and environmental problems, which thereby will leave less capital for creating goods for consumption. Food production will improve: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause plants to grow faster, and warming will open up new areas such as Siberia to cultivation. Population will increase, albeit slowly, to a maximum of about eight billion near 2040. Eventually, however, floods and desertification will start reducing farmland and therefore the availability of grain. Despite humanity’s efforts to ameliorate climate change, Randers predicts that its effects will become devastating sometime after mid-century, when global warming will reinforce itself by, for instance, igniting fires that turn forests into net emitters rather than absorbers of carbon. “Very likely, we will have war long before we get there,” Randers adds grimly. He expects that mass migration from lands rendered unlivable will lead to localized armed conflicts…

Meadows holds that collapse is now all but inevitable, but that its actual form will be too complex for any model to predict. “Collapse will not be driven by a single, identifiable cause simultaneously acting in all countries,” he observes. “It will come through a self-reinforcing complex of issues”—including climate change, resource constraints and socioeconomic inequality. When economies slow down, Meadows explains, fewer products are created relative to demand, and “when the rich can’t get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments.” As scarcities mount and inequality increases, revolutions and socioeconomic movements like the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street will become more widespread—as will their repression.

DICE

This article in Ecological Economics reminded me of the DICE model from William Nordhaus at Yale.

In integrated assessment models (IAMs) economic activity leads to global warming, which causes future economic costs. However, typical IAMs do not explicitly represent the role of natural capital. In this paper, the DICE model by Nordhaus (2008) is expanded with a natural capital variable that is affected both by climate change and by depletive effects of economic activity. Due to a synergy between the two effects, the optimal policy of the expanded model features more and earlier abatement of CO2 emissions than DICE. Interestingly, the policy implications are different from what follows if one tries to capture the depletive effects on natural capital by simply reducing factor productivity growth in DICE. Acknowledging considerable uncertainty, simulations show that climate- and savings rate policies from the expanded model are more robust in the long term than policies that do not consider non-climatic depletion effects on natural capital.

The DICE model and a variety of papers related to it are freely available here.

Mckinsey

McKinsey lists “four powerful forces [that] are disrupting the global economy”.

  • “shift of economic activity to emerging-market cities
  • “acceleration of technological change. While technology has always been transformative, its impact is now ubiquitous, with digital and mobile technologies being adopted at an unprecedented rate. It took more than 50 years after the telephone was invented for half of American homes to have one, but only 20 years for cellphones to spread from less than 3% of the world’s population to more than two-thirds. Facebook had six million users in 2006; today, it has 1.4 billion… The mobile Internet offers the promise of economic progress for billions of emerging-economy citizens at a speed that would otherwise be unimaginable. And it gives entrepreneurial upstarts a greater chance of competing with established firms. But technological change also carries risks, especially for workers who lose their jobs to automation or lack the skills to work in higher-tech fields.
  • demographics – the possibility that world population could plateau or actually start to fall
  • globalization

There are a few more things out there that could disrupt the economy for better or worse – renewable energy? biotechnology? climate change? risks to food and water supplies? ocean collapse? nuclear or biological war?

May 2015 in Review

Negative stories:

  • MIT says there is a critical long term decline in U.S. research and development spending, while spending is increasing in many other parts of the world.
  • Lake Mead, water supply for Las Vegas and several other major western U.S. cities, is continuing to dry up. The normal snowpack in Washington State is almost completely absent, while much of Oregon has declared a state of emergency. As the drought grinds on, recycled water (sometimes derided as “toilet to tap”) is becoming more common in Calfornia. This is not bad in itself – on the contrary it is an example of technological adaptation and closing the loop. It does have a cost in money and energy though, which are resources that are then not available for other things like education or infrastructure or whatever people need. In other words, drought makes us all a little bit poorer.
  • We’ve hit 400 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not just some places sometimes but pretty much everywhere, all the time.
  • There may be a “global shortage of aggregate demand“, and most countries are not dealing with it well. In many developed countries, increases in average longevity could lead to a trend of long-term deflation. This could eventually happen in almost all countries.
  • Climate change is going to make extreme weather more frequent and more damaging in U.S. cities. The 2015 El Nino could break records.
  • There just isn’t a lot of positivity or hope for better passenger rail service in the U.S.
  • Human chemical use to combat diseases, bugs, and weeds is causing the diseases, bugs and weeds to evolve fast.
  • Unfortunately there is no foolproof formula to make education work.

Positive stories:

  • Less leisure time could mean less sustainable outcomes, because people just have less time to think and act on their good intentions. I’m putting this in the positive column because although people in the U.S. and many other countries still work long hours, the trend so far is less work and more wealth for human population as a whole over very long periods of time. Obviously the transition is not smooth or painless for all workers all of the time.
  • I found a nice example of meta-analysis, which aggregates findings of a large number of scientific and not-so-scientific studies in a useful form, in this case in the urban planning field.
  • May is time to pull on the urban gardening gloves.
  • Melbourne’s climate change adaptation plan focuses on green open space and urban tree canopy.
  • Painless vaccines may be on the way.
  • The rhetoric on renewable energy is really changing as it starts to seriously challenge fossil fuels on economic grounds. Following the Fukushima disaster, when all Japan’s nuclear reactors were shut down, the gap was made up largely with liquid natural gas and with almost no disruption of consumer service. But renewables also grew explosively. Some are suggesting Saudi Arabia is supporting lower oil prices in part to stay competitive with renewables. Wind and solar capacity are growing quickly in many parts of the world. Lester Brown says the tide has turned and renewables are now unstoppable.
  • Commercial autonomous trucks are here.
  • The UK may have hit “peak car“.
  • Seattle is allowing developers to provide car share memberships and transit passes in lieu of parking spaces.

Paul Romer and “mathiness”

Paul Romer has attacked a number of fellow economists for relying on what he calls “mathiness” rather than mathematical theory. He believes the study of economic growth and its practical applications have suffered because of this.

Academic politics, like any other type of politics, is better served by words that are evocative and ambiguous, but if an argument is transparently political, economists interested in science will simply ignore it. The style that I am calling mathiness lets academic politics masquerade as science. Like mathematical theory, mathiness uses a mixture of words and symbols, but instead of making tight links, it leaves ample room for slippage between statements in natural versus formal language and between statements with theoretical as opposed to empirical content.

Solow’s (1956) mathematical theory of growth mapped the word “capital” onto a variable in his mathematical equations, and onto both data from national income accounts and objects like machines or structures that someone could observe directly. The tight connection between the word and the equations gave the word a precise meaning that facilitated equally tight connections between theoretical and empirical claims. Gary Becker’s (1962) mathematical theory of wages gave the words “human capital” the same precision and established the same two types of tight connection—between words and math and between theory and evidence. In this case as well, the relevant evidence ranged from aggregate data to formal microeconomic data to direct observation…

The market for mathematical theory can survive a few lemon articles filled with mathiness. Readers will put a small discount on any article with mathematical symbols, but will still find it worth their while to work through and verify that the formal arguments are correct, that the connection between the symbols and the words is tight, and that the theoretical concepts have implications for measurement and observation. But after readers have been disappointed too often by mathiness that wastes their time, they will stop taking seriously any paper that contains mathematical symbols. In response, authors will stop doing the hard work that it takes to supply real mathematical theory. If no one is putting in the work to distinguish between mathiness and mathematical theory, why not cut a few corners and take advantage of the slippage that mathiness allows? The market for mathematical theory will collapse. Only mathiness will be left. It will be worth little, but cheap to produce, so it might survive as entertainment.

climate change impacts

Here are a couple projections of climate change impacts.

The World Health Organization projects “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.” This sounds awful, and of course it is. But if you compare this to other preventable causes of death like traffic accidents, smoking and air pollution, you could probably save a lot more lives with a given amount of money focusing on the latter group than exclusively on climate change.

A more sobering projection, at least to me, comes from an organization called DARA.  Although the report includes some truly awful and incomprehensible infographics, there is a very clear graphic on p. 21. Under a “no action” scenario, climate change subtracts about 3% from world economic growth in 2050 and 7-8% in 2100. If you believe technology will lead to a massive acceleration of economic growth, we may be able to afford even this (although our children will be learning about Earth’s original native ecosystems in history class). If long-term growth stays in the sub-5% range where it has been recently, this will mean the decline and fall of civilization as we know it.

money, debt, investment, and growth

It’s interesting how economists talk about money, debt, investment, and growth. If you’re not an economist, you have to tie your brain lobes in a few knots to make sense of it. This is Michael Spence from NYU:

high unemployment, high and rising debt levels, and a global shortage of aggregate demand are constraining growth and generating deflationary pressures. And now, as then, the level and quality of investment have been consistently inadequate, with public spending on tangible and intangible capital – a critical factor in long-term growth – well below optimal levels for some time.

Of course, there are also new challenges. The dynamics of income distribution have shifted adversely in recent decades, impeding consensus on economic policy. And aging populations – a result of rising longevity and declining fertility – are putting pressure on public finances.

Nonetheless, the ingredients of an effective strategy to spur economic growth and employment are similar: available balance sheets (sovereign and private) should be used to generate additional demand and boost public investment, even if it results in greater leverage. Recent IMF research suggests that, given excess capacity, governments would probably benefit from substantial short-run multipliers. More important, the focus on investment would improve prospects for long-term sustainable growth, which would enable governments and households to pursue responsible deleveraging.

Here’s what I think it means. “Global shortage of adequate demand” means people aren’t spending enough money to support productive activity in the economy. Either they don’t have the money or they are saving it instead of spending it. Of course, we need a productive economy to generate the jobs and wages that get people money to spend. So it’s a chicken and egg problem that can spiral downwards once it gets started (“deflationary pressures”). Governments also aren’t investing in productive activity, either because they are afraid of debt or aren’t taking in enough taxes, or both. “Available balance sheets” means they should just wish new money into existence (governments can do that!) and spend it on investments like infrastructure, education, and research that tend to support long-term growth, which would get people more money, which they could spend to support more productive activity, and so on in a virtuous cycle. Money isn’t really real, as long as we think it is real. Debt doesn’t matter, as long as we believe it does matter. Belief in money and fear of debt usually stops us short of the absolute physical limits placed on us by our physical environment.

aging and deflation

This study says the relationship between aging and deflation (as seen in Japan, but possibly coming to many more countries in the future) depends on whether the aging is driven by falling fertility (which shrinks the work force in absolute terms) or longevity (which shrinks it only in relative terms).

Negative correlations between inflation and demographic aging were observed across developed nations recently. To understand the phenomenon from a politico-economic perspective, we embed the fiscal theory of the price level into an overlapping-generations model. In the model, successive short-lived governments choose income tax rates and bond issues considering the political influence of existing generations and the policy response of future governments. The model sheds new light on the traditional debate about the burden of national debt. Because of price adjustments, the accumulation of government debt does not become a burden on future generations. Our analysis reveals that the effects of aging depend on its causes. Aging is deflationary when caused by an increase in longevity but inflationary when caused by a decline in birth rate. Numerical simulation shows that aging over the past 40 years in Japan generated deflation of about 0.6 percentage points annually.
Here is another study that concludes “a larger share of dependents (ie young and old) is correlated with higher inflation, while a larger share of working age cohorts is correlated with lower inflation.” So maybe it depends to what extent the aging population is dependent on the working population, and whether the working population has additional dependents in the form of children (who will become the next working population). It’s complex, dynamic stuff that is hard to puzzle out.

compendium of inspiring planning practices

Move over Agenda 21, we have a new contender for the world’s most boring urban planning related conspiracy theory, Resolution 24/3! Seriously, don’t read it. It’s boring. However as a supporting study, the UN has put together a book of case studies on planning best practices in cities around the world, which is actually interesting. I found the Melbourne case study particularly interesting, and would like to dig into it more:

Melbourne developed a new approach to urban planning, through an ecosystem-based climate adaptation programme, embracing what the City refers to as ‘nature sensitive’ urban design and planning. This approach emphasises the services that nature provides to the city and focuses on how it can be protected, restored, created, enhanced and maintained within the urban setting. The urgency posed by the current impacts of climate changes resulted in the City creating a multi-million dollar integrated ecosystem-based climate change adaptation program in 2010 – the ‘Urban Landscapes Adaptation Program’.

The primary goal of this programme was to reduce drought vulnerability and to cool the city by 4°C in an effort to safeguard its citizens and the ecosystem services of its environmental assets from the impacts of climate change. The programme is underpinned by two strategies: the Open Space Strategy, which aims to increase green space by 7.6% and the Urban Forest Strategy, which is projected to double the City’s tree canopy to 40%.