Event Information

While the future impact of rising powers such as Brazil, Russia, India and China is uncertain and the shifting political landscape in the Arab world is still playing out, the influence of these emerging nations is a central fact of geopolitics.

Already the global financial crisis, the Copenhagen climate negotiations, and the debate over Iran sanctions have illustrated the potential, the pitfalls, and above all the centrality of the relationship between American power and the influence of these rising actors and developing democracies.

In a new paper, Senior Fellow Bruce Jones, director of the Managing Global Order Project at Brookings, argues the greatest risk lies not in a single peer competitor but in the erosion of cooperation on issues vital to U.S. interests and a stable world order. U.S. power is indispensible for that purpose but not sufficient. No longer the CEO of Free World Inc., the United States is now the largest minority shareholder in Global Order LLC.

On March 15, the Brookings Institution and Foreign Policy magazine hosted the launch of Bruce Jones’s paper "Largest Minority Shareholder in Global Order LLC: The Changing Balance of Influence and U.S. Strategy." Panelists explored the prospects for cooperation on global finance and transnational threats; the need for new investments in global economic and energy diplomacy; and the case for new crisis management tools to help de-escalate inevitable tensions with emerging powers.

Susan Glasser, editor in chief of Foreign Policy, moderated the discussion. After the presentations, panelists took audience questions.

Video

• Relative Shift in U.S. Balance of Power
• Shifting Coalitions of Consensus
• Paradox of Power for U.S.
• U.S. Needs To Get Serious about Development and Energy

Audio

• Shifting Balance of Power: Has the U.S. Become the Largest Minority Shareholder in the Global Order?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20110315_global_order

Editor's note: This blog piece is based on findings from the new book Governance in an Age of Abundance: Experiences from the Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean, which will be launched at a Brookings public event later today. A Spanish version of this post is available on the Inter-American Development Bank's website. 

The myth of Sisyphus represents in Greek mythology a metaphor for pointless and interminable efforts. Sisyphus was condemned by Zeus to push a huge boulder up a steep hill. Every time he was close to reaching the top, the boulder was made to roll back down the hill and to the starting point, so that Sisyphus had to start all over again, in perpetuity.    

This metaphor may sound familiar to countries rich in natural resources. In many of these countries, citizens have hoped for generations that the revenue derived from extractive industries (oil, gas and mining) would translate into concrete benefits. Instead, rents from extractive industries have frequently been misused, either through wasteful state spending or public and private corruption. In many countries, heavy dependence on revenues from extractive industries has produced economic and political distortions. Also, revenues are all too often centralized at the national level, leaving local communities to wonder about the benefits of hosting extractive industries.

Overcoming the ‘Resource Curse’

The good news is that there are countries that have found a way to overcome the so-called "resource curse." In Norway, for example, the revenue deriving from the extractive industries supports a majority of government investment in education and health, as well as the pension system. While many resource-rich states can make the same claim, what makes Norway unusual is that it has been able to do so while minimizing corruption, mitigating economic distortions and ensuring efficiency in government spending at the same time.  

How did Norway do it? A look at the Natural Resources Governance Index (NRGI), developed by the Natural Resource Governance Institute, provides a possible explanation: by strengthening governance in the extractive sector. This implies establishing a robust legal and regulatory framework, agile mechanisms to promote transparency and disseminate information, effective safeguards and rigorous controls, and an overall institutional environment that is business-friendly and conducive to greater accountability in the public sector. And this is not a phenomenon unique to Norway, but it is replicated in other countries with large extractive sectors, such as Australia, Botswana and Canada.

Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean

Latin American and the Caribbean are at a crucial juncture in their effort to strengthen governance in the management of natural resources. On the one hand the above-mentioned NRGI, which measures the quality of extractives governance in 58 resource-rich countries, shows that among the eleven world leaders in quality of extractives governance, more than half are countries from the region (Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago and Peru). This is especially good news if one considers that Latin America and the Caribbean is the main source of metals at a global level, and that it holds the second largest oil reserves in the world. Latin America and the Caribbean are also remarkable because many countries have managed to develop large extractive sectors while at the same time avoiding the secessionist conflicts over extractives that plague resource-rich countries in other regions of the world.

On the other hand, Latin America still has to resolve some important issues. Overall, the region still falls short on rule of law and corruption measures in comparison to OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Social conflicts related to the exploitation of natural resources remain a sensitive issue in the region, especially when extractive industries operate in territories where indigenous communities have a significant interest and presence. Citizen demands regarding the control and mitigation of environmental impacts by governments and corporations are increasing, especially in terms of land use and conservation of water resources and forests. And many Latin Americans are increasingly demanding good governance and transparency in state spending.

Transparency is Key to Improving Governance

The recent IDB book Governance in an Age of Abundance: Experiences from the Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean (IDB, 2014), edited by Juan Cruz Vieyra and Malaika Masson, analyzes these challenges, particularly in light of recent initiatives to strengthen transparency in the governance of natural resources in the region.

The book focuses on two main themes. The first is on how best to improve governance in the extractives sector, especially in a way that promotes inclusive growth and takes into account the concerns of citizens. The key to this is governance mechanisms that include checks and balances to ensure that the needs of local communities are taken into account. The second theme of the book is a focus on evaluating concrete governance proposals, which include improved legislation, licensing arrangements, contracting procedures, and fiscal regimes. Underlying these two themes is a strong argument in favor of strengthened government capacity to produce, use, and disseminate accurate and timely information about the extractive sector.

The book identifies transparency as a key tool to improve the quality of governance in the extractive sector. This is not an easy task, because effective governance of this sector requires states to manage across a complex set of policy domains. Transparency is part of the solution to this problem by making data available to a wider set of stakeholders. This allows for improved coordination inside of government and helps civil society and the private sector to make informed contributions to public policy and hold governments accountable. For example, Colombia, through its Maparegalías initiative, is putting all the information about how money from extractive industry royalties are being spent, community by community, with everything placed online on an interactive map for easy access. But to make the most out of transparency, states need to address shortfalls in human capacity to use newly available data effectively in the public sector. This is particularly true at the sub-national level in many Latin American and Caribbean countries. Ultimately, as transparency improves and governments use data to operate more effectively and efficiently, citizen trust and confidence in the ability of the public sector to manage the wealth produced by extractive industries will improve. 

The findings of the book point towards two key challenges for governments related to designing and implementing transparency initiatives:

1. Governments need to make data more easily available and more accessible to stakeholders. This includes addressing the quality and timeliness of information. It also means improving the ease of use of data, both in terms of the formatting of data and navigability of the platforms that present it.
2. Governments need to be creative about soliciting feedback from stakeholders in the extractive sector. It is not enough to merely present data to the public. Governments should actively seek out input from citizens. This will ultimately mean investing in public and private capacity to analyze available data so that stakeholders can make informed contributions to governance.

These recommendations present the best way for governments in Latin America and the Caribbean to emerge from the paradoxical Sisyphean trap that resource abundance has all too often posed.

The authors are grateful to Pablo Bachelet, Juan Cruz Vieyra, Francesco De Simone and Martin Walter for their comments. 

Event Information

During the past decade, an abundance of wealth in minerals and hydrocarbons in Latin America and the Caribbean has translated into substantial revenues and macroeconomic growth. However, operations in the extractive sector have also led to significant challenges, such as corruption, negative social outcomes and environmental impacts.

On November 4, the Latin America Initiative and Energy Security Initiative at Brookings, with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), hosted a discussion on governance and institutional capacity in the extractive sector in Latin America and the Caribbean, drawing on findings from the publication Transparent Governance in an Age of Abundance: Experiences from the Extractive Industries in Latin America and the Caribbean, published by the IDB. Edited by Malaika Masson and Juan Cruz Vieyra, the book presents transparency as a central element to bolster governance quality and state legitimacy in the context of an increasingly demanding citizenry.

 Join the conversation on Twitter using #LatAmResources

Audio

• Transparent Governance in Latin America’s Extractive Industries

Publicly traded companies in the U.S. provide their shareholders with a voice on who runs the company.  But corporate governance is not like a political democracy where voters usually choose between two candidates.   The company's slate of directors is typically the only one presented to its shareholders who have a limited choice - vote for the company's slate or withhold their votes. 

Recently, however, the director election process has begun to become more democratic. This is happening gradually on an individual company basis under Delaware law, and not by a federal rule applicable to all publicly traded companies. 

In the United States, the traditional rule is that a company's current board nominates its slate of directors for the next annual election.  Then the company foots the bill to prepare and solicit proxies for this slate from all the company's shareholders, typically mailing them ballots.

Although shareholders may nominate their own candidate to be a director, they must bear the entire expense of preparing and distributing proxy materials to all the company's shareholders.  For large publicly traded companies, this expense is so high that it effectively prevents most shareholders from making director nominations (unless someone is waging a proxy fight for control).

In an effort to help even the playing field, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2010 adopted the "proxy access" rule, which would have allowed certain shareholders to nominate less than a majority of a company's directors.  Then these shareholder nominees would have to be included in the company's proxy materials along with its slate of proposed directors.  However, the SEC rule was struck down by the DC Court of Appeals on procedural grounds. 

While the SEC has not proposed a revised proxy access rule, Delaware law now permits companies chartered in that state to adopt a bylaw authorizing shareholder nominations (the charters of most large American companies are registered in Delaware because of its favorable corporate laws).  Thus, Delaware law now provides a mechanism for a large company to allow proxy access under conditions acceptable to that company and its shareholders.

On February 6 of this year, General Electric led the way by adopting a bylaw allowing shareholders to nominate a few directors if these shareholders held at least 3 percent of the company's voting shares for at least three years.  Given the size and prominence of General Electric, it is a signal event – many companies should follow suit.

More broadly, this 3+3 approach of General Electric is being advocated by officials at New York City's

pension plan (NYCers), which holds over $160 billion in assets.   NYCers has submitted "advisory" shareholder resolutions to 75 public companies in which it holds shares.   While these resolutions are not binding on the company, they carry significant weight if approved by a substantial majority of voting shareholders.

In response, Whole Foods has proposed to allow director nominations by shareholders owning at least 9 percent of their shares for at least 5 years.   After a series of complex legal moves, the SEC has declined to permit Whole Foods to exclude the 3+3 proposal because the company is making a different proposal on the same subject.

The SEC's non-decision, together with General Electric's dramatic move, reopens the debate on the pros and cons of proxy access.  Here are some of the key arguments and counterarguments.

• Company officials worry that proxy access will lead to special interest groups hijacking boards for their own purposes.   But shareholder advocates say that the hijacking scenario is unlikely because of the 3 percent ownership threshold and the need to garner over 50 percent of shareholder votes for their nominees.
• Company officials believe that shareholders would be confused if there were more than one set of directors nominated in the same proxy materials. But shareholder advocates can show how proxy materials can be easily understood by clearly separating company and shareholder nominees.
• Shareholder advocates believe that proxy access is likely to increase constructive engagement between company directors and their large institutional shareholders. But company officials are concerned that proxy access will disrupt the election process and lead to dissension among directors.
• Shareholder advocates point out that in countries like Australia and United Kingdom that do have proxy access, it is used sparingly by large shareholders. But company officials emphasize that the U.S. is a much more adversarial society, with more aggressive tactics by activist hedge funds and others.

We cannot resolve these arguments and counterarguments on proxy access in the abstract.

Instead, though actions of companies like General Electric and shareholders like the New York City pension plan, we will be able to examine the actual effects of various methods and conditions for shareholders to nominate directors.  Let’s see what happens on the ground.

In our latest 21st Century Capitalism initiative paper, "What must corporate directors do? Maximizing shareholder value versus creating value through team production," author Margaret M. Blair explores how the share value maximization norm (or the “short-termism” malady) came to dominate, why it is wrong, and why the “team production” approach provides a better basis for governing corporations over the long term.

Blair reviews the legal and economic theories behind the share-value maximization norm, and then lays out a theory of corporate law building on the economics of team production. Blair demonstrates how the team production theory recognizes that creating wealth for society as a whole requires recognizing the importance of all of the participants in a corporate enterprise, and making sure that all share in the expanding pie so that they continue to collaborate to create wealth.

Arguing that the corporate form itself helps solve the team production problem, Blair details five features which distinguish corporations from other organizational forms:

1. Legal personality
2. Limited liability
3. Transferable shares
4. Management under a Board of Directors
5. Indefinite existence

Blair concludes that these five characteristics are all problematic from a principal-agent point of view where shareholders are principals. However, the team production theory makes sense out of these arrangements. This theory provides a rationale for the role of corporate directors consistent with the role that boards of directors historically understood themselves to play: balancing competing interests so the whole organization stays productive.

Downloads

• Download the paper

Capitalism has provided unprecedented wealth and prosperity around the world, but a growing community is raising concerns about whether the promise of the capitalist system to achieve a more shared and durable prosperity can be achieved without systemic changes in the way for-profit corporations are governed and managed. The change in public opinion has become evident among workers, consumers, and investors, as well as through new policies enacted by elected officials of both parties: more than ever before, the public supports businesses that demonstrate positive social change and sustainable development. These new attitudes have begun to take root in corporations themselves, with a growing community of investors, business leaders, and entrepreneurs expressing a fiduciary duty to create value not only for shareholders but for society. However, businesses and investors seeking to harness these opportunities face significant institutional and normative barriers to achieving their goals.

In a new paper, the co-founders of non-profit B Lab, Andrew Kassoy, Bart Houlahan, and Jay Coen Gilbert, write about this overarching culture shift, the importance of and impediments to effective impact governance and impact management to make this shift meaningful and lasting, and how a rapidly growing community of responsible businesses has overcome these barriers, is maximizing its social impact, and is creating pathways for others to follow. The impact and growth of the B Corp movement will be maximized not only through increased adoption by business leaders, but also through the unique roles played by research institutions, the media, policy-makers, investors, and the general public. With enough support, this movement may soon transform shareholder capitalism into stakeholder capitalism, in which businesses can more easily live up to their potential to create a more shared and durable prosperity for all. 

This paper is published as part of the Center for Effective Public Management’s Initiative on 21st Century Capitalism. It is one of more than a dozen papers written by academics and practitioners about the changing role of the corporation and the importance of improving corporate governance. The authors of this paper are the co-founders of B Lab, a nonprofit organization that oversees the certification of B Corporations, and a major subject of this paper. The perspectives put forth in this paper are solely those of the authors, based on their professional expertise in this area.

Downloads

• Download the paper

Event Information

Australia's mandatory Superannuation Guarantee requires its citizens to save at least 9 percent of their income towards retirement. In many Asian nations, economic growth has spurred reexamination of pension systems to meet the needs of rapidly evolving societies. Would a mandatory savings plan be more effective than the current U.S. voluntary system? How have Asian nations have restructured their pension systems to deal with legacy costs? And what can Americans learn from the way Australia uses both employer and employee representatives to shape investment choices?

On September 17, the Retirement Security Project at Brookings and the AARP Public Policy Institute hosted a discussion of what the United States might learn from retirement savings systems in Australia and Asia. Opening speakers included Nick Sherry, who helped shape the Australian system as a cabinet minister and ran a Superannuation fund in the private sector, and Josef Pilger, an advisor on pension reform to both the Malaysian and Hong Kong governments and many industry providers. Steve Utkus, David Harris and Benjamin Harris, retirement experts from both the United States and the United Kingdom, considered how reforms in Australia and Asia can shape the American debate and whether this country should adopt key features from those foreign systems.

Audio

• Retirement Savings in Australia, Asia and Beyond: What are the Lessons for the United States?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20130917_retirement_savings_transcript

Paid leave for parents is likely to be an important issue on the campaign trail this year. Hillary Clinton, positioning herself as the candidate on the side of families, argues for all parents to be paid for 12 weeks of family leave, at two-thirds of their salary up to a (so far unspecified) cap. Donald Trump has not so far ruled it out, simply saying: “We have to keep our country very competitive, so you have to be careful of it.”

Polls routinely show high levels of general support for paid leave across the political spectrum. But there are many nuances here, including how to fund the leave entitlement, how long the leave should be, and whether fathers and mothers ought to get the same treatment.

Some light can be thrown on these questions by an analysis of 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). 

Views differ over the optimum length of leave depending on whether it is for the mother or father, and whether it is paid or unpaid:

But even Republicans are quite supportive, backing almost four months of paid leave for mothers and three months for fathers. So on the face of it, Clinton’s plan should be a vote winner even among moderate Republicans.

There are important implications about gender roles here. Encouraging men to take paid leave is important not only for the quality of family life, but also for gender equality more generally. Attitudes towards the role of fathers are shifting, although the primacy of motherhood remains. Among every ideological group there was greater support for longer maternity than paternity leave. It is worth noting, however, that half the respondents supported equal leave for mothers and fathers; the variation is driven by those in the other half, who drew a distinction by gender.

It turns out that the order in which the question is asked also makes a difference. For half the respondents, the question about maternity leave came before the one on paternity leave. For the other half, the questions were asked in the opposite order. (Because of the design of the survey, respondents could not change their previous answer.) The ordering of the question had an influence on responses:

Among those who gave an answer on paternity leave first, the gap between the preferred length of leave for mothers and fathers was much less. This was especially true for unpaid leave.

When people think about paid parental leave, many may think automatically of a mother, just as they think of a man when asked to picture a “strong leader.” Asking about maternity leave first goes with the traditional cultural grain, and results in more support for mothers compared to fathers. Asking about paternity leave first interrupts the normal gender framing, and narrows the gap.

There has been a slow revolution in attitudes towards the respective roles of mothers and fathers, reflected in the strongly symmetrical attitudes towards maternity and paternity leave in this survey. But there is more work to do. Mothers and fathers both need help balancing paid work and family life. Let’s hope this can be at least one area of agreement between Clinton and Trump.

Politicians and scholars often lament the persistence of poverty across generations. But affluence persists, too. In the U.S. especially, the top of the income distribution is just as “sticky”, in intergenerational terms, as the bottom. The American upper middle class is reproducing itself quite effectively.

Class reproduction is of course driven by a whole range of factors, from parenting and family structure through formal education, informal learning, the use of social networks, and so on. Some are unfair: playing the legacy card in college admissions, securing internships via closed social networks, zoning out lower-income families from our neighborhoods and school catchment areas. (These “opportunity hoarding” mechanisms are the focus of my forthcoming book, Dream Hoarders.)

It is natural and laudable for parents to want their children to prosper. It is also understandable that they’ll use the resources and means at their disposal to try to reduce the chances of their children being downwardly mobile. They are likely to try even harder if the drop looks big, in economic terms.

There is a significant earnings gap between those at the top and those in the middle. But this gap is much bigger in the U.S. than in other nations, and is getting bigger over time:

The cost of falling reflects the particular way in which income inequality has risen in recent years: namely, at the top of the distribution. The relationship between income inequality and intergenerational mobility is a much-disputed one, as regular readers of this blog know well. Overall, the evidence for a “Great Gatsby Curve” is quite weak.

But at the top of the distribution, there could be some incentive effects linking inequality and immobility. As the income gap has widened at the top, the consequences of falling out of the upper middle class have worsened. So the incentives of the upper middle class to keep themselves, and their children, up at the top have strengthened. It looks like a long drop, because it is.

Upper middle class Americans do seem worried. In 2011, while around half of American adults making less than $30,000 per year agreed that “today’s children will lead a better life than their parents,” only 37 percent of those making $75,000 or more were as optimistic.

The greater spending of upper middle class parents on “enrichment activities” is well known; recent evidence suggests the Great Recession did nothing to reduce it. American upper middle class parents are desperate to secure their children a high position on the earnings ladder. This makes sense, given the consequences of downward mobility for their economic fortunes. Inequality incentivizes opportunity hoarding, which reduces social mobility. Time, perhaps, to lower the stakes a little?

After being made aware of their racial biases in referee calls through widespread media exposure, individual National Basketball Association referees became unbiased, suggesting that raising awareness of even subtle forms of racism can bring about meaningful change.

The authors examined a real-world setting—professional sports referees who had big incentives to make unbiased decisions but were still exhibiting significant amounts of racial bias—and found that after learning of their bias via media coverage of a major academic study, their behaviors changed.

The original study, authored by Price and Wolfers and in 2007, looked at nearly two decades of NBA data (1991-2002) and found that personal fouls are more likely to be called against basketball players when they are officiated by an opposite-race refereeing crew than when officiated by an own-race refereeing crew. The results received widespread media attention at the time, with a front-page piece in the New York Times and many other newspapers, extensive coverage on the major news networks, ESPN, talk radio and in the sports media including comments from star players at the time such as LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Charles Barkley, to then-NBA Commissioner David Stern.

The new paper compares the next time period after the first study (2003-2006) to the timeframe immediately after the study was publicized (2007-2010). The authors found the bias continued in the first 3-year period after the study but that no bias was apparent after the widespread publicity of the first study’s findings. The researchers found that the media exposure alone was apparently enough to bring about the attitude change: the NBA reported that it not take any specific action to eliminate referee discrimination, and in fact never spoke to the referees about the study, nor change referee incentives or training.

Abstract

Can raising awareness of racial bias subsequently reduce that bias? We address this question by exploiting the widespread media attention highlighting racial bias among professional basketball referees that occurred in May 2007 following the release of an academic study. Using new data, we confirm that racial bias persisted in the years after the study's original sample, but prior to the media coverage. Subsequent to the media coverage though, the bias completely disappeared. We examine potential mechanisms that may have produced this result and find that the most likely explanation is that upon becoming aware of their biases, individual referees changed their decision-making process. These results suggest that raising awareness of even subtle forms of bias can bring about meaningful change.

Downloads

• Download the full paper

How has the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—signed between the P5+1 and Iran one year ago—played out in practice? Several Brookings scholars, many of whom participated prominently in debates last year surrounding official congressional review, offered their views.

This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at a joint meeting of Congress. His address sparked an intense debate among U.S. and Israeli lawmakers over the protocol issues raised by the invitation to speak, which came from the Republican speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives without consultation with the Obama White House, as well as the substance of the address — a broadside against Obama’s Iran policy — and its timing during the final days of a closely contested Israeli election.

Brookings scholars weighed in on the debate, through blog posts, op-eds and the media. These include:

Fellow Natan Sachs explained why Netanyahu’s speech was so controversial.  "Israelis, by and large, don't like it when their prime minister quarrels with the United States," Sachs told Vox. "For most voters, especially in the core base on the right and I think center right, here's Bibi doing something that opposition leaders cannot do: speak the way he does with his English and this reception from Americans.” Also read Sachs' blog post on the electoral implications of the speech as well as his Haaretz op-ed with recommendations for Israeli and American strategy toward the Iran nuclear talks.

Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Center for Middle East Policy (CMEP) at Brookings, appeared on Charlie Rose following the speech, and said, “I think the speech was very effective, as a speech, particularly at the end when Netanyahu was really playing to his domestic audience and political base more than anyone…I think that’s probably the video clip the Likud will be playing in  ads as the campaign winds down.”

Nonresident Senior Fellow Shibley Telhami looked at poll results examined U.S. public opinion related to Netanyahu’s speech. "Among Democrats, those holding favorable views of the Israeli prime minister declined from 25 percent in November to 16 percent in February, and among Independents from 21 percent to 14 percent. Correspondingly, unfavorable views increased from 22 to 26 percent among Democrats, and from 14 to 21 percent among Independents," he wrote in Foreign Policy.

A New York Times editorial examining Netanyahu's speech discussed American public opinion on the Iran nuclear deal, and cited Telhami’s poll results “show[ing] that a clear majority of Americans — including 61 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Democrats — favor an agreement.” Telhami also organized and moderated the annual Sadat Forum earlier this week, featuring a discussion on the Iranian nuclear issue and the Netanyahu speech with Brookings Distinguished Fellow Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Jessica Matthews, and CMEP Senior Fellow Suzanne Maloney.

According to Ambassador Martin Indyk, who has served as director of the Foreign Policy program and was just named Brookings Executive Vice President, Netanyahu remained against any agreement. “He was pretty clear about his opposition to the deal,” Indyk told Foreign Policy. “I believe he wants to sink it, not modify it.”

Prior to the speech, Robert Einhorn, senior fellow in the Center for 21st Century Intelligence and Security and the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Initiative, wrote an op-ed published in the International New York Times discussing Netanyahu’s angle on the Iran talks. After Netanyahu’s speech, Einhorn appeared on Christiane Amanpour and argued that the deal was “not an ideal deal, but it’s a good deal, and one that’s better than any realistic alternative.” Einhorn, who formerly participated in the negotiations with Iran as a senior State Department official, was quoted in coverage of the speech published in the Washington Post and Politico, among others.

In an op-ed on U.S. News and World Report, Maloney argued that when it comes to a deal with Iran, “The ever-present illusion of a more perfect deal is not worth risking an imperfect, but minimally sufficient, bargain.”

With the prospect of a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 looking increasingly likely and with the caveat that, “as always, Iran’s future behavior is hard to predict because its motives going into the nuclear negotiations are unclear and its decision-making is always opaque,” Senior Fellow Kenneth M. Pollack examined the possible scenarios and offered his thoughts on whether a nuclear deal would likely make Iran more or less aggressive — or neither. 

Bruce Riedel, senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project, wrote about Netanyahu’s address in contrast to Saudi Arabia’s diplomacy. “As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plays center stage at the Congress this week to slam the Iran deal-in-the-making, the Saudis are playing a more subtle game,” Riedel wrote. “Iran is priority number one. It's more than just the nuclear issue.” The pot was also quoted in a Bloomberg News analysis of Gulf reaction to the state of play on Iran.

Last week, William Galston, who holds Brookings' Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies, wrote about the implications of Netanyahu’s speech, warning that “[t]he last thing he should want is a negative reception in the United States that fuels Israeli swing voters’ doubts about his capacity to manage Israel’s most important relationship.” And in his Washington Post column last week, Senior Fellow Robert Kagan argued that “there is no doubt that the precedent being set is a bad one” and regretted that “bringing a foreign leader before Congress to challenge a U.S. president’s policies…will be just another weapon in our bitter partisan struggle.”

And finally, for anyone wanting to see what our scholars were tweeting during Netanyahu’s speech, and reaction afterward, here’s a round-up.

Social Security is the most popular legacy of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Last year almost 60 million Americans received benefits from the program. Payments amounted to over $875 billion, nearly a quarter of all federal spending.  For more than two decades, most discussion of Social Security, at least in Washington, has centered on its funding shortfall. Contributions to the program are not high enough to pay for all benefits scheduled under current law. The Social Security Trust Fund is expected to be depleted around 2030. If Congress does not address the funding problem before reserves are exhausted, monthly payments will have to be cut about one-fifth.

Despite the projected shortfall, Democrats in Congress have begun to argue that Social Security benefits should be expanded rather than cut.  Senators Bernie Sanders and Brian Schatz have offered proposals to boost monthly pensions while at the same time shoring up Social Security finances through tax hikes on high-income Americans. 

That Democratic voters and lawmakers embrace these ideas is not surprising. But opinion polling suggests such reforms also enjoy broad support among self-identified independents and Republicans. For example, 57 percent of Republicans (versus 71 percent of Democrats) favor increasing cost-of-living adjustments in the benefit formula. Forty-eight percent of Republicans (versus 67 percent of Democrats) favor boosting the minimum benefit available to low-wage workers who have contributed for many years to the program.  Seventy-four percent of Republicans (versus 88 percent of Democrats) favor raising taxes in order to protect benefits. These polling numbers were obtained in 2013, but more recent polls show similar opinions. Even if debates among Washington insiders and GOP lawmakers focus on how to trim benefits in order to keep Social Security solvent, poll results suggest Senator Sanders holds views closer to those of the typical voter.

One question for both voters and policymakers is whether the aged population is really the most deserving target for additional government spending.  Much of the discussion of voter disaffection in the current election cycle has focused on the stagnation of middle class incomes and the rise in inequality.  While these represent major problems for families headed by a working-age person, they have not been notably troublesome for the nation’s elderly.  The incomes of the elderly, unlike those of the nonelderly, have increased steadily over the past three or four decades.  For low- and middle-income retirees, incomes have clearly improved. The same cannot be said for the incomes of low- and middle-income working-age families. Income inequality among the elderly has increased, to be sure, but much more slowly than among working-age families.

In new research with my colleagues Barry Bosworth and Kan Zhang, I have examined trends in real incomes and inequality among the nation’s elderly and compared them with the same trends in working-age families. We show that inequality has increased among both the elderly and nonelderly, but it has increased much faster among families headed by prime-age and younger adults than among families headed by someone past age 62.  More to the point, real money incomes have increased much faster among middle- and low-income aged families compared with middle- and low-income working-age families. 

Our estimates of the annual rate of change in real money income are displayed in the chart below. The changes are estimated over the period from 1979 to 2012 based on data reported in the Census Bureau’s annual income survey. The top panel shows changes in families with a head who is less than 62. The bottom panel shows changes in families with a head older than 62.  Each bar shows the annual rate of change in real income at the indicated position of the income distribution, either for nonaged families (in the top panel) or for aged families (in the bottom panel).  At the top of the two income distributions—that is, at the 98^th income percentile—real income gains are virtually the same in the two groups.  Further down the income ladder, the income gains differ noticeably, with bigger differences the further down we go.  Middle- and low-income working-age families have clearly fared much worse than families with an equivalent position in the old-age income distribution.

Estimates of income growth based solely on pre-tax cash incomes, such as the ones in the chart, almost certainly understate the improvement families have seen in their living standards, as I have argued elsewhere (here and here).  However, the understatement is bigger in the case of elderly and low-income Americans than it is for the nonelderly and affluent.  If we adjust family incomes to reflect the taxes families owe and the monetary value of their noncash benefits, the relative improvement in the standard of living of older Americans is even greater than is shown in the chart. Under almost any plausible income definition, the elderly have fared better than the nonelderly, especially at the bottom of the income distribution.

The income statistics do not prove the policy reforms urged by Congressional Democrats are unneeded or undesirable. Their proposals spring from an accurate reading of a long-term trend toward less pension coverage — ironically, a trend that has mainly affected working-age adults.  Whereas workers in the 1950s through the 1970s enjoyed continuous improvement in their access to employer-provided retirement benefits, the improvement ceased after 1980. Since that time, private-sector workers have seen reductions in the coverage and generosity of their employer-sponsored pensions. If the private sector voluntarily provides less retirement protection, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the government to provide more.

A crucial reason the nation’s elderly population fared better compared with the nonelderly after 1980 is that Social Security and Medicare provided them government protection that was far more generous (and more costly to taxpayers) than the protection available to working-age adults and their youngsters. The gap was especially glaring in the case of families headed by low-wage breadwinners, who have suffered sizeable reductions in pay and employment opportunities. In the years since 1980, their losses have been only modestly compensated through changes in the tax code and expansions of public health insurance.

Changes in the labor market make it important to protect future retirement benefits provided through Social Security. The same labor market developments make it even more urgent to expand the employment opportunities and improve the protections and work supports offered to working-age breadwinners.  In 2016, the weakening of future income protection for the aged is mostly theoretical. In contrast, the sinking fortunes of less skilled working-age adults are anything but theoretical. They are plain to anyone who can read Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. If taxpayers can identify additional resources to pay for major new initiatives, my vote is for programs that improve the prospects of struggling wage earners. The equity arguments for such an initiative seem to me more persuasive than the case for an across-the-board benefit hike targeted on retirees.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Real Clear Markets. 

Event Information

With keynote addresses by Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell and Counselor to the Treasury Secretary Antonio Weiss

Bond markets are the principal source of credit for businesses and governments in the United States, with almost $40 trillion of outstanding debt. They are also the main mode of investment for pension funds, mutual funds, and many other investors, which is why the safety and efficiency of these markets is, therefore, crucial.

On August 3, the Economic Studies program at Brookings hosted a number of experts to discuss the structure of bond markets in the U.S. and how changes over the last few years are affecting market liquidity, volatility, and overall safety and efficiency. Keynote addresses by Governor Jerome Powell and Counselor Antonio Weiss focused on the Treasury bond market with a panel of experts examining corporate bond markets.

After each session, the speakers and panelists took audience questions.

Antonio Weiss with Jerome Powell and Douglas Elliott (l-r)

Martin Baily with Kashif Riaz, Annette Nazareth, Steve Zamsky and Dennis Kelleher (r-l)

Video

• Keynote Addresses on the U.S. Treasury Markets
• Panel on the Corporate Bond Markets

Audio

• Are there structural issues in U.S. bond markets?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20150803_bond_markets_transcript
• 20150803_liquidity_kelleher_presentation