Institutions and Economic Development. New tests and new doubts.

Is institutional quality a major driver of economic development? This paper tackles the question by focusing on the within-country variation of growth rates of GDP per capita. While previous attempts using this methodology have controlled for many of the standard de- terminants of the empirical growth literature, we argue that such ap- proach is not adequate if good institutions are the main reason behind decisions to invest in human or physical capital accumulation or to engage in international trade. Our regressions exclude the proximate causes of growth in order to estimate the overall e¤ect of institutional quality. Perhaps surprisingly, we nd no support for the thesis that institutional quality improves economic growth. These results encourage a reconsideration of the evidence provided elsewhere in the literature.

A comparison of results from MRIO and interregional computable general equilibrium (CGE) analyses of the impacts of a positive demand shock on the ‘CO2 trade balance’ between Scotland and the rest of the UK

In previous work we have applied the environmental multi-region input-output (MRIO) method proposed by Turner et al (2007) to examine the ‘CO2 trade balance’ between Scotland and the Rest of the UK. In McGregor et al (2008) we construct an interregional economy-environment input-output (IO) and social accounting matrix (SAM) framework that allows us to investigate methods of attributing responsibility for pollution generation in the UK at the regional level. This facilitates analysis of the nature and significance of environmental spillovers and the existence of an environmental ‘trade balance’ between regions. While the existence of significant data problems mean that the quantitative results of this study should be regarded as provisional, we argue that the use of such a framework allows us to begin to consider questions such as the extent to which a devolved authority like the Scottish Parliament can and should be responsible for contributing to national targets for reductions in emissions levels (e.g. the UK commitment to the Kyoto Protocol) when it is limited in the way it can control emissions, particularly with respect to changes in demand elsewhere in the UK. However, while such analysis is useful in terms of accounting for pollution flows in the single time period that the accounts relate to, it is limited when the focus is on modelling the impacts of any marginal change in activity. This is because a conventional demand-driven IO model assumes an entirely passive supply-side in the economy (i.e. all supply is infinitely elastic) and is further restricted by the assumption of universal Leontief (fixed proportions) technology implied by the use of the A and multiplier matrices. In this paper we argue that where analysis of marginal changes in activity is required, a more flexible interregional computable general equilibrium approach that models behavioural relationships in a more realistic and theory-consistent manner, is more appropriate and informative. To illustrate our analysis, we compare the results of introducing a positive demand stimulus in the UK economy using both IO and CGE interregional models of Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the case of the latter, we demonstrate how more theory consistent modelling of both demand and supply side behaviour at the regional and national levels affect model results, including the impact on the interregional CO2 ‘trade balance’.

Decision Errors, Legal Uncertainty and Welfare: a General Treatment

This paper provides a general treatment of the implications for welfare of legal uncertainty. We distinguish legal uncertainty from decision errors: though the former can be influenced by the latter, the latter are neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of legal uncertainty. We show that an increase in decision errors will always reduce welfare. However, for any given level of decision errors, information structures involving more legal uncertainty can improve welfare. This holds always, even when there is complete legal uncertainty, when sanctions on socially harmful actions are set at their optimal level. This transforms radically one’s perception about the “costs” of legal uncertainty. We also provide general proofs for two results, previously established under restrictive assumptions. The first is that Effects-Based enforcement procedures may welfare dominate Per Se (or object-based) procedures and will always do so when sanctions are optimally set. The second is that optimal sanctions may well be higher under enforcement procedures involving more legal uncertainty.