Emmanuel Saez CV
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Kopczuk and Saez, 2004)
Top Wealth Shares in the United States, 1916–2000 Top Wealth Shares in the United States, 1916–2000: Evidence from Estate Tax Returns Abstract - This paper presents new homogeneous series on top wealth shares from 1916 to 2000 in the United States using estate tax return data. Top wealth shares were very high at the beginning of the period but have been hit sharply by the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II shocks. Those shocks have had per- manent effects. Following a decline in the 1970s, top wealth shares recovered in the early 1980s, but they are still much lower in 2000 than in the early decades of the century. Most of the changes we document are concentrated among the very top wealth holders with much smaller movements for groups below the top 0.1 percent. Con- sistent with the Survey of Consumer Finances results, top wealth shares estimated from Estate Tax Returns display no significant increase since 1995. Evidence from the Forbes 400 richest Ameri- cans suggests that only the super–rich have experienced significant gains relative to the average over the last decade. Our results are consistent with the decreased importance of capital incomes at the top of the income distribution documented by Piketty and Saez (2003), and suggest that the rentier class of the early century is not yet reconstituted. The paper proposes several tentative explanations to account for the facts. Wojciech Kopczuk INTRODUCTION Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 he pattern of wealth and income inequality during the and Tprocess of development of modern economies has at- tracted enormous attention since Kuznets (1955) formulated NBER, Cambridge, MA his famous inverted U–curve hypothesis. -
Esther Duflo Wins Clark Medal
Esther Duflo wins Clark medal http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/duflo-clark-0423.html?tmpl=compon... MIT’s influential poverty researcher heralded as best economist under age 40. Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office April 23, 2010 MIT economist Esther Duflo PhD ‘99, whose influential research has prompted new ways of fighting poverty around the globe, was named winner today of the John Bates Clark medal. Duflo is the second woman to receive the award, which ranks below only the Nobel Prize in prestige within the economics profession and is considered a reliable indicator of future Nobel consideration (about 40 percent of past recipients have won a Nobel). Duflo, a 37-year-old native of France, is the Abdul Esther Duflo, the Abdul Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation and and Development Economics at MIT, was named the winner of the Development Economics at MIT and a director of 2010 John Bates Clark medal. MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab Photo - Photo: L. Barry Hetherington (J-PAL). Her work uses randomized field experiments to identify highly specific programs that can alleviate poverty, ranging from low-cost medical treatments to innovative education programs. Duflo, who officially found out about the medal via a phone call earlier today, says she regards the medal as “one for the team,” meaning the many researchers who have contributed to the renewal of development economics. “This is a great honor,” Duflo told MIT News. “Not only for me, but my colleagues and MIT. Development economics has changed radically over the last 10 years, and this is recognition of the work many people are doing.” The American Economic Association, which gives the Clark medal to the top economist under age 40, said Duflo had distinguished herself through “definitive contributions” in the field of development economics. -
World Economic Forum
Income inequality in the US: a version of the story you won't have ... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/new-data-shows-what-h... Income inequality in the US: a version of the story you won't have heard Inequality trends since 2000 actually are different from those during the 1980s and 1990s. Image: REUTERS/Las Vegas This article is published in collaboration with the Washington Center for Equitable Growth 20 Apr 2017 Nick Bunker Policy Analyst, Washington Center for Equitable Growth How much has income inequality risen in the United States? Well, how do you define income? And what time period are you looking at? The most well-known statistics about income inequality—including the famous data from economists Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley—are based on tax data and show a significant increase in inequality since the late 1970s. But are the trends revealed in those data over that time period still holding up? 1 of 4 4/27/17, 1:49 PM Income inequality in the US: a version of the story you won't have ... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/new-data-shows-what-h... Digging into the data reveals that inequality trends since 2000 actually are different from those during the 1980s and 1990s. A paper released last week as a National Bureau of Economics Research paper takes a look at how income inequality has changed in the 21st century. The two authors, Fatih Guvenen of the University of Minnesota and Greg Kaplan of the University of Chicago, take a look at two different sources of income data. -
Economic Report of the President.” ______
REFERENCES Chapter 1 American Civil Liberties Union. 2013. “The War on Marijuana in Black and White.” Accessed January 31, 2016. Aizer, Anna, Shari Eli, Joseph P. Ferrie, and Adriana Lleras-Muney. 2014. “The Long Term Impact of Cash Transfers to Poor Families.” NBER Working Paper 20103. Autor, David. 2010. “The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market.” Center for American Progress, the Hamilton Project. Bakija, Jon, Adam Cole and Bradley T. Heim. 2010. “Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data.” Department of Economics Working Paper 2010–24. Williams College. Boskin, Michael J. 1972. “Unions and Relative Real Wages.” The American Economic Review 62(3): 466-472. Bricker, Jesse, Lisa J. Dettling, Alice Henriques, Joanne W. Hsu, Kevin B. Moore, John Sabelhaus, Jeffrey Thompson, and Richard A. Windle. 2014. “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances.” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 100, No. 4. Brown, David W., Amanda E. Kowalski, and Ithai Z. Lurie. 2015. “Medicaid as an Investment in Children: What is the Long-term Impact on Tax Receipts?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 20835. Card, David, Thomas Lemieux, and W. Craig Riddell. 2004. “Unions and Wage Inequality.” Journal of Labor Research, 25(4): 519-559. 331 Carson, Ann. 2015. “Prisoners in 2014.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, Depart- ment of Justice. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez, and Nich- olas Turner. 2014. “Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility.” NBER Working Paper 19844. -
Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: a Tale of Three Elasticities†
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2014, 6(1): 230–271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.1.230 Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities† By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva* This paper derives optimal top tax rate formulas in a model where top earners respond to taxes through three channels: labor supply, tax avoidance, and compensation bargaining. The optimal top tax rate increases when there are zero-sum compensation-bargaining effects. We present empirical evidence consistent with bargaining effects. Top tax rate cuts are associated with top one percent pretax income shares increases but not higher economic growth. US CEO “pay for luck” is quantitatively more prevalent when top tax rates are low. International CEO pay levels are negatively correlated with top tax rates, even controlling for firms’ characteristics and perfor- mance. JEL D31, H21, H24, H26, M12 ( ) he share of total pretax income accruing to upper income groups has increased Tsharply in the United States. The top percentile income share has more than dou- bled from less than 10 percent in the 1970s to over 20 percent in recent years Piketty ( and Saez 2003 . This trend toward income concentration has taken place in a number ) of other countries, especially English-speaking countries, but is much more modest in continental Europe or Japan Atkinson, Piketty, and Saez 2011 and Alvaredo et al. ( 2011 . At the same time, top tax rates on upper income earners have declined sharply ) in many OECD countries, again particularly in English-speaking countries. While there have been many discussions both in the academic literature and the public debate about the causes of the surge in top incomes, there is not a fully com- pelling explanation. -
Monopoly Capital and Capitalist Inequality: Marx After Piketty
Munich Personal RePEc Archive Monopoly Capital and Capitalist Inequality: Marx after Piketty Lambert, Thomas Northern Kentucky University January 2016 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/69615/ MPRA Paper No. 69615, posted 20 Feb 2016 08:50 UTC Monopoly Capital and Capitalist Inequality: Marx after Piketty By Thomas E. Lambert Assistant Professor of Public Administration Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, KY 41099 [email protected] 502-403-9795 (cell) Abstract This paper proposes that one major explanation of growing inequality in the United States (US) is through the use of the concept of economic surplus. The economic surplus is a neo-Marxian term which combines the traditional Marxian tenet of surplus value with other ways that surplus value can be invested in a mature, advanced capitalist economy. A rising economic surplus that is not absorbed through growing consumer spending, luxury spending or government spending results in stagnant wages and growing inequality via higher levels of underemployment and greater monopoly and monopsony power among a decreasing number of huge, powerful corporations. Therefore, the politics surrounding the growth of inequality in the US has to be understood first by understanding over accumulation of the economic surplus by those at the top of the US capitalist class. This research note gives estimates of the rising economic surplus over the last several decades in the US as well as how these correlate with the level of inequality. The growth of the economic surplus gives rise and form to the politics of inequality and austerity. As time goes by, the politics of inequality and austerity in the US will be manifested by greater corporate influence in the political system, greater political polarization, less government 1 effectiveness, and more debates about welfare spending, corporate taxation, taxes on upper income households, and taxes on wealth. -
Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity
Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity White Paper by Joseph E. Stiglitz May 28, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This white paper outlines concrete policy measures that can restore equitable and sustainable economic growth in the United States, in the context of the country’s recurring budgetary crises. Effective policies are within our grasp, because these budgetary crises are the result of political and not economic failings. Tax reform in particular offers a path toward both resolving budgetary impasses and making the kinds of public investments that will strengthen the fundamentals of the economy. The most obvious reform is an increase in the top marginal income tax rates – this would both raise needed revenues and soften America’s extreme and harmful inequality. But there are also a variety of other effective possible reforms related to corporate taxation, the estate and inheritance tax, environmental taxes, and ensuring that the government gets full value when it sells public assets. This white paper describes the gravity of the economic situation in the United States, but also shows that there is a way out. Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Senior Fellow and Chief KEY ARGUMENTS Economist at the Roosevelt Institute, • The current economic situation in the University Professor at Columbia University United States is grave, with extreme in New York, and chair of Columbia inequality, persistently high University's Commi!ee on Global Thought. unemployment, and GDP growth far He is also the co-founder and executive below potential, to name just a few director of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at problems. But the barriers to a solution Columbia. -
Money and Banking in a New Keynesian Model∗
Money and banking in a New Keynesian model∗ Monika Piazzesi Ciaran Rogers Martin Schneider Stanford & NBER Stanford Stanford & NBER March 2019 Abstract This paper studies a New Keynesian model with a banking system. As in the data, the policy instrument of the central bank is held by banks to back inside money and therefore earns a convenience yield. While interest rate policy is less powerful than in the standard model, policy rules that do not respond aggressively to inflation – such as an interest rate peg – do not lead to self-fulfilling fluctuations. Interest rate policy is stronger (and closer to the standard model) when the central bank operates a corridor system as opposed to a floor system. It is weaker when there are more nominal rigidities in banks’ balance sheets and when banks have more market power. ∗Email addresses: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. We thank seminar and conference participants at the Bank of Canada, Kellogg, Lausanne, NYU, Princeton, UC Santa Cruz, the RBNZ Macro-Finance Conference and the NBER SI Impulse and Propagations meeting for helpful comments and suggestions. 1 1 Introduction Models of monetary policy typically assume that the central bank sets the short nominal inter- est rate earned by households. In the presence of nominal rigidities, the central bank then has a powerful lever to affect intertemporal decisions such as savings and investment. In practice, however, central banks target interest rates on short safe bonds that are predominantly held by intermediaries.1 At the same time, the behavior of such interest rates is not well accounted for by asset pricing models that fit expected returns on other assets such as long terms bonds or stocks: this "short rate disconnect" has been attributed to a convenience yield on short safe bonds.2 This paper studies a New Keynesian model with a banking system that is consistent with key facts on holdings and pricing of policy instruments. -
Camille LANDAIS
Updated: Feb 2021 Camille LANDAIS Department of Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Phone : +44(0)78-8581-7069 E-mail : [email protected] http://personal.lse.ac.uk/landais/ POSITIONS 2017 Professor of Economics, London School of Economics 2016 Associate Professor of Economics, London School of Economics 2012-2015 Assistant Professor of Economics, London School of Economics 2010-2012 Post-Doctoral Fellow, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research OTHER APPOINTMENTS & AFFILIATIONS 2020 – Co-Editor American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2020 – Associate Editor Journal of Economic Perspectives 2020 – Co-Director Bill and Melinda Gates Programme for Gender Equality - STICERD 2019 – Member, French Conseil d’Analyse Economique 2019 – 2020 Director, International Growth Center, State Research Programme 2018 – European Economic Association Council Member 2017 – Director, CEPR Public Economics Program 2017 – Scientific Committee Member – Ecole Normale Superieure Ulm 2017 – Research Fellow, Institute for Fiscal Studies 2015 – 2019 Co-Editor Journal of Public Economics 2016 – 2019 Associate Editor Review of Economic Studies 2015 – Associate Editor Fiscal Studies 2015 – 2016 Economic Policy Editorial Panel Member 2014 – Research Affiliate/Fellow, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) 2012 – Research Fellow, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) 2012 – Research Associate, STICERD 2012 – Research Associate, Institute for Fiscal Studies 2012 – Research Affiliate, Institut des -
Migration and Wage Effects of Taxing Top Earners: Evidence from The
MIGRATION AND WAGE EFFECTS OF TAXING TOP EARNERS: EVIDENCE FROM THE FOREIGNERS’ TAX SCHEME IN DENMARK* Henrik Jacobsen Kleven Camille Landais Emmanuel Saez Esben Schultz Downloaded from This article analyzes the effects of income taxation on the international migration and earnings of top earners using a Danish preferential foreigner tax scheme and population-wide Danish administrative data. This scheme, intro- duced in 1991, allows new immigrants with high earnings to be taxed at a http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/ preferential flat rate for a duration of three years. We obtain two main results. First, the scheme has doubled the number of highly paid foreigners in Denmark relative to slightly less paid—and therefore ineligible—foreigners. This trans- lates into a very large elasticity of migration with respect to 1 minus the average tax rate on foreigners, between 1.5 and 2. Second, we find compelling evidence of a negative effect of the scheme-induced reduction in the average tax rate on pretax earnings of foreign migrants at the individual level. This finding can be rationalized by a matching frictions model with wage bargaining where there is a gap between pay and marginal productivity. JEL Codes: H31, J61. at University of California, Berkeley on January 16, 2014 I. Introduction Tax-induced international mobility of talent is a controver- sial public policy issue, especially when tax rates differ substan- tially across countries and migration barriers are low, as in the case of the European Union. High top tax rates may induce top earners to migrate to countries where the tax burden is lower, thereby potentially creating tax competition across countries. -
1 Toward a Reconciliation Between Economics and the Social Sciences
1 Toward a Reconciliation between Economics and the Social Sciences Lessons from Capital in the Twenty-First Century 1 Thomas Piketty I would like to see Capital in the Twenty-First Century as a work-in-progress of social science rather than a treatise about history or economics. It seems to me that too much time is lost within the social sciences on petty quarrels about boundaries and often rather sterile methodological positions. I believe that these oppositions between disciplines can and should be overcome, and that the best way to do so is to address big issues and see how far we can take them, using whatever combination of methods and disciplinary traditions that seems appropriate. I could not have hoped for a greater homage to my approach than this group of texts written by specialists from very different horizons and methodological perspectives.2 Within the framework of such a short article, it is impossible to respond to all of the points raised in this book and to do justice to the richness of these essays. I would simply like to attempt to clarify a small number of issues and refine certain elements that were undoubtedly insufficiently developed in my book, in particular from the perspective of the multidimensional history of capital and power relations, and regarding the role played by beliefs systems and economic models in my analysis. I will then turn to another important limitation of my book, namely the fact that it is too much Western-centered. Capital and the Social Sciences First of all, I would like to briefly summarize what I have tried to do in this work and how it fits into the history of the social sciences, where several research traditions and schools of thought intersect. -
1 Introduction Pat Hudson and Keith Tribe Pat Hudson and Keith Tribe
1 introduction Pat Hudson and Keith Tribe Pat Hudson and Keith Tribe Thomas Piketty’s Le Capital au XXIe siècle was first published in Paris during the summer of 2013. On the appearance of an English edition in March 2014 introduction it became an international blockbuster, being quickly translated into German, Spanish and Chinese. Sales of all copies by January 2015 were 1.5 million and rising, fuelled by popular concern about growing income inequality and the links between inequality and global economic instability. Thanks to Piketty, and to his large transnational team of colleagues, together with a spate of recent books on global wealth and income disparities, distribution is back at the centre of our concerns.1 piketty’s promise In light of the mass of new comparative data contained in Capital in the Twenty- First Century, and in associated publications and appendices, it is clear that some common long-run trends in inequality across the developed world had not been sufficiently recognized. In particular, Piketty emphasizes the notable increase in income-generating wealth of top income earners in recent decades, together with rising pay. His study of top incomes, and their genesis, has unsettled the widely held assumption that capital’s share in national income (via interest, divi- dends and capital gains) would always necessarily revert to a long-run constant. The social concentration of wealth through inheritance and its role in cumu- latively ratcheting up incomes, and thus further increasing wealth in the top 10 per cent or so of the population, is now in the spotlight.