Purchasing power parity versus fixed exchange rate rules: A stability and welfare analysis

This paper evaluates the desirability of PPP rules vis-á-vis fixed exchange rates both in terms of welfare and stability properties. The analysis is conducted within a small open-economy New Keynesian framework extended to include a cost channel. In terms of stability, we find that while the equilibrium is always unique under fixed exchange rates its uniqueness critically depends upon the presence/absence of the cost channel under a PPP rule. Overall, then, in terms of welfare a fixed exchange rate always outperforms a PPP rule.

A Holistic vs. an Attribute-based Approach to Agri-Environmental Policy Valuation: Do Welfare Estimates Differ?

Different economic valuation methodologies can be used to value the non-market benefits of an agri-environmental scheme. In particular, the non-market value can be examined by assessing the public's willingness to pay for the policy outputs as a whole or by modelling the preferences of society for the component attributes of the rural landscape that result from the implementation of the policy. In this article we examine whether the welfare values estimated for an agri-environmental policy are significantly different between an holistic valuation methodology (using contingent valuation) and an attribute-based valuation methodology (choice experiment). It is argued that the valuation methodology chosen should be based on whether or not the overall objective is the valuation of the agri-environment policy package in its entirety or the valuation of each of the policy's distinct environmental outputs.

Some further implications of incorporating the warm glow of giving into welfare measures: A comment on the use of donation mechanisms by Champ et al

Champ er al. [J. Environ. Management 33, 151-162 (1997)] claim that they have (a) explored the welfare implication of warm glow for Hicksian measures of value for public goods and (b) established that actual donations place a

Unveiling Fairness for the Consumer:The Law, Economics and Justice of Expanded Arbitration

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has rather controversially extended the ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act to extend arbitration’s reach into, inter alia¸ consumer matters, with the consequence that consumers are often (and unbeknownst to them) denied remedies which would otherwise be available. Such denied remedies include recourse to class action proceedings, effective denial of punitive damages, access to discovery and the ability to resolve the matter in a convenient forum.

The court’s extension of arbitration’s ambit is controversial. Attempts to overturn this extension have been made in Congress, but to no avail. In contrast to American law, European consumer law looks at pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate directed at consumers with extreme suspicion, and does so on the grounds of fairness. In contrast, some argue that pre-dispute agreements in consumer (and employment) matters are consumer welfare enhancing: they decrease the costs of doing business, which is then passed on to the consumer. This Article examines these latter claims from both an economic and normative perspective.

The economic analysis of these arguments shows that their assumptions do not hold. Rather than being productive of consumer surplus, the use of arbitration is likely to have the opposite effect. The industries from which the recent Supreme Court cases originated not only do not exhibit the industrial structure assumed by the proponents of expanded arbitration, but are also industries which exhibit features that facilitate consumer welfare reducing collusion.

The normative analysis addresses the fairness concerns. It is explicitly based upon John Rawls’ notion of “justice as fairness,” which can provide a lens to evaluate social institutions. This Rawlsian analysis considers the use of extended arbitration in consumer matters in the light of the earlier economic results. It suggests that the asymmetries present in the contractual allocation of rights serve as prima facie evidence that such arbitration–induced exclusions are prima facie unjust/unfair. However, as asymmetry is only a prima facie test, a generalized criticism of the arbitration exclusions (of the sort found in Congress and underlying the European regime) is overbroad.

Growing Tall but Unequal: New Findings and New Background Evidence on Anthropometric Welfare in 156 Countries, 1810–1989

This is the first initiative to collate the entire body of anthropometric evidence during the 19th and 20th centuries, on a global scale. By providing a comprehensive dataset on global height developments we are able to emphasize an alternative view of the history of human well-being and a basis for understanding characteristics of well-being in 156 countries, 1810–1989.