美元或将“碳本位”

美国的核心利益是保持美元在全球的主导地位，对于美元最大的威胁不是来自中国、俄罗斯这样的国家，而是欧元区。越来越多的国家把欧元作为储备货币和国际贸易货币之一，并通过碳交易受到发展中国家的普遍接纳。美国抓住全球减排这一机会，实施能源环境新政，以继续维持美元在全球的统治地位。作为世界第一温室气体排放国的中国将面临空前的压力     

When will a Dictator be Good?

Dictatorship is the predominant political system in many developing countries. However, different dictators act quite differently: a good dictator implements growth-enhancing economic policies, e.g., investment in public education and infrastructure, whereas a bad dictator taxes her citizens for her own consumption. The present paper provides a theoretical model by deriving underlying determinants of dictatorial behavior. We assume that the engine of economic growth is private investment. It can increase the productivity of individuals who invest, as well as the aggregate technological level. A good dictator encourages this investment in order to tax more. However, the cost of this encouragement is that the ensuing higher growth rate will induce earlier democratization. In this paper we will illustrate the risk of choosing a growth-enhancing policy, while leading to additional tax revenues in the short-run will also increase the likelihood of a revolution resulting in the eventual overthrow of the dictator. Furthermore, we will find that the higher the return from private investments the less likely the dictator will be a good one. Contrary to McGuire and Olson (J Econ Lit 34:72–96, 1996) we find that a long life-time does not always induce positive incentives among dictators. I wish to thank Monika Merz, who carefully read the earlier version of this paper and provided many valuable suggestions. I also would like to thank the editor, the anonymous referee, Uwe Sunde, Philipp Kircher and participants at the 4th international annual conference of JEPA for helpful comments. I am grateful to Stephan Heim for his assistance. All possible errors are, of course, mine.     

Public policies: will policy be ineffective if welfare is a random-walk

This study contradicts the view that policy cannot be effective if the welfare variable is a random-walk. Also, the study disagrees with the methodology employed by some proponents of this view, and goes on to show that the conclusion of policy ineffectiveness was only due to a wrong inference procedure. Furthermore, it points out that the notion of policy effectiveness suggests the examination of the relationship between policy and welfare; hence, what to look for is not a trend in the individual time series, but a common trend which relates the policy instrument and the welfare-variable in the policy environment under consideration.