Expanding Medicaid may also help to improve the coverage ofObamacare’s health insurance exchanges

An important part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act was the expansion of Medicaid – something which 30 states have taken up. In new research, Jeffrey Clemens finds that not only does expanding Medicaid benefit those who gain coverage; it may also help to improve the performance of Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. Since those eligible for Medicaid tend to have higher than average health expenses than most on the exchanges, drawing these individuals out of the exchanges means lower premiums for those that use them, making them less likely to opt-out

Capping the Mortgage Interest Deduction

In this paper we examine the economic implications of several policy options for capping the mortgage interest deduction (MID). We extend the standard user–cost model of owner–occupied housing to include a cap on the mortgage size receiving tax–favored status. Our user–cost estimates for taxpayers with mortgages above the current–law cap are 4.41 percent higher than estimates from a model without the cap. We simulate the share of mortgage dollars that would be subject to three alternative cap policy variants and summarize the distributional impacts of each proposal, computing the share of mortgage dollars impacted across U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Closed Jaguar, Open Dragon: Comparing Tariffs in Latin America and Asia before World War II

Despite an enormous literature that has analyzed the comparative experiences of Latin America and Asia in post-World War II trade policy, almost no attention has been paid to the comparative experience prior to the wars. Even a cursory look at the best available empirical evidence reveals tremendous contrasts between the two regions. Latin America had the highest tariff barriers on earth before 1914; Asia had the lowest. Protected Latin America's belle ‚poque also boasted some of the most explosive growth performance on earth, while Asia registered some of the worst. What brought the two regions to the opposite ends of the tariff policy spectrum? And why are these quantum differences in economic performance so at odds with postwar conventional wisdom? We begin by describing a novel tariff database we have constructed from largely original sources. We explore the impact of colonial rule and unequal treaties' on Asian tariffs, as well as the impact of geography and political economy on Latin American tariffs. Limits to tariff policy autonomy explain one third of the vast difference between the two regions' tariffs before 1914; differences in the extent and structure of internal markets as well as the world tariff environment explain much of the rest. We conclude with an agenda for the future.

Where did British Foreign Capital Go? Fundamentals, Failures and the Lucas Paradox: 1870-1913

A decade has passed since Robert Lucas asked why capital does not flow from rich to poor countries. Lucas used a contemporary example to illustrate his Paradox, the very modest flow of capital from the United States to India during the second great global capital market boom, after 1970. Had he paid more attention to the first great global capital market boom, after 1870, he might have been less surprised. Very little of British capital exports went to poor, labor-abundant countries. Indeed, about two-thirds of it went to the labor-scarce New World where only a tenth of the world's population lived, and only about a quarter of it went to labor-abundant Asia and Africa where almost two-thirds of the world's population lived. Why? Was it caused by some international market failure, or was it due to some shortfall in underlying economic, demographic or geographic fundamentals that made capital's productivity low in poor countries? This paper constructs a panel data set for 34 countries who as a group got 92 percent of British capital, and uses it to conclude that international capital market failure (including whether the country was on or off the Gold Standard) was not involved. It then ranks the three big fundamentals that mattered schooling, natural resources and demography.

A Tariff-Growth Paradox? Protection's Impact the World Around 1875-1997

This paper uses a new database to establish two findings covering the first globalization boom before World War I, the second since World War II, and the autarkic interlude in between. First, there is strong evidence supporting a Tariff-Growth Paradox: protection was associated with fast growth before World War II, while it was associated with slow growth thereafter. Second, there is strong evidence supporting regional asymmetry: while the tariff-growth association was powerful and positive in the Core and rich New World before World War II, it was typically weak and negative in the poor Periphery. The paper offers explanations for the Paradox by controlling for a changing world economic environment. It shows how the oft-quoted Sachs-Warner results for 1970-1989 are significantly revised when one controls for trading partners' growth, trading partners' tariffs and the effective distance between them over the longer half-century 1950-1997. Falling partners' tariffs was the most important force accounting for the switch in sign on the tariff-growth connection after 1950. An increase in own tariffs after 1950 hurt growth, but it would not have hurt growth in a world where partners' tariffs were much higher, trading partners' growth much slower, and the world less closely connected by transportation. World environment matters. Leader-country reaction to big world events (like the Great Depression) matter. Followers take notice.

Who Protected and Why? Tariffs the World Around 1870-1938

This paper uses a new database to establish a set of tariff facts that have not been well appreciated: tariff rates in Latin America were far higher than anywhere else in the century before the Great Depression; while lower than Latin America, tariffs were far higher in the European periphery and the Englishspeaking new world than they were in the European core; tariff rates rose everywhere in the periphery up to 1900, and then moderated a bit up to WWI; and the great anti-global leap during the 1930s in Latin American and the European periphery was not new policy territory since these two regions had plenty of previous experience with very high tariffs. These world tariff facts need an explanation, especially since economic historians have pretty much ignored them while devoting so much attention to Europe. As we search for the explanations, we find that modern endogenous tariff theory isn’t quite up to the task. The paper uses this world wide sample of 35 countries as a panel to explore competing hypotheses as to what drove policy in the century before WWII: revenue motivation; optimal tariffs; strategic tariffs; deindustrialization fears; Stolper-Samueson forces; and many more. The world environment mattered. Trading partners mattered. Domestic geography, factor endowments, institutions and politics mattered.

Medicare’s payments system affects the whole US healthcare sector

The cost of bargaining and billing leads private players, usually much smaller, to use Medicare's model, write Jeffrey Clemens and Joshua Gottlie

Minimum Wage Hikes Bring Tradeoffs beyond Pay and Jobs

In public debate, the pros and cons of the minimum wage are frequently boiled down to simple tradeoff between earnings gains and job losses. This chapter argues that an exclusive focus on tradeoffs between earnings gains and job losses is too narrow, as firms can make myriad adjustments to blunt the minimum wage’s impact on their costs. These adjustments can often be described as entailing reductions in the quality of the job from a worker’s perspective. It is thus crucial to appreciate that these adjustments will tend to mitigate, if not reverse, the minimum wage’s effect on workers’ well-being. This chapter provides an overview of the relevant concepts alongside examples from recent empirical research

State Fiscal Adjustment During Times of Stress: Possible Causes of the Severity and Composition of Budget Cuts

Efforts to maintain balanced budgets lead to substantial pro-cyclicality in states' capital investments, transfers to local governments, and spending in areas like education and transportation. Reliance on volatile revenue sources predicts relatively severe volatility in these expenditures. States with strict balanced budget requirements must restore fiscal balance faster than those without, leading to rescissions during years in which they face unexpected shocks. I find that these rescissions occur disproportionately in areas with readily deferred projects. Evidence points to the relative strength of public sector union groups as a driver of variation in the composition of mid-year rescissions across states