Do Creative Economies Increase Economic Opportunities?
Descrição do Produto
Do Creative Economies Increase Economic Opportunities? A Very Preliminary Exploration the Relationships between Inequality, Social Mobility and the Creative Economy
45th Conference, Miami April 8-11, 2015
Presented by Ric Kolenda
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Inequality: 2014 Buzzword of the Year Inequality [i-ni-ˈkwä-ləә-tē] ◗
Growth in income inequality over time & place Growth in wealth inequality over time & place
◗
Stagnation of social mobility over time & place
◗
Dept. of Geography & Planning
The Zeitgeist: Influential Works Piketty‘s Capital in the Twenty-First Century Reich’s film Inequality for All The Equality of Opportunity Project Fed Chair Yellen’s Remarks to the Boston FRB President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Thomas Piketty “The history of the distribution of wealth has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic mechanisms. “…the resurgence of inequality after 1980 is due largely to the political shifts of the past several decades, especially in regard to taxation and finance.” Piketty, 2014
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen “The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me. “The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression.” Yellen, Conference on Economic Opportunity of Inequality, October 2014
Dept. of Geography & Planning
President Obama “Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort? ” President Barack Obama, State of the Union address, January 2015
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Why Worry about Inequality? A little is good… ◗
It creates incentives
But a lot is bad… ◗
…for economic growth
◗
…for social stability …and especially for those left at the bottom
◗
“At extreme levels, income inequality can harm sustained economic growth over long periods. The U.S. is approaching that threshold.” - S&P Capital IQ, 2014
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Richard Florida “…although the broad structural transformation of our economy splits the labor market and increases the wage gap between major classes, it has only a modest effect on income inequality broadly. “In fact, the least-skilled and lowest-paid workers…are actually economically better off in more affluent and knowledge-based regions…even if the gap is wider. Florida, 2011 (emphasis added)
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Inequality & Social Mobility
Inequality may affect upward mobility… …and lack of upward mobility may lead to inequality …but given high levels of inequality, increasing upward mobility will almost certainly decrease inequality.
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Upward Mobility in the 50 Biggest Cities
(Chetty et al.) Dept. of Geography & Planning
Creative Class Cities
(Florida, 2004) Dept. of Geography & Planning
All Cities Not Created Unequal Big cities more unequal by income Some cities are much more unequal than others ◗
SF vs. Miami ◗
SF – high incomes are very high
◗
Miami – low incomes very low
(Berube, Brookings Institution) Dept. of Geography & Planning
The Geography of Intergenerational Social Mobility in the U.S. What explains the differences? High mobility areas have: ◗ ◗
less residential segregation less income inequality
◗
better primary schools greater social capital
◗
greater family stability
◗
(Chetty et al.) Dept. of Geography & Planning
Connecting the Dots
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Why Creative Economies? Sociall mobility is a function of capital endowments… ◗ ◗
Of physical capital, economic capital,
◗
human capital, social capital,
◗
and creative capital?
◗
Creative capital may be the most universal endowment So, can creative economies increase social mobility?
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Hypostheses: Metro-Level Characteristics Characteristic
Relationship
Source
Residential segregation
-
Chetty et al., 2014
Income inequality
-
Chetty et al., 2014
School quality
+
Chetty et al., 2014
Social capital
-
Chetty et al., 2014
Family structure
+
Chetty et al., 2014
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Hypostheses: Metro-Level Characteristics Characteristic
Relationship
Source
Residential segregation
-
Chetty et al., 2014
Income inequality
-
Chetty et al., 2014
School quality
+
Chetty et al., 2014
Social capital
-
Chetty et al., 2014
Family structure
+
Chetty et al., 2014
Creative economy
+
Florida, 2011
Business dynamics
+
Yellen, 2014
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Hypostheses: Metro-Level Controls Characteristic
Source
Metropolitan area size (population)
Berube & Holmes, 2014
Racial composition (pct. Black & pct. White)
Pew, 2012; Chetty et al., 2014
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Economic Mobility Across Generations A majority of Americans exceed their parents’ family income and wealth The extent of their absolute mobility gains not always enough to move them to a different rung of the economic ladder The persistence of the black-white mobility gap undercuts the ideal of equality of opportunity (The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project)
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Correlation Table – Relative Mobility Absolute Crea0vity Mobility Index Absolute Mobility Crea3vity Index Crea3ve Class Share Bus Dynamics -‐ Entry Bus Dynamics – Jobs Pct. Black Pct. White Racial Segrega3on Economic Segrega3on 95/20 Income Ra3o Social Capital City Size
Crea0ve Bus Bus Racial Economic 95/20 Class Dynamics Dynamics Segrega0o Segrega0o Income Share -‐ Entry – Jobs Pct. Black Pct. White n n Ra0o
1.00 0.04
1.00
-‐0.05
0.67
1.00
-‐0.04
0.36
0.19
1.00
-‐0.10 -‐0.68 0.22
0.16 -‐0.14 -‐0.03
0.00 0.02 0.01
0.70 -‐0.04 -‐0.38
1.00 -‐0.04 -‐0.42
1.00 -‐0.28
1.00
-‐0.27
-‐0.01
0.07
-‐0.22
-‐0.23
0.35
0.13
1.00
-‐0.26
0.34
0.38
0.18
0.12
0.25
-‐0.30
0.41
1.00
-‐0.40 0.10 -‐0.10
0.18 0.08 0.44
0.23 0.19 0.33
0.16 -‐0.48 0.49
0.18 -‐0.50 0.28
0.35 -‐0.03 0.08
-‐0.37 0.69 -‐0.24
0.15 0.22 0.28
0.30 -‐0.10 0.41
1.00 -‐0.18 0.09
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Social Capital
1.00 -‐0.20
City Size
1.00
Correlation Table – Relative Mobility Rela0ve Crea0vity Mobility Index
Crea0ve Bus Bus Racial Economic 95/20 Class Dynamics -‐ Dynamics Segrega0o Segrega0o Income Share Entry – Jobs Pct. Black Pct. White n n Ra0o
Rela3ve Mobility Crea3vity Index
1.00 -‐0.18
1.00
Crea3ve Class Share
0.00
0.67
1.00
Bus Dynamics -‐ Entry
-‐0.41
0.36
0.19
1.00
-‐0.40 0.64 0.21
0.16 -‐0.14 -‐0.03
0.00 0.02 0.01
0.70 -‐0.04 -‐0.38
1.00 -‐0.04 -‐0.42
1.00 -‐0.28
1.00
0.59
-‐0.01
0.07
-‐0.22
-‐0.23
0.35
0.13
1.00
0.21
0.34
0.38
0.18
0.12
0.25
-‐0.30
0.41
1.00
0.18 0.31 -‐0.02
0.18 0.08 0.44
0.23 0.19 0.33
0.16 -‐0.48 0.49
0.18 -‐0.50 0.28
0.35 -‐0.03 0.08
-‐0.37 0.69 -‐0.24
0.15 0.22 0.28
0.30 -‐0.10 0.41
Bus Dynamics – Jobs Pct. Black Pct. White Racial Segrega3on Economic Segrega3on 95/20 Income Ra3o Social Capital City Size
1.00 -‐0.18 0.09
Dept. of Geography & Planning
Social Capital
1.00 -‐0.20
City Size
1.00
OLS Regression - Absolute Mobility
Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentários
