scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

London School of Economics and Political Science

EducationLondon, United Kingdom
About: London School of Economics and Political Science is a education organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Politics. The organization has 8759 authors who have published 35017 publications receiving 1436302 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the same commodity going to two different persons as two different goods is treated as a weighting of " goods", which will incorporate distributional judgements, and a welfare interpretation of real income comparisons without the usual restrictive assumptions, e.g., leaving out distributional considerations explicitly.
Abstract: Real national income comparison is one of the most frequently performed exercises in empirical economics. While the welfare implications of such comparisons are often not spelt out, there is little doubt that the significance that is attached to comparisons of real national income depend greatly on their implicit welfare content. This also influences the statistical procedures that are chosen, and as has been observed, " the basic conventions that have been adopted by the statisticians of most countries for purposes of GNP-measurement are still founded on some notion of what measure of economic activity can best represent the contribution of that activity to welfare ". (Beckerman [2], p. 80). The welfare theory of real national income comparisons is, however, incomplete in several important ways, despite outstanding contributions by several distinguished economists, including Hicks [17], [18], Scitovsky [40], Kuznets [24], Samuelson [38], [39], Little [26] and Graaff [12], among others. Perhaps the most serious difficulty is with the treatment of income distribution. The starting point of thispaper lies in treating the same commodity going to two different persons as two different goods. The weighting of " goods ", thus defined, will incorporate distributional judgements. (The approach presented in this paper is best seen in the context of Graaff's [12] analysis of the need to " dispense with the time-honoured device of drawing a distinction between the size and the distribution of the national income and saying that welfare depends upon them both ", and his penetrating observation that welfare "depends (if we must use the term) on size only-and we do not know what the size is until we know the distribution" ([12], p. 92).) This will permit a welfare interpretation of real income comparisons without the usual restrictive assumptions, e.g. leaving out distributional considerations explicitly (cf. Hicks [17], [18]), or making the peculiarly unrealistic assumption that distribution is made " optimal" by lump-sum transfers (cf. Samuelson [38], pp. 28-29, [39]). The important point to note is that typically social welfare can be seen to be a function of the vector of " goods " as defined here, but not as a function of the vector of commodities in the usual sense (i.e. irrespective of who gets them). Another departure lies in the explicit recognition of the fact that real national income comparisons involve different groups of people.' In this, these comparisons differ from traditional welfare economics (e.g. the use of " Pareto Optimality " or of " Compensation Tests "), collective choice theory, (e.g. the use of Arrowian " social welfare functions "), and the standard theory of national planning (e.g. " cost-benefit analysis ", or " optimal growth theory "), which are concerned with comparing alternative positions of the same group of people. One way of avoiding the complex problems of inter-group contrasts is to confine real income comparisons to contrasting the actual position of a group with what its position " would have been " if it were plhced in the position of another group. (Cf. Pigou: " If the German population with German tastes were given the national dividend of England, . . ." [34], pp. 52-53.) But this problem is ill-defined. For two groups of n people each, there are n! different ways of placing one group in the position of another. And, for two groups of different sizes, the interpretation of such " as if" comparisons is totally ambiguous.

416 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that identification problems bedevil applied spatial economic research, and they advocate an alternative approach based on the "experimentalist paradigm" which puts issues of identification and causality at center stage.
Abstract: We argue that identification problems bedevil applied spatial economic research. Spatial econometrics usually solves these problems by deriving estimators assuming that functional forms are known and by using model comparison techniques to let the data choose between competing specifications. We argue that in many situations of interest this achieves, at best, only very weak identification. Worse, in many cases, such an approach will be uninformative about the causal economic processes at work, rendering much applied spatial econometric research “pointless,” unless the main aim is description of the data. We advocate an alternative approach based on the “experimentalist paradigm” which puts issues of identification and causality at center stage.

414 citations

Book
01 Jan 1971
TL;DR: The essays were selected on the basis of their interest to students and general readers from Bauer's book, "Dissent on Development: Studies and Debates in Development Economics" as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: With style and imagination, this iconoclastic work covers the major issues in development economics. In eight carefully reasoned essays, P. T. Bauer challenges most of the accepted notions and supports his views with evidence drawn from a wide range of primary sources and direct experience.The essays were selected on the basis of their interest to students and general readers from Bauer's book, "Dissent on Development: Studies and Debates in Development Economics." Reviewing the previous work, the "Wall Street Journal" wrote: "It could have a profound impact on our thinking about the entire development question... Quite simply, it is no longer possible to discuss development economics intelligently without coming to grips with the many arguments P. T. Bauer marshalled in this extraordinary work."

413 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Henwood et al. as mentioned in this paper explored the ways in which men talk about their own bodies and bodily practices, and those of other men, and found that men are actively engaged in constructing and policing appropriate masculine behaviours and identities; above all, in regulating normative masculinity.
Abstract: Drawing on interviews with 140 young British males, this paper explores the ways in which men talk about their own bodies and bodily practices, and those of other men. The specific focus of interest is a variety of body modification practices, including working out (at a gym) tattooing, piercing and cosmetic surgery. We want to argue, however, that the significance of this analysis extends beyond the topic of body modification to a broader set of issues concerned with the nature of men’s embodied identities. In discussing the appearance of their bodies, the men we interviewed talked less about muscle and skin than about their own selves located within particular social, cultural and moral universes. The surfaces of their bodies were, as Mike Featherstone (1991) has argued, charged primarily with ‘identity functions’, allowing men to establish a place for themselves in contemporary society. Using a social psychological approach which can be characterised as a discursive analysis (Henwood, Gill & McLean, 1999; Lupton, 1998), this paper makes connections between men’s private feelings and bodily practices, and broader social and cultural trends and relations. It shows that in talking about seemingly trivial questions such as whether to have one’s nose pierced or whether to join a gym, men are actively engaged in constructing and policing appropriate masculine behaviours and identities; above all, in regulating normative masculinity. We identify five key discourses or ‘interpretive repertoires’ (Wetherell & Potter, 1992) which together construct the meanings for these men of attempts to modify the appearance of the body. The five discourses or repertoires were focused on the themes of individualism and ‘being different’; libertarianism and the autonomous body; unselfconsciousness and the rejection of vanity; a notion of the ‘well-balanced’ and unobsessional self; and self-respect and the morally accountable body. Our analysis lends support to the claim that the body has become a new (identity) project in high/late/postmodernity (e.g. Shilling, 1993; Featherstone, 1991), but shows how fraught with difficulties this project is for young men who must simultaneously work on and discipline their bodies while disavowing any (inappropriate) interest in their own appearance. The analysis highlights the pervasive individualism of young men’s discourses, and the absence of alternative ways of making sense of embodied experiences.

413 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the New Deal for Young People in the U.K. was used to identify treatment effects of a labor market program, which includes extensive job assistance and wage subsidies to employers.
Abstract: This paper exploits area-based piloting and age-related eligibility rules to identify treatment effects of a labor market program—the New Deal for Young People in the U.K. A central focus is on substitution/displacement effects and on equilibrium wage effects. The program includes extensive job assistance and wage subsidies to employers. We find that the impact of the program significantly raised transitions to employment by about 5 percentage points. The impact is robust to a wide variety of nonexperimental estimators. However, we present some evidence that this effect may not be as large in the longer run. (JEL: J18, J23, J38)

411 citations


Authors

Showing all 9081 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Ichiro Kawachi149121690282
Amartya Sen149689141907
Peter Hall132164085019
Philippe Aghion12250773438
Robert West112106153904
Keith Beven11051461705
Andrew Pickles10943655981
Zvi Griliches10926071954
Martin Knapp106106748518
Stephen J. Wood10570039797
Jianqing Fan10448858039
Timothy Besley10336845988
Richard B. Freeman10086046932
Sonia Livingstone9951032667
John Van Reenen9844040128
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Tilburg University
22.3K papers, 791.3K citations

89% related

World Bank
21.5K papers, 1.1M citations

89% related

National Bureau of Economic Research
34.1K papers, 2.8M citations

86% related

Economic Policy Institute
14.2K papers, 765.8K citations

85% related

University of Essex
24.4K papers, 752.8K citations

85% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023135
2022457
20212,030
20201,835
20191,636
20181,561