Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Foundation for Teaching Economics - new course
The FTE has developed a new online course - Economics of Disasters to be piloted during the Spring, 2009 semester and offered for graduate credit during the Fall, 2009 semester.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Student writing contests
The Sir John M. Templeton Fellowships Essay Contest - http://independent.org/students/essay/
Frasier Institute Essay Contest - http://www.fraserinstitute.org/education_programs/forstudents/essay_contest/
Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_contests_atlas
Frasier Institute Essay Contest - http://www.fraserinstitute.org/education_programs/forstudents/essay_contest/
Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_contests_atlas
MCC Online Economics Faculty
MCC online conomics faculty teaching second 8 week spring 2009 online and other interested econ and social sciences faculty to participate in a pilot to apply what our Online Group is formulating to include:
1. Use of the common webct entry point
2. Use of a student and faculty survey
3. Collaboration of all pilot participants to:
1. Use of the common webct entry point
2. Use of a student and faculty survey
3. Collaboration of all pilot participants to:
Thursday, January 1, 2009
E-Learning and Online Teaching Certificate
I completed the 5 course graduate certificate program on Dec. 31, 2008!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Foundation for Teaching Economics
Understanding Liberty & Choice: Property Rights in American History
Welcome to the FTE blog supporting the joint FTE/Liberty Fund conference on Property Rights in American History to be held Dec. 4 - 6, 2008, in Denver.
We are delighted that you will be participating in this conference. As you're aware, the conference combines presentations, interactive learning, and Socratic Seminar sessions. This pre-conference blog has several functions: First, it is designed to introduce you to your Socratic seminar discussion group. Then, in a few weeks, we'll ask each of the 3 seminar discussion groups to help us in planning the panel presentations and formulating questions for the panelists - but that's down the road a little way. For now, we just want you to get to know one another.
There will be 3 Socratic Seminar groups in Denver, and you've been assigned to the BLUE group. All members of your Socratic Seminar group have been invited to join this blog. Given the range of experience with online conversation, we'll start simply - by meeting one another.
Welcome to the FTE blog supporting the joint FTE/Liberty Fund conference on Property Rights in American History to be held Dec. 4 - 6, 2008, in Denver.
We are delighted that you will be participating in this conference. As you're aware, the conference combines presentations, interactive learning, and Socratic Seminar sessions. This pre-conference blog has several functions: First, it is designed to introduce you to your Socratic seminar discussion group. Then, in a few weeks, we'll ask each of the 3 seminar discussion groups to help us in planning the panel presentations and formulating questions for the panelists - but that's down the road a little way. For now, we just want you to get to know one another.
There will be 3 Socratic Seminar groups in Denver, and you've been assigned to the BLUE group. All members of your Socratic Seminar group have been invited to join this blog. Given the range of experience with online conversation, we'll start simply - by meeting one another.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Impact of trade
Mark Thoma summarizes the ongoing debate over the impact of trade over on Economist's View. His post "Why Large American Gains from Globalisation are Plausible" is an excellent point to enter the discussion.
This post touches on the related issue of inequality - a topic that seems to lie at the heart of a great deal of angst in both academic and popular circles.
I recommend a read of the post over on Thoms'a blog (a portion of which can be found below.)
Thoma makes presents the conventional view of trade as he writes:
You can read Dani Rodrik if you want to know "under what conditions will trade liberalization enhance economic performance?" ... Whatever the theory says, the evidence in this paper and the evidence more generally is pretty clear, globalization has large net benefits.
Much of the discussion in this blog post revolves around the potential impact of trade on the US economy. For example:
The Bradford et al. study argues that removing all remaining barriers to trade would raise U.S. incomes anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 per household (or 3.4-10.1% of GDP). That is a whole chunk of change!
Why large American gains from globalisation are plausible, by Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Matthew Adler, Vox EU: The Peterson Institute calculates that the US economy was approximately $1 trillion richer in 2003 due to past globalisation – the payoff both from technological innovation and from policy liberalisation – and could gain another $500 billion annually from future policy liberalisation (Bradford, Grieco, and Hufbauer 2005). Past gains amounted to about 9% of GDP in 2003, and potential future gains constitute another 4%.
However, empirical research on the American economy does not support the contention that income distribution has been strongly affected by international trade and investment. The forces of technology, education, and immigration are much stronger (Lawrence 2008). Also see the WSY online: Technology, Not Globalization, Feeds Income Inequality
Critics of globalization often cite increasing income inequality in their opposition, but a new study suggests that technological advances, not globalization, is responsible for an increase in the gap.
Rising Income Inequality: Technology, or Trade and Financial Globalization?
Prepared by Florence Jaumotte, Subir Lall, and Chris Papageorgiou
Estimates using a new and more reliable dataset on inequality and detailed measures of globalization suggest that the observed rise in inequality across both developed and developing countries over the past two decades is largely attributable to the impact of technological change. The contribution of increased globalization to inequality has in general been relatively minor. This reflects two offsetting effects of globalization: while increased trade tends to reduce income inequality, foreign direct investment tends to exacerbate it. Both globalization and technological progress tend to increase the relative demand for skills and education. While incomes have increased across all segments of the population in virtually all countries in the sample, incomes of those who already have higher levels of education and skills have risen disproportionately more.
The implication of these findings is that broader access to education will allow a greater segment of the population to take advantage of the opportunities from globalization and technological change. While these changes have increased incomes across countries and helped reduce poverty, the benefits would be even greater, allowing for a faster reduction in poverty, if the distribution of skills became more equal. This suggests that the returns to investment in education for all countries has risen in the recent era of globalization.
This post touches on the related issue of inequality - a topic that seems to lie at the heart of a great deal of angst in both academic and popular circles.
I recommend a read of the post over on Thoms'a blog (a portion of which can be found below.)
Thoma makes presents the conventional view of trade as he writes:
You can read Dani Rodrik if you want to know "under what conditions will trade liberalization enhance economic performance?" ... Whatever the theory says, the evidence in this paper and the evidence more generally is pretty clear, globalization has large net benefits.
Much of the discussion in this blog post revolves around the potential impact of trade on the US economy. For example:
The Bradford et al. study argues that removing all remaining barriers to trade would raise U.S. incomes anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 per household (or 3.4-10.1% of GDP). That is a whole chunk of change!
Why large American gains from globalisation are plausible, by Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Matthew Adler, Vox EU: The Peterson Institute calculates that the US economy was approximately $1 trillion richer in 2003 due to past globalisation – the payoff both from technological innovation and from policy liberalisation – and could gain another $500 billion annually from future policy liberalisation (Bradford, Grieco, and Hufbauer 2005). Past gains amounted to about 9% of GDP in 2003, and potential future gains constitute another 4%.
However, empirical research on the American economy does not support the contention that income distribution has been strongly affected by international trade and investment. The forces of technology, education, and immigration are much stronger (Lawrence 2008). Also see the WSY online: Technology, Not Globalization, Feeds Income Inequality
Critics of globalization often cite increasing income inequality in their opposition, but a new study suggests that technological advances, not globalization, is responsible for an increase in the gap.
Rising Income Inequality: Technology, or Trade and Financial Globalization?
Prepared by Florence Jaumotte, Subir Lall, and Chris Papageorgiou
Estimates using a new and more reliable dataset on inequality and detailed measures of globalization suggest that the observed rise in inequality across both developed and developing countries over the past two decades is largely attributable to the impact of technological change. The contribution of increased globalization to inequality has in general been relatively minor. This reflects two offsetting effects of globalization: while increased trade tends to reduce income inequality, foreign direct investment tends to exacerbate it. Both globalization and technological progress tend to increase the relative demand for skills and education. While incomes have increased across all segments of the population in virtually all countries in the sample, incomes of those who already have higher levels of education and skills have risen disproportionately more.
The implication of these findings is that broader access to education will allow a greater segment of the population to take advantage of the opportunities from globalization and technological change. While these changes have increased incomes across countries and helped reduce poverty, the benefits would be even greater, allowing for a faster reduction in poverty, if the distribution of skills became more equal. This suggests that the returns to investment in education for all countries has risen in the recent era of globalization.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Confidence in Free Markets
The LA Times reported that the general attitude toward markets and government intervention may be changing:
"We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has een thrown very much into question."
The author of the article, goes on to observe:
Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy.
This article confirms a trend that I have seen in my interactions with students, fellow faculty and my circle of friends.
Kling, in a review of what he calls a must read book Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human Well-Being points out one possibility for this procedural utility. Kling summarizes this idea in his post and Frey's book is now on my reading list.
"We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has een thrown very much into question."
The author of the article, goes on to observe:
Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy.
This article confirms a trend that I have seen in my interactions with students, fellow faculty and my circle of friends.
Kling, in a review of what he calls a must read book Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human Well-Being points out one possibility for this procedural utility. Kling summarizes this idea in his post and Frey's book is now on my reading list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
