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
This is a longer thread to connect some dots. It is so obvious to some to understand what "went wrong" in 2000s/2010s but as I keep saying deeds matter more than words. I will try to relate some academic work that speaks to this. This is also about understanding...
The above is a status report on the G20 Data Gaps Initiative (DGI) tackling data deficiencies to improve policy-making. The Phase 3 started in, surprise surprise, 2022. Focus areas are 1️⃣ Climate Change 2️⃣ HH Distributional Info 3️⃣ Fintech/Fin Inclusion 4️⃣ Data Access/Sharing
Anybody who is somewhat on top of things would recognize these as immediate priorities to allow mechanisms like CBAM, carbon credit trading, compensation etc. to work and to embed this into a national accounting framework. Informational capacity needs to be explicitly be built...
How do spatially skewed economic shocks deepen gender employment gaps? New research by @sarthak_joshi who is on the market this year reveals that rising Chinese imports reshaped labor demand in India, disproportionately restricting women’s access to urban non-farm jobs...
due to gendered commuting frictions.
Main finding: Improving transport infrastructure for women could have:
✅ Mitigated female labor force declines by 30% (2001–2011)
✅ Boosted total output by 0.4%
A stark case for policy intervention to empower women and grow economies.
This is obviously relevant to all the great research that has document the distributional implications of trade shocks more broadly highlighting the role of fiscal policy accommodating and shaping these shocks to cushion or shape their impact. In the context of the UK & the US...
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
Want to stop paying for Github copilot? Dont wait any longer. Here a simple step-by-step instruction on how you can integrate any LLM trained on code into your workflows.
Step 2: If you dont have already, download and install VScode (my preferred coding environment right now) and then
Step 3: install the continue extension
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…
We have to talk about something. Something that has been missing for much of the short 2024 General Election campaign in the UK.
I know you had enough of it all. You had enough of red busses raining down cash on the NHS as you wait for an appointment.
You had enough of it, because, well, had they not literally said they would "get it done"? And then, "got it done". It is finished, dont want to talk about it anymore.