There is a marriage gap in America. This is not just a gap in choices and actions, but in norms and attitudes. Each generation is more liberal, on average, when it comes to issues like premarital relationships, same-sex marriage, and divorce. But generational averages can obscure other divides, including ideology—which in many cases is a more powerful factor.

Take opinions on the most important prerequisites for marriage, as explored in the American Family Survey conducted earlier this year by Deseret News and the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (disclosure: I am an adviser to the pollsters). There is widespread agreement that it is best to have a stable job and to have completed college before tying the knot. But there is less agreement in the 3,000-person survey on other questions, including premarital cohabitation.

In response to the question of whether it is “important to live with your future spouse before getting married,” a clear gap emerges between those who identify as Democrats and those who identify as Republicans. This gap trumps the generational one, with younger Republicans (under 40) more conservative than Democrats over the age of 40:

The importance of family stability for a child’s wellbeing and prospects is well-documented, not least in Isabel Sawhill’s book, Generation Unbound. The question is not whether stability matters, but how best to promote it. To the extent that biological parents stay together and provide a stable environment, it doesn’t much matter if they are married. For children living with both biological parents, there is no difference in outcomes between those being raised by a married couple compared to a cohabiting couple, according to research by Wendy Manning at Bowling Green State University.

But people who marry are much more likely to stay together:

Marriage, at least in America, does seem to act as an important commitment device, a “co-parenting” contract for the modern world, as I’ve argued in an essay for The Atlantic, “How to Save Marriage in America.”

Cohabitation can signal radically different situations. A couple who plan to live together for a couple of years, then marry, and then plan the timing of having children are very different from a couple who start living together, accidentally get pregnant, and then, perhaps somewhat reluctantly, get married.

There is some evidence that cohabitation is in fact becoming a more common bridge to marriage and commitment. First-time premarital cohabiting relationships are also lasting longer on average and increasingly turn into marriage: around seven in ten cohabiting couples are still together after three years, of whom four have married.

In the end what matters is planning, stability, and commitment. If cohabitation is a planned prelude to what some scholars have labeled “decisive marriages,” it seems likely to prove a helpful shift in social norms, by allowing couples to test life under the same roof before making a longer-term commitment. Sawhill’s distinction between “drifters” and “planners” in terms of pregnancy may also be useful when it comes to thinking about cohabitation, too.

Time and again, China has defied the skeptics who claimed its unique mixed model—an ever-more market-driven economy dominated by an authoritarian Communist Party and behemoth state-owned enterprises—could not possibly endure. Today, those voices are louder than ever. Michael Pettis, a professor at Peking University's Guanghua School of Management and one of the most persistent and well-regarded skeptics, predicted in March that China's economic growth rate "will average not much more than 3% annually over the rest of the decade." Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, warned last year that China is nearing a wall hit by many high-speed economies when growth slows or stops altogether—the so-called "middle-income trap."

No question, China has many problems. Years of one-sided investment-driven growth have created obvious excesses and overcapacity. A weaker global economy since the 2008 financial crisis and rapidly rising labor cost at home have slowed China's vaunted export machine. Meanwhile, a massive housing bubble is slowly deflating, and the latest economic data is discouraging. Real growth in GDP slowed to an annualized rate of less than 7 percent in the first quarter of 2012, and April saw a sharp slowdown in industrial output, electricity production, bank lending, and property transactions. Is China's legendary economy in serious trouble?

Not just yet. The odds are that China will navigate these shoals and continue to grow at a fairly rapid pace of around 7 percent a year for the remainder of the decade, overtaking the United States to become the world's biggest economy around 2020. That's a lot slower than the historical average of 10 percent, but still solid. Considerably less certain, however, is whether China's secretive and corrupt Communist Party can make this growth equitable, inclusive, and fair. Rather than economic collapse, it's far more likely that a decade from now China will have a strong economy but a deeply flawed and unstable society.

China's economic model, for all its odd communist trappings, closely resembles the successful strategy for "catch-up growth" pioneered by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan after World War II. The theory behind catch-up growth is that poor countries can achieve substantial convergence with rich-country income levels by simply copying and diffusing imported technology. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, Japan reverse-engineered products such as cars, watches, and cameras, enabling the emergence of global firms like Toyota, Nikon, and Sony. Achieving catch-up growth requires an export-focused industrial policy, intensive investment in enabling infrastructure and basic industry, and tight control over the financial system so that it supports infrastructure, basic industries, and exporters, instead of trying to maximize its own profits.

China's catch-up phase is far from over. It has mastered the production of basic industrial materials and consumer products, but its move into sophisticated machinery and high-tech products has only just begun. In 2010, China's per capita income was only 20 percent of the U.S. level. By most measures, China's economy today is comparable to Japan's in the late 1960s and South Korea's and Taiwan's around 1980. Each of those countries subsequently experienced another decade or two of rapid growth. Given the similarity of their economic systems, there is no obvious reason China should differ.

For catch-up countries, growth is mainly about resource mobilization, not resource efficiency, which is the name of the game for lower-growth rich countries. Historically, about two-thirds of China's annual real GDP growth has come from additions of capital and labor. Mainly this means moving workers out of traditional agriculture and into the modern labor force, and increasing the amount of capital inputs (like machinery and software) per worker. Less than a third of growth in China comes from greater efficiency in resource use.

In a rich country like the United States—which already has abundant capital resources and employs all its workers in the modern sector—the reverse is true. About two-thirds of growth comes from efficiency improvements and only one-third from additions to labor or capital. Conditioned by their own experience to believe that economic growth is mainly about efficiency, analysts from rich countries come to China, see widespread waste and inefficiency, and conclude that growth must be unsustainable. They miss the larger picture: The system's immense success in mobilizing capital and labor resources overwhelms marginal efficiency problems.

All developing economies eventually reach the point where they have moved most of their workers into the modern sector and have installed roughly as much capital as they need. At that point, growth tends to slow sharply. In countries that fail to make the tricky transition from a mobilization to an efficiency focus (think Latin America), real growth in per capita GDP can virtually grind to a halt. Such countries also find themselves stuck with high levels of income inequality, which tends to rise during the resource mobilization period and fall during the efficiency phase. Some worry that China—which for the last decade has had by far the highest capital spending boom in history—is already on the edge of this precipice. But the data do not support this pessimistic view. First, much surplus agricultural labor remains. Just over one-third of China's labor force still works in agriculture; the other northeast Asian economies did not see their growth rates slow noticeably until the agricultural share of the workforce fell below 20 percent. It will take about a decade for China to reach this level.

And despite years of breakneck building, China's stock of fixed capital—the total value of infrastructure, housing, and industrial plants—is not all that large relative to either the economy or the population. Rich countries typically have a capital stock a bit more than three times their annual GDP. For China, the figure is about two and a half. And on a per capita basis, China has about as much fixed capital as Japan did in the late 1960s and less than a third of what the United States had as long ago as 1930. Further large-scale investments are still required. So China's economy can continue to grow in part based on capital spending, though a gradual transition to a consumer-led economy does need to begin soon.

One illustration of China's enduring capital deficit is housing. Scarred by the catastrophic U.S. housing bubble, many observers see an even scarier property bubble in China. Robert Z. Aliber, who literally wrote the book on financial manias, called China's housing boom "totally unsustainable" this January. And it's true: Since 2005, land and housing prices have rocketed, and the outskirts of many cities are dotted by blocks of vacant apartment buildings.

But China's housing situation differs dramatically from that of the United States. The U.S. bubble started with too much borrowing (mortgages issued at 95 percent or more of a house's supposed market value), which caused a rise in housing prices far beyond the well-established trend of the previous 40 years and sparked the construction of far more houses than there were families to buy them. In China, mortgage borrowing is modest; price appreciation was mainly a one-off growth spurt in an infant market, rather than a deviation from established trend; and there is a desperate shortage of decent housing.

Since 2000, the average house in China has been bought with around 60 percent cash down, according to research by my firm, GK Dragonomics, and the minimum legal down payment has been something in the range of 20 to 30 percent—a far cry from the subprime excesses of the United States. House prices rose rapidly, but that's partly because they were artificially low before 2000, when state-owned enterprises allocated most of the housing and there was no private market. Much of the home-price appreciation of the last decade was simply a matter of the market catching up with underlying reality. And despite articles about "ghost cities" of empty apartment blocks, the bigger truth is that urban China has a housing shortage—the opposite of what typically happens at the end of a bubble.

Nearly one-third of China's 225 million urban households live in a dwelling without its own kitchen or toilet. That's like the entire country of Indonesia living in factory dormitories, temporary shelters on construction sites, basement air-raid shelters, or shanties on city outskirts. Over the next two decades, if present trends continue, another 300 million people— equivalent to nearly the entire population of the United States—will move from the countryside to China's cities. To accommodate these new migrants, alleviate the present shortage, and replace dilapidated housing, China will need to build 10 million housing units a year every year from now to 2030. Actual average completions from 2000 to 2010 were just 7 million a year, so China still has a lot of building to do. The same goes for much basic infrastructure such as power plants, gas and water supplies, and air cargo facilities.

Yet the housing market also illustrates China's true problem: not that growth is unsustainable, but that it is deeply unfair. The overall housing shortage coexists with an oversupply of luxury housing, built to cater to a new elite. Although most Chinese have benefited from economic growth, the top tier have benefited obscenely—often simply because of their government or party connections, which enable them to profit immensely from land grabs, graft on construction projects, or insider access to lucrative stock market listings. A 2010 study by Chinese economist Wang Xiaolu found that the top 2 percent of households earned a staggering 35 percent of national urban income. A handful of giant state firms, secure in monopoly positions and flush with cheap loans from state banks, has almost unlimited access to moneymaking opportunities. The state-owned banks themselves earned a staggering $165 billion in 2011. Yet private firms, which produce almost all of China's productivity and employment gains, earn thin margins and suffer pervasive discrimination.

At the root lies a political system built on a principle of unfairness. The Communist Party ultimately controls the allocation of all resources; its officials are effectively immune to legal prosecution until they first undergo an opaque internal disciplinary process. Occasionally a high official is brought down on corruption charges, like former Chongqing party secretary Bo Xilai. But such cases reflect elite power struggles, not a determined effort to end corruption. In a few years' time, China will likely surpass the United States as the world's top economy. But until it solves its fairness problem, it will remain a second-rate society.

Just how much economic trouble is China in? To judge by global markets, a lot. In the first few weeks of the year, stock markets around the world plummeted, largely thanks to fears about China. The panic was triggered by an 11 percent plunge on the Shanghai stock exchange and by a small devaluation in the renminbi. Global investors—already skittish following the collapse of a Chinese equity-market bubble and a surprise currency devaluation last summer—took these latest moves as confirmation that the world’s second-biggest economy was far weaker than its relatively rosy headline growth numbers suggested.

In one sense, markets overreacted. China’s economy grew by 6.9 percent in 2015; financial media headlines bewailed this as “the lowest growth rate in a quarter century,” but neglected to mention that this is still by a good margin the fastest growth of any major economy except for India. Even at its new, slower pace, China continues to grow more than twice as fast as developed economies. Some doubt the reliability of China’s economic statistics, of course, but most credible alternative estimates (based on hard-to-fake indicators of physical output) still suggest that China is growing at around 6 percent, and that if anything there was a slight pickup in activity in late 2015.

It’s true that construction and heavy industry, which drove China’s growth from 2000 to 2013, are now nearing recession levels. But services—which now account for over half of China’s economy—and consumer spending remain strong, underpinned by solid employment and wage gains. The latest Nielsen survey of consumer confidence ranked China eighth of 61 countries in consumer optimism, and confidence actually increased in the last quarter of 2015. All in all, another year of 6 percent-plus growth should be achievable in 2016.

Markets also exaggerate the risk of financial crisis, with their breathless talk of capital fleeing the country. Most of this so-called “capital flight” is simply a matter of companies prudently paying down foreign-currency debts, or hedging against the possibility of a weaker renminbi by shifting their bank deposits into dollars. In the main, these deposits remain in the mainland branches of Chinese banks. Domestic bank deposits grew by a healthy 19 percent in 2015 and now stand at $21 trillion—double the country’s GDP and seven times the level of foreign exchange reserves. The continued fast rise in credit is an issue that policymakers will need to address eventually. But they have time, because lending to households and companies is backed one-for-one by bank deposits. By contrast, the United States on the eve of its crisis in 2008 had nearly four dollars of loans for every dollar of bank deposits. As long as China’s financial system stays so securely funded, the chance of a crisis is low.

Yet while we should not worry about an imminent economic “hard landing” or financial crisis, there are reasons to be seriously concerned about the country’s economic direction. The core issue is whether China can successfully execute its difficult transition from an industry- and investment-intensive economy to one focused on services and consumption, and how much disruption it causes to the rest of the world along the way. History teaches us that such transitions are never smooth. And indeed, China’s transition so far has been much rougher than the gradual slowdown in its headline GDP numbers suggests.

Remember that when China reports its GDP growth, this tells you how much its spending grew in inflation-adjusted renminbi terms. But to measure China’s impact on the rest of the world in a given year, it is better to look at its nominal growth—that is, not adjusted for inflation—in terms of the international currency: the U.S. dollar. This is because nominal U.S.-dollar figures better show how much demand China is pumping into the global economy, both in volume terms (buying more stuff) and in price terms (pushing up the prices of the stuff it buys).

When we look at things this way, China’s slowdown has been precipitous and scary. At its post-crisis peak in mid-2011, China’s nominal U.S.-dollar GDP grew at an astonishing 25 percent annual rate. During the four-year period from 2010 to 2013, the average growth rate was around 15 percent. By the last quarter of 2015, though, it had slowed to a tortoise-like 2 percent (see chart). In short, while investors are wrong to complain that China distorts its GDP data, they are right to observe that, for the rest of the world, China’s slowdown feels far worse than official GDP numbers imply.

This dramatic fall in the growth of China’s effective international demand has already hit the global economy hard, through commodity prices. In the past 18 months, the prices of iron ore, coal and oil, and other commodities have all fallen by about two-thirds, thanks in part to the slowdown in Chinese demand and in part to the glut of supply built up by mining companies that hoped China’s hunger for raw materials would keep growing forever. This has badly hurt emerging economies that depend on resource exports: Brazil, for instance, is now mired in its worst downturn since the Great Depression. The slowdown also hurts manufacturers in rich countries like the United States and Japan, which rely on sales of equipment to the mining and construction industries.

This helps explain why markets react so fearfully at every hint the renminbi might fall further in value: A weaker currency reduces the dollar value of the goods China can buy on international markets, creating more risk of a further slowdown in an already languid world economy.

There is a silver lining: The flattening of its commodity demand shows China has turned its back on an unsustainable growth model based on ever-rising investment. The question now is whether it can succeed in building a new growth model based mainly on services and consumer spending. As we noted above, growth in services and consumer spending is solid. But it is still not strong enough to carry the whole burden of driving the economy. For that to happen, much more reform is needed. And the pace of those reforms has been disappointing.

The crucial reforms all relate to increasing the role of markets, and decreasing the role of the state in economic activity. China has an unusually large state sector: OECD researchers have estimated that the value of state-owned enterprise assets is around 145 percent of GDP, more than double the figure for the next most state-dominated economy, India.[1] This large state sector functioned well for most of the last two decades, since the main tasks were to mobilize as many resources as possible and build the infrastructure of a modern economy—tasks for which state firms, which are not bound by short-term profit constraints, are well suited.

Now, however, the infrastructure is mostly built and the main task is to make the most efficient use of resources, maximize productivity, and satisfy ever-shifting consumer demand. For this job, markets must take a leading role, and the government must wean itself off the habit of using state-owned firms to achieve its economic ends. And the big worry is that, despite the promises in the November 2013 Third Plenum reform agenda, Beijing does not seem all that willing to let markets have their way.

The concerns stem from the government’s recent interventions in the equity and currency markets. Last June, when a short-lived stock market bubble popped, the authorities forced various state-controlled firms and agencies to buy up shares to stop the rout. This stabilized the market for a while, but left people wondering what would happen when these agencies started selling down the shares they had been forced to buy. To enable these holdings to be sold without disrupting the market, the authorities instituted a “circuit breaker” which automatically suspended stock-exchange trading when prices fell by 5 percent in one day. Instead of calming the market, this induced panic selling, as traders rushed to dump their shares before the circuit breaker shut off trading. The government canceled the circuit breaker, and the market remains haunted by the risk of state-controlled shareholders dumping their shares en masse.

Similarly, Beijing got into trouble in August when it announced a new exchange-rate mechanism that would make the value of the renminbi more market determined. But because it paired this move with a small, unexpected devaluation, many traders assumed the real goal was to devalue the renminbi, and started pushing the currency down. So the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) intervened massively in the foreign exchange markets, spending down its foreign-currency reserves to prop up the value of the renminbi. This stabilized the currency, but brought into question the government’s commitment to a truly market-driven exchange rate. 

Then, in December, PBOC made another change, by starting to manage the renminbi against a trade-weighted basket of 13 currencies, rather than against the dollar as in the past. Because the dollar has been strong lately, this in effect meant that PBOC was letting the renminbi devalue against the dollar. Again, PBOC argued that its intention was not to devalue, but simply to establish a more flexible exchange rate. And again, it undermined the credibility of this intention by intervening to prevent the currency from falling against the dollar.

One could argue that these episodes were merely potholes on the road to a greater reliance on markets. This may be so, but investors both inside and outside China are not convinced. The heavy-handed management of the equity and currency markets gives the impression that Beijing is not willing to tolerate market outcomes that conflict with the government’s idea of what prices should be. This runs against the government’s stated commitment in the Third Plenum decision to let market forces “play a decisive role in resource allocation.”

Another source of unease is the slow progress on state enterprise reform.  Momentum seemed strong in 2014, when provinces were encouraged to publish “mixed ownership” plans to diversify the shareholding of their firms. This raised hopes that private investors would be brought in to improve the management of inefficient state companies. Yet to date only a handful of mixed-ownership deals have been completed, and many of them involve the transfer of shares to state-owned investment companies, with no private-sector participation. Plans to subject the big centrally controlled state enterprises to greater financial discipline by putting them under holding companies modeled on Singapore’s Temasek have been incessantly discussed, but not put into action. Meanwhile the number of state firms continues to grow, rising from a low of 110,000 in 2008 to around 160,000 in 2014.

So long as Beijing continues to intervene in markets to guide prices, and fails to deliver on the key structural reforms needed to create a sustainable consumer-led economy, markets both inside and outside China will continue to be nervous about the sustainability of growth, and we will see more “China scares” like the one we endured in January. A clearer sense of direction is required, as is better communication.

For three decades, China sustained fast economic growth by steadily increasing the scope of markets, even as it preserved a large role for the state. Because investors were confident in the general trend towards more markets and more space for private firms, they were happy to invest in growth. Today neither private entrepreneurs in China, nor traders on global financial markets, are confident in such a trend. By the end of 2015 growth in investment by non-state firms had slowed to only about two-thirds the rate posted by state-owned firms, ending nearly two decades of private-sector outperformance.

Doubts are amplified by the government’s failure to communicate its intentions. During the last several months of confusion on foreign exchange markets, no senior official came forth to explain the goals of the new currency policy. No other country would have executed such a fundamental shift in a key economic policy without clear and detailed statements by a top policymaker. As China prepares for its presidency of the G-20, the government owes it both to its own people and to the global community of which it is now such an important member to more clearly articulate its commitment to market-oriented reforms and sustainable growth.

[1] P. Kowalski et al., “State-owned Enterprises: Trade Effects and Policy Implications,” OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 147 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4869ckqk7l-en

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been strategically slippery about his tax plan, largely refusing to explain how he would pay for the sweeping tax cuts that represent his primary promise to voters.

In the second debate, though, he offered just enough detail for us to sketch the outlines of his program. If you’re poor or worried about the state of the U.S. government’s finances, the picture is not pretty.

The first course in Romney’s plan is dessert: Tax breaks for everyone! He would start by extending the tax cuts put in place by former President George W. Bush. He would then cut everyone’s rates by another 20 percent, repeal the alternative minimum tax, and get rid of the estate tax.

How would he pay for this? Mainly by limiting the amount people can deduct from their taxable income. Here’s the most detailed statement Romney has made: “One way of doing that would be say everybody gets—I’ll pick a number—$25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.”

Big Shortfall

Putting both halves of Romney’s plan together, we compared the impact of the tax cuts with the offsetting effect of limiting itemized deductions. The result: While a cap on deductions is an interesting idea, it couldn’t possibly raise enough revenue to make up for the big tax giveaways Romney has promised. The shortfall would be a whopping $3.7 trillion over the next decade. Lowering the deduction limit to, say, $17,000 wouldn’t much change the math. The gap would still be $3.4 trillion.

Romney’s plan is most striking in its distributional implications (see chart). The greatest benefit would go to the rich. The top one-fifth of households would enjoy a staggering $16,000 average tax cut, offset by a tax increase of $4,000 due to the deduction cap. Net gain: $12,000. Actually, though, most of this group wouldn’t see that large of a benefit. About half of the spoils would go directly to the top 1 percent, which would get an average net tax cut of $100,000 a year.

The further one goes down the income scale, the worse Romney’s plan looks. The average household in the middle of the income distribution—the heart of the middle class—would get a cut of a little more than $800, which wouldn’t be much changed by the limit on deductions. The poor would actually pay slightly more tax, because Romney would end stimulus-related measures—such as an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit—that have benefited them.

True, any across-the-board tax cut would give more money to the rich in dollar terms, because they pay most of the taxes in the first place. But Romney’s plan goes further. It would reduce the amount the richest Americans pay relative to their income more than for anyone else. Specifically, the richest fifth would go from paying 26 percent of their income in taxes to 22 percent. The middle fifth would go from 16 percent to 15 percent. The tax burden on the poor would rise.

Romney has explicitly denied that his tax plan would favor the rich: “I will not, under any circumstances, reduce the share that’s being paid by the highest-income taxpayers.”

If this was truly his intention, he could have proposed tax cuts that were proportional to income—say, by offering simply to cut everyone’s tax rates by a few percentage points, rather than by a certain percentage. This would give the rich a bigger tax cut in dollar terms while preserving the distributional structure of our tax system.

Benefit Distribution

As it stands, Romney’s plan would result in 48 percent of the net tax cut going to the richest 1 percent (see pie chart). Another 32 percent would go to the next richest 4 percent of the population. All told, 94 percent of the benefit would go to the top 10 percent of the income distribution, leaving only 6 percent for the rest.

Many of Romney’s biggest boosters argue that he would be a more moderate president than he has been a candidate. Perhaps that’s plausible. On taxes, though, he has left himself little room to maneuver. His constituency would expect him to deliver on the very specific tax cuts he has promised. Meanwhile, his vagueness on the offsetting deduction limits would leave him with no mandate to get rid of the most popular tax breaks, such as those for charitable giving, mortgage interest or health insurance.

Hence, the most probable outcome would be a tax system that is radically less progressive, achieved through cuts that would create a much larger long-run budget deficit. Both outcomes would be colossal failures at a time in which true tax reform is greatly needed.

Downloads

• Download full paper

ABSTRACT

The AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa puts increasing pressure on the buffer capacity of low- and middle-income households without access to health insurance. This paper examines the relationship between health shocks, insurance status and health-seeking behaviour. It also investigates the possible mitigating effects of insurance on income loss and out-of-pocket health expenditure. The study uses a unique dataset based on a random sample of 1769 households and 7343 individuals living in the Greater Windhoek area in Namibia. The survey includes medical testing for HIV infection which allows for the explicit analysis of HIV-related health shocks. We find that the economic consequences of health shocks can be severe for uninsured households even in a country with a relatively well-developed public health care system such as Namibia. The uninsured resort to a variety of coping strategies to deal with the high medical expenses and reductions in income, such as selling assets, taking up credit or receiving financial support from relatives and friends. As HIV-infected individuals increasingly develop AIDS, this will put substantial pressure on the public health care system as well as social support networks. Evidence suggests that private insurance, currently unaffordable to the poor, protects households from the most severe consequences of health shocks.

Read the full article on Oxford Journals »

Event Information

On January 25, 2013, the Center for Universal Education at Brookings (CUE) and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) hosted a technical workshop on national education accounts (NEAs). Participants discussed experiences and challenges related to developing various tools to track financial expenditures in education, with a focus on national education accounts. After discussing particular experiences with NEAs and the framework underlying them, participants worked to identify priorities for expanding their reach.

Jacques van der Gaag, from the Center for Universal Education opened the workshop by underlining its primary goals—to find out what different groups and individuals have been able to accomplish in relation to comprehensively tracking expenditures, connecting those expenditures with learning outcomes in education systems and collaborating where possible to advance the use of NEAs. Following this introduction, participants gave an overview of their experiences in using financial tracking tools and NEAs in particular. Igor Kheyfets of the World Bank presented BOOST, a tool that the World Bank has used over the past three years to bring together detailed data on public expenditures. Next, Jean Claude Ndabananiye, from UNESCO Pole de Dakar, discussed country status reports, which aggregate and analyze government data on expenditures. Afterward, Elise Legault of UIS described their collection of education statistics, which is completed through annual country questionnaires, of which one in particular has a finance focus. Quentin Wodon of the World Bank described other World Bank efforts aside from BOOST in capturing education finance data, including a cross-sector effort on public expenditure reviews (PERs).

Download the agenda »
Download the full summary »
Download USAID's National Education Accounts presentation »
Download the Estimation of Household Spending on Education Using Household Surveys presentation »
Download From Enrollment to Learning Outcomes: What Does the Shift in the Education Agenda Mean for NEAs? »
Download Thailand's National Education Accounts (NEA) »
Download the BOOST presentation »

Event Materials

• 0125_NEA_Agenda
• NEA_Event_Summary_Final
• BOOST presentation to NEA workshop at Brookings_final
• NEAs Presentation_van der Gaag
• Thai NEA
• USAID Creative_NEA_Presentation_25Jan13
• Pole de Dakar presentation Estimation of HH spending on education_2

I came across an interesting chart in yesterday’s Morning Money tipsheet from Politico that struck me as a something that sounded intuitively correct but was, in fact, not. It's worth a comment on this blog, which has served as a forum for discussion of jobs numbers throughout the recovery.

Between last week’s BLS employment report and last night’s State of the Union, we’ve heard a lot about impressive job growth in 2015. For my part, I wrote on this blog last week that the 2.6 million jobs created last year makes 2015 the second best calendar-year for job gains of the current recovery.

The tipsheet’s "Chart of the Day," however, suggested that job growth in 2015 was actually lower-than-average if we adjust for the change in the size of the labor force. This is what was in the tipsheet from Politico:

CHART OF THE DAY: NOMINAL JOB GROWTH — Via Hamilton Place Strategies: "Adjusting jobs data to account for labor force shifts can help shed some light on voters' economic angst, even as we see good headline statistics. … Though 2015 was a good year in terms of job growth during the current recovery and had higher-than-average job growth as compared to recent recoveries, 2015 actually had lower-than-average job growth if we adjust for the change in the size of the labor force." http://bit.ly/1OnBXSm

I decided to look at the numbers.

The authors propose that we should "scale" reported job gains by the number of workers, which at first seems to make sense. Surely, an increase in monthly employment of 210,000 cannot mean the same thing when there are already 150 million employed people as when there are just 75 million employed people.

But this intuition is subtly wrong for a simple reason: The age structure of the population may also differ in the two situations I have just described. Suppose when there are 75 million employed people, the population of 20-to-64 year-old people is growing 300,000 every month. Suppose also when there are 150 million employed people, the population of 20-to-64 year-olds is shrinking 100,000 per month. 

Most informed observers would say that job growth of 210,000 a month is much more impressive under the latter assumptions than it is under the first set of assumptions, even though under the latter assumptions the number of employed people is twice as high as it is under the first assumptions.

BLS estimates show that in the seven years from December 2008-December 2015, the average monthly growth in the 16-to-64 year-old (noninstitutionalized) U.S. population was 85,200 per month. That is the lowest average growth rate of the working-age population going back to at least 1960. Here are the numbers:

Once we scale the monthly employment gain by the growth in the working-age population, the growth of jobs in recent years has been more impressive—not less—than suggested by the raw monthly totals. Gains in employer payrolls have far surpassed the growth in the number of working-age Americans over the past five years.

Headline writers have been impressed by recent job gains because the job gains have been impressive.

No. We should exempt workers earning the lowest wages.

Social Security faces a serious funding problem. The program takes in too little money to pay all that has been promised to future beneficiaries. Government forecasters predict Social Security’s reserve fund will be depleted between 2030 and 2034. There are two basic ways we can eliminate the funding gap: cut benefits or increase contributions. A common proposal is to increase the age at which workers can claim full retirement benefits. For people nearing retirement today, the full retirement age is 66. As a result of a 1983 law, that age will rise to 67 for workers born after 1959.

When policymakers urge us to raise the retirement age, they are proposing to increase the full retirement age beyond 67, possibly to 70, for workers now in their 30s or 40s. This saves money, but it also cuts monthly retirement benefits by the same percentage for every worker, unless workers delay claiming benefits. The policy might seem fair if workers in future generations could all expect to share in gains in life expectancy. However, new research shows that gains in life expectancy have been very unequal, with the biggest improvements among workers who earn top incomes. Life expectancy gains for workers with the lowest incomes have been small or negligible.

If the full retirement age were raised, future retirees with high lifetime earnings can expect to receive some compensation when their monthly benefits are cut. Because they can expect to live longer than today’s retirees, they will receive benefits for a longer span of years after 65. For low-wage workers, there is no compensation. Since they are not living longer, their lifetime benefits will fall by the same proportion as their monthly benefits. Thus, “raising the retirement age” is a policy that cuts the lifetime benefits of future low-wage workers by a bigger percentage than it does of future high-wage workers.

The fact that low-wage workers have seen small or negligible gains in life expectancy signals that their health when they are past 60 is no better than that of low-wage workers born 20 or 30 years ago. This suggests their capacity to work past 60 is no better than it was for past generations. A sensible policy for cutting future benefits should therefore preserve current benefit levels for workers who have contributed to Social Security for many years but have earned low wages.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in CQ Researcher.

Event Information

In a close referendum last week, voters in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, setting off financial and political shockwaves in Europe and around the world. British PM David Cameron has resigned, while Scotland has renewed calls for another independence referendum, global stock markets lost nearly $2 trillion on Friday, and the British pound is at a 30-year low. Many view the British referendum as commentary not only on economic and immigration trends in the UK, but as a possible forecast of the broader wave of anti-globalization and nationalistic political movements in the U.S. and Europe.

On June 29, Brookings hosted a discussion of the immediate fallout and medium- to long-term consequences of Britain’s departure from the EU. Panelists addressed how the process of exiting the EU might unfold, effects on the U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-EU security and trade relationships, on global development, and the future of the EU project.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Brexit.

Video

• Brexit sends shockwaves: What now?

Audio

• Brexit sends shockwaves: What now?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160629_brexit_transcript

A review essay of “Governance of Socio-technical Systems: Explaining Change”, edited by Susana Borrás and Jakob Edler (Edward Elgar, 2014, 207 pages).

Phasing-out a useful and profitable technology

I own a Nokia 2330; it’s a small brick phone that fits comfortably in the palm of my hand. People have feelings about this: mostly, they marvel at my ability to survive without a smart-phone. Concerns go beyond my wellbeing; once a friend protested that I should be aware of the costs I impose onto my friends, for instance, by asking them for precise directions to their houses. Another suggested that I cease trying to be smarter than my phone. But my reason is simple: I don’t need a smart phone. Most of the time, I don’t even need a mobile phone. I can take and place calls from my home or my office. And who really needs a phone during their commute? Still, my device will meet an untimely end. My service provider has informed me via text message that it will phase out all 2G service and explicitly encouraged me to acquire a 3G or newer model. 

There is a correct if simplistic explanation for this announcement: my provider is not making enough money with my account and should I switch to a newer device, they will be able to sell me a data plan. The more accurate and more complex explanation is that my mobile device is part of a communications system that is integrated to other economic and social systems. As those other systems evolve, my device is becoming incompatible with them; my carrier has determined that I should be integrated.

The system integration is easy to understand from a business perspective. My carrier may very well be able to make a profit keeping my account as is, and the accounts of the legion of elderly and low-income customers who use similar devices, and still they may not find it advantageous in the long run to allow 2G devices in their network. To understand this business strategy, we need to go back no farther than the introduction of the iPhone, which in addition to being the most marketable mobile phone set a new standard platform for mobile devices. Its introduction accelerated a trend underway in the core business of carriers: the shift from voice communication to data streaming because smart phones can support layers of overlapping services that depend on fast and reliable data transfer. These services include sophisticated log capabilities, web search, geo-location, connectivity to other devices, and more recently added bio-monitoring. All those services are part of systems of their own, so it makes perfect business sense for carriers to seamlessly integrate mobile communications with all those other systems. Still, the economic rationale explains only a fraction of the systems integration underway.

The communication system of mobile telephony is also integrated with regulatory, social, and cultural systems. Consider the most mundane examples: It’s hard to imagine anyone who, having shifted from paper-and-pencil to an electronic agenda, decided to switch back afterwards. We are increasingly dependent of GPS services; while it may have once served tourists who did not wish to learn how to navigate a new city, it is now a necessity for many people who without it are lost in their home town. Not needing to remember phone numbers, the time of our next appointment, or how to go back to that restaurant we really liked, is a clear example of the integration of mobile devices into our value systems.

There are coordination efforts and mutual accommodation taking place: tech designers seek to adapt to changing values and we update our values to the new conveniences of slick gadgets. Government officials are engaged in the same mutual accommodation. They are asking how many phone booths must be left in public places, how to reach more people with public service announcements, and how to provide transit information in real-time when commuters need it. At the same time, tech designers are considering all existing regulations so their devices are compliant. Communication and regulatory systems are constantly being re-integrated.

The will behind systems integration

The integration of technical and social systems that results from innovation demands an enormous amount of planning, effort, and conflict resolution. The people involved in this process come from all quarters of the innovation ecology, including inventors, entrepreneurs, financiers, and government officials. Each of these agents may not be able to contemplate the totality of the system integration problem but they more or less understand how their respective system must evolve so as to be compatible with interrelated systems that are themselves evolving.  There is a visible willfulness in the integration task that scholars of innovation call the governance of socio-technical systems.

Introducing the term governance, I should emphasize that I do not mean merely the actions of governments or the actions of entrepreneurs. Rather, I mean the effort of all agents involved in the integration and re-integration of systems triggered by innovation; I mean all the coordination and mutual accommodation of agents from interrelated systems. And there is no single vehicle to transport all the relevant information for these agents. A classic representation of markets suggests that prices carry all the relevant information agents need to make optimal decisions. But it is impossible to project this model onto innovation because, as I suggested above, it does not adhere exclusively to economic logic; cultural and political values are also at stake. The governance task is therefore fragmented into pieces and assigned to each of the participants of the socio-technical systems involved, and they cannot resolve it as a profit-maximization problem. 

Instead, the participants must approach governance as a problem of design where the goal could be characterized as reflexive adaptation. By adaptation I mean seeking to achieve inter-system compatibility. By reflexive I mean that each actor must realize that their actions trigger adaption measures in other systems. Thus, they cannot passively adapt but rather they must anticipate the sequence of accommodations in the interaction with other agents. This is one of the most important aspects of the governance problem, because all too often neither technical nor economic criteria will suffice; quite regularly coordination must be negotiated, which is to say, innovation entails politics.

The idea of governance of socio-technical systems is daunting. How do we even begin to understand it? What kinds of modes of governance exist? What are the key dimensions to understand the integration of socio-technical systems? And perhaps more pressing, who prevails in disputes about coordination and accommodation? Fortunately, Susana Borrás, from the Copenhagen Business School, and Jakob Edler, from the University of Manchester, both distinguished professors of innovation, have collected a set of case studies that shed light on these problems in an edited volume entitled Governance of Socio-technical Change: Explaining Change. What is more, they offer a very useful conceptual framework of governance that is worth reviewing here. While this volume will be of great interest to scholars of innovation—and it is written in scholarly language—I think it has great value for policymakers, entrepreneurs, and all agents involved in a practical manner in the work of innovation.

Organizing our thinking on the governance of change

The first question that Borrás and Edler tackle is how to characterize the different modes of governance. They start out with a heuristic typology across the two central categories: what kinds of agents drive innovation and how the actions of these agents are coordinated. Agents can represent the state or civil society, and actions can be coordinated via dominant or non-dominant hierarchies.

Source: Adapted from Borrás and Adler (2015), Table 1.2, p. 13.

This typology is very useful to understand why different innovative industries have different dynamics; they are governed differently. For instance, we can readily understand why consumer software and pharmaceuticals are so at odds regarding patent law. The strict (and very necessary) regulation of drug production and commercialization coupled with the oligopolistic structure of that industry creates the need and opportunity to advocate for patent protection; which is equivalent to a government subsidy. In turn, the highly competitive environment of consumer software development and its low level of regulation foster an environment where patents hinder innovation. Government intervention is neither needed nor wanted; the industry wishes to regulate itself.

This typology is also useful to understand why open source applications have gained currency much faster in the consumer segment than the contractor segment of software producers. Examples of the latter is industry specific software (e.g. to operate machinery, the stock exchange, and ATMs) or software to support national security agencies. These contractors demand proprietary software and depend on the secrecy of the source code. The software industry is not monolithic, and while highly innovative in all its segments, the innovation taking place varies greatly by its mode of governance.

Furthermore, we can understand the inherent conflicts in the governance of science. In principle, scientists are led by curiosity and organize their work in a decentralized and organic fashion. In practice, most of science is driven by mission-oriented governmental agencies and is organized in a rigid hierarchical system. Consider the centrality of prestige in science and how it is awarded by peer-review; a system controlled by the top brass of each discipline. There is nearly an irreconcilable contrast between the self-image of science and its actual governance. Using the Borrás-Edler typology, we could say that scientists imagine themselves as citizens of the south-east quadrant while they really inhabit the north-west quadrant.

There are practical lessons from the application of this typology to current controversies. For instance, no policy instrument such as patents can have the same effect on all innovation sectors because the effect will depend on the mode of governance of the sector. This corollary may sound intuitive, yet it really is at variance with the current terms of the debate on patent protection, where assertions of its effect on innovation, in either direction, are rarely qualified.

The second question Borrás and Edler address is that of the key analytical dimensions to examine socio-technical change. To this end, they draw from an ample selection of social theories of change. First, economists and sociologists fruitfully debate the advantage of social inquiry focused on agency versus institutions. Here, the synthesis offered is reminiscent of Herbert Simon’s “bounded rationality”, where the focus turns to agent decisions constrained by institutions. Second, policy scholars as well as sociologists emphasize the engineering of change. Change can be accomplished with discreet instruments such as laws and regulations, or diffused instruments such as deliberation, political participation, and techniques of conflict resolution. Third, political scientists underscore the centrality of power in the adjudication of disputes produced by systems’ change and integration. Borrás and Edler have condensed these perspectives in an analytical framework that boils down to three clean questions: who drives change? (focus on agents bounded by institutions), how is change engineered? (focus on instrumentation), and why it is accepted by society? (focus on legitimacy). The case studies contained in this edited volume illustrate the deployment of this framework with empirical research.

Standards, sustainability, incremental innovation

Arthur Daemmrich (Chapter 3) tells the story of how the German chemical company BASF succeeded marketing the biodegradable polymer Ecoflex. It is worth noting the dependence of BASF on government funding to develop Ecoflex, and on the German Institute for Standardization (DIN), making a market by setting standards. With this technology, BASF capitalized on the growing demand in Germany for biodegradables, and with its intense cooperation with DIN helped establish a standard that differentiate Ecoflex from the competition. By focusing on the enterprise (the innovation agent) and its role in engineering the market for its product by setting standards that would favor them, this story reveals the process of legitimation of this new technology. In effect, the certification of DIN was accepted by agribusinesses that sought to utilize biodegradable products.

If BASF is an example of innovation by standards, Allison Loconto and Marc Barbier (Chapter 4) show the strategies of governing by standards. They take the case of the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling alliance (ISEAL). ISEAL, an advocate of sustainability, positions itself as a coordinating broker among standard developing organizations by offering “credibility tools” such as codes of conduct, best practices, impact assessment methods, and assurance codes. The organization advocates what is known as the tripartite system regime (TSR) around standards. TSR is a system of checks and balances to increase the credibility of producers complying with standards. The TSR regime assigns standard-setting, certification, and accreditation of the certifiers, to separate and independent bodies. The case illustrates how producers, their associations, and broker organizations work to bestow upon standards their most valuable attribute: credibility. The authors are cautious not to conflate credibility with legitimacy, but there is no question that credibility is part of the process of legitimizing technical change. In constructing credibility, these authors focus on the third question of the framework –legitimizing innovation—and from that vantage point, they illuminate the role of actors and instruments that will guide innovations in sustainability markets.

While standards are instruments of non-dominant hierarchies, the classical instrument of dominant hierarchies is regulation. David Barberá-Tomás and Jordi Molas-Gallart tell the tragic consequences of an innovation in hip-replacement prosthesis that went terribly wrong. It is estimated that about 30 thousand replaced hips failed. The FDA, under the 1976 Medical Device Act, allows incremental improvements in medical devices to go into the market after only laboratory trials, assuming that any substantive innovations have already being tested in regular clinical trials. This policy was designed as an incentive for innovation, a relief from high regulatory costs. However, the authors argue, when products have been constantly improved for a number of years after an original release, any marginal improvement comes at a higher cost or higher risk—a point they refer to as the late stage of the product life-cycle. This has tilted the balance in favor of risky improvements, as illustrated by the hip prosthesis case. The story speaks to the integration of technical and cultural systems: the policy that encourages incremental innovation may alter the way medical device companies assess the relative risk of their innovations, precisely because they focus on incremental improvements over radical ones. Returning to the analytical framework, the vantage point of regulation—instrumentation—elucidates the particular complexities and biases in agents’ decisions.

Two additional case studies discuss the discontinuation of the incandescent light bulb (ILB) and the emergence of translational research, both in Western Europe. The first study, authored by Peter Stegmaier, Stefan Kuhlmann and Vincent R. Visser (Chapter 6), focuses on a relatively smooth transition. There was wide support for replacing ILBs that translated in political will and a market willing to purchase new energy efficient bulbs. In effect, the new technical system was relatively easy to re-integrate to a social system in change—public values had shifted in Europe to favor sustainable consumption—and the authors are thus able to emphasize how agents make sense of the transition. Socio-technical change does not have a unique meaning: for citizens it means living in congruence with their values; for policy makers it means accruing political capital; for entrepreneurs it means new business opportunities. The case by Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Peter Biegelbauer and Daniel Lehner (Chapter 7) offers a similar lesson about governance. My reading of their multi-site study of the implementation of translational research—a management movement that seeks to bridge laboratory and clinical work in medical research—reveals how the different agents involved make sense of this organizational innovation. Entrepreneurs see a new market niche, researchers strive for increasing the impact of their work, and public officials align their advocacy for translation with the now regular calls for rendering publicly funded research more productive. Both chapters illuminate a lesson that is as old as it is useful to remember: technological innovation is interpreted in as many ways as the number of agents that participate in it.

Innovation for whom?

The framework and illustrations of this book are useful for those of us interested in the governance of system integration. The typology of different modes of governance and the three vantage points from which empirical analysis can be deployed are very useful indeed. Further development of this framework should include the question of how political power is redistributed by effect of innovation and the system integration and re-integration that it triggers. The question is pressing because the outcomes of innovation vary as power structures are reinforced or debilitated by the emergence of new technologies—not to mention ongoing destabilizing forces such as social movements. Put another way, the framework should be expanded to explain in which circumstances innovation exacerbates inequality. The expanded framework should probe whether the mutual accommodation is asymmetric across socio-economic groups, which is the same as asking: are poor people asked to do more adapting to new technologies? These questions have great relevance in contemporary debates about economic and political inequality. 

I believe that Borrás and Edler and their colleagues have done us a great service organizing a broad but dispersed literature and offering an intuitive and comprehensive framework to study the governance of innovation. The conceptual and empirical parts of the book are instructive and I look forward to the papers that will follow testing this framework. We need to better understand the governance of socio-technical change and the dynamics of systems integration. Without a unified framework of comparison, the ongoing efforts in various disciplines will not amount to a greater understanding of the big picture. 

I also have a selfish reason to like this book: it helps me make sense of my carrier’s push for integrating my value system to their technical system. If I decide to adapt to a newer phone, I could readily do so because I have time and other resources. But that may not be the case for many customers of 2G devices who have neither the resources nor the inclination to learn to use more complex devices. For that reason alone, I’d argue that this sort of innovation-led systems integration could be done more democratically. Still, I could meet the decision of my carrier with indifference: when the service is disconnected, I could simply try to get by without the darn toy.

Note: Thanks to Joseph Schuman for an engaging discussion of this book with me.

After a recent talk about my ISIS book, one of the audience members asked, “What can I read to help me not hate Islam?” I don’t think it’s a scholar’s job to persuade others to love or hate any culture. But the question was sincere, so I suggested some books that have helped me better understand Islam. I also put the question to Twitter. Below is some of what I and others came up with.

Two cautions before we dive in: First, the list is obviously not exhaustive and I’ve left out overly apologetic books—in my experience, they only increase the skeptical reader’s suspicion that she’s being suckered. Second, people on Twitter gave me great suggestions but I’ve only included those I’ve read and can vouch for:

Muhammad and the Quran: Two of the best books you’ll ever read about Muhammad and the Quran are also the shortest: The Koran: A Very Short Introduction and Muhammad, both by Michael Cook. He writes with great wit and deep scholarship.

Other scriptures: Most non-Muslims are unaware that Islamic scripture is more than the Quran. It includes a vast collection of words and deeds attributed to Muhammad by later authors. These scriptures are sort of like the Gospels, and Muslim scholars fight over their authenticity like Christian scholars debate about the accuracy of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These extra Islamic scriptures contain most of the teachings that make modern people (Muslims included) uncomfortable about Islam. One of the world’s experts on these scriptures, Jonathan Brown, has written a terrific book about them, Misquoting Muhammad.

Rumi: The medieval mystic’s poems about life and death are beautiful and moving, no matter your belief system. I loved his poems so much as an undergrad that I went on to study Middle Eastern languages just so I could read his work in the original. I’m glad I first viewed Islam through the eyes of Rumi and not a group like ISIS. Neither is solely representative of Islam but both draw heavily on its scriptures and reach such different conclusions.

The Bible: Many people recommended reading the Bible to decrease hate of Islam. The nerd in me leapt to the least obvious conclusion, “Ah, good idea! Reading some of the rough stuff in the Hebrew Bible is a good way to put a kindred ancient religion like Islam in perspective.” But they meant something a little less complicated:

@will_mccants @jenanmoussa Read the bible and learn to love and not to hate. :-)

— Dirk Lont (@Denkkracht1) December 12, 2015

It’s a worthy perspective today no matter your faith.

When she gives her speech tonight at the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton will of course be at a crucial point in her campaign for the presidency. Her fellow Democrats—including her running mate Senator Tim Kaine, as well as Michael Bloomberg—have roundly criticized her Republican opponent Donald Trump this week. Vice President Biden and President Obama usefully offered a counterpoint to the dark worldview we saw from Mr. Trump last week in Cleveland. And former President Bill Clinton, as well as first lady Michelle Obama, told us about Clinton’s longstanding dedication to women and children, the less fortunate, and the nation as a whole. As a parent of a child on the autism spectrum, I have seen and deeply appreciated this side of Clinton myself.

Now, it is up to Clinton to sketch out a positive vision for her own presidency. In so doing, she must strike a balanced tone—acknowledging and tapping the energy (and at times anger) of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and their wing of the Democratic Party—while also reaching out to independents and moderate Republicans to whom she should appeal (given her past and her politics, and most of all, her opponent), but who at present tend not to think favorably of her.

Against this complex backdrop, I would offer only a few suggestions for her upcoming speech:

• On the state of the world, we need a nuanced view. Yes, there are big problems. Yes, ISIS is a greater threat than President Obama has sometimes acknowledged. On balance, however, things are troubled but not bad. Democracy has taken a hit in recent years, and the world’s economy has struggled in many ways for a decade, and Russia and China have caused considerable problems of late. But taking a larger perspective, the international order still has many strong points. Our alliances are strong. Despite recent setbacks, a higher percentage of people around the world live in democratic countries and above the poverty line this century than ever before. Child mortality globally is way down. U.S.-India relations are better than ever, as are America’s ties to other key rising powers like Indonesia. The U.S. military is indeed very strong (as retired General David Petraeus and I write in a forthcoming Foreign Affairs article), even if there is much to do to make it even better.


• We do need to do better in fighting ISIS. Ideas on how to attack it in Syria and Libya, among other places, will be key, even if details will necessarily need to await 2017. And while I think President Obama has done better in dealing with Russia and China than commonly understood, Obama has not explained his strategies for handling these powers very well to the United States. Clinton can help.


• The fading middle-class economic dream in the United States remains the central issue of this campaign. It explains the rise of Sanders and Trump better than any other single factor or phenomenon. Clinton’s views on economics are good but they come across as a bit piecemeal, borrowing from Sanders on a few key points like the minimum wage and trade but somewhat lacking her own key stamp. Above all other issues, I hope she concentrates on this tonight.


• We have not heard much about Benghazi or about Clinton’s email problems this week. To be sure, many Republicans have inflated these issues beyond all reason. But Clinton should still apologize for her mistakes to the country, without overdoing it. As best I can tell, she put no true national secrets or American personnel at risk in her emails, and while Benghazi was a tragedy that might have been preventable, no one can be perfect in times like these. We don’t typically excoriate our military commanders for mistakes that tragically may cost American lives in a given tactical operation, recognizing that such setbacks happen in war. That is not to excuse the lack of proper attention to Libya and Benghazi by the U.S. government back in 2011 and 2012, only to put it in perspective.


• It would be good to hear some nice words about Republicans too, in an effort to reach across the aisle and defuse some of the anger in American politics today. I don’t mean just to compliment Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, but also to note the importance of people like Pete Domenici and Warren Rudman in fiscal policy and deficit reduction (and more recently, John Boehner and Paul Ryan); George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole in the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Republican Congress of the 1990s in welfare reform; George H.W. Bush again as well as people like Christie Todd Whitman in environmental policy; George W. Bush on PEPFAR/AIDS and also on stressing inclusivity while avoiding anti-Muslim rhetoric after the 9/11 attacks; and good GOP governors or former governors like Mitch Daniels, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush in fostering economic growth as well as education reform across much of the country. To Democrats angry with the current Republican presidential ticket, as well as much of the current congressional leadership, this may seem like bending over backwards to appease the opposition. But in fact, the above folks are not the opposition that Clinton needs to defeat now; they are responsible, constructive, patriotic members of the other main political party in the United States. They are not the enemy, and by reaching out to them, Clinton can improve her odds of beating the person who is now very much the adversary—not only of the Democratic ticket, but of much of this country’s finest bipartisan traditions and accomplishments.

I’ll be rooting for all the above (and also hoping to get to bed before midnight). Please bring it on, Hillary!

The issue of paid leave is heating up in 2016. At least two presidential candidates — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — have proposed new federal policies. Several states and large cities have begun providing paid leave to workers when they are ill or have to care for a newborn child or other family member.

This forward movement on paid-leave policy makes sense. The United States is the only advanced country without a paid-leave policy. While some private and public employers already provide paid leave to their workers, the workers least likely to get paid leave are low-wage and low-income workers who need it most. They also cannot afford to take unpaid leave, which the federal government mandates for larger companies.

Paid leave is good for the health and development of children; it supports work, enabling employees to remain attached to the labor force when they must take leave; and it can lower costly worker turnover for employers. Given the economic and social benefits it provides and given that the private market will not generate as much as needed, public policies should ensure that such leave is available to all.

But it is important to do so efficiently, so as not to burden employers with high costs that could lead them to substantially lower wages or create fewer jobs.

States and cities that require employers to provide paid sick days mandate just a small number, usually three to seven days. Family or temporary disability leaves that must be longer are usually financed through small increases in payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, rather than by employer mandates or general revenue.

Policy choices could limit costs while expanding benefits. For instance, states should limit eligibility to workers with experience, such as a year, and it might make sense to increase the benefit with years of accrued service to encourage labor force attachment. Some states provide four to six weeks of family leave, though somewhat larger amounts of time may be warranted, especially for the care of newborns, where three months seems reasonable.

Paid leave need not mean full replacement of existing wages. Replacing two-thirds of weekly earnings up to a set limit is reasonable. The caps and partial wage replacement give workers some incentive to limit their use of paid leave without imposing large financial burdens on those who need it most.

While many states and localities have made sensible choices in these areas, some have not. For instance, the D.C. Council has proposed paid-leave legislation for all but federal workers that violates virtually all of these rules. It would require up to 16 weeks of temporary disability leave and up to 16 weeks of paid family leave; almost all workers would be eligible for coverage, without major experience requirements; and the proposed law would require 100 percent replacement of wages up to $1,000 per week, and 50 percent coverage up to $3,000. It would be financed through a progressive payroll tax on employers only, which would increase to 1 percent for higher-paid employees.

Our analysis suggests that this level of leave would be badly underfunded by the proposed tax, perhaps by as much as two-thirds. Economists believe that payroll taxes on employers are mostly paid through lower worker wages, so the higher taxes needed to fully fund such generous leave would burden workers. The costly policy might cause employers to discriminate against women.

The disruptions and burdens of such lengthy leaves could cause employers to hire fewer workers or shift operations elsewhere over time. This is particularly true here, considering that the D.C. Council already has imposed costly burdens on employers, such as high minimum wages (rising to $11.50 per hour this year), paid sick leave (although smaller amounts than now proposed) and restrictions on screening candidates. The minimum wage in Arlington is $7.25 with no other mandates. Employers will be tempted to move operations across the river or to replace workers with technology wherever possible.

Cities, states and the federal government should provide paid sick and family leave for all workers. But it can and should be done in a fiscally responsible manner that does not place undue burdens on the workers themselves or on their employers.

Editor's note: this piece originally appeared in The Washington Post. 

Throughout the past year, we have heard paid leave debated in state houses and on the campaign trail. I am all in favor of paid leave. As I have argued elsewhere, it would enable more people, especially those in lower-paid jobs, to take time off to deal with a serious illness or the care of another family member, including a newborn child. But we shouldn’t stop with paid leave. We should also consider shortening the standard work week. Such a step would be gender neutral and would not discriminate between the very different kinds of time pressures faced by adults. It might even help to create more jobs.

The standard work week is 40 hours -- 8 hours a day for five days a week. It’s been that way for a long time. Back in 1900, the typical factory worker spent 53 hours on the job, more than a third more hours than we spend today. The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938, and set maximum hours at 40 per week. Amazingly, more than three quarters of a century after passage of the FLSA, there has been no further decline in the standard work week. Not only has the legal standard remained unchanged, but 40 hours has become the social and cultural norm.

What’s going on here? Economists predicted that as we became more prosperous we would choose to work fewer hours. That hasn’t happened. Instead we have kept on working at about the same pace as we did earlier in our history, but have poured all of the gains from productivity growth into ever-higher levels of consumption – bigger houses, more electronic gadgets, fancier cars. With increased prosperity, people are buying more and more stuff, but they don’t have any more time to enjoy it. A reduction in the standard work week would improve the quality of life, especially for those in hourly jobs who have benefitted hardly at all from economic growth in recent decades.

Two-earner couples would also benefit. Among couples between the ages of 25 and 54, the number of hours worked increased by 20 percent between 1969 and 2000, from 56 hours to 67 hours (for both husband and wife combined). As Heather Boushey notes in her new book, Finding Time, we no longer live in a world where there is a “the silent partner” in every business enterprise, the iconic “American Wife,” who takes care of the children and the millions of details of daily living. With a shorter work week, both men and women would have more time for everything from cutting the grass to cooking dinner with no presumption about who does what. Although much of the debate this year has been about work-family balance, empty nesters or singles without young children might also welcome a shorter work week. For them it would provide the chance to follow their dream of becoming an artist, a boat builder, or the creator of their own small business.

Shorter hours could have another benefit and that is more jobs for workers who would otherwise be left behind by technological change. Many economists believe that as existing jobs are replaced by machines and artificial intelligence, new jobs will be created in technical, management, and service fields. But will this happen fast enough or at sufficient scale to reemploy all those who now find themselves without decent-paying work? I doubt it. A shorter work week might help to spread the available jobs around. Germany and other European countries, along with a few U.S. states used this strategy during the Great Recession. It kept more people on the job but at shorter hours and reduced unemployment. Using a similar strategy to deal with automation and long-term joblessness, although controversial, should not be dismissed out of hand.

Of course, shorter hours can mean lower total pay. But in one typical survey published in the Monthly Labor Review, 28 percent of the respondents said they would give up a day’s pay for one fewer day of work per week. Any new movement to reduce the work week would need to be phased in slowly, with flexibility for both employers and employees to negotiate adjustments around the standard. Yet if done correctly, the transition could be accomplished with little or no reduction in wages, just smaller raises as a bigger slice of any productivity improvement was invested in more free time. When Henry Ford reduced the work week from 6 to 5 days in 1926, he did not cut wages; he assumed that both productivity and consumption would rise, and his example encouraged other employers to follow suit.

I am not talking about reducing hours for those of us who want to spend long hours at work because we enjoy it. We would still be free to work 24/7, tied to our electronic devices, and no longer knowing exactly when work begins and ends. A new hours standard would primarily affect hourly (nonexempt) employees. These are the people in the less glamourous jobs at the bottom of the ladder, many of them single parents. Right now they finish work exhausted only to come home to a “second shift” that may be equally exhausting. A reduction in the standard workweek would almost certainly improve the quality of life for these hard-pressed and overworked Americans.

By all means, let’s enact a paid leave policy, but let’s also debate some even bigger ideas – ones that could lead to greater work-life balance now, and more job opportunities in the longer run.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared on The Washington Post's In Theory Blog.