people would be outraged about what is happening in Spain. You can hear an interview with me about this (in German) at Swiss Radio here.
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
Want to know why Catalans want to leave the loving embrace of Spain?
Well, there are many reasons. Good ones. Like not having your language recognized as an official language in which you can go to court; write to the authorities, etc. Having an education minister who runs around telling everyone that his government's aim is to hispanisize the Catalan people (imagine a German minister did that Schleswig-Holstein, speaking about the Danish minority). Etc.
People always think it is about money; all the money Catalans send to the rest of Spain since they are so much more productive. And yes, they don't like it. But the thing few people realize is that this is only one side of the equation; the other is the shameful failure on the side of Madrid to put any money into Catalonia. It's the economic powerhouse of a country with a pretty ramshackle economy overall; you'd think you would put some serious cash into infrastructure there.
What does it look like? Have a glance at the map. This is the investment per capita by the central government. Grey means - less than 150€ per head. The total comes to 9.5% of the overall spending on investment -- but Catalonia produces ~20% of output. Just ten years ago, the investment share was at least 16%, still too little, but not a joke. Now, Catalonia receives only half of its fair share.
Where does the money go? Galicia, and other delightful places like that. They receive 360€+ per head -- more than twice the Catalan number. No matter that there is nothing there except old-age pensioners and civil servants; let's build roads, railways, airports, universities, etc. [remember where Mr Rajoy is from? Right. And that his own Treasurer's secret books revealed he received €€€ from building companies? Never mind].
When the history of Catalonia's separation from Spain will be written in the future, look for a version of this graph to illustrate the high-handed folly and sheer bloody-mindedness of the nationalists in Madrid. What a way to drive people away.
Friday, 4 July 2014
Fear, Folly, Financial Crises
The UBS Center for Economics in Society at the University of Zurich has just published a small summary paper of mine on the history of financial crises. Here is the abstract:
those damned journals...
I am sure we have all been there. You go to a conference, and you have a beer or two with your friends. Someone starts to talk about journals. Turnaround times, in particular. If it isn't the QJE, everyone will soon start to lament just how damned slow they are. 5 months? 9 months? What's up with these guys? Well, there are some really, really bad cases. If you submit to a particular journal we all know, say, you often can forget about it for a few years. Literally. Something that has to do with the editors and the editorial office, surely. But for most journals, there is a second factor that very few people like to talk about -- because it is by and large about the same people who do the complaining: the reviewers, who as a group, are identical with the submitters.
As a journal editor of Explorations in Economic History, this is what I see all to often (see the chart): A paper comes in. It is assigned to 3 referees the next day. Within 2 days, 2/3 referees have said yes. But watch referee 3: no response on June 6. A reminder on June 16. Another reminder on June 23. Finally, on June 27 (22 days after the initial invitation, the reviewer has the kindness to decline with a one-liner "sorry overcommitted"). I am sure. It's a senior colleague. So senior, as a matter of fact, that he is retired... you get the picture. Incompetence? Sloppiness? Laziness? Indifference to the publications of junior scholars, given that this paper is RIGHT at the heart of his research interests? Who knows.
So next time you feel like moaning about the journals and turnaround times...don't ask what journals should do for you, ask what you have been doing for the journals. Perhaps ask yourself if you are doing all you can to keep things running smoothly (in this particular case, we'll probably be able to proceed with 2 referees, which is why I didn't assign an alternate by June 14, say - but this could have looked very different, especially since there aren't that many appropriate referees in many subfields).
As a journal editor of Explorations in Economic History, this is what I see all to often (see the chart): A paper comes in. It is assigned to 3 referees the next day. Within 2 days, 2/3 referees have said yes. But watch referee 3: no response on June 6. A reminder on June 16. Another reminder on June 23. Finally, on June 27 (22 days after the initial invitation, the reviewer has the kindness to decline with a one-liner "sorry overcommitted"). I am sure. It's a senior colleague. So senior, as a matter of fact, that he is retired... you get the picture. Incompetence? Sloppiness? Laziness? Indifference to the publications of junior scholars, given that this paper is RIGHT at the heart of his research interests? Who knows.
So next time you feel like moaning about the journals and turnaround times...don't ask what journals should do for you, ask what you have been doing for the journals. Perhaps ask yourself if you are doing all you can to keep things running smoothly (in this particular case, we'll probably be able to proceed with 2 referees, which is why I didn't assign an alternate by June 14, say - but this could have looked very different, especially since there aren't that many appropriate referees in many subfields).
Saturday, 7 June 2014
a bit of untimely confusion (in eigener Sache)
... just because I (and students/colleagues etc.) got asked: The kindness that the Barcelona GSE has shown me in appointing me to a research professorship doesn't mean I am necessarily going to return from Zurich to UPF. I am currently on leave, as is often the case with senior faculty with a new appointment, and have to make up my mind eventually. The school leadership made sure that if I were to do so, conditions would be nicer (for which I am grateful).
Monday, 26 May 2014
Highway to Hitler
Germans may remember conversations with their grandparents that ended with the words "at least he built the Autobahn..." It was mostly meant as an explanation for the singular popularity of the Nazi regime. An obvious question to ask is - is it actually true that building the German highway system boosted the regime's popularity?
Nico Voigtlaender and I have a new working paper, available over at SSRN and NBER. The abstract is:
We have a non-technical write-up over at VOX. [coverage over at The Atlantic-Cityscape, Tages-Anzeiger]
Nico Voigtlaender and I have a new working paper, available over at SSRN and NBER. The abstract is:
Can infrastructure investment win “hearts and minds”? We analyze a famous case in the early stages of dictatorship – the building of the motorway network in Nazi Germany. The Autobahn was one of the most important projects of the Hitler government. It was intended to reduce unemployment, and was widely used for propaganda purposes. We examine its role in increasing support for the NS regime by analyzing new data on motorway construction and the 1934 plebiscite, which gave Hitler great powers as head of state. Our results suggest that road building was highly effective, reducing opposition to the nascent Nazi regime.
We have a non-technical write-up over at VOX. [coverage over at The Atlantic-Cityscape, Tages-Anzeiger]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)