- On Capitol Hill
- On Wall Street
- In the Press
- Policy Reform Work
Our projects are designed to empower policy makers to create positive change. With a focus on collaboration and outreach, we provide original, standards-based research on key policy issues.
SCEPA joined with the Economic Policy Institute on Capitol Hill to brief congressional staff and policy experts on tax expenditures, or incentives given through the tax code without scrutiny by Congress.
SCEPA economists are working on the prospects for a more progressive economic order to emerge from the shock of the recession. They have published papers and documents that place current events in a longer-term context as well as policy proposals to deal with short-term concerns. They are also documenting the emerging discussion of how the discipline of economics is reacting to the Great Recession and the questioning of conventional economic analysis.
Lance Taylor, a SCEPA Faculty Fellow, presents an overview of his new book, Maynard’s Revenge, in a Google Tech Talk.
The book, published this November by Harvard University Press, is a timely analysis of mainstream macroeconomics, posing the need for a more useful and realistic economic analysis that can provide a better understanding of the ongoing global financial and economic crisis.
The government spends $143 billion through tax breaks in an effort to expand pension coverage and security. Yet, over half of the American workforce does not have a pension. Retirement insecurity hurts business plans, workers’ lives and retiree well-being. Reform is needed.
SCEPA’s Guaranteeing Retirement Income Project, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and in collaboration with Demos and the Economic Policy Institute, has a plan to guarantee safe and secure retirement income for all Americans.
Teresa Ghilarducci and Adam Hayes published a SCEPA policy note titled, "401(k) Tax Policy Creates Inequality." Though well-intentioned, the current system of tax deferral for retirement contributions undermines public policy aimed at strengthening retirement security for all Americans. In fact, it has become a regressive policy that contributes to wealth inequality.
This policy notes illustrates how two employees who are identical savers and investors in every way except for income receive different rates of return due only to the effects of the tax code. Converting the current system of tax deductions for defined contribution retirement plans to a refundable tax credit would solve this problem and treat all retirement savers the same.
SCEPA Director Teresa Ghilarducci was named to a group organized by New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer to study how to provide retirement security to New York City residents who lack retirement plans at work. The Comptroller announced his intentions to create the panel at SCEPA's 2014 conference, "Confronting New York City's Retirement Crisis," co-sponsored by the New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
SCEPA's report, "Retirement Readiness in New York City," identified that employer sponsorship of retirement plans is falling. Between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of workers in the New York region with any type of retirement plan – either a traditional pension plan or a more widespread 401(k) plan – decreased from 49% to a mere 41%.
This week's Worldly Philosopher, Anthony Bonen, discusses how even the best models for estimating the costs of adapting to climate change are still a guessing game.
Estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC) focus almost exclusively on the net benefit/loss of mitigating climate change. The cost of adapting to the unmitigated impacts of climate change remains an even more elusive figure. Properly calculated, however, SCC should include both dimensions.
As discussed in an earlier SCEPA working paper, SCC model estimates of mitigation costs are notoriously difficult to pin down. But, after being asked to give a presentation on adaptation, I soon learned that there is far less certainty in these costs. For developing countries, estimating the cost of climate change adaptation is essential. Their success or failure in saving lives, reducing poverty and becoming resilient to climate change depends in large measure on how much support – financial, logistic and political – the industrialized world is willing to provide.
Systematic efforts to estimate the global cost of adapting to climate change began in earnest only in 2006 with a World Bank study of investment flows in the developing world .1 The second generation of adaptation estimates relies on impact-level assessments. The best example of these more detailed, but still top-down, studies is the World Bank's report . The IPCC's chapter on the Economics of Adaptation  calls it "[t]he most recent and most comprehensive to date global adaptation costs [in which] costs range from US$70 to more than US$100 billion annually by 2050." The conservative estimates for each of the 6 sectors are reproduced in Table 1.