- 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.
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.
SCEPA Director Teresa Ghilarducci joined NPR's On Point with Tom Ashbrook on February 25, 2015, to discuss President Obama's recent announcement at AARP that the Department of Labor would move forward with a fiduciary rule requiring brokers to put their clients' retirement savings before their own profits.
The rule is expected to protect future retirees from high fees charged by brokers investing individual's retirement savings. In May 2012, Demos, a nonprofit advocacy group and SCEPA partner on retirement security, published the report "The Retirement Savings Drain: Hidden and Excessive Costs of 401(k)s." Written by Policy Analyst and New School PhD student Robbie Hiltonsmith, it finds that the average two-member household will lose over $150,000 over their lifetime from their retirement savings to pay these fees - without their knowledge.
Brad DeLong, a widely-read economist and blogger, cites SCEPA economist David Howell's work investigating the causes of wage inequality and unshared productivity growth as today's "Morning Must-Read." Howell's research with the Washington Center for Equitable Growth asks, what happened to shared growth?
"Most economists continue to explain the explosion of earnings inequality with conventional supply-and-demand stories, in which worker compensation is believed to accurately reflect the contribution workers make to production. Thus, in this view, CEOs and financiers have received skyrocketing salaries, especially since the mid-1990s, because they are now contributing dramatically more to their firms and to the economy as a whole.
Similarly, the bottom 90 percent have seen stagnant and falling wages because they've fallen behind in the "race between education and technology." The computerization of the workplace requires greater cognitive skills, but workers have not kept up, as indicated by the slowdown in college graduation rates. Assuming (nearly) perfectly competitive markets, the explosion in wage inequality in this view must reflect a similarly explosive increase in skill mismatch (too many low skill workers, too few high skill ones).
Such arguments leave little or no room for labor market institutions and public policies in determining changes in the distribution of earnings up and down the income ladder. An alternative view is that institutionally-driven bargaining power is a critical piece of the story, whether it is the noncompetitive "rents" earned by top managers and financiers, or the collapsing power of hourly wage employees."