So, @Jeremy_Hunt now did a full and welcome u-turn on the #minibudget2022. And they are starting to tackle another policy that needs fixing, the #EnergyPriceguarantee#EPG. Why should this happen? This is a story that can ultimately be summarised in these two pictures.... 1/..
On the left, we have a classic end-terrace house. On the right, well, you have a mansion. The big difference: energy consumption. The left needs around 15,000 kWh per year, the right one, at least 70,000 kWh. How does this compare to the average UK household? Well: 2/..
The graph highlights one thing: energy consumption is strongly increasing in household income. But even in the highest income group there is huge variation. 50% of households even in top income group consume less than half as much energy than the top 5% in this group. 3/..
So what does this mean? Well, the EPG disproportionately benefits the better off. How can we quantify this? As economist this falls in the category: what is the counterfactual - what would energy bills have been with and without the EPG. 4/..
The Oct 2022 price cap seems a good anchor as this would have been the guide to energy prices coming from an independent industry regulator Ofgem. We can then simulate energy bills and compute the difference in bills at EPG prices and at Ofgem Oct 2022 market prices. 5/..
What we see is: the EPG (dashed blue) would reduce bills a lot relative to market prices (red solid). But you still see that bills would go up A LOT to last year (green). We are talking about at least GBP 1,300 for the average household. But again, this masks huge variation 6/..
We can compute this also to shed a light on the distribution within income bracket. The EPG energy subsidy is at least GBP 5,000 for the top 5% in the Income bracket > 150k or more than five times as large as the subsidy for 50% of all UK households at GBP 1,000. 7/..
Just remind yourself, we are comparing these two... and, the subsidy is not free of costs: in fact, recent market turmoil points to the question how this is paid for: it is either #taxation, #austerity or #debt. But cake-and-eat-it politics hits a hard ceiling. 8/..
Let me add some more perspective: the # of households in the top 5% energy/top income bracket is around 14,000. So these 14,000 households stand to benefit at least five times as much per household from the EPG than more than 12 million other households. 9/..
The EPG is regressive but also alienates many traditional Tory voters that are in the higher earning brackets. Many of whom do not have a lavish lifestyle but rather are similar in their consumption and lifestyle to a lot of middle income peers. 10/..
I have worked out a much more targeted alternative & there is much more. A paper and briefing should drop next week. Something bigger a week later. But: a stronger, healthier & more sustainable society can arise form this crisis but the answers are not found in the extremes. End.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interesting to read Iversen and Rosenbluth's book, especially in light of more recent research on gender equality. I'll highlight some of my favourites below.
Just to echo Jacob's point: Read @PikaGoldin!!!
Goldin, Claudia. 2006. ‘The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family’. American Economic Review 96(2): 1–21.
--. 2014. ‘A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter’. American Economic Review 104(4): 1091–1119. doi:10.1257/aer.104.4.1091.
--. 2023. ‘Why Women Won’. doi:10.3386/w31762.
Here are some fascinating papers by economists:
@kuhnmo et al
Daniel makes an important point. Do check out his great work with @melissaleesands.
Let add some thoughts: while the conventionel Meltzer-Richard model leads us to expect the demand for redistribution to decline with income, exposure to the negative nature.com/articles/s4158…
externalities of inequality - notably crime - is an important reason why support for redistribution among the rich is often fairly high. Indeed, this is what Rueda and Stegmueller argue in their nice @AJPS_Editor piece and their '19 book. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
More recent research has, however, qualified this argument in an important way. The exposure to the negative externalities of inequality depends on the degree of residential segregation. When the latter is high, the rich's exposure is low, even though rich and poor cambridge.org/core/books/who…
In 2015, a consequential election delivered a majority for Brexit. In 2024, we can now study the economic impact of Brexit with data up to 2022. This is a thread in which I try to go full circle back to the origins of Brexit. But let me comment before on what we observe so far:
Northern Ireland is barely affected by Brexit. Why is this so? Well, it effectively continues to be in a customs Union with the European Union. Further, there is free movement of people the Island of Island. So, Northern Ireland effectively remains in the single market.
The other regions have not fared as well. Not only has UK regional GVA flatlined, it actually has declined in trend growth in some parts such as the West Midlands. The ramifications are huge. We argue that Brexit may, in fact, be levelling up, by levelling down.
I wish "the media", here @guardian would learn to properly cite. This would make it MUCH easier to actually detect when media outlets are referring to research output. The link to the "one study" is here: academic.oup.com/ej/article/132…
Why does this matter? It is just poor journalistic practice to not attribute sources. But it also makes it hard for researchers to showcase that their research is part of the public discourse, which is not irrelevant when it comes to attracting research funds. I understand...
We don't want to breed researchers that chase headlines by producing outrageous p-hacked results. But this is why the research process needs to become more transparent. Replication archives, research transparency, open data, etc. are all crucial here.
So, yes this does NOT go away as expected. A proper COVID-19 inquiry will look at ALL cock-ups, not just the ones directly due to specific policy choices. I think I understand WHY there was a need to stabilize hospitality sector... but theguardian.com/business/2023/…
EOTHO was a stupid way of doing so. Here is the original thread from October 2020 where I explained what the paper is doing. Of course, I got attacked by lobbyists and special interest groups. It was not pleasant ...
Here is my reaction to the "lobby" group analysis. It was just crap analysis pushing a narrative that at the time was hoping for a second run of the program. The observation that there was not a second run of EOTHO was a good thing... and I understand
Today, in England, millions of voters make a choice in their #LocalElections2023. It’s a good time to share some new research that is related to two policy issues that will have touched many people over the last year: the #energycrisis & #crime.
📰 buff.ly/3Vys0w7
🧵⬇️
In a nutshell, the paper shows that much of the widely reported surge in burglaries & anti-social behaviour could have been avoided, had the government provided more targeted energy price subsidies or had UK invested more in making homes more energy efficient. Last summer, ...
I modelled the impact of the energy price shock down to the property level for millions of homes. More #energyinefficient homes would see a bigger increase. Part of this work was reported in @FT as an interactive story ig.ft.com/uk-energy-effi…. This set up a framework to study...