Income, Trade and Pollution in Central Asia, Russia and China: An Econometric Analysis

The study performs a panel estimation of the relationship between per capita income, trade, and airborne pollution in the five Central Asian nations, Russia and China between 1992 and 2008. First, this study uses an environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis (EKC)- an inverted-U relationship between the increase in income and the level of environmental degradation - to examine how income and pollution are related. Second, the study uses a gravity model to estimate the effect of a regional trade agreement (Shanghai Cooperation Organization: SCO) on incomes and carbon dioxide emissions in the region. Empirical analysis confirms the existence of the rising portion of the EKC curve in the region - a positive correlation between per capita income growth and carbon dioxide emissions- and that the volume of bilateral trade, and not the existence of a regional trade agreement, contributes to the increasing level of environmental pollution.

Income, Trade and Pollution in Central Asia, Russia and China: An Econometric Analysis

The study performs a panel estimation of the relationship between per capita income, trade, and airborne pollution in the five Central Asian nations, Russia and China between 1992 and 2008. First, this study uses an environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis (EKC)- an inverted-U relationship between the increase in income and the level of environmental degradation - to examine how income and pollution are related. Second, the study uses a gravity model to estimate the effect of a regional trade agreement (Shanghai Cooperation Organization: SCO) on incomes and carbon dioxide emissions in the region. Empirical analysis confirms the existence of the rising portion of the EKC curve in the region - a positive correlation between per capita income growth and carbon dioxide emissions- and that the volume of bilateral trade, and not the existence of a regional trade agreement, contributes to the increasing level of environmental pollution.

Government Influence and the Failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In 2008 two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were placed into conservatorship due to insolvency. The financial bailout of the two publically traded corporations came at the expense of the American tax payer. This study investigates the relationship between direct and indirect government influence and the increasing risk taking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the late 1990’s through their conservatorship in 2008. As government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have many special advantages that other publically traded companies did not possess. These advantages allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their profitability. Theoretical literature regarding Congress and the bureaucracy suggests that the actions of bureaucrats can be linked to the preferences of Congressional members because bureaucrats are responsive to potential threats or perceived threats from the legislature. This theory is applicable to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and is used to explain why the government was able to directly and indirectly influence the government-sponsored enterprises. Overall this investigation has determined that the United States government pursued a clear mission that determined to increase the availability of housing to all Americans, specifically to low-income and under-served individuals, through the use of the government-sponsored enterprises. Despite this link there is no conclusive data to show that the pursuit of this housing mission led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to operate in riskier business segments. This study has also found that motivation regarding profit-seeking and compensation structure provide a more plausible explanation for why the government-sponsored enterprises began to engage in riskier business practices that led to their insolvency.

Trends in the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Obesity in U.S. Adults: 2002-2012

Since the 1980s, the prevalence of obesity has more than doubled to over 30 percent of the adult population (Thorpe, 2004). Obesity is a key contributing factor to continually rising national healthcare costs. Addressing its negative implications is essential not only from a cost perspective, but also for the betterment of our nation¿s general health and wellbeing. Obesity is reportedly associated with a 35% increase in inpatient and outpatient spending, as well as a 77% increase in related necessary medications (Sturm, 2002). Obesity, which some have argued should be classified as a disease in itself, has roughly the same association with the development of chronic health conditions as does 20 years of aging (Sturm, 2002). Defined as ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, these obesity-related chronic health diagnoses ¿ like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension ¿ are in turn the primary drivers of current healthcare spending, as well as future predicted health expenditures. It is well established that lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with higher rates of obesity and the subsequent development of aforementioned obesity-related conditions. Socioeconomic status has traditionally been defined by education, income, and occupation (Adler, 2002); however, this study found empirical evidence for education being the most fundamental of these three SES indicators in determining obesity outcomes. For both men and women, as education levels increased, the likelihood of an individual being obese decreased. However, with less education, there was increased disparity between the obesity rates for men and women. Women consistently saw higher rates of obesity and were more impacted in terms of obesity onset by belonging to a lower SES category than men. In addition, this study assessed whether the impact of one¿s socioeconomic status on obesity-related health outcomes (specifically the negative impact low-SES as measured by education level) has changed over time. Results deriving from annual data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for all years from 2002 to 2012 indicate that the association between low-socioeconomic status and negative health outcomes has not increased in magnitude over the past decade. Instead, obesity rates have increased across the overall U.S. adult population, most likely due to a number of larger external societal factors resulting in increased caloric intake and decreased energy expenditure across every SES group. In addition, while the association between low-SES and obesity has not worsened, a consequence of the Great Recession has been a larger percentage of the U.S. population in lower-SES, which is still consistently subject to the same worse health outcomes.