The political economy of international private insurance and fiscal policy.

We consider a two-country model in which international risk-sharing is beneficial. Even though complete contingent markets exist to trade private wealth, the fact that fiscal policy voting decisions have an impact on contingent wealth prices implies that government spending will be inflated in good states and deflated in bad ones, with the following general implications: (i) Prices of contingent wealth are distorted; (ii) Volatility of public spending increases; (iii) Incomplete insurance arises. An example shows that apart from the increase in the volatility of public spending, it is also possible that average spending increases in both countries. These distortions are shown to be stronger the more similar the two countries are in ex ante terms . We compare the decentralized system with a fiscal union contrasting eqUilibrium properties in terms of government spending and allocation of risk.Private international insurance; Market; Fiscal Union; Decentralized fiscal policy; Risksharing;

Inflation in open economies with complete markets

This paper uses an overlapping generations model to analyze monetary policy in a two-country model with asymetric shocks. Agents insure against risk through the exchange of a complete set of real securities. Each central bank is able to commit to the contingent monetary policy rule that maximizes domestic welfare. In an attempt to improve their country's terms of trade of securities, central banks may choose to commit to costly inflation in favorable states of nature. In equilibrium the effects on the terms of trade wash out, leaving both countries worse off. Countries facing asymmetric shocks may therefore gain from monetary cooperation

The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions : technical results.

This paper introduces a novel methodology for comparing the citation distributions of research units of a certain size working in the same homogeneous field. Given a critical citation level (CCL), we suggest using two real valued indicators to describe the shape of any distribution: a high-impact and a low-impact measure defined over the set of articles with citations above or below the CCL. The key to this methodology is the identification of a citation distribution with an income distribution. Once this step is taken, it is easy to realize that the measurement of low-impact coincides with the measurement of economic poverty. In turn, it is equally natural to identify the measurement of high-impact with the measurement of a certain notion of economic affluence. On the other hand, it is seen that the ranking of citation distributions according to a family of low-impact measures is essentially characterized by a number of desirable axioms. Appropriately redefined, these same axioms lead to the selection of an equally convenient class of decomposable high-impact measures. These two families are shown to satisfy other interesting properties that make them potentially useful in empirical applications, including the comparison of research units working in different fieldsResearch performance; Citation distribution; Poverty measurement; Impact indicators;

Average-based versus high-and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of scientific distributions

Albarran et al. (2011a) introduced a novel methodology for the evaluation of citation distributions consisting of a pair of high- and a low-impact measures defined over the set of articles with citations below or above a critical citation level CCL. Albarran et al. (2011b) presented the first empirical applications to a situation in which the world citation distribution in 22 scientific fields is partitioned into three geographical areas: the U.S., the European Union, and the rest of the world. In this paper, we compare our results with those obtained with average-based indicators. For reasonable CCLs, such as the 80th percentile of the world citation distribution in each field, the cardinal differences between the results obtained with our high-impact index and the mean citation rate are of a large order of magnitude. When, in addition, the percentage in the top 5% of most cited articles or the percentage of uncited articles are used, there are still important quantitative differences with respect to the high- and low-impact indicators advocated in our approach when the CCL is fixed at the 80th or the 95th percentile.

The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions: technical results

This paper introduces a novel methodology for comparing the citation distributions of research units working in the same homogeneous field. Given a critical citation level (CCL), we suggest using two real valued indicators to describe the shape of any distribution: a highimpact and a low-impact measure defined over the set of articles with citations above or below the CCL. The key to this methodology is the identification of a citation distribution with an income distribution. Once this step is taken, it is easy to realize that the measurement of lowimpact coincides with the measurement of economic poverty. In turn, it is equally natural to identify the measurement of high-impact with the measurement of a certain notion of economic affluence. On the other hand, it is seen that the ranking of citation distributions according to a family of low-impact measures, originally suggested by Foster et al. (1984) for the measurement of economic poverty, is essentially characterized by a number of desirable axioms. Appropriately redefined, these same axioms lead to the selection of an equally convenient class of decomposable high-impact measures. These two families are shown to satisfy other interesting properties that make them potentially useful in empirical applications, including the comparison of research units working in different fields.

High- and low-impact citation measures : empirical applications.

This paper contains the first empirical applications of a novel methodology for comparing the citation distributions of research units working in the same homogeneous field. The paper considers a situation in which the world citation distribution in 22 scientific fields is partitioned into three geographical areas: the U.S., the European Union (EU), and the rest of the world (RW). Given a critical citation level (CCL), we suggest using two real valued indicators to describe the shape of each area’s distribution: a high- and a low-impact measure defined over the set of articles with citations below or above the CCL. It is found that, when the CCL is fixed at the 80th percentile of the world citation distribution, the U.S. performs dramatically better than the EU and the RW according to both indicators in all scientific fields. This superiority generally increases as we move from the incidence to the intensity and the citation inequality aspects of the phenomena in question. Surprisingly, changes observed when the CCL is increased from the 80th to the 95th percentile are of a relatively small order of magnitude. Finally, it is found that international co-authorship increases the high-impact and reduces the low-impact level in the three geographical areas. This is especially the case for the EU and the RW when they cooperate with the U.S.Research evaluation; Citation distribution; Scientific ranking; Impact indicators;

High - and low-impact citation measures: empirical applications

This paper contains the first empirical applications of a novel methodology for comparing the citation distributions of research units working in the same homogeneous field. The paper considers a situation in which the world citation distribution in 22 scientific fields is partitioned into three geographical areas: the U.S., the European Union (EU), and the rest of the world (RW). Given a critical citation level (CCL), we suggest using two real valued indicators to describe the shape of each area’s distribution: a high- and a low-impact measure defined over the set of articles with citations below or above the CCL. It is found that, when the CCL is fixed at the 80th percentile of the world citation distribution, the U.S. performs dramatically better than the EU and the RW according to both indicators in all scientific fields. This superiority generally increases as we move from the incidence to the intensity and the citation inequality aspects of the phenomena in question. Surprisingly, changes observed when the CCL is increased from the 80th to the 95th percentile are of a relatively small order of magnitude. Finally, it is found that international co-authorship increases the high-impact and reduces the low-impact level in the three geographical areas. This is especially the case for the EU and the RW when they cooperate with the U.S.