Since 2014, I have coordinated and run an annual workshop on theoretical and empirical research on the analysis of poverty, inequality and mobility, generously supported by the School of Business and Management at Queen Mary University of London.
Following the 2016 workshop, several of the presented papers formed the basis for an edited volume of the journal Research on Economic Inequality (Bandyopadhyay 2018). The ten contributions address issues that are at the forefront of the discussion on how we measure poverty, inequality and welfare and how we use such measurements to devise policies to deliver social mobility. While some of the papers deal with theoretical issues that question current methods on how we measure poverty, inequality and welfare, some of them use novel techniques and datasets to investigate the dynamics of poverty and welfare, with special reference to developing countries.
On Friday, 8th of June the Centre of Globalisation Research (CGR) of the School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London is hosting a workshop on development organised by Prof. Almudena Sevilla.
Next Wednesday 16th of May, Dr Elena Bárcena Martín will be presenting her research. Dr Elena Bárcena Martín works at the University of Malaga as an Associate Professor of Statistic and Econometrics. She has been research visitor at Columbia University and LSE where she studied the Master of Science in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics.
The aim of this paper is to analyse to what extent the previous status of children in poverty affects current child poverty, even when we control for observed and unobserved individual heterogeneity and treat the initial condition problem. On the basis of Wooldridge’s (2005) methodology, we estimate a dynamic random effects probit model considering three levels due to the hierarchical structure of our data: observations for each year (level 1) of the children (level 2) nested into countries (level 3). We corroborate the relevance of lagged status in poverty and assess the role of context variables in explaining differences across countries in child poverty dynamics. In particular, we highlight the significance of family benefits in reducing child poverty and assess which features of these benefits are more effective to reduce child poverty. This way, some key insights are provided to design more effective public policies to alleviate child poverty.
The latest American sanctions salvo against Russia announced on 6 April amounts to a major escalation in the economic war which – with real, and potentially nuclear, war being unthinkable – has been the preferred response of US and EU to the geopolitical challenge from Russia that began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. There is more to these sanctions than geopolitics, however. They also teach us an interesting lesson about globalisation.
To understand that lesson, we must first establish how these new sanctions differ from the previous ones imposed at various times since 2014. In economic terms, the only kind of sanctions that count are those targeting (Russian) companies rather than individuals, whether big business owners (‘oligarchs’) or officials. Until this month, the scope of sanctions against various Russian companies was tightly defined and limited. Typically, sanctions prohibited lending to those companies (except for the shortest maturities) and, in the case of the oil companies on the list, the transfer of certain technologies that would help the Russian oil industry accelerate development in new areas such as deep-water and tight oil drilling. In the case of the companies included on the latest US sanctions list – owned by two Russian tycoons, Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg – the measures are much more comprehensive. Any type of transaction with those companies is prohibited.
On Wednesday 14th of March, Prof. Claudio Lucifora (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Milan) will be presenting his research.
Using a unique 12-years panel of personnel records from a large French company, we find that becoming mother (extensive fertility margins) largely affects labour market outcomes. Instead, fatherhood does not significantly impact on men’s wages or careers. An event study approach with the use of non-parents as control group enables us to show that, prior to childbirth, future mothers’ earnings are in line with that of non-mothers. However, one year after birth, they start to fall, reaching -9% in total pay and -30% in individual bonuses. This drop is persistent: 8 years after childbirth there is no evidence of a catching-up trend. Mothers also have lower chances to climb-up the hierarchy of the firm and be promoted to managerial positions. A decomposition of the motherhood penalty shows that these “missed promotions”, likely due to an increase in absenteeism during the child’s pre-school age, are the main determinants of mothers’ lower outcomes within the firm.
Lucifota, C., Meurs, D. and Villar, E. (Jan, 2018)