DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economic Value of College Majors Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economic Value of College Majors Introduction THE ECONOMIC VALUE COLLEGE MAJORS Anthony P. Carnevale Ban Cheah Andrew R. Hanson 2015 WHAT’S IT WORTH? THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF COLLEGE INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to express our gratitude to the individuals and organizations that have made this report possible. Thanks to Lumina Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation for their generous support of our research for the past several years. We are honored to be partners in their mission of promoting postsecondary access and completion for all Americans. We are especially grateful for the support of Jamie Merisotis, Holly Zanville, Daniel Greenstein, Jennifer Engle, Elise Miller, Matthew Muench, and Whitney Smith. We would like to thank our designers Janna Matherly and the team from Woodpile; our editor Nancy Lewis; and our printer Westland Printers. Our thanks also go to our colleagues, whose support was vital to our success: w Jeff Strohl provided strong research direction and expertise that contributed to both strategic and editorial decisions. w Andrea Porter provided strategic guidance in the design and production of the report. w Ana Castañon assisted with the design and other logistics of producing the report. Many have contributed their thoughts and feedback throughout the production of this report. That said, all errors, omissions, and views remain the responsibility of authors. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Lumina Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Joyce Foundation, or their officers, or employees. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 INTRODUCTION 8 PART ONE: SEVEN MAJOR SUPERGROUPS 12 PART TWO: 15 MAJOR GROUPS 20 PART THREE: 137 DETAILED MAJOR SUBGROUPS BY 15 MAJOR GROUPS 21 AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES 29 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING 37 ARTS 45 BIOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES 53 BUSINESS 61 COMMUNICATIONS AND JOURNALISM 67 COMPUTERS, STATISTICS, AND MATHEMATICS 75 EDUCATION 82 HEALTH 91 HUMANITIES AND LIBERAL ARTS 99 INDUSTRIAL ARTS, CONSUMER SERVICES, AND RECREATION 107 LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 113 PHYSICAL SCIENCES 121 PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL WORK 129 SOCIAL SCIENCES 137 APPENDIX ONE: REFERENCES, DATA SOURCES, AND METHODOLOGY 141 APPENDIX TWO: CLASSIFICATION OF MAJOR GROUPS AND SUBGROUPS 147 APPENDIX THREE: MAJOR SUBGROUPS RANKED BY MEDIAN ANNUAL WAGES 151 APPENDIX FOUR: MAJOR SUBGROUPS RANKED BY PREVALENCE 159 APPENDIX FIVE: MAJOR SUBGROUPS RANKED BY GRADUATE DEGREE ATTAINMENT 165 APPENDIX SIX: MAJOR SUBGROUPS RANKED BY GRADUATE DEGREE WAGE PREMIUM 171 APPENDIX SEVEN: PREVALENCE, WAGES, GRADUATE DEGREE ATTAINMENT, AND GRADUATE DEGREE WAGE PREMIUM BY MAJOR GROUP AND SUBGROUP 180 137 DETAILED MAJORS:SELECTIVE STATISTICS: EARNINGS AT THE 25TH, 50TH AND 75TH PERCENTILES, BY BACHELOR’S DEGREE MAJOR 184 THE GRADUATE ADVANTAGE, EARNINGS AT THE 25TH, 50TH, AND 75TH PERCENTILES BY BACHELOR’S DEGREE MAJOR 200 ALL MAJORS BY GROUP, RANKED BY EARNINGS AND POPULARITY 204 LOWEST- AND HIGHEST-EARNING MAJORS, BACHELOR’S DEGREE HOLDERS 206 LOWEST- AND HIGHEST-EARNING MAJORS, GRADUATE DEGREE HOLDERS 208 MAJORS RANKED BY POPULARITY, BACHELOR’S DEGREE HOLDERS 209 MAJORS RANKED BY POPULARITY, GRADUATE DEGREE HOLDERS 210 HELP READING OUR CHARTS Reprint Permission The Center on Education and the Workforce uses a Creative Commons license, which permits non- commercial re-use of any of our content when proper attribution is provided. You are free to copy, display and distribute our work, or include our content in derivative works, under the following conditions: Attribution: You must clearly attribute the work to the Center on Education and the Workforce and provide a print or digital copy of the work to [email protected]. Our preference is to cite figures and tables as follows: Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, (name of publication). Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Written permission must be obtained from the owners of the copy/literary rights and from Georgetown University for any publication or commercial use of reproductions. *Approval: If you are using one or more of our available data representations (figures, charts, tables, etc), please visit our website at cew.georgetown.edu/publications/reprint-permission for more information. For the full legal code of this Creative Commons license, please visit creativecommons.org. Should you need a form to be filled out by us, please email [email protected] and we will respond in a timely manner. THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF COLLEGE MAJORS INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION How much is a college major worth? Today, 35 percent of jobs require a Bachelor’s degree or higher.1 On average, these jobs pay $33,000 annually at the entry level and $61,000 at prime age. But averages are deceiving. The economic risks and returns to Bachelor’s degrees vary greatly among different majors. For today’s high school graduates, and an increasing share of middle-aged adults who are pursuing a Bachelor’s degree, the decision about what to major in will have critical economic consequences for the rest of their lives. In some sense, deciding what to major in is more Due to the complex relationships between college important than deciding whether to attend college. and careers, some college graduates who major in Over a lifetime, the average difference between less lucrative fields of study earn more than those a high school and college graduate’s wages is $1 in typically high-paying majors. For example, on million, but the difference between the lowest-and average, education majors have the lowest wages the highest-paying majors is $3.4 million. Over a while engineering majors have the highest wages. career, a Bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering But the top 25 percent of education majors earn more pays $4.8 million, while a Bachelor’s degree in than the bottom 25 percent of engineering majors. early childhood education pays $1.4 million. College graduates’ wages are also influenced by The importance of major is so powerful that whether they work in the for-profit, nonprofit, or Bachelor’s degree holders in some majors earn public sector; the industry they work in; and whether more than many graduate degree holders. For they pursue lifelong learning opportunities and example, on average architecture and engineering employer training that further hone their career- majors earn $83,000 annually over the course of related skills. Usually, working in an occupation their careers, while graduate degree holders who aligned with a college field of study enhances majored in education earn $60,000 annually. earnings, while working outside of one’s field of study reduces earnings, but not always. Engineering At the same time, a college major is not destiny. majors who work as schoolteachers earn less than College provides access to particular occupations and other engineers, and education majors who work career pathways, but college is only the ante in the in business jobs earn more than most educators. lifelong learning game. 1 Carnevale and Smith, Recovery, 2013. 4 THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF COLLEGE MAJORS INTRODUCTION The fact that college majors play such an enormous However, this analysis alone is still incomplete because role in determining college graduates’ wages and one out of every three college graduates goes on to career trajectory has everyone asking: How much is earn a graduate degree. The fact that a college degree a college major worth? In this report, we analyze the is a stepping-stone on the way to a graduate degree wages of college graduates by 15 major groups and is a crucial part of its benefit: graduate degree holders 137 subgroups. To provide a more complete picture earn 28 percent more than Bachelor’s degree holders. of what college graduates are earning in the labor Moreover, some majors are substantially more likely to market, we use the interquartile range of wages, or lead to a graduate degree than others. For this reason, what the middle half of college graduates are likely to we also analyze the likelihood that a major leads to a earn (i.e., the range from the 25th to 75th percentiles). graduate degree and the graduate wage premium–the percentage difference between a college graduate and a graduate degree holder–across majors. Today, 35 percent of jobs require a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Here are the major findings of our analysis: Wages: w Among the 137 major subgroups, petroleum engineering majors are paid the most and early w Among college graduates employed full-time childhood education majors are paid the least. year-round, on average Bachelor’s degree College graduates who majored in petroleum holders earn an annual salary of $61,000 over engineering earn an average annual salary of the course of their careers, while graduate $136,000 over the course of their careers, while degree holders earn $78,000 annually. those who majored in early childhood education w Among the 15 major groups, architecture earn $39,000 annually. and engineering majors are paid the w Business majors’ wages vary the most. Business most and education majors are paid the majors earn $43,000 annually at the 25th percentile least. College graduates who majored in and $98,000 annually at the 75th percentile, a architecture or engineering earn an average difference of $55,000. salary of $83,000 per year, while education majors earn $45,000 per year. w Education majors’ wages vary the least. Education majors earn $35,000 annually at the 25th percentile and $59,000 annually at the 75th percentile, a difference of $24,000. 5 THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF COLLEGE MAJORS INTRODUCTION Prevalence: Graduate degree attainment: w Among the 15 major groups, business is w Among the 15 major groups, biology and the most common major. It accounts for life sciences majors are most likely to earn 26 percent of college-educated workers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FINAL REPORT of Special Committee on Marvin Center Name
    Report of the Special Committee on the Marvin Center Name March 30, 2021 I. INTRODUCTION Renaming Framework The George Washington University Board of Trustees approved, in June of 2020, a “Renaming Framework,” designed to govern and direct the process of evaluating proposals for the renaming of buildings and memorials on campus.1 The Renaming Framework was drafted by a Board of Trustees- appointed Naming Task Force, chaired by Trustee Mark Chichester, B.B.A. ’90, J.D. ’93. The Task Force arrived at its Renaming Framework after extensive engagement with the GW community.2 Under the Renaming Framework, the university President is to acknowledge and review requests or petitions related to the renaming of buildings or spaces on campus. If the President finds a request for renaming “to be reasonably compelling when the guiding principles are applied to the particular facts,” the President is to: (1) “consult with the appropriate constituencies, such as the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, leadership of the Student Association, and the Executive Committee of the GW Alumni Association, on the merits of the request for consideration”; and (2) “appoint a special committee to research and evaluate the merits of the request for reconsideration.”3 Appointment of the Special Committee President LeBlanc established the Special Committee on the Marvin Center Name in July of 2020, and appointed Roger A. Fairfax, Jr., Patricia Roberts Harris Research Professor at the Law School as Chair. The Special Committee consists of ten members, representing students, staff, faculty, and alumni of the university, and two advisers, both of whom greatly assisted the Special Committee in its work.4 The Special Committee’s Charge Under the Renaming Framework, the charge of the Special Committee is quite narrow.
    [Show full text]
  • SPRING 1966 GEORGETOWN Is Published in the Fall, Winter, and Spring by the Georgetown University Alumni Association, 3604 0 Street, Northwest, Washington, D
    SPRING 1966 GEORGETOWN is published in the Fall, Winter, and Spring by the Georgetown University Alumni Association, 3604 0 Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C. 20007 Officers of the Georgetown University Alumni Association President Eugene L. Stewart, '48, '51 Vice-Presidents CoUege, David G. Burton, '56 Graduate School, Dr. Hartley W. Howard, '40 School of Medicine, Dr. Charles Keegan, '47 School of Law, Robert A. Marmet, '51 School of Dentistry, Dr. Anthony Tylenda, '55 School of Nursing, Miss Mary Virginia Ruth, '53 School of Foreign Service, Harry J. Smith, Jr., '51 School of Business Administration, Richard P. Houlihan, '54 Institute of Languages and Linguistics, Mrs. Diana Hopkins Baxter, '54 Recording Secretary Miss Rosalia Louise Dumm, '48 Treasurer Louis B. Fine, '25 The Faculty Representative to the Alumni Association Reverend Anthony J . Zeits, S.J., '43 The Vice-President of the University for Alumni Affairs and Executive Secretary of the Association Bernard A. Carter, '49 Acting Editor contents Dr. Riley Hughes Designer Robert L. Kocher, Sr. Photography Bob Young " Keep This University A Bright Light' ' Page 1 A Year of Tradition, Tribute, Transition Page 6 GEORGETOWN Georgetown's Medical School: A Center For Service Page 18 The cover for this issue shows the Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice On Our Campus Page 23 President of the United States, being Letter to the Alumni Page 26 greeted by students in the Yard before 1966 Official Alumni historic Old North preceding his ad­ Association Ballot Page 27 dress at the Founder's Day Luncheon. Book Review Page 28 Our Alumni Correspondents Page 29 "Keep This University A Bright Light" The hard facts of future needs provided a con­ the great documents of our history," Vice President text of urgency and promise for the pleasant recol­ Humphrey told the over six hundred guests at the lection of past achievements during the Founder's Founder's Day Luncheon in New South Cafeteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (P
    Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (p. 1) District Conditions (p.18) Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review vol. 5, no 3 This publication primarily presents economic research aimed at improving policymaking by the Federal Reserve System and other governmental authorities. Produced in the Research Department. Edited by Arthur J. Rolnick, Richard M. Todd, Kathleen S. Rolfe, and Alan Struthers, Jr. Graphic design and charts drawn by Phil Swenson, Graphic Services Department. Address requests for additional copies to the Research Department. Federal Reserve Bank, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480. Articles may be reprinted if the source is credited and the Research Department is provided with copies of reprints. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis or the Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review/Fall 1981 Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas J. Sargent Neil Wallace Advisers Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and Professors of Economics University of Minnesota In his presidential address to the American Economic in at least two ways. (For simplicity, we will refer to Association (AEA), Milton Friedman (1968) warned publicly held interest-bearing government debt as govern- not to expect too much from monetary policy. In ment bonds.) One way the public's demand for bonds particular, Friedman argued that monetary policy could constrains the government is by setting an upper limit on not permanently influence the levels of real output, the real stock of government bonds relative to the size of unemployment, or real rates of return on securities.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgetown University Frequently Asked Questions
    GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ADDRESS Georgetown University 37th and O Streets, NW Washington, DC 20057 DIRECTIONS TO GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY From Reagan National Airport (20 minutes) This airport is the closest airport to Georgetown University. A taxicab ride from Reagan National costs approximately $15-$20 one way. Take the George Washington Parkway North. Follow signs for Key Bridge/Route 50. Follow until Key Bridge exit. You will want to be in the left lane as you cross over Key Bridge. At the end of Key Bridge take a left at the light. This is Canal Road. Enter campus at the Hoya Saxa sign, to the right. This road will take you to main campus parking. See attached campus map for further directions. From Washington/Dulles Airport (40 minutes) Taxicabs from Dulles International cost approximately $50-$55 one way. Follow Dulles airport Access road to I-66. Follow I-66 to the Key Bridge Exit. Exit and stay in left lane. At the third light take a left and stay in one of the middle lanes. You will want to be in the left lane as you cross over Key Bridge. At the end of Key Bridge take a left at the light. This is Canal Road. Enter campus at the Hoya Saxa sign, to the right. This road will take you to main campus parking. See attached campus map for further directions. From New York to Washington D.C. By car, approximately 230 miles (4.5 hours) www.mapquest.com By train (approx 3 hours) approx. $120 each way www.amtrak.com By plane (approx 1.5 hours) approx $280 www.travelocity.com ACCOMMODATION The following hotels are closest to the University, for other hotel and discounted rates, you may like to try: www.cheaptickets.com www.cheaphotels.com Note: You can often get better rates through the above site than going through the hotel directly.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory
    2021 A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory Steven Globerman fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive Summary / i 1. Introducing Modern Monetary Theory / 1 2. Implementing MMT / 4 3. Has Canada Adopted MMT? / 10 4. Proposed Economic and Social Justifications for MMT / 17 5. MMT and Inflation / 23 Concluding Comments / 27 References / 29 About the author / 33 Acknowledgments / 33 Publishing information / 34 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 35 Purpose, funding, and independence / 35 About the Fraser Institute / 36 Editorial Advisory Board / 37 fraserinstitute.org fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a policy model for funding govern- ment spending. While MMT is not new, it has recently received wide- spread attention, particularly as government spending has increased dramatically in response to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and concerns grow about how to pay for this increased spending. The essential message of MMT is that there is no financial constraint on government spending as long as a country is a sovereign issuer of cur- rency and does not tie the value of its currency to another currency. Both Canada and the US are examples of countries that are sovereign issuers of currency. In principle, being a sovereign issuer of currency endows the government with the ability to borrow money from the country’s cen- tral bank. The central bank can effectively credit the government’s bank account at the central bank for an unlimited amount of money without either charging the government interest or, indeed, demanding repayment of the government bonds the central bank has acquired. In 2020, the cen- tral banks in both Canada and the US bought a disproportionately large share of government bonds compared to previous years, which has led some observers to argue that the governments of Canada and the United States are practicing MMT.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Monetary Theory: a Marxist Critique
    Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 1 2019 Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Michael Roberts [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, Michael (2019) "Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.7.1.008316 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol7/iss1/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Abstract Compiled from a series of blog posts which can be found at "The Next Recession." Modern monetary theory (MMT) has become flavor of the time among many leftist economic views in recent years. MMT has some traction in the left as it appears to offer theoretical support for policies of fiscal spending funded yb central bank money and running up budget deficits and public debt without earf of crises – and thus backing policies of government spending on infrastructure projects, job creation and industry in direct contrast to neoliberal mainstream policies of austerity and minimal government intervention. Here I will offer my view on the worth of MMT and its policy implications for the labor movement. First, I’ll try and give broad outline to bring out the similarities and difference with Marx’s monetary theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Semester in Washington, D.C. Program
    Semester in Washington, D.C. Program Offered Fall, Spring, and Summer Explore a Learning New Kind of Semester Through a Expand your intellectual and cultural horizons in the heart of the nation’s capital through Georgetown University’s Semester in Washington, D.C. Program (SWP). Offered during Different Lens the Fall, Spring, and Summer semesters, this program features a combination of challenging academics and hands-on practice. Immerse yourself in the vibrant Internship political and cultural landscape of D.C. as you engage with key policymakers, build Georgetown takes pride in providing you with an your professional skills, and take your college experience to the next level. unparalleled real-world experience. After enrolling in the program, you will be paired with As a student in SWP, you will spend part of your time in a classroom setting, Choose Your an internship advisor, who will offer guidance on engaging in stimulating group discussions, listening to guest lectures from everything from developing a strong resume to preparing international experts and business leaders, and examining the complex Semester for your initial interview. issues facing nations, organizations, and decision makers today. Throughout the semester, you will also complete a guided independent Fall (15 credit hours) research project, working closely with a Georgetown research advisor As a full-time student enrolled at Georgetown Academic Seminar as you explore a topic of interest and apply the concepts you University for the semester, you will engage in In these small, interactive sessions, you will learn from have learned. academic and research pursuits while interning distinguished Georgetown faculty while exploring key issues on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY of SOCIETY Simon Clarke
    THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY OF SOCIETY Simon Clarke The ideological foundations of neo-liberalism Neoliberalism presents itself as a doctrine based on the inexorable truths of modern economics. However, despite its scientific trappings, modern economics is not a scientific discipline but the rigorous elaboration of a very specific social theory, which has become so deeply embedded in western thought as to have established itself as no more than common sense, despite the fact that its fundamental assumptions are patently absurd. The foundations of modern economics, and of the ideology of neoliberalism, go back to Adam Smith and his great work, The Wealth of Nations. Over the past two centuries Smith’s arguments have been formalised and developed with greater analytical rigour, but the fundamental assumptions underpinning neoliberalism remain those proposed by Adam Smith. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations as a critique of the corrupt and self-aggrandising mercantilist state, which drew its revenues from taxing trade and licensing monopolies, which it sought to protect by maintaining an expensive military apparatus and waging costly wars. The theories which supported the state conceived of exchange as a ‘zero-sum game’, in which one party’s gain was the other party’s loss, so the maximum benefit from exchange was to be extracted by force and fraud. The fundamental idea of Smith’s critique was that the ‘wealth of the nation’ derived not from the accumulation of wealth by the state, at the expense of its citizens and foreign powers, but from the development of the division of labour. The division of labour developed as a result of the initiative and enterprise of private individuals and would develop the more rapidly the more such individuals were free to apply their enterprise and initiative and to reap the corresponding rewards.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services*
    THOMAS C. BROWN,- JOHN C. BERGSTROM" & JOHN B. LOOMIS*** Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services* ABSTRACT Ecosystem services are the specific results of ecosystem processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life (as does natural protectionfrom the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays) or maintain the quality of ecosystem goods (as water purification maintains the quality of streamflow). "Ecosystem service" has come to represent several related topics ranging from the measurement to the marketing of ecosystem service flows. In this article we examine several of these topics by first clarifying the meaning of "ecosystem service" and then (1) placing ecosystem goods and services within an economic framework, emphasizing the role and limitations of substitutes;(2) summarizing the methodsfor valuationof ecosystem goods and services; and (3) reviewing the various approachesfor their provision and financing. Many ecosystem services and some ecosystem goods are received without monetary payment. The "marketing" of ecosystem goods and services is basically an effort to turn such recipients - those who benefit without ownership- into buyers, thereby providing market signals that serve to help protect valuable goods and services. We review various formal arrangementsfor making this happen. I. INTRODUCTION "Ecosystem service" is the latest environmental buzzword.1 It appeals to ecologists, who have long recognized the many benefits derived from well-functioning ecosystems. It appeals to resource economists, who . Economist and Project Leader, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Address for correspondence: [email protected], T.C. Brown, RMRS, 2150-A Center Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526. - Richard B. Russell, Jr., Professor of Public Policy, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Money Theory 101: a Reply to Critics
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Tymoigne, Éric; Wray, L. Randall Working Paper Modern Money Theory 101: A reply to critics Working Paper, No. 778 Provided in Cooperation with: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Suggested Citation: Tymoigne, Éric; Wray, L. Randall (2013) : Modern Money Theory 101: A reply to critics, Working Paper, No. 778, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale- on-Hudson, NY This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/110016 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Working Paper No. 778 Modern Money Theory 101: A Reply to Critics by Éric Tymoigne and L. Randall Wray Levy Economics Institute of Bard College November 2013 The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants.
    [Show full text]
  • The F.T.C., Oligopoly, and Shared Monopoly
    The F.T.C., Oligopoly, and Shared Monopoly F.M. Scherer Harvard Kennedy School 2013 M-RCBG Faculty Working Paper Series | 2010-07 Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government Weil Hall | Harvard Kennedy School | www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg The views expressed in the M-RCBG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government or of Harvard University. M-RCBG Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. The F.T.C., Oligopoly, and Shared Monopoly Faculty Research Working Paper Series F.M. Scherer Harvard Kennedy School September 2013 RWP13-031 Visit the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series at: http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications The views expressed in the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. www.hks.harvard.edu THE F.T.C., OLIGOPOLY, AND SHARED MONOPOLY F. M. Scherer September 2013 One of the most important but equally difficult problems faced by antitrust agencies is posed by oligopolistic firms sufficiently few in number that they refrain from active price competition even without entering into explicit price-fixing agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominality of Money: Theory of Credit Money and Chartalism Atsushi Naito
    Review of Keynesian Studies Vol.2 Atsushi Naito Nominality of Money: Theory of Credit Money and Chartalism Atsushi Naito Abstract This paper focuses on the unit of account function of money that is emphasized by Keynes in his book A Treatise on Money (1930) and recently in post-Keynesian endogenous money theory and modern Chartalism, or in other words Modern Monetary Theory. These theories consider the nominality of money as an important characteristic because the unit of account and the corresponding money as a substance could be anything, and this aspect highlights the nominal nature of money; however, although these theories are closely associated, they are different. The three objectives of this paper are to investigate the nominality of money common to both the theories, examine the relationship and differences between the two theories with a focus on Chartalism, and elucidate the significance and policy implications of Chartalism. Keywords: Chartalism; Credit Money; Nominality of Money; Keynes JEL Classification Number: B22; B52; E42; E52; E62 122 Review of Keynesian Studies Vol.2 Atsushi Naito I. Introduction Recent years have seen the development of Modern Monetary Theory or Chartalism and it now holds a certain prestige in the field. This theory primarily deals with state money or fiat money; however, in Post Keynesian economics, the endogenous money theory and theory of monetary circuit place the stress on bank money or credit money. Although Chartalism and the theory of credit money are clearly opposed to each other, there exists another axis of conflict in the field of monetary theory. According to the textbooks, this axis concerns the functions of money, such as means of exchange, means of account, and store of value.
    [Show full text]