Convergence in recessions

Growth theory and data teach us that, at least in developed countries, economies tend to converge in the long run: the dispersion across regions or nations of per capita income (or similar indicators) tends to decline. While this is a long term phenomenon, there is a priori no reason to believe this is a constant process.



Eldon Ball, Carlos San Juan and Camilo Ulloa study total factor productivity in agriculture across US states. While they indeed find a general trend towards convergence, it turns out that its speed is much faster during recessions. Why would this happen? If we follow Schumpeter, the worst firms should be dropping out during a recession, thereby relatively increasing TFP in the worst areas. And voilà, you have faster convergence. But only farm-level data would tell whether my conjecture is true.

Aid and remittances as hedges against food price shocks

Food is a substantial part of household expenses in developing economies, and in many of the latter foreign aid and remittances from emigrants provide a substantial part of national income. As world food prices have been subject to large fluctuations lately, causing much grief and even riots, it is natural to ask whether aid and remittances can provide some smoothing against the effects of these fluctuations.

Jean-Louis Combes, Christian Ebeke, Mireille Ntsama Etoundi and Thierry Yogo use a cross-country panel data set to study this question. First, they confirm that food fluctuations have a notable impact on aggregate consumption, especially in the poorest economies. Second they find that aid and remittances do help, and remittances seem to be more efficient at hedging. Indeed, an aid-to-GDP ratio of 29% is theoretically necessary to absorb food price fluctuations, while 9% is sufficient is for remittances. Only Mozambique and Nicaragua satisfy the first, while a few more countries satisfy the second.

The economic behavior of bees

I find it fascinating that there is also plenty of Economics in the animal kingdom. Two recent papers about bees just caught my attention.

Antoine Champetier studies the interaction of bees and farmers, as bees play an important role in pollination and are thought to be subject to a mysterious decline in numbers. He takes California almonds as an example and builds a model of pollination supply with hive owners and bees that forage. One aspect appears to be rather important: economies of scale in the hive, as larger hives have an easier time regulating the temperature and can devote more time to more aggressive foraging. Champetier formulates a spatial model of foraging and coordination in the bee colony, where energy used and gained by foraging is assessed, as well as time costs in each step of pollen acquisition and storage.

Noam Bar-Shai, Tamar Keasar and Avi Shmida study what makes that a bee departs early or stays longer in a flower patch. Looking at videos, they concluded that bees cannot count, but are rather governed by clues left by odor marks (to prevent revisiting the same flowers) and current foraging success.

Pollution has an impact on worker productivity

Pollution regulation is typically cast as a game between citizens and firms, the first suffering the consequences of pollution while the second are the origin of the pollution. In such a case, there is no incentive for firms to abate pollution, and the government has to mediate. But could a case be made that firms should be willing, individually or collectively, to reduce pollution. One way can be green labeling, which could increase the demand for their products. Another would be if firms realize pollution has an impact on their on productivity or on the labor supply.

Joshua Graff Zivin and Matthew Neidell take the worker productivity angle by using a dataset of dairy farm workers from a large farm in the Central Valley of California. In particular, they look how ozone levels impact the output of piece rate workers. At it is substantial. For example, a 10 ppb reduction of ozone increases productivity by 4.2%, noting that the standard deviation of ozone levels is 13 ppb. And if you object that some of the workers fall under minimum wage law and may not exert the right effort, be reassured, the authors took that into account. In addition, this impact happens even when the ozone level is well below the current national standards. Realizing this, industry should be more willing to accept the suggested tightening of pollution standards for ozone, and for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals that are the source of ground-level ozone.

Does it make sense to subsidize biofuels?

Ina relatively short time, biofuels have become remarkably popular, especially as an additive to regular petroleum based fuel. This is at least in part due to massive subsidies from the US to fuel and corn producers. As biofuels compete with food, this has lead to major price increases for corn and sugar, with adverse consequences for importing countries. This begs the question: is it actually a good idea to subsidize biofuels? I mentioned previously that it is preferable to tax other energy products rather than subsidize alternative energies (1, 2), but let us revisit this issue.

Subhayu Bandyopadhyay, Sumon Bhaumik and Howard Wall use a general equilibrium trade model and confirm that if there is a Pigovian tax on conventional fuels, subsidies are not needed. But if the Pigovian tax is not available or too low (as is the case in the US), then a subsidy for biofuels makes sense, But if the country in question is large, there are other implications through increased worldwide demand for food. In that case, a food exporter wants to subsidize biofuels and tax conventional fuels. A food importing country would only want to subsidize biofuels if the pollution reduction effect is large enough.

Hector Nuñez, Hayri Önal, Madhu Khanna, Xiaoguang Chen and Haixiao Huang look more specifically at the interaction of policies in the US and Brazil, the two largest producers of biofuels. Indeed, the US imposes a special tariff on the importation of biofuels, in particular the more advanced sugarcane based one from Brazil. Brazil is also the largest producer and exporter of beef. The paper uses a multi-country, multi-good model, unfortunately with a partial equilibrium, but it takes into account possible crop rotations and different categories of land. It concludes that eliminating the tariffs would significantly reduce biofuel production in the US, with the latter importing biofuels from Brazil and exporting corn. While this reduces producer welfare compared to the status quo, it increases consumer welfare. Given the political system in the US, guess what will happen.

Paying farmers for landscaping

Switzerland has had for centuries a rather unique system of communal land tenure for the alpine areas. Indeed, cattle owners send their livestock up from the villages for the Summer season, and these grazing areas are commonly owned and rights to them are inherited. The returns of agriculture in the mountainous areas are, however, far from competitive in this era of globalization, and Switzerland has resorted to compensating farmers for keeping the cows up there. The reason is that cows and some other farming bring landscaping benefits, for example keeping the grass short improves snow management for avalanche prevention and skiing, or preserves biodiversity and prevents invasive plants to take foothold. These direct payments are very close to making farmers civil servants. Note that payments depend on the size of the farm, its location, the treatment of animals and the general ecological friendliness of the business.

A pair of recent papers analyze the new situation for farmers in the Swiss Alps. Chiara Calabrese and Gabriele Mack used an agent-based model to study how incomes of a large number of heterogeneous livestock farmer families would evolve until 2020. Different scenarios are explored (a not described status quo, more subsidy for summered livestock and lump sum subsidy to all alpine farmers proportional to farmed area). Results are not unexpected (no change, more summered livestock and income, less of both). Prices are assumed to grow at a steady rate unknown to reader. Give the recent wide fluctuations for food, that needs to be made more explicit and additional scenarios are needed. Also, this study basically assumes that the government does not face a budget constraint and will always be willing whatever it takes to maintain a policy. At least the costs of the program should be reported.

The other study by Nadja El Benni, Stefan Mann and Bernard Lehmann looks at how these direct payments to farmers influence the distribution of incomes. Due to the terrain, farms are small almost everywhere in the country, and Gini coefficients for farmer income have been rather low compared to other countries. The new policy increased the Gini coefficients even though the payments were implemented in part to redistribute income and they constitute now 79% of a farmers income. The reason is that the disparities in market income have increased tremendously and direct payments are tied to farm size after all.

Time for an agricultural revolution in Africa?

When you think about income differences across the world, Africa is really depressing. It seems nothing is making a lasting impact in terms of policy for it to catch up with the others, and seeing how Asia managed to transform itself makes you wonder what is fundamentally wrong. While one may think this has to do with misguided policies, so much has been tried that something ought to have stuck. But no. One thing that helped Asia is that evolution in rice brought an agricultural revolution that freed human resources for manufacturing, so could such a revolution also happen in Africa?

Donald Larson, Keijiro Otsuka, Kei Kajisa, Jonna Estudillo and Aliou Diagne claim that several areas in Africa are suitable for rice, but local diets and tastes are too diverse for rice to have the success it had in Asia. The productivity of other crops needs to improve as well. So it does not look like there is a ready-made solution that will kick-start the agricultural revolution soon, despite some very localized successes.

That said, why insist of improving agriculture on a continent that is visibly not appropriate for this? Much like telecommunications in Africa jumped over landlines directly to mobile telephony, why not bypass agricultural development straight to manufacturing? One argument against this is the large transportation costs that make local agriculture essential and manufacturing away from the ports unprofitable. But why insist on keeping the population on the countryside? Why not develop coastal cities and take advantage from returns to scale there, like Singapore and Hong Kong did, and

Is fair trade unfair?

US colleges make big money from the sale of all sorts of items imprinted with their logo, in particular clothes. Of course, to maximize the margins on these goods, their production has been mostly outsourced off-shore, to factories that were often likened to sweatshops. Whether a large portion of those factories were indeed providing substandard working conditions is a debate I do not want to enter for now. The fact is that student activists demanded that those factories should not be retained for production. As universities and their suppliers complied, the poorest workers were out of a job, and the university gift stores are making less of a profit. Unintended consequences.

Aurélie Carimentrand and Jérôme Ballet explore a similar story with fair trade. Their case study is about quinoa from Bolivia. The goal of fair trade is to give local producers in developing countries a larger share of the retail price of their product. But beneficiaries need to get certified, and this process does not necessarily favor the most needy, in particular as they need to obey some rules. In the case of Bolivian quinoa, this works through the membership in a growers' association which markets crops to fair trade networks. As associations typically are, this one is dominated by the big producers. The latter are located in the big plains, where they could get the full advantage of mechanization. The small producers are on steep terrain and cannot use tractors. The latter are the poorest, but, as the authors argue, they benefit the least from fair trade, often even skipping membership. Indeed, the association pays the same unit price to all members, and given the differences in production costs, this exacerbates inequalities.

The authors claim that fair trade has failed here. It made inequities among producers worse. But was domestic income equality really the primary role? Isn't it really about world income inequality? There, clearly fair trade is transferring some rents to developing economies. Whether they are large enough to be worth the trouble is another question.

How could price risk hedging be bad for producers?

When one faces fluctuations in income, it seems quite natural to find some way to insure yourself. For farmers, price fluctuations can be a serious problem, especially with non-diversified crops. In developing economics, this insurance was provided by commodity marketing boards. But as their margins kept increasing, fueling incredible corruption, they have been abandoned virtually everywhere. Instead, the World Bank has been advocating commodity futures, where farmers can hedge their risk. In principle this looks like the perfect thing to do.

But there are some pitfalls, as Sasha C. Breger Bush argues. First, farmers may face margin calls, and given the wide fluctuations in the underlying prices, this can be devastating if you have little assets to meet those calls. The weakest thus go bankrupt, facing essentially something like a gambler's ruin. Second, hedging provides the wrong incentives if farmers do not understand that current low prices mean that their supply should be reduced and they should diversify. Clearly, it is not obvious to find a mechanism that allows farmers to whether price fluctuations while still letting the price influence demand and supply the way it should.

Why Japanese farms are so small

Why are Japanese farms so small and so inefficient/ As usual under such circumstances, this is because they are protected through subsidies and zoning laws. But why? No matter what the country, agriculture enjoys protection. Some reasons, depending on the country, may include resistance to change, preservation of the landscape, preservation of traditions and securing wartime food for the country. All this can explain why the agricultural sector is subsidized and then inefficient, but that does not explain why Japanese farms are small. They could still merge.

Yoshihisa Godo finds an explanation from political economy. Japanese farmers can make more money from manipulating farmland regulation than from farming itself. In other words, they are extracting rents from holding a regulated asset. For example, as a land-owner, you get money if you preserve its agricultural purpose, and the more prone to conversion to other uses the location is, the more you get. That explains why you would find rice paddies in the middle of dense cities. But when an opportunity arises, farmers convince ("manipulate") authorities to convert the classification of the land to cash in on its market value.

Godo links this to a misunderstanding of democracy, in that people only care for themselves and do not see the consequences for the others. While it may be true that people in Japan a century ago may have been less selfish, the current problem is one of deficient institutions, not deficient people. That institutions cannot be changed may very well be an issue of lobbying and rent-seeking, but you cannot blame it on citizen having little regard on the duties in participatory democracy. Godo's main point is that people complain when a zoning change hurts them, and then exploit other zoning changes for their own gain. He also complains that those hurt ask for compensation. Yet, good economics would precisely ask for such compensation, a very Coasian argument. It would also ask for those who gain to pay for such privilege. This is where Japan is lacking, and once this is implemented, land would be used much more efficiently. Making this happen could very well be a political problem, but it has nothing to do with an implied lack of servitude of the average voter.

PS: I hate it when a paper starts on page 9.

Posting calories in restaurants is Pareto improving

With increasing frequency, it is proposed that restaurants should post on their menus nutritional information. The restaurants resist this because they think it may shoo customers away, or at least make them eat less (assuming they underestimated the calories, which may not be always true). But if they eat less, why not make portions smaller and thus reduce costs and possibly increase profits?

Bryan Bollinger, Phillip Leslie and Alan Sorensen observed Starbucks outlets in New York City as such a calorie posting policy was implemented. They got data about each transaction in a NYC outlet for a 14-month period, including 11 months with calorie postings, as well as in Boston and Philadelphia, which act as control groups. They finding that the posting reduced calories per transaction by 14 units, 10 coming from fewer purchases and 4 from switching to a lower calorie item. You may think this would be bad for Starbucks? Think again, there was no significant change in revenue, in fact there was even a 3% increase for Starbucks outlets close to Dunkin Donuts: the calorie posting attracted clients from competitors.

How people pick a good wine

How do you pick your wine when you go to the store? DO you come with a list of recommendations? Do you ask personnel? Other shoppers? Do you come with a guidebook? Do you pick at random? Or do you always buy the same bottles?

Luiz de Mello and Ricardo Pires say that the average customer is mostly influenced, except for the price, by the shape of the label. Next most important factor is the color of the label. Isn't that disappointing? with the educated small talk people have about their preferred wines, all that matters in the end is the label?

How can we rationalize this? For one, many customers are not that sophisticated and just want a decent wine. Given the competition, a particular cru needs to distinguish itself. Somehow, having a distinctive bottle design is frowned upon, but the label is where free expression can attract a shopper's eye, like the banner ads with dancing girls. For the sophisticated wine drinker, the label will not matter anyway.

Are school lunch subsidies useful?

I have always found it puzzling that so many American children qualify for school lunch subsidies. It seems that in the richest country of the world at a time where the world was never this rich, no children should go hungry. Yet many apparently are. And it seems that these school lunch programs are doing them good, both in terms of putting something in their stomach and something healthy in their regimen. Which is important in the context of the obesity "epidemic."

This is what I understand from the paper by Larry Howard and Nishith Prakash. In particular, they observe that pure fruit juice, fruit and salad intake increases for those who are subsidized. This implies in particular that parents are not substituting away from these foods when they are supplied in school. Encouraging. Now, what about removing hamburgers, pizza and fries from school cafeteria menus for everyone?

Who benefits from agricultural subsidies?

Plenty of governments are dishing out large subsidies to their farmers. But are they really benefiting from them? If they rent the land, classic theory would indicate the land owner who be able to extract the whole subsidy from the renting farmer, simply because of the inelastic supply of land, assuming perfect competition for land.

Barrett Kirwan answers this question using US data and exploiting changes in farm subsidies. Kirwan finds that tenants actually manage to keep 75% of the subsidy. Why? Because the rental market is not perfect competition after all, something that is confirmed by the fact that tenants manage to extract more where there is less competition.

While I find it hard to justify agricultural subsidies, they are targeted towards those who farm the land, not those who own it. And it appears that this is working.

Argentina: How not to handle food price increases

Argentina is blessed with a very rich agriculture. A century ago, its standard of living was among the highest of the world thanks to this sector. Nowadays, the fiscal health of the country relies crucially on export taxes levied on agricultural products, and we all know how the fiscal health of this country is important. All of this is getting undone right now, with a poor handling by the government of food price increases.

First some context. Soya prices have, much like other food prices, increased significantly over the last years, in a large part due large demand for cattle feed in Europe and Asia. What would any sane grower do in such a situation? Grow more soya. Within a few years, the land dedicated to soya in Argentina went fron 5 million to 15 million acres, bringing a lot of income to growers and to the state, which levies a 35% export tax. The substitution means, however, that other food staples are now much less grown, and the price of, say, tomatoes and potatoes has significantly increased.

Consumers obviously complain when prices go up, so the government tries to find a way to increase the supply of food for local consumption. How? By increasing the export tax to 44%. As everything is already planted, this changes nothing to production, increases further world soya prices, leads growers to demonstrate and shut down roads, to the point of generating serious supply problems across Argentina and increasing prices further.

If the price of tomatoes is high, let the market do its job and adjust the production for next season. Fluctuations in prices may be higher than optimal (à la cobweb model), but with good information, growers can predict them and plan accordingly (that is what agricultural economics departments are for, right?).