Located in New York City, SCEPA is at the center of a network of leaders dedicated to progressive and innovative education and ideas.
SCEPA faculty are investigating the economics of climate change, from mitigation proposals to implementation.
SCEPA focuses on the U.S. economy, with an awareness of the global context of domestic economic developments.
A research institute within The New School’s Economics Department, SCEPA is dedicated to collaboration between today’s experts and tomorrow’s leading economists.
SCEPA is working to reform a retirement system that is failing Americans.
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.
by Rick McGahey, SCEPA Faculty Fellow
This morning's November employment report has some welcome news, but let's not get too excited.
The unemployment rate moved down to 7 percent, the lowest level in five years. Unemployment was 7.3 last month, and 7.8 percent one year ago. The labor force increased slightly, so the dropping rate is due to increased employment.
On the jobs side, the economy added 203,000 net new jobs, and October numbers were revised upward to 200,000. These are net jobs. Direct federal government jobs fell again; direct federal employment has fallen by 92,000 jobs in the past year due to continuing budget cuts and austerity.
The job numbers come when other signs also point to a strengthening economy. Earlier this week, third quarter GDP was calculated at a 3.6 percent annual growth rate, well above the estimates of 2.8 percent. Are we finally seeing a stronger economy that doesn't need fiscal stimulus? Can the Federal Reserve start "tapering" its quantitative easing (QE) program?
While the numbers are welcome, we shouldn't get too excited about them, and certainly shouldn't ease off calls for more fiscal stimulus. Let's take the job gains in November. Is 203,000 a big number? Not especially. The average monthly job growth over the past year has been 195,000, and it would take almost two and one-half years at this rate to reach full employment. Jared Bernstein points out that the good numbers also are driven in part by an unusually large number of workers coming back from temporary layoffs largely due to the government shutdown.
How about the GDP increase? It is much stronger—double the 1.8 percent growth rate in the first half of 2013. But almost half of the third quarter increase is inventory buildup in anticipation of the holiday shopping season. It remains to be seen how strong sales will actually be, and if that inventory clears.
Will households buy that inventory? October's personal income numbers are a cause for concern. Real disposable personal income fell by 0.2 percent in October, after rising by 0.3 percent in September, and 0.4 percent in August. The October number may be a blip, but if real personal income stays down, then weak consumer demand will not lift the economy, clear the inventory gains, or contribute to growth.
All in all, November's employment report represents baby steps in the right direction. But the economy remains weak, and needs continuing government help, not increased austerity.
The New School Economics Professor (and SCEPA Faculty Fellow) Anwar Shaikh was honored by the Pescarabruzzo Foundation, which recently awarded him the International NordSud award. The award, established to encourage economic innovation through dialogue and collaboration, is for his published work in the Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, titled "Reflexivity, Path Dependence, and Disequilibrium Dynamics." The paper discusses George Soros's theory of reflectivity and focuses on the interactions between expected, actual and fundamental variables.
On October 25, 2013, Lance Taylor, economics professor emeritus at The New School for Social Research, gave a presentation at a Berlin conference hosted by the Research Network Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) titled, "The Jobs Crisis: Causes, Cure, Constraints."
Taylor's presentation provides a long-run analysis of economic growth and CO₂ emissions from his research paper, "Greenhouse Gas Accumulation and Demand-Driven Economic Growth," coauthored by Duncan Foley, Jonathan Cogliano and Rishabh Kumar.
His demand-driven growth model analyzes how economic growth through capital accumulation requires an increase in energy consumption. Increased energy consumption releases harmful greenhouse gases and reduces growth through the adverse effects of climate change, such as natural disasters and an increasing business costs. A possible solution would be increased spending on mitigation to reduce climate change damages. The model shows that investment in mitigating greenhouse gases to a "good," steady-state would cost 1.25% of the global GDP, roughly equal to military spending. On the distribution side, greenhouse gases cut into the profit share in any scenario - moderately in a mitigated scenario, but precipitously on an unmitigated, "business-as-usual" path.