State‐level capital and investment: Refinements and update

El‐Shagi, Makram; Yamarik, Steven

doi:10.1111/grow.12332

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The natural log of real capital per capita, which is utilized as an instrument (see Subsection 6.2.1), is derived from two series. The first, real capital stock per state (in millions of 2009 dollars) is obtained from El‐Shagi and Yamarik (2019). The second, population by state, is from the U.S. Census Bureau.…”

Section: Data Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federal Regulation and Mortality in the 50 States

Broughel

Chambers

2021

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research speculates that some regulations are counterproductive in the sense that they increase (rather than decrease) mortality risk. However, few empirical studies have measured the extent to which this phenomenon holds across the regulatory system as a whole. Using a novel U.S. state panel data set spanning the period 2000–2014, we estimate the effect of U.S. federal regulation on state‐level mortality. We find that a 1% increase in federal regulation of state economies is associated with an increase in an index of state mortality of between 0.53% and 1.35%. These findings are robust to the form of mortality measure, choice of covariates, and the inclusion/exclusion of various regions, states, and industries. We also provide an update of the “cost‐per‐life saved cutoff,” which is the counterproductive risk threshold for expenditures. We find that expenditures in excess of $38.6 million (2019 dollars) per life saved can be expected to increase mortality risk. This article fills an important gap in the empirical literature and boosts the credibility of mortality risk analysis, whereby public policymakers weigh both the expected lives saved and lost due to a proposed regulation or other policy.

show abstract

Section: Data Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federal Regulation and Mortality in the 50 States

Broughel

Chambers

2021

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study does a preliminary exploration of the change in K/L ratio as a major factor behind interstate convergence or divergence. For each state, real capital stock for 2000 and 2015 is taken from El- Shagi and Yamarik (2019, pp. 1417-1418, and employment for these years is taken from Bureau of Labor Statistics website (2020).…”

Section: A Preliminary Exploration Of Factors Affecting Convergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Income convergence across the U.S. states: further evidence from new recent data

Ram

2020

J Econ Finan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noting the analytical and empirical significance of the topic, this research revisits the theme of income convergence across the US states. The work fills several gaps in the existing literature by (a) covering the most recent period 1997-2018, (b) using the official data on real GDP per capita compiled by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), (c) explicitly comparing the convergence scenario for 1997-2018 with that for 1977-1997, and (d) placing the observed patterns in the context of Piketty-like propositions about high returns to capital and increasing income inequality. One significant outcome of the exercise is an indication of sigma-divergence across the US states, as reflected in increased standard deviation of logs and coefficient of variation over the period, which correspond to a highly significant positive trend in both. Lack of significant beta-convergence is also of interest as is the contrast in the convergence patterns for 1977-1997 and 1997-2018. A simple explanation for income-divergence is pursued by studying the pattern of changes in K/L ratios across states from 2000 to 2015, and it is found that, contrary to the expected pattern of resource flows, K/L ratio tended to increase more in the high K/L-ratio states than in the low K/L areas. This divergence in K/L ratio underlies the sigma-divergence in income. The observed pattern may be deemed consistent with Piketty-like propositions about the high and increasing returns to capital which impeded its move to the poorer states with low K/L ratio.

show abstract

“…4 4 This is real domestic investment over real GDP. Real investment by state and year is based on the capital stock series put together by Steve Yamarick, available at https://cfds.henuecon.education/index.php/data/yes-capital-data from Garofalo and Yamarik (2002) and El‐Shagi and Yamarik (2019). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the welfare costs of racial discrimination in the labor market

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We find that the conditional wage-gap for non-whites is negatively related to gross domestic product per worker across the US. To explain this, we develop a model linking unequal access to employment with the wage gap, labor misallocation, and income loss. The presence of underprivileged workers allows inefficient firms to co-exist with efficient ones and leads to skill misallocation, higher unemployment and lower output. Calibrating the model to match the US, we find a fall in market-based racial discrimination renders inefficient firms non-profitable, causing reallocation of labor and a positive effect on income as high as 4 percent when discrimination is eliminated.

show abstract

State‐level capital and investment: Refinements and update

Cited by 6 publications

References 33 publications

Federal Regulation and Mortality in the 50 States

Federal Regulation and Mortality in the 50 States

Income convergence across the U.S. states: further evidence from new recent data

Measuring the welfare costs of racial discrimination in the labor market

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About