8/10エントリで紹介したのと同様にワクチン接種の効果を調べた表題のNBER論文が上がっている。原題は「The Benefits and Costs of U.S. Employer COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates」で、著者はMaddalena Ferranna、Lisa A. Robinson、Daniel Cadarette、Michael Eber、David E. Bloom(いずれもハーバード大)。

In 2021, the Biden Administration issued mandates requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for U.S. federal employees and contractors and for some healthcare and private sector workers. Although these mandates have been subject to legal challenges and some have been halted or delayed, rigorous appraisal of their benefits and costs accompanied neither the decision to implement them nor the efforts to terminate them. This paper aims to help fill that gap. We estimate the direct costs and health-related benefits that would have accrued if these vaccination requirements had been implemented as intended. Compared with the vaccination rates observed in January 2022, we find that the mandates could have led to 15 million additional vaccinated individuals, increasing the overall proportion of the fully vaccinated U.S. population to 68%. The associated net benefits depend on the evolution of the pandemic from the time of mandate enactment—information unavailable ex ante to analysts or policymakers. In scenarios involving the emergence of a novel, more transmissible variant, against which vaccination and previous infection offer moderate protection, the estimated net benefits reach more than $16,000 per additional vaccinated individual, with more than 20,000 total deaths averted in total. In scenarios involving a fading pandemic, existing vaccination-acquired or infection-acquired immunity provides sufficient protection, and the mandates’ benefits are unlikely to exceed their costs. Thus, mandates may be most useful when the consequences of inaction are catastrophic. However, we do not compare the effects of mandates with alternative policies for increasing vaccination rates or promoting other protective measures, which may receive stronger public support and be less likely to be overturned by litigation.


というJournal of Economic Perspectives論文をMostly Economicsが紹介している。原題は「Intangible Capital and Modern Economies」で、著者はCarol Corrado(コンファレンスボード)、Jonathan Haskel(インペリアル・カレッジ・ビジネス・スクール)、Cecilia Jona-Lasinio(イタリア国立統計研究所)、Massimiliano Iommi(同)。

The production of goods and services is central to understanding economies. The textbook description of a firm, typically in agriculture or manufacturing, focuses on its physical "tangible" capital (machines), labor (workers), and the state of "know-how." Yet real-world firms, such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google, have almost no physical capital. Instead, their main capital assets are "intangible": software, data, design, reputation, supply-chain expertise, and R&D. We discuss investment in these knowledge-based types of capital: How to measure it; how it affects macroeconomic data on investment, rates of return, and GDP; and how it relates to growth theory and practical growth accounting. We present estimates of productivity in the US and European economies in recent decades including intangibles and discuss why, despite relatively rapid growth in intangible capital and what seems to be a modern technological revolution, productivity growth has slowed since the global financial crisis.



というJournal of Economic Perspectives論文をMostly Economicsが紹介している。原題は「Retrospectives: On the Evolution of the Rules versus Discretion Debate in Monetary Policy」で、著者はHarris Dellas(ベルン大)、George S. Tavlas(ギリシャ銀行)。

Episodes of macroeconomic upheaval associated with monetary policy failure have provided the stage for important debates on rules versus discretion. We discuss the main features, results, commonalities, and differences in the debates that emerged after three such episodes. The modern debate was born during the Great Inflation of the 1970s and focused on both rules versus discretion and the properties of alternative rules. The middle debate originated with Henry Simons and the Chicago School during the Great Depression in the 1930s and focuses on policy uncertainty. The earliest systematic debate involved the Currency and Banking Schools in Britain in the 1820s, but, in spite the views of many of its participants and doctrinal historians, it seems to have primarily been about the degree of activism under a single rule—that of the gold standard.


We believe that the ideas of “rules” and discretion used by participants in the Currency School versus Banking School debate do not correspond to their modern usage. After all, both groups favored a rule—the gold standard rule. In fact, there was no opportunistic, activist use of monetary policy preceding or during these debates. Their disagreement was about the best rule for ensuring balance-of-payments adjustment under the gold standard, and in particular, about the use of policy instruments to react to exceptional circumstances—that is, to excessive gold flows. Neither side recognized the possibility that monetary policy could be formulated on the basis of an activist rule that is both systematic and predictable. From a modern perspective, an increase in the discount rate to stem gold outflows once reserves have fallen to a certain level, as under the Banking School framework, does not constitute a “discretionary regime” any more than does a hike in the interest rate in response to a rise in inflation under the Taylor rule.
We conjecture that extensive usage of the terms “rules” and “discretion” by participants in the Currency-Banking School debate has misled some modern historians into taking these terms at face value, rather than recognizing that an activist but well-defined rule is not synonymous with a policy discretion.


This paper has provided a discussion of the evolution (in reverse timeline) of the rules versus discretion debate in monetary policy. All three of the major debates discussed here were initiated in periods of macroeconomic malfeasance and significant monetary policy failures. All leaned strongly, or were decided in favor of, rules. All emphasize the crucial role played by the successful management of expectations for the superiority of rules. And all were cognizant of the fact that a high degree of
activism in a rule may create room for discretion—and may even prove counterproductive if it carries excessive informational requirements for the policymakers. In contrast to the two earlier debates, the modern literature seems to have faith in the
performance of relatively complex and activist rules—perhaps reflecting the confidence of macroeconomists about their understanding of the economy and their ability to manage the business cycle.


というNBER論文が上がっている。原題は「The Effect of Vaccine Mandates on Disease Spread: Evidence from College COVID-19 Mandates」で、著者はRiley K. Acton(マイアミ大)、Wenjia Caoミシガン州立大)、Emily E. Cook(テュレーン大)、Scott A. Imberman(ミシガン州立大)、Michael F. Lovenheim(コーネル大)。

Since the spring of 2021, nearly 700 colleges and universities in the U.S. have mandated that their students become vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus. We leverage rich data on colleges’ vaccination policies and semester start dates, along with a variety of county-level public health outcomes, to provide the first estimates of the effects of these mandates on the communities surrounding four-year, residential colleges. In event study specifications, we find that, over the first 13 weeks of the fall 2021 semester, college vaccine mandates reduced new COVID-19 cases by 339 per 100,000 county residents and new deaths by 5.4 per 100,000 residents, with an estimated value of lives saved between $9.7 million and $27.4 million per 100,000 residents. These figures suggest that the mandates reduced total US COVID-19 deaths in autumn 2021 by approximately 5%.


という豪州準備銀行論文をMostly Economicsが紹介している。原題は「An International Perspective on Monetary Policy Implementation Systems」で、著者は同行のNick Baker、Sally Rafter。

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and building on policies introduced during the global financial crisis, central banks in advanced economies deployed balance sheet policies to support their economies and address disruptions to the smooth functioning of financial markets. The introduction of these policies has changed how most of these central banks implement their primary policy tool – the policy rate. This article describes how many central banks transitioned from a corridor system of monetary policy implementation to a de facto floor system. It also details the range of implications of choosing a floor system. While this transition may prove to be temporary for some central banks, others have signalled that they expect to retain a floor system in the long term.


ブルームバーグなどで報道されている通り、米経済の軟着陸論を巡ってFRBとブランシャール=サマーズらが論戦を交わしている。きっかけとなったのは、Olivier Blanchard(PIIE)、Alex Domash(ハーバード大)、Lawrence H. Summers(同)による「Bad news for the Fed from the Beveridge space」というPIIE論文で、ベバリッジ曲線を用いた分析から、失業率の大幅な上昇は避け難い、と論じた。これに反論したのがFRBのクリス・ウォラー理事で、「What does the Beveridge curve tell us about the likelihood of a soft landing?」というAndrew FiguraとChris Wallerの共著論文により、同じくベバリッジ曲線を用いた分析で軟着陸は可能、と主張した。これにBlanchard=Domash=Summersが「The Fed is wrong: Lower inflation is unlikely without raising unemployment」という小論で再反論した、というのが現在までの構図となっている。





*2:cf. FREDデータFRB論文はあるいは製造業のデータを見ていたのかもしれない。


というNBER論文が上がっているLabour Economics掲載版2015年時点のWP)。原題は「Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables」で、著者はDan A. Black(シカゴ大)、Joonhwi Joo(テキサス大学ダラス校)、Robert LaLonde(シカゴ大、故人)、Jeffrey A. Smith(ウィスコンシン大学マディソン校)、Evan J. Taylor(アリゾナ大)。

We provide simple tests for selection on unobserved variables in the Vytlacil-Imbens-Angrist framework for Local Average Treatment Effects (LATEs). Our setup allows researchers not only to test for selection on either or both of the treated and untreated outcomes, but also to assess the magnitude of the selection effect. We show that it applies to the standard binary instrument case, as well as to experiments with imperfect compliance and fuzzy regression discontinuity designs, and we link it to broader discussions regarding instrumental variables. We illustrate the substantive value added by our framework with three empirical applications drawn from the literature.

*1:cf. ここ