develop a thesis topic.
The goal is to convince your stakeholders (parent, teachers, future employers) that you have learned a substantial amount of economics, although the gain is more yours than theirs.
The University of Michigan gives some pointers, the most important is that you have to do some hard reading. Long, wide, and even deep. See also the format of a student essay contest.
So, there, for the Christmas break, take some time to smell the academic coffee. Read. Do it at Starbucks. At Jollibee. On the web. But don’t strain your eyes.
For EC42 students:
Just a link for now.
In this site, you can read prize-winning student essays. I’m guessing that the winners are essay-form versions of student dissertations.
You may get an idea on how to structure a topic and proposal for your own thesis from reading and learning from the student essays.
Watch this clip, and be prepared for a quiz on September 22, 2016.
For class quiz next week, Sept. 15.
Please read the summary treatment in Schaum’s Outline on the Successive-Derivative Test for Optimization (4.6 on pp. 61-62).
Please also read the material on total, average, and marginal concepts in Schaum’s Outline (4.7-4.9 on pp. 62-64).
The quiz will include problem sets relating to the above. Solved problems are illustrated in Schaum’s Outline (4.6-4.23 on pp. 67-79).
This is a good summary of the Pigou vs. Coase debate on externalities. I have one comment: That the author should have brought Hayek into the picture. After all, the piece was published in 1996. What follows is a kind of executive summary.
Demsetz sees the debate on externality as one between two ideals: An ideal state (with perfect information) and an ideal market (also with perfect information and zero transaction cost). Taken to the limit, both models do not generally produce identical solutions. It is well known that the initial distribution of wealth and income affects market outcomes. Change that distribution and the economy rests somewhere else. With Pigovian state intervention, one also needs to factor in the initial distribution of wealth and income as a determinant of political process. Still, it is reasonable to imagine that both models arrive at the same end-point if they started with the same initial conditions.
Demsetz then concludes, based only on theoretical considerations, that the choice between the two models is one determined by preferences for freedom and the final (and/or initial) distribution of incomes and wealth.
Once we depart from the ideal to actual governments and markets, the choice between the two solutions would then have to take into account how much information there is (available) in the competing models, and how well they would reduce transaction cost. Here, Hayek would pronounce in favor of Coase, if only because Hayek believes that the market is more capable of ‘discovering’ such phenomena as efficient technologies and consumer preferences. Transaction cost can be seen as another form of externality, so we start to run the risk of arriving at a proverbial slippery slope.
Nonetheless, Demsetz is essentially right. Transaction cost is not at the kernel of Coase; and neither did Pigou ignore transaction cost. What was being debated was who should have the property rights to the externality, a question that economists usually avoid but one that Coase faced head on.
A recent Pew Research Center piece has data on income inequality for various countries and the world.
The distribution of income in PH is as follows for 2011: 14% poor; 72% low-income; 14% middle to upper middle; and 0.2% high-income.
The global percentages are: 15% poor; 56% low-income; 22% middle to upper middle; and 7% high-income.
What might be concluded? We aren’t exactly poor, but we are predominantly low-income. That means the middle and high income groups are a minority of only 14%.
The economic challenge to those who claim they have a better mousetrap is whether they can reduce the low-income group to the global average of about 50%, raise the middle group to 30+%, while lowering the poor to 10% or below. Doable, but not easy, over the next decade.