This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001III/msg01229.html as retrieved on 28 Apr 2004 13:30:42 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:5Qy-qMT_GF4J:csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2001III/msg01229.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: david macclement 

[pf] some papers on environmental taxation, tariffs, and colonialisation
< < <
Date Index
> > >
[pf] some papers on environmental taxation, tariffs, and colonialisation
by David MacClement
09 September 2001 20:07 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
· My notes are at the bottom.  D.

@ 12:21 9/9/2001 +1200 Paul Bruce sent to GV-NZ several economics abstracts:
>   "Environmental Taxation and Regulation"
>       A. LANS  BOVENBERG
>              Tilburg University
>            LAWRENCE H.  GOULDER
>              Stanford University
>           http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=281863
>ABSTRACT:
> This chapter examines government policy alternatives for
> protecting the environment. ... in a second-best setting where the
> government relies on distortionary taxes to finance some of its
> budget. The chapter indicates that in this setting, general
> equilibrium considerations have first-order importance in the
> evaluation of environmental policies. Indeed, some of the most
> important impacts of environmental policies take place outside
> of the market that is targeted for regulation. ...
>______________________________
>
>"A Tariff-Growth Paradox? Protection's Impact the World Around 1875-1997"
>
>        MICHAEL A  CLEMENS
>            JEFFREY G.  WILLIAMSON
>           http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=281864
>ABSTRACT:
> ... the first globalization boom before World War I, the
> second since World War II, and the autarkic interlude in
> between. ... protection was associated with fast
> growth before World War II, while it was associated with slow
> growth thereafter. Second, there is strong evidence supporting
> regional asymmetry: while the tariff-growth association was
> powerful and positive in the Core and rich New World before
> World War II, it was typically weak and negative in the poor
> Periphery. The paper offers explanations ...
>______________________________
>
>"Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of
> the Modern World Income Distribution"
>
>       DARON  ACEMOGLU
>           SIMON  JOHNSON
>           JAMES  A.  ROBINSON
>           http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=281865
>ABSTRACT:
> Among countries colonized by European powers during the past 500
> years those that were relatively rich in 1500 are now relatively
> poor. We document this reversal using data on urbanization
> patterns and population density, which, we argue, proxy for
> economic prosperity. ... the
> reversal is consistent with the role of institutions in  economic
> development. ... Europeans were more likely to
> introduce institutions encouraging investment in regions that
> were previously poor. ... the reversal in relative incomes
> took place during the 19th century, and resulted from societies
> with good institutions taking advantage of industrialization
> opportunities.
>

· Given that academic papers are generally affirming or refuting previous
theories (that's why they get through the peer-review filter and get
published), it's not surprising that the first two of these (at least) are
showing that the reality is not what was described by the previously
accepted simple theories.

· But basically, I'm reinforced in the opinion that one should always
distrust any simple explanation; 
  the way people and the world work are not simple, and anyone who tells
you so is a fool.

· There may have been some time in the past when simple explanations were
close to describing reality (at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
Adam Smith's times?), but any interconnected network (multiple nodes, wide
range of weights, many dimensions) such as the world today, _cannot_ be
described simply in any detail. Systems theory _may_ be useful, chaos
theory may give some new insight, but as far as normal simple-minded
economics theories go - forget it!

· The old British WW-II method, "muddling through", is just as likely to
produce an improvement as following some economics theory. "Muddling
through", at least, uses up-to-date knowledge as feed-back, so when the
complex system changes unexpectedly, as _it_will_, a nearly-suitable
response is fairly likely.

David.
David MacClement [davd @ ihug.co.nz] (remove spaces)
http://davd.tripod.com/GrRR-010831_titles.html#top
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
***********************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVEN4x
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: csf@moscow.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


< < <
Date Index
> > >
Positive Futures List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to Positive Futures < < <
Thread Index
> > >