social-twitter

Latest

Lo último

• Press Release GovernmentHealth and Social ProgramsInequality

Congress Could Increase Children’s Economic Security with Restructured Child Tax Credit

Washington DC — Most children live in households that experience at least one negative earnings shock, a decline of 20 percent or more in household earnings from one month to the next, in a typical year. That finding is the basis for a new report released today by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

As legislation is moving through Congress to expand the Child Tax Credit, CEPR Economist Yixia Cai and Senior Policy Fellow Shawn Fremstad explain how the Child Tax Credit could be restructured to provide a reliable buffer against these common earnings shocks.

Most Children Live in Households that Experience One or More Substantial Declines in Earnings During the Year: The Child Tax Credit Should Be Restructured to Help Them finds that on average, nearly half of all children lived in households that experienced one or more negative earnings shocks in each of the years from 2009 to 2016. Among children living in households with extremely low incomes, 80 percent experienced one or more negative earnings shocks on average.

About 45 percent of white, non-Hispanic children experienced one or more negative earnings shocks, compared to about 48 percent of Black children and 50 percent of Hispanic children.

“Congress should expand and restructure the Child Tax Credit as a monthly payment that provides a reliable buffer against these shocks,” said co-author Fremstad. “Furthermore, by paying the same per-child benefit to all families with children, as is done in Ireland, Sweden and various other countries, Congress could help parents meet some of the regular monthly costs of parenting while reducing the risks of overpayments that would have the perverse effect of increasing income instability.”

March 02, 2021

• Report Health and Social ProgramsInequalityUS

Most Children Live in Households that Experience One or More Substantial Declines in Earnings During the Year: The Child Tax Credit Should Be Restructured to Help Them

Nearly half of all children live in households that experience at least one negative earnings shock during a typical year. Such shocks are particularly common among lower-income household and households headed by adults without a bachelor’s degree.

Yixia Cai and Shawn Fremstad / March 02, 2021

• Jobs Byte JobsUS

PREVIEW: What to Look for in the February Jobs Report

It is likely that job growth picked up some from its weak January pace.

Dean Baker / March 02, 2021

• Press Release GovernmentInequalityIntellectual Property

Zients Must Open-Source Vaccines To Prove Independence And Seriousness

Washington, DC — As the United States approaches a full year of COVID-19-induced lockdowns, the Revolving Door Project and the Center for Economic and Policy Research called on the White House’s COVID-19 task force director Jeffrey Zients to demand that Pfizer, Moderna, and other American pharmaceutical firms open-source their COVID-19 vaccines.

As CEPR Senior Economist Dean Baker wrote last week, the threat of new vaccine-resistant COVID-19 mutations only increases the urgency for vaccine developers to freely share their scientific and manufacturing knowledge. This sharing would not only vaccinate the global population more quickly, it would also naturally help global scientific leaders to discover solutions to any new mutations.

The only thing preventing such free scientific discourse is an artificial profit motive based on patent monopolies, as Baker has written about at length previously. As head of the COVID-19 response team, it falls to Zients to negotiate open-sourcing the American vaccines.

“We have not been shy about criticizing Jeff Zients’ business ties, especially in the health care sector,” said Revolving Door Project Executive Director Jeff Hauser. “This is his one, big opportunity to prove that a White House with close corporate ties can actually be good for the world, and not just an opportunity for capture and corruption. If Zients’ friendliness with C-Suite-types can’t secure the world open access to vaccines against a deadly disease, then what is his much-vaunted ‘private-sector experience’ good for?”

As part of his day one COVID-19 response plan, President Biden called on Zients to “make [COVID-19 and vaccine] data open to the public in human- and machine-readable formats as rapidly as possible,” along with the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Chief Technology Officer of the United States. None of these other positions have yet been confirmed by Congress, leaving Zients the only current White House official ordered to review and update information policy related to the vaccines.

Zients could negotiate with pharmaceutical firms to fully disclose the information needed to allow manufacturers in any country to produce any vaccine, without regard to intellectual property claims, and quickly respond to the development of new strains. Each additional infection, no matter where in the world it occurs, creates an additional opportunity for a dangerous COVID-19 mutation. Therefore, every nation and individual has an overriding interest in vaccinating the whole global population as quickly as possible, to suppress mutation opportunities.

“The US should lead the way in proposing that Big Pharma put people’s lives over profit and suspend patent and other intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and test for the duration of the pandemic,” Baker said.

March 02, 2021

• Artículo BoliviaEcuadorAmérica Latina y el CaribeEl Mundo

Ecuador: La democracia no debe ser descarrilada por falsas denuncias de fraude

Cuando "detener el robo" se convierte en el grito de guerra de los perdedores electorales en otros países

Mark WeisbrotMark Weisbrot / February 26, 2021 26 Febrero 2021

• Comunicado de prensa EcuadorFondo Monetario Internacional

La victoria de Arauz en las elecciones es un buen augurio para el retorno de la democracia y de políticas sólidas en economía y salud pública, dice el codirector del CEPR

Washington, DC ― La victoria electoral en primera vuelta de Andrés Arauz y su coalición Unión por la Esperanza en el Ecuador aumenta las posibilidades de retorno a unas políticas económicas y de salud pública sólidas, y a una gobernabilidad democrática, dijo Mark Weisbrot, codirector del Centro de Investigación en Economía y Política (CEPR, por sus siglas en inglés). Con el 97,62% de los votos escrutados, Arauz obtuvo el 32,19% de los votos. Aún existe un estrecho margen entre los siguientes dos finalistas, con cada uno rondando el 20% de los votos. Habrá una segunda vuelta electoral el 11 de abril; y en este momento no está claro qué candidato, Guillermo Lasso o Yaku Pérez, pasará a la segunda vuelta para competir contra Arauz.

Arauz es un economista que, bajo la presidencia de Rafael Correa, se desempeñó como director del Banco Central y como ministro de Conocimiento y Talento Humano. Arauz se postula con una campaña que se opone a un programa de austeridad económica altamente impopular apoyado por el FMI que provocó masivas protestas históricas en 2019, las que el actual Gobierno de Lenín Moreno reprimió violentamente.

“Ecuador experimentó profundos avances económicos y sociales de 2007 a 2017, y Arauz ayudó a moldear e implementar la política económica durante ese período”, dijo Weisbrot. “El actual Gobierno utilizó una serie de maniobras ilegales para tratar de evitar que el mayor movimiento político del país participara en esta elección (incluyendo una persecución política a sus líderes, hasta llegar al popular expresidente Rafael Correa)”.

“Para aquellos que no están familiarizados con el daño que sufrió la democracia durante los últimos cuatro años en el Ecuador, les recomiendo este resumen redactado por 13 miembros del Congreso de Estados Unidos”, dijo Weisbrot. “Fue mucho peor que lo que hizo Trump en Estados Unidos”.

“El Gobierno de Moreno también recortó la inversión pública en atención sanitaria y despidió a miles de trabajadores de la salud”, señaló Weisbrot. “Estas y otras opciones cuestionables empeoraron el impacto de la COVID-19, mientras que la austeridad también contribuyó a una pérdida estimada del 9% del PIB el año pasado. Muchos votantes ecuatorianos probablemente tenían en la cabeza estos profundos fracasos cuando acudieron a las urnas, y estaban buscando votar por alguien que hiciera más para poner fin a la pandemia y promover la recuperación económica”.

Antes de las elecciones, Moreno y varios de sus aliados políticos habían perseguido al expresidente Correa, arremetiendo contra él con dudosos cargos de “corrupción” que lo llevaron a ser condenado por usar una “influencia psíquica” sobre funcionarios públicos. Se le prohibió postularse para un cargo público. Esto impidió que Correa se postulara como candidato a la vicepresidencia junto a Arauz. Recientemente, las autoridades electorales incluso prohibieron la voz y la imagen de Correa en los materiales de campaña, lo que obligó a la campaña de Arauz a rehacer sus artículos promocionales y anuncios. Mientras tanto, falsas narrativas en los medios acusaron a Arauz de buscar abandonar la dolarización, a pesar del constante apoyo de Arauz a mantener el dólar durante la campaña y cuando fue parte del Gobierno de Correa, y a pesar de que Correa y Arauz no habían intentado de ninguna manera abandonar el dólar cuando estuvieron en el poder.

Disclaimer/Descargo: Andrés Arauz ha sido empleado previamente por CEPR como Investigador Principal Asociado.

(Traducción por Francesca Emanuele.)

###

February 08, 2021 08 Febrero 2021

• Comunicado de prensa Bolivia

Nuevo informe sobre las elecciones bolivianas en 2019 responde a las denuncias de fraude sobre el conteo tardío

Investigadores que buscan defender las afirmaciones de fraude de la OEA ignoraron las importantes variaciones en la votación dentro de las localidades

Washington D.C. ― Un nuevo informe del Centro para la Investigación en Economía y Política (CEPR, por sus siglas en inglés) responde a publicaciones recientes que sugieren que los resultados oficiales en las elecciones bolivianas de 2019, que dieron al entonces presidente Evo Morales una victoria en la primera ronda, fueron inexplicables. El informe de 80 páginas del economista David Rosnick responde a los investigadores, incluidos algunos contratados por la Organización de Estados Americanos, que trataron de defender las afirmaciones de la OEA sobre la existencia de un fraude que habría alterado el resultado de las elecciones.

Rosnick descubre que investigadores como John Newman e Irfan Nooruddin pudieron presentar narrativas deslegitimadoras de las elecciones al centrar su atención en los patrones de votación en áreas geográficas más grandes y así opacar los patrones de votación a nivel local. Al analizar los patrones de votación dentro de localidades más pequeñas, como se presenta en los datos electorales de Bolivia, Rosnick demuestra que una victoria de Morales en la primera ronda de las elecciones de 2019 concuerda con las pautas de votación observadas en todos los contéos de votos, y no presenta ningún tipo de anomalía o indicio de fraude.

“No importa quién sea el investigador o los detalles del enfoque, uno encuentra que cuando se tiene en cuenta la variación dentro de las localidades, los resultados electorales resisten a cualquier escrutinio”, escribe Rosnick. “Sólo ignorando esta importante fuente de variación es que los investigadores pueden argumentar que el resultado de las elecciones fue dudoso”.

David Rosnick, quien además es coautor del informe de 82 páginas del CEPR en respuesta al informe de auditoría final de la OEA sobre las elecciones bolivianas de 2019, así como de un documento anterior respondiendo al trabajo de John Newman en apoyo de las conclusiones de la OEA, también escribe:

Es incuestionable que las actas contabilizadas tarde, tanto en el conteo preliminar como en el conteo oficial, contenían una cantidad desproporcionada de votos a favor del entonces presidente Evo Morales. De igual manera, está claro que Morales no hubiese asegurado una victoria en primera vuelta sin que las actas contabilizadas tardíamente le sean marcadamente favorables. La pregunta por lo tanto es si se comprende adecuadamente la naturaleza del cambio.

###

December 16, 2020 16 Diciembre 2020

• Informe BoliviaAmérica Latina y el CaribeOrganización de los Estados AmericanosEl Mundo

Cómo las críticas a las elecciones de 2019 en Bolivia siguen equivocándose

Este documento reafirma nuestras conclusiones anteriores de que la victoria en la primera ronda de Morales era predecible con base en los datos disponibles al momento de la declaración de la OEA del 21 de octubre de 2019.

David RosnickDavid Rosnick / December 14, 2020 14 Diciembre 2020

April 23, 2015

Mark Weisbrot

Mark Weisbrot
Al Jazeera America, April 22, 2015

View article at original source.

There are various narratives for what is happening to Greece as another deadline looms – the April 24 gathering of finance ministers in Riga — and European officials show no sign of compromise. The most common is that this is a game of brinkmanship, with the Germans and their allies pushing for “reforms” that the Syriza government in Greece doesn’t want to adopt. Most of the media seems more partial to the European officials than to Greece. But even among those who are more neutral or sympathetic to Greece, it is still a story about hardline European officials threatening to use their control over funding to the Greek government and banking system in order to bring Greece to its knees.

But this narrative misses the elephant on the middle of the negotiating table. While the Greek government cannot do anything to replace its negotiating partners with people more to their liking, the European officials on the other side seem to believe they can do exactly that. And it is becoming increasingly clear that this is their current strategy.

The idea is to do enough damage to the Greek economy during the negotiating process so as to undermine support for the current government, and ultimately replace it. The destabilization actually began before the January 25 election, when officials from the then-ruling New Democracy Party announced that if Syriza won the election, Greece would leave the euro and people would not be able to get money from their bank accounts. In a nasty breach of protocol, they were supported by important European officials.

As I have noted previously, the European Central Bank (ECB) not only trained their guns on the new government but started firing on February 4, just nine days after the election. That is when they cut off the main line of credit to the Greek government even though they had weeks to make this decision. This was followed by limits on the amount that Greek banks could lend to the government – limits that the ECB did not impose on the previous government.

These moves and repeated destabilizing statements from European officials (and the IMF) have had an enormous impact on the Greek economy. Bank deposits have fled the country; they hit a 10-year low in February, with about 24 billion euros having left since early December. As Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis pointed out last week during a visit to Washington during the IMF/World Bank spring meetings, the ECB is cutting off liquidity to the banking system at the same time that they are increasing demand for liquidity by encouraging people to sell off domestic assets and take their money out of the banking system. On Monday, some Greek sovereign bonds hit record yields and the government ordered local governments to place their cash reserves at the central bank. The financial turmoil is also affecting the real economy, and could push the economy back into recession this year if it continues.

If all this seems like foul and malevolent behavior on the part of European authorities, that’s because it is. Greece has already lost a quarter of its national income over the past six years and put more than 25 percent of its labor force and the majority of its youth out of work. Whatever anyone might say about the responsibility of prior governments for the initial recession (one that the United States and almost all of Europe shared), it was the troika (the ECB, European Commission, and IMF) that turned it into a Great Depression for Greece. They really should accept some responsibility for the current situation, instead of simply insisting that the Greek government continue with a failed program as if there had been no election.

Since 2008, I have debated IMF economists at their spring or fall meetings numerous times [PDF] about their policies in Europe, and they increasingly appeared not to believe in what the IMF was doing in Greece and the eurozone. At the meetings this past week they declined to send anyone to a panel discussion. I doubt very much that any economist from the Fund would want to defend the 4.5 percent of GDP primary budget surpluses, to be run indefinitely, that are part of the IMF’s agreement with the prior Greek government. And as Reza Moghadam, the former head of the IMF European department, wrote in the Financial Times two weeks ago, “Europe is demanding implementation, in the next few weeks, of a long and comprehensive list of actions that previous governments were unable to deliver in the space of a few years.”

Is “Europe” making impossible demands of the current Greek government as part of a strategy to get rid of it? Varoufakis met with President Obama last week and there were press reports that he asked the president to encourage European officials to negotiate in good faith. In early February, President Obama appeared to be doing this, stating “You cannot keep on squeezing countries that are in the midst of depression.” But he has not said anything similar since then.

Obama very much does not want Greece to leave the euro, and neither does Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. So despite a number of catastrophic predictions this week – many of them probably politically motivated — it is very unlikely to happen. But the strategy of trying to destabilize the Greek economy and government without forcing Greece out of the euro has its risks. It is also profoundly anti-democratic and wrong.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the forthcoming book Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy(Oxford University Press, 2015).

Mark Weisbrot | Co-Director

Mark Weisbrot es codirector del Centro de Investigación en Economía y Política (Center for Economic and Policy Research, CEPR...

Read Full Bio

more on Inequality

more on Health and Social Programs

more on Economic Crisis and Recovery

Más de Latin America and the Caribbean

Follow Us

CEPR

Why CEPR Matters

Follow Us

Síguenos

CEPR

Senior Economist

Co-Director

Co-Director

Latest

Lo último

Keep up with our latest news

Suscríbase a las últimas noticias

February 26, 2021

more on Beat the press

February 25, 2021

February 22, 2021

February 21, 2021

February 17, 2021

More Blogs

Más blogs

Support Cepr

Apoyar a CEPR

If you value CEPR's work, support us by making a financial contribution.

Si valora el trabajo de CEPR, apóyenos haciendo una contribución financiera.

Are European Officials Pushing for Regime Change in Greece?