Positivistic models of long-run labor allocation dynamics

We formulate economic laws of long-run labor re-allocation across agriculture, manufacturing, and services based on empirical evidence and derive the implications of these laws for the future (transitional and limit) labor allocation dynamics in developed and developing countries. Our approach for deriving these predictions is positivistic in the sense that we try to derive the direct implications of the laws, i.e. we try to minimize the dependence of our predictions on theoretical/ideological arguments. Due to this fact and because the economic laws are qualitative statements, our modeling approach requires the use of geometrical/axiomatic dynamic modeling techniques, set theory and logic

Positivistic models of long-run labor allocation dynamics

We formulate economic laws of long-run labor re-allocation across agriculture, manufacturing, and services based on empirical evidence and derive the implications of these laws for the future (transitional and limit) labor allocation dynamics in developed and developing countries. Our approach for deriving these predictions is positivistic in the sense that we try to derive the direct implications of the laws, i.e. we try to minimize the dependence of our predictions on theoretical/ideological arguments. Due to this fact and because the economic laws are qualitative statements, our modeling approach requires the use of geometrical/axiomatic dynamic modeling techniques, set theory, and logic

Positivistic models of long-run labor allocation dynamics

We formulate economic laws of long-run labor re-allocation across agriculture, manufacturing, and services based on empirical evidence and derive the implications of these laws for the future (transitional and limit) labor allocation dynamics in developed and developing countries. Our approach for deriving these predictions is positivistic in the sense that we try to derive the direct implications of the laws, i.e. we try to minimize the dependence of our predictions on theoretical/ideological arguments. Due to this fact and because the economic laws are qualitative statements, our modeling approach requires the use of geometrical/axiomatic dynamic modeling techniques, set theory and logic

Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate?

It is widely assumed that legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof are ubiquitous: that in all cases in which opposing views are being debated, one side has the responsibility of proving their claim and if they fail, the opposing view wins by default. We argue that the cases in which one party has the burden of proof are exceptions. In general, participants in reasoned discourse are all required to provide reasons for the claims they make. We distinguish between truth-directed and non-truth-directed discourse, argue that the paradigm contexts in which there are legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof (law and formal debate) are non-truth-directed, and suggest that in truth-directed contexts, except in certain special cases, differential allocation of the burden of proof is not warranted

Randomization does not help much, comparability does

Following Fisher, it is widely believed that randomization "relieves the experimenter from the anxiety of considering innumerable causes by which the data may be disturbed." In particular, it is said to control for known and unknown nuisance factors that may considerably challenge the validity of a result. Looking for quantitative advice, we study a number of straightforward, mathematically simple models. However, they all demonstrate that the optimism with respect to randomization is wishful thinking rather than based on fact. In small to medium-sized samples, random allocation of units to treatments typically yields a considerable imbalance between the groups, i.e., confounding due to randomization is the rule rather than the exception. In the second part of this contribution, we extend the reasoning to a number of traditional arguments for and against randomization. This discussion is rather non-technical, and at times even "foundational" (Frequentist vs. Bayesian). However, its result turns out to be quite similar. While randomization's contribution remains questionable, comparability contributes much to a compelling conclusion. Summing up, classical experimentation based on sound background theory and the systematic construction of exchangeable groups seems to be advisable

Auctioning of EU ETS Phase II allowances: how and why?

The European Directive on the EU ETS allows governments to auction up to 10% of the allowances issued in phase II 2008-2012, without constraints being specified thereafter. This article reviews and extends the long-standing debate about auctioning, in which economists have generally supported and industries opposed a greater use of auctioning. The article clarifies the key issues by reviewing six `traditional' considerations, examines several credible options for auction design, and then proposes some new issues relevant to auctioning. It is concluded that greater auctioning in aggregate need not increase adverse competitiveness impacts, and could in some respects alleviate them, particularly by supporting border-tax adjustments. Auctioning within the 10% limit might also be used to dampen price volatility during 2008-2012 and, in subsequent periods, it offers the prospect of supporting a long-term price signal to aid investor confidence. The former is only possible, however, if Member States are willing to coordinate their decision-making (though not revenue-raising) powers in defining and implementing the intended pricing mechanisms

Just Do It

Racial injustice has always been a problem in the United States. The most salient victims of the Nation\u27s discrimination against racial minorities have included indigenous Indians, Chinese immigrants, Japanese-American citizens, Latinos, and of course blacks. But as the current war on terrorism illustrates, under the right conditions, almost any racial group can come within the scope of America\u27s discriminatory focus. It is common to suppose that that there is a difference between the progressive and the conservative ends of the political spectrum concerning the issue of race. However, those commonly accepted differences pale in comparison to the overriding similarity that exists between progressives and conservatives. Both progressives and conservatives are liberals in the classical sense of the term. And the tenets of liberalism seem destined to preclude us from ever achieving any meaningful level of racial equality in the United States

Are Canadian pension plans disadvantaged by the current structure of portfolio regulation?

We investigate the performance of Canadian pension funds relative to those from the UK and US, in the light of the ongoing quantitative asset restrictions that still apply in Canada, compared with the purer prudent person approach in the UK and US. We find that although Canadian funds often obtain better combinations of return and risk, returns are often less than could be obtained given financial market conditions, as shown by dummy portfolios split evenly between bonds and equities, or diversified into real estate, as well as mean-variance optimal portfolios. In contrast, UK and US funds typically outperform such benchmarks. Combined with criticisms of specific Canadian regulations in the light of finance theory and empirical evidence, the paper makes a case for removal of residual quantitative restrictions in Canada, and their replacement by sole prudent person regulations