Is state fiscal policy asymmetric over the business cycle?

A number of stabilizers are thought to mute the business cycle. One key stabilizer is federal fiscal policy. The federal budget surplus tends to rise during economic booms and fall in downturns, helping to stabilize consumers’ disposable income and thereby mitigate economic fluctuations. During booms, for example, the budget surplus typically rises because tax revenues rise more than expenditures.> Another stabilizer that has traditionally received less attention is state fiscal policy. Like the federal budget surplus, state government surpluses tend to rise during economic expansions and decline during downturns. Moreover, like the federal budget, state budgets represent large shares of the economy. The stabilizing influence of state fiscal policy, however, may differ across business cycle expansions and downturns – making state fiscal policy asymmetric. For example, state budgets could be more effective at mitigating economic slumps than at muting booms if taxes fall more sharply during a slump than they rise in an expansion of equal magnitude. Asymmetry in fiscal policy could be caused by a number of factors, such as balanced budget rules, which are constitutionally imposed restrictions on a state government’s ability to incur debt.> Sorensen and Yosha examine the business cycle behavior of state fiscal policy to determine whether policy is asymmetric and, if so, to identify the causes. They conclude that state revenue and expenditure display significant asymmetry over the business cycle, with nearly offsetting effects on the budget surplus. As a result, state fiscal policy tends to mute economic booms to roughly the same degree it mitigates slowdowns. The asymmetries in revenue and expenditure appear to be associated with balanced budget rules, although their fundamental causes cannot be clearly identified.Fiscal policy ; Business cycles

Is risk sharing in the United States a regional phenomenon?

Regions within the United States routinely experience economic fluctuations that differ from those of other regions. For example, in the past few years, falling wheat prices have slowed growth in the value of total output in Kansas. Such developments can pose concerns for policymakers because macroeconomic tools like monetary policy affect all regions, not just specific regions. Fortunately, several mechanisms help insulate regional income and consumption from region-specific output fluctuations. Diversification of asset ownership across regions, made possible by national capital markets, smoothes regional income and, in turn, consumption. The federal tax system also helps protect regional income and consumption from region- specific changes in output. Finally, adjustments to saving further insulate consumption from variation in output. In effect, each of these mechanisms mitigates the effect of region-specific economic fluctuations by pooling risks across regions--by providing risk sharing.> Although earlier research has documented the pattern of risk sharing for the United States as a whole, patterns may differ across broad regions of the nation. Eastern states, for example, may benefit more from income smoothing through capital markets due to their proximity to Wall Street. Moreover, geographic distance may affect whether and how risk is shared. For instance, it may be easier for Kansas residents to own property, such as a farm or hotel, in Colorado than in Massachusetts. Similarly, business owners in Kansas are more likely to obtain loans in Missouri than in New York. In this case, geography may affect the ability of risk sharing to mitigate region-specific fluctuations in output. Because geography matters, this article examines whether risk sharing occurs more in some regions than in others and whether risk sharing is greater within large regions of the United States than between regions.> Sorensen and Yosha present the conceptual framework of risk sharing and develop a method for estimating the amount of risk sharing provided by different mechanisms. They report estimates of risk sharing patterns within and across a set of large U.S. regions. These estimates reveal some important regional differences. Moreover, the estimates indicate there is more overall risk sharing within regions than between regions. The risk sharing provided by capital markets and the federal tax system is essentially the same within and across regions, implying that these are nationwide mechanisms. In contrast, risk sharing through saving adjustments is more local, occurring just within regions.Risk

CausaLM: Causal Model Explanation Through Counterfactual Language Models

Understanding predictions made by deep neural networks is notoriously difficult, but also crucial to their dissemination. As all ML-based methods, they are as good as their training data, and can also capture unwanted biases. While there are tools that can help understand whether such biases exist, they do not distinguish between correlation and causation, and might be ill-suited for text-based models and for reasoning about high level language concepts. A key problem of estimating the causal effect of a concept of interest on a given model is that this estimation requires the generation of counterfactual examples, which is challenging with existing generation technology. To bridge that gap, we propose CausaLM, a framework for producing causal model explanations using counterfactual language representation models. Our approach is based on fine-tuning of deep contextualized embedding models with auxiliary adversarial tasks derived from the causal graph of the problem. Concretely, we show that by carefully choosing auxiliary adversarial pre-training tasks, language representation models such as BERT can effectively learn a counterfactual representation for a given concept of interest, and be used to estimate its true causal effect on model performance. A byproduct of our method is a language representation model that is unaffected by the tested concept, which can be useful in mitigating unwanted bias ingrained in the data.Comment: Our code and data are available at: https://amirfeder.github.io/CausaLM/ Under review for the Computational Linguistics journa

Why Does Capital Flow to Rich States?

The magnitude and the direction of net international capital flows does not fit neo-classical models. The 50 U.S. states comprise an integrated capital market with very low barriers to capital flows, which makes them an ideal testing ground for neoclassical models. We develop a simple frictionless open economy model with perfectly diversified ownership of capital and find that capital flows between the U.S. states are consistent with the model. Therefore, the small size and "wrong" direction of net international capital flows are likely due to frictions associated with national borders and not due to inherent flaws in the neoclassical model.

Asymmetric Shocks and Risk Sharing in a Monetary Union: Updated Evidence and Policy Implications for Europe

We find that risk sharing in the European Union (EU) has been increasing over the past decade due to increased cross-ownership of assets across countries. Industrial special- ization has also been increasing over the last decade and we conjecture that risk sharing plays an important causal effect by allowing countries to specialize without being subject to higher income risk even though the variability of output may increase. We believe that lower trade barriers may not have played a dominant causal role during this decade be- cause the effect of lower trade barriers has probably already played itself out. We further find that the asymmetry of GDP fluctuations in the EU has declined steeply over the last two decades. This may be due to economic policies becoming more similar as countries were adjusting fiscal policy in order to meet the Maastricht criteria, but a similar result was found for U.S. states so the finding may be due to a different nature of the shocks to the world economy in the 1990s. We expect to see a further rise in risk sharing between EU countries, accompanied by more specialization. However, the resulting increase in GDP asymmetry should be minor and will have small welfare costs because increased risk sharing should lower income (GNP) asymmetry.financial integration, regional specialization, international portfolio diversification, income insurance

第２章 Limitations on childcare due to the ideologies of motherhood and An Ettingerian Turn

2019年度 - 2022年度 科学研究費・国際共同研究加速基金(国際共同研究強化(B))「子育ての現象学：フィンランド・ネウボラをフィールドに」研究成果報告書課題番号 : 19KK0003研究代表者 : 浜渦 辰二（大阪大学・上智大学）Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Bilateral Programs By Japan Society for the Promotion of Science“Phenomenology of Child Care – Neuvola in Finland as Field –