Many people think that a leave of the UK from the European Union is something like the largest mistake in a lifetime after decades of European integration efforts. Still there is hope that the Brits could correct the decision in a second referendum. After the rejected Brexit deal of Theresa May in the British Parliament, such hopes became stronger.
A recent survey among 1,693 adults in the UK has investigated the options for the situation after a rejection of May’s Brexit deal in the British parliament. The “no-deal”, cold Brexit is expected by 35%, while a “second referendum” ranks only third with 21% behind 23% for “don’t know”. This means that the chances are low. How big is the disaster?
Klaus F. Zimmermannis Professor Emeritus of Bonn University, Honorary Professor of Maastricht University, the Free University of Berlin and Renmin University of China, Beijing. He is Co-Director of POP at UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, and President of the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
Interview
GLO: Are you surprised about the large rejection of the Brexit deal?
Klaus F. Zimmermann: Yes, this is kind of a Kamikaze behavior, untypical for a Parliament at fairly normal times. It has been know that the British MPs are quite critical about the EU, and the UK was never a friend of a political union in Europe. An acceptance of the May deal with the EU would have finalized the move out on March 29, at least on paper. Once out, one could have acted more radical. Now those responsible have to fear that the potentially large damage of a cold Brexit generates a stronger desire for a second referendum.
GLO: What do you expect to happen now, general elections, a new referendum, a cold Brexit, or else?
Klaus F. Zimmermann:Now Theresa May wants to speak with all sides among the MPs. This seems a bit too late. Everybody in the Parliament fears general elections, not even the labor party can be sure to win in such a divided situation. The country is split in two nearly equal blocks with opposite positions. It is not even obvious that a second referendum will bring a strong majority for one side. Hence, my best guess is that the outcome is a cold Brexit. However, I think that this would be really a big problem. With such an important decision with very long-term consequences for the well – being of the people it is not a shame to think twice and to correct a mistake.
GLO: What are the consequences for Europe?
Klaus F. Zimmermann: Never waste a crisis! Europe has better things to do, but forced to adjust there are two potentials: First, in the likely case of a cold Brexit, the damage for the UK will be substantial, and also the remaining EU will suffer. At least Scotland will try to leave the UK and seek to join the EU. This will signal to the 27 member states that it does not pay to leave. Further, it increases the incentives to develop the EU stronger and faster, in particular since the UK was always hesitant about a stronger political and economic integration and can no longer object. Second, if a cold Brexit does not happen because the British MPs fear the consequences, another referendum is likely. It can lead to a “Remain” and start a cultural change in the UK, where the British people better understand the benefits of the larger European Union. The EU could then be more dynamic than it otherwise would have been.
Posted inInterview, Media, Policy|Tagged#Brexit|Comments Off on #Brexit has become a cliffhanger! But both most likely outcomes of the challenge may also bring long-term chances.
Stability in a dramatic phase of instability: Theresa May remains Prime Minister in a parliamentary vote the day after she has experienced “the largest defeat for a sitting government in history” on her Brexit deal with the EU in the British Parliament on Tuesday night (January 15, 2019). The country is deeply divided, the political system looks like a lame duck. What are the consequences for continental Europe?
Some people argue that the Brexit situation and the uncertainty will also harm the countries on the European continent. Martin Kahanec has written many scientific contributions and policy briefs on the European integration and the role of migration in particular from Eastern Europe. His early insights matter a lot at this stage of the Brexit process.
Martin Kahanecis a Professor and Head of the School of Public Policy at the Central European University in Budapest. He is Founder and Scientific Director of CELSI, Bratislava, a Chairperson of the Slovak Economic Association and Fellow of the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
The Interview
KFZ: Are you surprised about the large rejection of the Brexit deal?
Martin Kahanec: The landslide is perhaps a bit surprising, but there are several well-defined groups who had every reason to vote against the Brexit deal. One group are those, mainly from the Labor camp, who oppose May, or saw a “nay” as the only way to have a second referendum, or both. Among those who wish for a second referendum are probably a good number of conservatives, too. The other group is composed of those, primarily conservatives, who consider it a bad deal, not protecting the UK’s interests adequately. And then there is the DUP, who oppose the Northern Ireland backstop. It is hard to imagine a deal that would be accepted by some majority in the House of Commons and by the 27 EU member states as well, and with May investing very little in cross-party consensus building, the “nay” result was to be expected.
KFZ: What do you expect to happen now, general elections, a new referendum, a cold Brexit, or else?
Martin Kahanec: I have no crystal ball. I hope for a new referendum, resulting in the UK remaining in the EU. With Corbyn as a staunch Brexiter at the helm of Labor, one important question is what is needed for him to reflect on the preferences of the majority of his party’s constituency, and turn Labor determinedly in favor of Remain. Whereas postponing Brexit by several months can give some time for what I see as forces of reason to take their effects, I am also afraid that a prolonged agony may further deepen the cleavages and sharpen the tensions in the British society, furthering its polarization, and leaving little space for consensus building. But a cross-party consensus, and strong leadership of the Speaker of the House, are very much needed to avoid a crash-Brexit and explore the options for a new deal or a second, possibly binding referendum.
KFZ: What are the consequences for Europe?
Martin Kahanec: On the one hand, the rejection of the deal is a lifeline for Remain hopes. On the other hand, the ultimate outcome is as unclear as ever. This uncertainty is very unhelpful for the European economy. If the UK leaves the EU, the economic consequences for the EU (and even more so for the UK) will be very much on the negative side. In particular, it will be a major challenge for the eastern member states of the EU. Hundreds of thousands of eastern Europeans work in the UK. Some of them will consider returning to their home countries. As they are primarily young, and have acquired many hard and soft skills in the UK, their return would help the labor markets and public budgets back home. However, they would likely be less productive in their home countries than in the UK, and so their incomes would go down. This and the reduced interstate mobility would also decrease productivity in Europe and hurt its capacity to absorb economic shocks. An abrupt return of large numbers of workers to the sending countries could exceed the capacity of their labor markets, social security and health care systems, and social services to absorb them, creating temporary congestion and resulting in tensions between returnees and their compatriots. The UK will also be hurt: it will lose many thousands of skilled, hard working men and women and talented students from eastern Europe. The UK is also a major trading partner and source of investment for the eastern member states. Brexit would significantly reduce the gains from that trade and investment for both parties.
Martin Kahanec (left) and Klaus F. Zimmermann in front of the Central European University in Budapest
Note:KFZ here is Klaus F. Zimmermann, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and President of the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
Posted inInterview, News, Policy|Tagged#Brexit, #Eastern Europe, #Martin Kahanec, Migration|Comments Off on After the Brexit vote: Martin Kahanec of the Central European University of Budapest analyzes the consequences for the European continent, and Eastern Europe in particular.
28th EBES Conference. May 29-31, 2019 in Coventry, United Kingdom Hosted by the Centre for Financial and Corporate Integrity (CFCI), Coventry University. Supported by the Global Labor Organization (GLO)
Interested researchers are cordially invited to submit abstracts or papers for presentation consideration at the 28th EBES Conference in Coventry. It will take place on May 29th, 30th, and 31st, 2019 atCoventry University in Coventry, United Kingdom. The conference will be organized with the support of the Istanbul Economic Research Association and will be hosted by the Centre for Financial and Corporate Integrity (CFCI) in collaboration with the Coventry Business School Trading Floor. To support the event, the Global Labor Organization (GLO) will organize three invited paper sessions.
Invited Speakers are David B. Audretsch, Marco Vivarelli and Klaus F. Zimmermann.
David B. Audretsch is a Distinguished Professor
at Indiana University, where he also serves as Director of the Institute
for Development Strategies. He is an Honorary Professor of Industrial
Economics and Entrepreneurship at the WHU-Otto Beisheim School of
Management in Germany and a Research Fellow of the CEPR in London. He
has also worked as a consultant to the UN, World Bank, OECD, EU
Commission, and U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Prof. Audretsch’s
research has focused on the links between entrepreneurship, government
policy, innovation, economic development, and global competitiveness. He
is co-author of The Seven Secrets of Germany (Oxford University Press)
along with several other books. He is co-founder and Editor-in-Chief
of Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal and many other
journals. He was awarded the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research
by the Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum (Entreprenörskapsforum). He has
received honorary doctorate degrees from the University of Augsburg in
Germany and Jonköping University in Sweden. Prof. Audretsch was also
awarded the Schumpeter Prize from the University of Wuppertal in
Germany. He has served as an advisory board member to a number of
international research and policy institutes, including Chair of
the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Berlin(German Institute
for Economic Analysis Berlin), Chair of the Stifterverband für die
Deutsche Wissenschaft (Foundation for the Promotion of German Science)
in Berlin, Germany, and the Center for European Economic
Research (Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung) in Mannheim,
Germany etc. He has authored numerous papers which were published in
prestigious journals such as American Economic Review, European Economic
Review, Review of Economics and Statistics, and Journal of
Management and his researches have been cited more than 77,000 (Google
Scholar). He holds a PhD in economics from University of Wisconsin,
Madison in U.S.A.
Marco Vivarelli, Ph.D. in Economics and Ph.D. in Science and Technology Policy, is full professor at the Catholic University of Milano, where he is also Director of the Institute of Economic Policy. He is Professorial Fellow at UNU-MERIT, Maastricht; Research Fellow at IZA, Bonn; Fellow of the Global Labor Organization (GLO). He is member of the Scientific Executive Board of the Eurasia Business and Economics Society (EBES, Istanbul); member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO, Vienna) and has been scientific consultant for the International Labour Office (ILO), World Bank (WB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the European Commission. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Eurasian Business Review, Editor of Small Business Economics, Associate Editor of Industrial and Corporate Change, Associate Editor of Economics E-Journal, member of the Editorial Board of Sustainability and he has served as referee for more than 70 international journals. He is author/editor of various books and his papers have been published in journals such as Cambridge Journal of Economics, Canadian Journal of Economics, Economics Letters, Industrial and Corporate Change, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Journal of Economics, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Journal of Productivity Analysis, Labour Economics, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Regional Studies, Research Policy, Small Business Economics, Southern Economic Journal, World Bank Research Observer, World Development. His current research interests include the relationship between innovation, employment and skills; the labor market and income distribution impacts of globalization; the entry and post-entry performance of newborn firms.
Publication Opportunities: Qualified papers can be
published (after refereeing) in the EBES journals (no submission and
publication fees). EBES journals (Eurasian Business Review and Eurasian
Economic Review) are published by Springer Nature and indexed by SCOPUS,
EBSCO EconLit with Full Text, Google Scholar, ABI/INFORM, ABS Academic
Journal Quality Guide, CNKI, EBSCO Business Source, EBSCO Discovery
Service, EBSCO TOC Premier, Emerging Sources Citation Index (Clarivate
Analytics), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS),
OCLC, ProQuest Business Premium Collection, ProQuest Central, ProQuest
Turkey Database, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Summon by
ProQuest, Cabell’s Directory, and Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory.
Furthermore, qualified papers after review will be recommended to be
considered for publication in regular issues of the Journal of Corporate
Finance after a review process. However, presentation at the EBES
Conference does not guarantee publication in the Journal of Corporate
Finance.
Also all accepted abstracts will be published electronically in
the Conference Program and the Abstract Book (with an ISBN number). It
will be distributed to all conference participants at the conference via
USB. Although submitting full papers are not required, all the
submitted full papers will also be included in the conference
proceedings in the USB. After the conference, participants will also
have the opportunity to send their paper to be published in the
Springer’s series Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics (no
submission and publication fees).
This will also be sent to Clarivate Analytics in order to be reviewed
for coverage in the Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social
Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH). Please note that the 10th, 11th,
12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 19th EBES Conference Proceedings
were accepted for inclusion in the Conference Proceedings Citation Index
– Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH). 18th, 20th and subsequent
conference proceedings are in progress.
Important Dates Abstract Submission Deadline: February 28, 2019 Decision Communicated by: March 8, 2019* Registration Deadline: April 19, 2019 Announcement of the Program: April 30, 2019 Paper Submission Deadline (Optional): April 19, 2019** Paper Submission for the EBES journals: July 31, 2019 * The decision regarding the acceptance/rejection of each abstract/paper will be communicated with the corresponding author within a week of submission. ** Full paper submission is optional. If you want to be considered for the Best Paper Award or your full paper to be included in the conference proceedings in the USB, after submitting your abstract before February 28, 2018, you must also submit your completed (full) paper by April 19, 2019.
Contact: Ugur Can (ebes@ebesweb.org); Ender Demir (demir@ebesweb.org)
A majority of 230 votes in the British Parliament has rejected the Brexit deal of Theresa May with the EUlate evening of Tuesday (January 15, 2019). This has been called by BBC as“the largest defeat for a sitting government in history”.
While some now expect a hard Brexit without a transition phase others push for a second referendum to reverse the Brexit vote. Jonathan Portes is a long-term analyst of the Brexit vote, and has warned early about its dangers. He has published many research articles and policy briefs on the matter. His early insights matter so much about this challenge for the long-term well being of Europe.
Jonathan Portes is Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe, King’s College, London, and Fellow of the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
The Interview
KFZ: Are you surprised about the large rejection of the Brexit deal?
Jonathan Portes:Yes. Few expected quite such a heavy defeat – more than half of Conservative backbenchers rejected it as did almost the entire Parliamentary Labour Party. But the key is that while there was a huge majority against the deal, there is no majority for any particular alternative. Most Conservatives who voted against did so because they prefer No Deal, or think the EU27 will agree under the threat of No Deal to remove the so-called backstop. But most Labour MPs voted against because they want a permanent customs union, Single Market membership, or to remain in the EU.
KFZ: What do you expect to happen now, general elections, a new referendum, a cold Brexit, or else?
Jonathan Portes: Nobody knows. The vote clearly increases the probability of No Deal – it also increases the probability of a second referendum. The key is whether the majority in Parliament that rejects No Deal will be able to decide on a single way forward, whether that’s Single Market membership/the “Norway option” or a second referendum. And that will depend on whether enough Conservative MPs are prepared to defy the strong views of their own membership and the obstinacy of Theresa May, who so far has proved entirely unwilling to seek a cross-party compromise.
KFZ: What are the consequences for Europe?
Jonathan Portes: The EU27 can do little except wait for the UK to sort itself out. There is little point in making minor changes to the deal on the table when the UK is so divided. We simply are not currently in a position to negotiate in a credible way. The sensible thing for the EU to do is to continue to prepare for No Deal, while being prepared to response positively when the UK – perhaps under a different Prime Minister or government – actually demonstrates that there is a Parliamentary majority for a specific way forward, particularly if it involves extending Article 50 to allow a second referendum, a general election, or some other process.
Jonathan Portes
Klaus F. Zimmermann
Note:KFZ here is Klaus F. Zimmermann, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and President of the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
The Brexit deal of Theresa May with the EU was rejected by the UK MPs late evening of Tuesday (January 15, 2019) by a majority of 230 votes. Two hours after the decision, prominent economist Nauro Campus provided us with his first reflections on this.
Nauro Campos, Professor of Economics at Brunel University London, Fellow of the Global Labor Organization (GLO) and Research Professor at ETH-Zürich, is a also the Editor of the influential research journal Comparative Economic Studies.
Nauro Campos
KFZ: Are you surprised about the large rejection of the Brexit deal?
Nauro Campos: The most surprising thing in UK politics this week is how everything (so far) has occurred as predicted. Before the vote, there was certainty about the defeat but questions about its extent. At the lower-end, the estimated margin was about 160 votes (which would already make it a “historic defeat.”) SkyNews I believe held the upper-end with a defeat by about 225 votes. Thus 230 votes would be shocking only to those that don’t follow the debate closely (and it has been such a repetitive, shallow and infuriating debate that there are indeed many good reasons not to follow it.)
KFZ: What do you expect to happen now, general elections, a new referendum, a cold Brexit, or else?
Nauro Campos: I am writing this less than two hours after the result from the vote so, if predictability will rule this week in Westminster (for a change), than the prime minister will win the vote of no confidence tomorrow closing down a main avenue for a general election. Immediately after voting down the piece of legislation that gives May’s government the reason to be, the DUP (and one should soon expect the rest of the Conservative rebels to come along) said that tomorrow they will show themselves confident, instead. Clearly, it doesn’t matter confident in what. This is the stuff of populism and has been so for the last three years. A hard Brexit seems less likely this week but which of the other options may prevail (second referendum, revocation or extension of A50) should be easier to gauge this time on Monday (after the Prime Minister goes back to parliament with details of her proposed Plan B.)
KFZ: What are the consequences for Europe?
Nauro Campos: I guess Europe will continue to do what it has been doing in the last few months regarding Brexit, namely, (1) to wait for Westminster to come to terms with the agreements it signed in December 2017 at the end of phase 1 of the negotiations and (2) continue to prepare for the worse case scenario (a no deal) but confidently showing that it is much better prepared for it than the UK currently is.
Note: KFZ is Klaus F. Zimmermann, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and President of the Global Labor Organization.
Posted inInterview, News, Policy|Tagged#Brexit, #Theresa May|Comments Off on Nauro Campus on the #Brexit disaster of the UK in the British Parliament on January 15, 2019
The Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration within Transilvania University of Brasov, in collaboration with the Institute for Economic Forecasting of the Romanian Academy cordially invites you to submit research papers for presentation and discussions at the third edition of the International Conference„Inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Challenges, measures and solutions” (ISEG 2019). The 2019 event is supported by the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
The conference will be hosted by Transilvania University of Brasov and will be held 31 May-1 June 2019 in the Transilvania University Hall, Street Iuliu Maniu no. 47A, Brasov.
The keynote speakers of the 2019 ISEG
conference are:
Klaus F. Zimmermann, President of the Global Labor
Organization (GLO); Co-Director of POP at UNU-MERIT; Full Professor of Economics
at Bonn University; Honorary Professor, Maastricht University, Free University
of Berlin and Renmin University of China, Beijing.
Filomena Maggino, Full Professor at Sapienza University of Rome;
Editor-in-Chief of Social Indicators Research (Springer); Counsellor – Prime
Minister Office – Italian Government (Conte’s cabinet); Editor-in-Chief of
Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-being Research; Past-President of the
International Society for Quality Of Life Studies; President of the Italian
Association for Quality of Life Studies.
The meeting will be an excellent
opportunity for academics, researchers and doctoral students to present new
research results and to discuss challenging issues on the topics of conference.
The aim of this new series of conferences is to gather research interests and
to stimulate collaborative research around actual macro- and microeconomic
topics (as suggested below).
Topics:
We are inviting submissions of both empirical
and theoretical work that fits into the conference topics. Being a multi- and
interdisciplinary conference, we encourage submission of papers in the following
broad research areas: economics, finance, marketing and management. Examples of
suitable topics:
Economic
growth and convergence perspectives in the European Union: Measurement methods
and new empirical evidence
Public
and Private Finance Sustainability in the Context of Current Economic
Challenges
Issues
and challenges in the Romanian higher education
Challenges
and prospects of economic growth in South Eastern Europe
New
inequalities, multidimensionality and
growth pro-poorness
Business for sustainable development
New
approaches in marketing and management
Submission
Deadline for abstract submission is 1st of March, 2019, and for full paper submission is May 15th, 2019. Authors of accepted abstracts will be informed by the 1st of April, 2019.
Please submit your abstracts and full papers through the conference website!
Publication opportunities
All papers must be written and
presented in English. A blind review process apply to all submissions. During
the conference, one discussant will be assigned to each paper.
Accepted papers will be included
in the conference proceedings volume, which will be sent for being indexed by ISI Proceedings volume (CPCI –
Conference Proceedings Citation Index) under Clarivate Analytics (or former
Thomson Reuters).
Selected papers from the
conference may be subsequently published in one of the following journals, subject
to the agreement and decision of editors:
Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting
Journal of Smart Economic Growth
Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov
Registration
The conference fee is 100 euro
for each paper. The conference fee must be paid until the 26th of
April by bank transfer, according to the indications which will be posted on
the conference website. The fee covers the book of abstracts, the attendance
certificate, as well as the access to all conference sessions, coffee breaks,
lunch and festive dinner.
Best paper award
The “Best Paper Award” is granted to the best paper in the
conference. Junior researchers are particularly encouraged to submit papers.
Updated information about the conference program, the organizing and scientific committees, and other related information will be posted on the conference website: http://unitbv.ro/iseg/
As of January 2019, the Eurasian Economic Review (EAER) has a new Editor-in-Chief, Dorothea Schäfer. EAER is one of the flagship journals of the Eurasia Business and Economics Society (EBES), which partners with the Global Labor Organization (GLO). Under the leadership of Schäfer, the EAER, while focusing on macro analysis and financial markets in general, also seeks to attract high quality research papers in macro labor and on the interrelationships between financial and labor markets. Klaus F. Zimmermann asked Dorothea Schäfer about her plans in a GLO Interview.
GLO: In your new role as Editor-in-Chief, where do you see the focus of the EAER under your leadership?
Dorothea Schäfer: The focus of EAER will be on financial markets and applied macro research. The journal has a broad scope in both focus areas. Finance topics may address such issues as financial systems and regulation, corporate and start-up finance, macro and sustainable finance, finance and innovations, consumer finance, public policies within local, regional, national and international contexts towards financial markets, money and banking and the interface of labor and financial economics. Macro economic research includes topics from monetary economics, labor economics, international economics and development economics, preferably but not exclusively, with a link to finance. Typically, the articles published in EAER highlight the economic, political and societal relevance of research results.
GLO: The challenges for the well-being of the world are not smaller today, than after the Great Recession. What can a journal like the EAER contribute to deal with those challenges?
Dorothea Schäfer: Asian countries were exposed to a deep financial crisis 10 years before the Lehman insolvency and had a long way to go before they recovered. Severe deficiencies in financial markets and financial regulations triggered the Lehman failure and the subsequent Great Recession. Many countries have still not fully recovered and new macro risks from trade wars, Brexit and a general loss of trust have evolved. Financial markets are part of those problems, but will also be part of the solutions. Therefore, understanding financial markets is of ever increasing importance for the well-being of the world. The EAER aims to support building the crucial knowledge by publishing rigorous, high-quality research.
GLO: What kind of papers do you wish to attract for EAER from researcher dealing with human resources issues?
Dorothea Schäfer: Papers dealing with the interaction between labor and financial markets are particularly welcome. But since the Journal has a macro focus in addition to finance articles on labor market issues in general are of interest for the journal.
Short Bio
Dorothea Schäfer, Dr. in Economics and habilitation in Business Economics, Research Director Financial Markets at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Adjunct Professor of Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University (Sweden); Research Fellow of the Center for Relationship Banking and Economics CERBE, Roma, Italy. She is the Editor-in-Chief of the Eurasian Economics Review and a Fellow of the Global Labor Organization (GLO).
Head of various research projects, inter alia, funded by the Leibniz Research Alliance Crises in a Globalised World, the Research Foundation of the German Savings banks, German Science Foundation, the EU Commission, the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung and the Stiftung Geld und Währung; Evaluator/reviewer of research programs/proposals for the German Science Foundation (DFG), EU Commission (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the LOEWE (Initiative for the Development of Scientific and Economic Excellence, State of Hesse).
She has published in Finance Research Letters, European Journal of Finance, Small Business Economics, Journal of Financial Stability, International Journal of Money and Finance, German Economic Review, Economics of Transition, the Journal of Comparative Economics, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics and many other journals. Schäfer gave expert testimonies for the Commission to Review the Financing for the phase-out of nuclear energy in 2015, for the Finance Committee of the German Parliament (Deutsche Bundestag) (2010, 2011, 2012, 2018) and for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Parliamentary Assembly, The Council of Europe (2012). In 2012, she was also advisor to the Sub-Committee “Policy for a Sustainable Political and Economic Governance” (Nachhaltige Ordnungspolitik) of the Enquete Committee of the German Parliament, “Growth – Prosperity – Quality of Life” (Wachstum Wohlstand Lebensqualität).
In 2001 Schäfer and her co-author Franz Hubert received the Best Paper Award of the German Finance Association and 2002 the Best Paper Award of DIW Berlin. Main research interests are: financial and banking markets, systems and regulation, financial crisis, financial constraints, start-up finance and innovation, finance and labor, sovereign debt and Euro Area, gender and financial markets, household finance, green finance, crowd financing. Schäfer ranks in the European Union among the top 6% of researcher according to the RePEc ranking analysis in January 2019.
Posted inInterview, News, Research|Tagged#financial markets and labor, #macro labor|Comments Off on Dorothea Schäfer is the new Editor-in-Chief of the Eurasian Economic Review. Interview with her about her publication perspectives in the area of labor economics.
Authors: Julia Jauer, Thomas Liebig, John P. Martin, Patrick A. Puhani
Abstract
” We estimate whether migration can be an equilibrating force in the labour market by comparing pre- and post-crisis migration movements at the regional level in both Europe and the United States, and their association with asymmetric labour market shocks. Based on fixed-effects regressions using regional panel data, we find that Europe’s migratory response to unemployment shocks was almost identical to that recorded in the United States after the crisis. Our estimates suggest that, if all measured population changes in Europe were due to migration for employment purposes—i.e. an upper-bound estimate—up to about a quarter of the asymmetric labour market shock would be absorbed by migration within a year. However, in Europe and especially in the Eurozone, the reaction to a very large extent stems from migration of recent EU accession country citizens as well as of third-country nationals.”
Read also open access for a short period:
Yoo-Mi Chin & Nicholas Wilson, Disease risk and fertility: evidence from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Journal of Population Economics, 31 (2018), 429–451.
Kuznets Prize Winner 2019. The paper is freely downloadable for a short period. The Award Study shows that a rise in the disease risk increases the total fertility rate and the number of surviving children, a finding which has important policy implications.
“We study the effects of immigration restrictions on the cultural assimilation of second-generation migrants. In our theoretical model, when mobility is free, individuals with a stronger taste for their native culture migrate temporarily. When immigration is restricted, however, these individuals are incentivized to relocate permanently. Permanent emigrants procreate in the destination country and convey their cultural traits to the second generation, who will therefore find assimilation harder. We test this prediction by using the 1973 immigration ban in Germany (Anwerbestopp) as a quasi-experiment. Since the ban only concerned immigrants from countries outside the European Economic Community, they act as a treatment group. According to our estimates, the Anwerbestopp has reduced the cultural assimilation of the second generation. This result demonstrated robustness to several checks. We conclude that restrictive immigration policies may have the unintended consequence of delaying the intergenerational process of cultural assimilation. “
Read further open access for a short period:
Yoo-Mi Chin & Nicholas Wilson, Disease risk and fertility: evidence from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Journal of Population Economics, 31 (2018), 429–451.
Kuznets Prize Winner 2019. The paper is freely downloadable for a short period. The Award Study shows that a rise in the disease risk increases the total fertility rate and the number of surviving children, a finding which has important policy implications.
The Kuznets Prize Paper of the Journal of Population Economics was announced and given at the #ASSA2019 meeting in Atlanta. The Award Study shows that a rise in the disease risk increases the total fertility rate and the number of surviving children, a finding which has important policy implications. In every year, the Prize is selected by the Editors of the Journal among the papers published in the previous year. List of Kuznets Prize winners.
Yoo-Mi Chin & Nicholas Wilson, Disease risk and fertility: evidence from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Journal of Population Economics, 31 (2018), 429–451.
Yoo-Mi Chin
Interview with Author Yoo-Mi Chin, Professor of Economics at Baylor University
GLO: Is a rise of fertility after a disaster not the expected proper Malthusian response?
Yoo-Mi Chin: It is ambiguous whether we can clearly expect a Malthusian response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It is true that population might recover from a positive check like diseases by increasing fertility. But after all, HIV is a sexually transmitted disease, and proliferation of HIV may lower fertility by inducing the use of contraception for safe sex. Further, HIV takes a heavy toll on working age adults. Like we see in the case of Black Death, as large-scale mortality causes labor shortages and subsequent higher wages, more women participate in labor market, which would lead to lower fertility. On the other hand, it is also possible that higher wages generate an income effect on the number of children. A lower life expectancy may increase fertility through lower returns to education and the child quantity-quality trade-off. Given such theoretical ambiguity, we find that an empirical examination of the issue is warranted.
GLO: How is fertility affected by a rise in the disease risk?
Yoo-Mi Chin: We find that a doubling of HIV prevalence increased total fertility rate by approximately 1.37 births and increased surviving children by approximately 0.38 children, using distance to the origin of the pandemic as an instrument for HIV prevalence. Although HIV/AIDS likely has increased child mortality, our findings suggest that the increase in births exceeded the increase in child mortality.
GLO: What are the policy implications?
Yoo-Mi Chin: The rise of the HIV/AIDS pandemic appears to have increased total fertility and the number of surviving children. Although the net effect of the pandemic on GDP per capita needs to be more thoroughly examined in future research, the increases in total fertility and the number of surviving children coupled with high mortality of working age adults could potentially lead to increases in dependency ratios and decreases in GDP per capita. Our results suggest that positive externalities generated by HIV prevention efforts might be larger than previously thought in that they contribute not only to reductions in HIV prevalence but also to reductions in total fertility, which could potentially enhance future welfare. Therefore, more resources for HIV prevention efforts are warranted.
The Story
Yoo-Mi Chin & Nicholas Wilson, Disease risk and fertility: evidence from the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Journal of Population Economics, 31 (2018), 429–451.
Abstract: A fundamental question about human behavior is whether fertility responds to disease risk. The standard economic theory of household fertility decision-making generates ambiguous predictions, and the response has large implications for human welfare. We examine the fertility response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic using national household survey data from 14 sub-Saharan African countries. Instrumental variable (IV) estimates using distance to the origin of the pandemic suggest that HIV/AIDS has increased the total fertility rate (TFR) and the number of surviving children. These results rekindle the debate about the fertility response to disease risk, particularly the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and highlight the question of whether the HIV/AIDS pandemic has reduced GDP per capita.
The Author
Yoo-Mi Chin is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Baylor University with a Ph.D. from Brown University. She is also a Fellow of the Global Labor Organization (GLO). Most of her research focuses on the analysis of domestic violence. She has published her previous work in the Journal of Applied Statistics, the Journal of Health Economics, and World Development, among other outlets. Prior to joining Baylor University, she was an Assistant Professor at the Missouri University of Science & Technology.
YOO-Mi Chin and Editor-in-Chief Klaus F. Zimmermann during the award ceremony in Atlanta
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
