Suchergebnisse

Some traditional "explanations" of levels and trends in illegitimacy rates are reviewed. After discussing the four immediate causes of levels and trends in illegitimacy rates, we study the relationship between economic events and illegitimacy rates in developed nations. Trends in unemployment Some traditional "explanations" of levels and trends in illegitimacy rates are reviewed. After discussing the four immediate causes of levels and trends in illegitimacy rates, we study the relationship between economic events and illegitimacy rates in developed nations. Trends in unemployment are not related to illegitimacy trends; the level of wealth is not associated with high or low rates. In the 1950-1960 decade a strong negative relationship between the rate of economic growth and change in illegitimacy rates was documented for 11 early and 12 late marriage countries. A multivariate analysis, which included two demographic variables and economic growth rates, examined the direct and indirect effects of economic growth rates on illegitimacy rates. Analysis of the relationship of family of family allowance benefits and illegitimacy allowed us to reject the idea that the introduction of these programs has stimulated illegitimacy rates.

Abstract
This paper examines the effect of inequality and redistribution on growth in a panel of developed OECD countries with dynamic fixed effects (DFE) estimates. It is found out that redistribution is neutral to growth while disposable inequality is weakly positive for long-run aggregate output. Population growth is also a determinant of aggregate output. On the other hand, the analysis does not find evidence of a significant effect of both inequality and redistribution in the short-run as well as of top and bottom inequality. The analysis suggests that in economies that are more unequal a win-win process to increase equality and growth through redistributive taxes is likely to be effective, even if the overall effect is low and time demanding.
JEL classifications: O11, O15, O47, E62, H23
Keywords: Inequality, Redistribution, Growth

Perhaps never in the history of economic thought, and certainly not since the crash of 1929, has economic analysis lagged so far behind the demands of policy as it does at present. The elevation of economic development to the top ranks of policy issues, in under-developed and advanced countries alike, has caught professional economists more than ever unprepared to deal with the most pressing economic problem of the moment. One result of this unusually large inflationary gap between the demand for solid policy recommendations and the supply of them has been an unprecedented concentration of economists' effort on the study of economic growth. The technical assistance programmes under the United Nations, the International Cooperation Administration, the Colombo Plan, other bilateral programmes, and the Ford Foundation have given economists opportunities for "laboratory work" on a scale never before open to them. In the universities, too, more and more economists have redirected their interests in research towards economic development.

Following the decision of the British referendum on 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) plans to exit the European Union (EU). Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was invoked at the end of March 2017 and the UK will officially leave the single market and customs union in March 2019. Brexit negotiations have proven difficult due to diverging positions of the two partners on many issues, such as freedom of movement, financial contributions and the potential re-emergence of a tough border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite the successfully negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, there is still con¬siderable political uncertainty about the final EU-UK deal. Regardless of the final outcome of the negotiations, Brexit implies fundamental changes in the British trade regime concerning third countries. This starts with a negotiation of national terms of access for World Trade Organization (WTO) membership and extends to renegotiation of the numerous EU free trade agreements. Moreover, the UK will no longer be part of the European Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) or the Everything But Arms (EBA) treaty, which allow vulnerable developing countries to pay fewer or no duties on their exports to the EU. The Economic Partnership Agree-ments (EPAs) between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will not apply to the UK either. While the negative effects of Brexit on the UK and EU are in the limelight, the implications for third countries receive less attention. This paper puts the spotlight on these often-overlooked issues by presenting new findings on Brexit implications for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and discussing policy recommendations. Developing countries with close ties to the UK will suffer from Brexit as import duties are once again imposed. In particular, 49 of the world's poorest countries presently benefit from preferential treatment that covers 99% of all products under the EBA agreement. Although these countries account for only 1.15% of the UK's imports, the share of their exports to the UK exceeds 35% in apparel, 21% in textiles and 9% in sugar (calculations based on the UN Comtrade data for 2013-2015). Our findings show that losing these preferences together with the UK's withdrawal from the EU may cause EBA countries' GDPs to fall by -0.01% to -1.08%. Our simulations also indicate that the highest losses will occur in Cambodia and Malawi, where dependence on the UK market is strong. Moreover, Brexit may cause the number of those living in extreme poverty (PPP $1.90 a day) to rise by nearly 1.7 million in all EBA countries. These are conservative estimates of Brexit's negative impacts; they do not take into account the addi¬tional implications of uncertainty, depreciation of the pound sterling, reduced aid spending, remittances and investments. The UK must act to mitigate the adverse effects on economically vulnerable countries. Such action may include replicating existing EU treaties that grant preferential access to goods from LDCs, creating a more development-friendly UK trade policy with preferential access to services imports and cumulative rules of origin, as well as offering better-targeted aid for trade initiatives. The EU could also support LDCs by implementing liberal cumulative rules of origin and applying its preferential treatment partly to goods with a low value-added content from considered countries. In addition, developing countries should diversify their export destinations and industries as well as engage in economic transformation that makes them less dependent on UK trade, aid and foreign direct investment (FDI).

Following the decision of the British referendum on 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) plans to exit the European Union (EU). Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was invoked at the end of March 2017 and the UK will officially leave the single market and customs union in March 2019. Brexit negotiations have proven difficult due to diverging positions of the two partners on many issues, such as freedom of movement, financial contributions and the potential re-emergence of a tough border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Despite the successfully negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, there is still con¬siderable political uncertainty about the final EU-UK deal.Regardless of the final outcome of the negotiations, Brexit implies fundamental changes in the British trade regime concerning third countries. This starts with a negotiation of national terms of access for World Trade Organization (WTO) membership and extends to renegotiation of the numerous EU free trade agreements. Moreover, the UK will no longer be part of the European Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) or the Everything But Arms (EBA) treaty, which allow vulnerable developing countries to pay fewer or no duties on their exports to the EU. The Economic Partnership Agree-ments (EPAs) between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will not apply to the UK either.While the negative effects of Brexit on the UK and EU are in the limelight, the implications for third countries receive less attention. This paper puts the spotlight on these often-overlooked issues by presenting new findings on Brexit implications for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and discussing policy recommendations.Developing countries with close ties to the UK will suffer from Brexit as import duties are once again imposed.In particular, 49 of the world's poorest countries presently benefit from preferential treatment that covers 99% of all products under the EBA agreement. Although these countries account for only 1.15% of the UK's imports, the share of their exports to the UK exceeds 35% in apparel, 21% in textiles and 9% in sugar (calculations based on the UN Comtrade data for 2013-2015). Our findings show that losing these preferences together with the UK's withdrawal from the EU may cause EBA countries' GDPs to fall by -0.01% to -1.08%. Our simulations also indicate that the highest losses will occur in Cambodia and Malawi, where dependence on the UK market is strong. Moreover, Brexit may cause the number of those living in extreme poverty (PPP $1.90 a day) to rise by nearly 1.7 million in all EBA countries. These are conservative estimates of Brexit's negative impacts; they do not take into account the addi¬tional implications of uncertainty, depreciation of the pound sterling, reduced aid spending, remittances and investments.The UK must act to mitigate the adverse effects on economically vulnerable countries. Such action may include replicating existing EU treaties that grant preferential access to goods from LDCs, creating a more development-friendly UK trade policy with preferential access to services imports and cumulative rules of origin, as well as offering better-targeted aid for trade initiatives. The EU could also support LDCs by implementing liberal cumulative rules of origin and applying its preferential treatment partly to goods with a low value-added content from considered countries.In addition, developing countries should diversify their export destinations and industries as well as engage in economic transformation that makes them less dependent on UK trade, aid and foreign direct investment (FDI).