Amy Liu’s recent paper, “Remaking Economic Development,” is disruptive in that it rightfully undercuts the shaky foundation of what draws many practitioners to the field: the idea that success is simply structuring transactions to attract new jobs and investment. These two metrics alone can’t diagnose the economic health or trajectory of a community. Instead, as the paper outlines, setting the right goals—measured by growth, prosperity, and inclusion—provides a much richer framework for a community’s trajectory, vibrancy, and opportunity.

Goal-setting clarifies how a community defines success and when it has been achieved, and promotes collaboration and increases buy-in from diverse stakeholders. If, as Liu argues, goals were designed to lead to growth, prosperity, and inclusion, metro areas would make dramatically different choices around policies, investments, and priorities, and people and communities would likely be in an overall stronger economic position.

However, these goals represent a longer-term proposition than conventional measures, and, perhaps naively, “Remaking Economic Development” fails to acknowledge the barriers that prevent most communities from setting the right goals:

1. Goals should focus on long-term interests, but election cycles prioritize clear near-term political wins. Meaty investments in infrastructure, workforce development, and fiscal policy reform needed to shift the competitive position of a community rarely yield easily defined and clearly increased short-term political capital.
2. Economies function as regions, but many municipal strategies are not aligned with regional goals. A metropolitan area is the logical unit to measure success, but civic leaders are elected from individual municipalities, or from a state that has a larger focus. Although it’s easier to market a region of 5 million people than a city of 650,000, in Detroit, intramural competition between cities and suburbs, suburbs and suburbs, and even neighborhoods within the city all undermine the cooperative effort to set goals regionally. The failure of mayors within a region to recognize their economic connectedness is a huge problem and fuels wasteful incentive battles over retail and other projects that are not economic drivers.
3. Goal-setting takes time, money, and requires data, but capacity is in short supply. Most economic developers and political leaders lack the framework, experience, and manpower to effectively lead a goal-setting process. And if the choice is between collectively setting goals or managing a flurry of “bird-in-hand” transactions, the transaction under consideration will always receive resources first. Leaders are primarily evaluated on near term jobs and investment figures; not having the time to lead a goal-setting process and, in many cases, lacking the approach and datasets to appropriately undertake this activity make goal-setting easy to eliminate.

Despite these obstacles, setting the right goals is critical to building healthy communities. To combat political challenges, strong collaboration between business and public sector leadership is crucial, as is the recognition of diverse sub-economies with different value propositions and opportunities. Leaders must ultimately acknowledge that near term wins mean little if they are leading down a path that will not fundamentally address the long-term investment climate and the region’s productive capacities, grow wages or address employment levels, and offer broad opportunities for diverse economic participation. The following steps can help:

1. Harness diverse, cross-sectoral perspectives. Fundamentally, businesses understand their industries better than anyone else; hence the public sector should identify ways to encourage growth, increased productivity, greater inclusion, and more competitiveness in targeted sectors by listening to businesses and jointly setting goals that marry private sector profit and public economic and social interests effectively. This approach may offset some of the other realities of short election cycles and limited capacity to participate in goal-setting or planning processes.
2. Identify unique roles for communities within a larger regional framework. Although competition between local cities may inhibit the most meaningful dialogue and alignment of interests, deeper analysis often produces greater clarity on the niche opportunities for different communities. For example, although Detroit has a strong manufacturing base, a major project requiring more than 40 acres will likely have better site options in the suburbs. In the same vein, companies seeking a vibrant urban campus with easy access to food, living, and other amenities are likely better suited to Detroit than one of the surrounding communities. That said, both companies are likely to draw employees from communities all over the region. Effective goal-setting includes analysis that should allow municipalities to uncover their niche opportunities within a larger regional framework.
3. Balance short-term and long-term priorities and successes. The truth is that near term investments are vital in creating momentum, providing stability, and creating jobs while long-term investments, policy decisions, and industry-focused asset development fundamentally position an economy to win over time. For example, incentives play an important role in offsetting competitive disadvantages in the short-term and should be used as a way to fill the gap while a community fixes the bigger economic challenges, ranging from exorbitant development costs to workforce development issues. The disconnect is that many communities are not focusing incentives on strategic, long-term priorities.

"Remaking Economic Development” elegantly exposes the shortsightedness toward aggressive deal-making that often prevents communities from thoughtfully building their long-term economic strength with an eye on growth, prosperity, and inclusion. Sadly, the economic development profession has historically focused on growth without much attention to prosperity and inclusion, which are arguably most important in building a sustainable economy. Goal-setting—painful as it may be—is the first step towards remaking the practice and establishing an honest foundation to build a better economy in the future.

Event Information

Having emerged from the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history, Detroit is now on surer financial footing and experiencing an economic resurgence. Due much in part to an unprecedented collaboration among philanthropy, business, and government, Detroit is benefiting from private and public sector investments downtown and across its neighborhoods. Today, there are revived neighborhoods, new businesses, a downtown innovation district, the M-1 RAIL transit corridor, and a spirit of creativity and entrepreneurialism.

On Tuesday, April 26, the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution hosted an event about Detroit’s rebound. Brookings Vice President of Metropolitan Policy Amy Liu opened the program and introduced Kresge Foundation President Rip Rapson, who presented findings from The Detroit Reinvestment Index, forthcoming research on what national business leaders think about the city. Rapson then moderated a panel of experts who discussed accomplishments to date and the work yet to come in furthering Detroit’s revitalization.

Join the conversation on Twitter at #DetroitResurgence

Photos

Amy Liu opens the program

Rip Rapson gives remarks

Sandy Baruah, President and Chief Executive Officer, Detroit Regional Chamber; Stephen Henderson, Editorial Page Editor, The Detroit Free Press; Quintin E. Primo III, Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Capri Investment Group, LLC ; Jennifer Vey, Fellow & Co-Director, Robert and Anne Bass Initiative on Innovation and Placemaking, The Brookings Institution

Video

• Welcome and Presentation
• Panel

Audio

• How philanthropy, business, and government sparked Detroit’s resurgence

What are the greatest dangers to citizens of the world's cities, as well as its towns, villages, and rural areas? This is an important issue to understand as we approach the general election season in the United States, when candidates for the highest office in the land will have to help voters make sense of the state of violence around the world—and tell us what they would do about it.

Headlines can be deceiving. We hear about China's rise, Russia's adventures, North Korea's nuclear misbehavior, the Iran nuclear deal, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and of course ISIS and civil war in the Middle East all the time. But it is also worth taking a step back to understand the broader state of violence on the planet today. Do so, and you might be surprised.

As part of a Brookings-JPMorgan Chase project that we call Securing Global Cities, we have attempted to map these trends in violence, benefiting greatly from ongoing work at European think tanks like the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the University of Maryland, and the United Nations. Here are some of the most salient facts and figures:

• Even with Russian President Vladimir Putin's activities from Ukraine to Syria in recent years, interstate conflict remains low and mild in intensity by historical standards, thankfully. China's activities in the South China Sea, however concerning, do not presently broach the threshold of interstate war.
• Unfortunately, the picture is more muddled for civil war. It remains less prevalent and less deadly than in the worst periods of the Cold War and the 1990s. But it has ticked up considerably since the beginning of the Arab spring in 2011, especially in the broad arc from the Sahel in Africa through the Middle East and to South Asia. Worldwide, perhaps 100,000 people a year are dying in civil wars.
• Yet war and terrorism are not the primary security threats to most people on the planet today. Notably, each year, more than 400,000 people are murdered around the globe, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
• Murder rates are highest in the Americas and in Africa, at least twice the global average. They are greatest in central and southern Africa, and from Brazil and Venezuela/Colombia to Central America and the Caribbean and Mexico.
• The least violent parts of the world include most of East Asia and Western Europe, despite the terrorism threat afflicting the latter region of late. 
• The “most improved” regions in recent decades include Colombia, former war-torn African states like Angola, Mozambique, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, as well as parts of Southeast Asia and a number major U.S. cities.
• If one broadens the lens on the definition of violence, motor vehicle accidents constitute an even bigger threat. The World Health Organization estimates that 1.2 million people a year die in such accidents worldwide.
• As cities and countries think about future security, they must bear in mind not just these current realities but the potential for catastrophe—from earthquakes, droughts, pandemics, nuclear reactor disasters, and massive infrastructural failures. In a worst case, tens of millions could suddenly be put at acute risk.

There is much to celebrate about the human condition today. Despite the headlines, life has actually never been safer or more prosperous for a higher fraction of the world's population. But our progress is fragile, and it is of course incomplete. 

The next U.S. president needs a plan for Syria, Libya, and Yemen, to be sure. But he or she also needs to address the broader challenges of urban and global security for a planet that is getting healthier and more secure but which still has a very long ways to go. A good first step is to collect and study what works in key cities and countries around the world so that we can all learn from each other, on topics ranging from breaking up gangs to corralling drug traffickers to stopping terrorism. A great deal has been learned; it is time to spread the knowledge, and emulate the best practices worldwide.

Los Angeles has long been a city associated with the common ills of urban excess: sprawl, homelessness, and congestion. More charitable descriptions paint it as West Coast paradise, boasting sunshine and celebrities in equal measure.

A three-day visit to downtown Los Angeles exposed the nuances behind these stereotypes. Hosted by the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District, which is focused on strengthening downtown as an innovation district, our visit began as a real estate tour but quickly revealed regeneration and innovation activity that confounded our expectations. 

Downtown LA (DTLA)’s innovation district focuses not just on tech firms but also on historic LA industry strengths like fashion, design, and real estate. LA may have sat in the shadow of the Silicon Valley tech boom, but it appears to be revitalizing in time for the convergence economy, in which tech is no longer a separate sector but ingrained in all forms of economic and creative activity.

And at a time where firms are revaluing proximity, vibrancy, and authenticity, DTLA could not be in a better place. While a number of U.S. cities subjected their downtowns to a range of urban renewal initiatives, the urban fabric of DTLA is largely intact. Vibrant areas like South Broadway feature boutique hotels, a dozen theatres, and clothing stores and bars that exist in historic infrastructure like reclaimed theatres. There is an urban feel that is authentically LA.

The initial renaissance of DTLA began in the late 1990s, after the residential units within its 65 blocks had dwindled to just 10,000.

Along with transportation improvements, permissive planning policies such as adaptive reuse—which allowed commercial buildings to be converted into residential use—were instrumental in increasing DTLA’s residential population. Since 1999, the residential population and housing units have tripled. With new bars and restaurants springing up on every corner, it is no surprise that three-quarters of DTLA’s current residents are aged between 23 and 44.

Building on this residential surge, an increasing number of businesses are now setting up or relocating downtown.

DTLA office space has not always been an easy sell. Employers balk at the prospect of subjecting their workforce to the punishing commute. And Bunker Hill and the adjacent Financial District, the epicenter of the central business district, offers little more than unpopulated plazas and cubicled office space.

DTLA has worked to serve its newfound residential population and attract more workers and companies by retrofitting buildings to modern aesthetic standards. The exposed brickwork and ceiling equipment of many DTLA offices like those of Nationbuilder, an online platform used for political and civic campaigns, is not just a statement of style but a conscious decision to make downtown office buildings feel hospitable to creative firms. The BLOC, a 1.9 million square foot retail development, is essentially a mall that has been turned inside out, with the roof removed to reveal an open air plaza, unrecognizable from the fortress-style building that once sat in the same spot.

While downtown’s office blocks are a fantastic asset in attracting innovation activity, the area also boasts a vast amount of warehouse space. These larger footprints, most often used for textile or food production, are attracting a range of activities that require space or, in the case of Tesla’s Hyperloop, secrecy. Such industrial firms are interspersed with new art galleries and a historic knitting mill, proof of the area’s artistic heritage.

The individuals leading the drive for a DTLA innovation district, such as Nick Griffin, director of Economic Development for the Downtown Center Business Improvement District, are realistic about challenges, such as the lack of quality public space, and proactive in leveraging existing assets, such as the large supply of creative office space.

These efforts and LA’s distinctive industry strengths are combatting one of the biggest challenges to attracting businesses downtown: the strength of competing areas like Silicon Beach, which includes Santa Monica and Playa del Rey and offers an established tech ecosystem alongside an attractive location.

Another challenge? Like many U.S. cities, LA bears the scars of suburban sprawl and a legacy of under investment in public transportation. Congestion is a constant complaint.

But here too LA is making progress.

In November, Angelinos will vote on an extension of Measure R—a 2008 ballot initiative raising the sales tax to fund core transportation projects—to provide sustainable funding for transportation infrastructure and improve access to the city center through the metro system.

Other ambitious projects, such as the Regional Connector, a light rail subway through the middle of downtown, will have a profound effect on the area's connectivity. This project is not just about getting people to and from downtown—it will also have a transformative effect on public space. The city is working with Project for Public Spaces to redesign one of the Connector’s hubs, Pershing Square, with the aim of providing a public space where employees and residents can convene and collaborate.

Connectivity will play a vital role in the continuing success of DTLA’s resurgence. But the DTLA innovation district’s main opportunity lies in better serving and connecting the people who make it work. With hometown authenticity and civic commitment, DTLA is on its way to creating a city center that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Photo Credit: Hunter Kerhart

Executive Summary

If the main purpose of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is to give banks confidence in each other, then enabling Treasury directly to bolster the capital positions of banks that need more capital may be an even more effective way to restoring confidence to the inter-bank market than the purchased of troubled assets. Whatever Congress may have intended about the pricing of the distressed assets, it also authorized a much more direct way to recapitalize the financial system and weak banks in particular: direct purchases by Treasury of securities that individual institutions may wish to issue to bolster their capital. At this writing, Treasury reportedly is considering ways do this. In this essay, we outline a specific bank recapitalization plan for Treasury to consider.

In particular, Treasury could announce its willingness to entertain applications for capital injections, using a set pricing formula. For publicly traded banks, Treasury could buy at the price as of a given date, such as the price one or more days before its plan was announced. For privately-owned banks, Treasury could use a price based on the average price-to-book value for publicly traded banks as of that date. To prevent government intrusion into the affairs of the banks, the stock should be non-voting. Treasury would make clear that it only would take minority positions. There should be no takeovers of more companies—AIG, Fannie and Freddie are quite enough. Treasury also should announce that it will dispose (or sell back to the bank) any stock acquired through these actions as soon as the financial system has stabilized and the bank is in sound financial condition (perhaps a time limit, such as three years, should be a working presumption).

We believe Treasury can accommodate a systematic recapitalization plan within the funding it has been given – initially $350 billion and another $350 billion later upon request to Congress (unless it disapproves) – by using the required disclosures about its asset purchases as a way of jump starting private sector pricing and trading of these securities. This should conserve Treasury’s resources it might otherwise use for asset purchases, and thus free up funds to recapitalize weak banks directly, but in an orderly fashion.

Treasury will have to be careful when it buys distressed assets to guard against the possibility that banks will just dump their worst stuff on taxpayers. The Department will also have to be careful when buying equity in banks. There cannot be an open invitation for bank owners to move assets out of the bank and then, in effect, say: “We don’t want this bank, you buy it.” To avoid this problem, Treasury should work closely with the FDIC and other regulators to determine whether or not a particular bank is eligible for an equity injection. The Department also may need to limit the scope of the recapitalization program to larger national banks, if it becomes infeasible to allow smaller banks to participate.

Making the Rescue Package Work: Asset and Equity Purchases [1]

The unprecedented financial rescue plan – technically the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA,” the “Act”, or the “plan”) -- has now been enacted by the Congress. One of the goals of the plan is to end the immediate panic in inter-bank lending markets, and on this basis several omens are not encouraging.

The Dow Jones stock index has been dropping daily, by large amounts, since EESA was enacted. The TED spread measures the difference between the interest rate on short term Treasury bills and the interest rate banks pay to borrow from each other (the LIBOR) and is a widely accepted measure of perceived risk in the financial sector. For several years this spread had hovered around 50 basis points or half a percentage point, reflecting the fact that lending to other financial institutions was considered almost as safe as buying Treasury bills. However, the spread shot up to 2.4 percentage points in July 2007 as the financial crisis hit, and it fluctuated widely in subsequent months. Following passage of the plan it remains even more elevated than it was last July—it was 3.8 percentage points as of October 7 and broke 4 percent on October 8. Financial institutions simply do not trust each other’s credit worthiness. Some of the market worries, of course, reflect the fragile state of the U.S. and global economies, but clearly the passage of the rescue plan itself has not calmed markets.

A second and related goal for the plan, according to media accounts, is to facilitate the recapitalization of the financial system, but the language of the bill is surprisingly coy about this. While the Act aims to “restore liquidity and stability to the financial system” it also directs the Treasury Secretary to prevent “unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating” in the asset purchase program. It is not yet clear whether Treasury will choose to recapitalize banks through its asset purchases – by buying them at prices above the values to which banks and other sellers have already written them down – or whether Treasury will simply use its purchases to stabilize prices for these securities and thus provide liquidity to the market, even if it may result in additional write-downs of their values (and thus additional reductions in capital).

Whatever Congress may have intended about the pricing of the distressed assets, it also authorized a much more direct way to recapitalize the financial system and weak banks in particular: direct purchases by Treasury of securities that individual institutions may wish to issue to bolster their capital. Of course, in normal times, such authority would be unnecessary because financial institutions would seek to tap private sources of capital first. But these are not normal times, to say the least.

If the main purpose of the plan is to give banks confidence in each other, then enabling Treasury directly to bolster the capital positions of banks that need more capital may be an even more effective way to restoring confidence to the inter-bank market. Accordingly, we outline here a possible supplementary bank recapitalization plan that we believe Treasury should pursue, at the same time it purchases distressed assets. As this paper is being completed on October 9, 2008, The New York Times reports that the Treasury is now considering such a move. We are encouraged by this and in this essay we provide both a rationale for doing so and some concrete suggestions for how such a direct recapitalization program might work. We do not support further nationalization of the banking system beyond what has already been done but we believe that the crisis has become so severe that the asset purchase plan on its own will not be enough to turn the current situation around. Additional capital is urgently needed and could be supplied by Treasury purchases of minority, non-voting equity stakes, or by warrants.

We believe Treasury can accommodate a systematic recapitalization plan within the funding it has been given – initially $350 billion and another $350 billion later upon request to Congress (unless it disapproves) – by using the required disclosures about its asset purchases as a way of jump starting private sector pricing and trading of these securities. This should conserve Treasury’s resources it might otherwise use for asset purchases, and thus free up funds to recapitalize weak banks directly, but in an orderly fashion, as we describe below.

Why Do Banks Need More Capital?

Financial institutions make money by borrowing money on favorable terms, that is, at low interest rates, and then lending it out at higher rates or by buying assets that yield higher returns. They may make money in other ways too, but the state of their balance sheets of assets and liabilities is crucial. In order to create a viable financial institution that can accommodate requests by depositors to take money out, someone has to put up capital and typically this comes from the equity in the company. The owners of the company have an incentive to keep this equity capital low and to build a large volume of borrowing and lending off a small base of capital—to increase leverage. This is because the profits earned are divided among the equity owners and the less capital there is, the higher the return on equity.

Governments for many years and in almost all countries have regulations in place setting capital requirements for banks in particular to stop them from taking too much risk in the pursuit of high returns and also protect any fund that insures their deposits against loss (the FDIC in this country). But some of our larger banks in recent years found a way around these rules by establishing “off-balance sheet” entities – Structured Investment Vehicles (“SIVs”) – to purchase mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities that the banks were issuing. In addition, large investment banks significantly increased their leverage in the years running up to the recent crisis, and were able to do so without mandated capital requirements. As a result, when the mortgage crisis hit, our financial system was weaker than was widely believed, and in the case of large banks in particular, than was officially reported.[2]

The mortgage crisis, which first surfaced in 2006 and has escalated rapidly since then, has hit bank balance sheets severely. As banks were forced to recognize losses on the mortgages they held in their portfolio, and especially to write down the values of their mortgage securities to their “market values” (even though the prices in those “markets” reflected relatively few “fire-sale” trades), they suffered reductions of their capital. Furthermore, the large banks that had created SIVs to escape such events found they could not hide from them when the SIVs could no longer roll over the commercial paper they had issued to finance their holdings of mortgage securities. To avoid dumping these securities on the market to satisfy their creditors, the banks took the SIVs back on their balance sheets, only to suffer further losses to their capital.

As we have seen, some of our largest banks – Washington Mutual and Wachovia, to name two – have not been able to survive all of this, and have been forced or are or being forced into the hands of stronger survivors. Other banks have been doing their best to shore up their capital bases by issuing new equity to replace the losses they have absorbed on delinquent loans and declining prices of their asset-backed securities. According to media reports, financial institutions (largely banks) worldwide have suffered over $700 billion in such losses to date, of which they replaced approximately $500 billion by issuing new equity.

But more losses are sure to come; indeed Secretary Paulson has said to expect further bank failures. Earlier this year, the International Monetary Fund projected that losses due to the credit crisis worldwide could hit $1 trillion. The IMF has recently upped that forecast to $1.4 trillion. If anything close to this latest forecast is realized, then many banks – here and abroad – will need to raise even more equity, but in a capital market that is now highly more risk averse than only a few months ago.

It is in this environment that banks have grown much less comfortable dealing with each other, even though they must to keep the financial system running. Every day, some banks have more cash on hand, or reserves, than they need to meet reserve requirements and ordinary demands for liquidity, while others are short of such funds. In the United States, banks thus trade with each other in the Federal Funds market while global banks borrow and lend to each other through the London Interbank market using the LIBOR rate of interest. The Federal Reserve’s main objective of monetary policy is to stabilize the “Fed funds” rate around a target, now just lowered to 1.5%, down from 2% where it has been for some months (and down from 5.25% before subprime mortgage crisis). To do so, the Fed has added a huge amount of liquidity to the financial system, even going so far this week as to buy up commercial paper issued by corporations, an unprecedented step. But the Fed does not and probably cannot control the longer term inter-bank market, in which banks lend to each other typically over a 3-month period.

The steep jump in the 3-month inter-bank lending rate – well over 4 percent – reflects two fundamental facts that EESA is designed to address. One is that banks don’t trust each others’ valuations of the mortgage and possibly other asset-backed securities they are all holding, precisely because the “markets” in those securities are so thin and thus not generating reliable prices. The second problem is that banks either are short of capital themselves, or fear that their counterparties are. No wonder that banks are so unwilling to lend to each other for a period even as short as three months – which in this environment, can seem like an eternity.

The capital shortage in the banking system, in particular, has severe implications for the rest of the economy. An institution that is short of capital is forced to cut back on its lending and this shows up in denials of lines of credit to companies and reductions in credit limits for consumers. Households cut back on spending; it is difficult to get a mortgage or a car loan; and companies reduce investment and curtail operations. And as we learn in any college course on banking, the impact of a loss of capital on bank lending can be multiplied. Each dollar of bank capital supports roughly ten dollars of overall lending in the economy. Each dollar of lost capital thus can result in ten dollars of lending contraction. The impact of an economy-wide bank contraction can be devastating for Main Street. The Great Depression was greatly exacerbated by the collapse of banks. The long stagnation in Japan was in large part the result of a failure to recapitalize the banks.

How bad is the current problem? We do not know how many banks, insurance companies or other financial institutions are in a weakened state, or perhaps even more important, may become weakened as the overall economy deteriorates. The official data published so far don’t really help on this score. The FDIC compiles information on the number and collective assets held by “problem banks,” or those in danger in failing. As of the second quarter of 2008, there were 117 such banks with assets of $78 billion up from 90 in the second quarter with assets of $28 billion., These figures did not include Washington Mutual, which would have failed had it not been bought by J.P. Morgan, or Wachovia, which at this writing, looks like it will be acquired by Wells Fargo (but also was in danger of failing without being acquired by someone). Together these banks hold more than $500 billion in customer deposits. Furthermore, according to recent media reports, even some large insurance companies (beyond AIG) may be having capital problems, having suffered large losses on the securities they hold in reserve to meet future claims.

Can the Asset Purchase Plan Succeed in Recapitalizing the Banks?

In principle, there are two ways in which the original Treasury asset purchase plan would recapitalize the banks. The first method is premised on the view that private markets are unwilling to supply capital to the banks because investors do not know how much their assets are worth. The Treasury, it is argued, would use its asset purchase plan as a way of revealing the prices of the assets and once that information is known, the banks will be able to raise new capital again from private markets. But better pricing will only attract capital if there are investors out there who are willing to supply it. Given the dramatic downturn in equities markets, finding such willing investors will be difficult, to say the least. Those investors that provided capital to banks early on in the crisis have been hit hard by the subsequent decline in equity prices and are reluctant to get burned again. When Bank of America said it would raise $10 billion from the markets, for example, its stock price fell sharply, suggesting there is a lot of market resistance to be overcome before private investors are willing to recapitalize the banking system.

Second, in principle, Treasury could recapitalize the banks by buying distressed assets at prices above those at which the securities are currently carried on the books of the institutions that sell them (original book or purchase value minus any write-offs).[3] In this case, the bank would be able to report a capital gain from its sale to the Treasury, a gain that would reverse, at least in part, the capital losses it had taken in the past and thereby add to its capital.

Treasury has said it will use reverse auctions[4] when it buys assets, and it is possible that the Department will be able to construct some auctions that will enable some holders of troubled assets to sell them to the Treasury at prices that earn a capital gain. But we are somewhat skeptical how many securities will fall into this category. For one thing, asset-backed securities are not homogenous, like traditional equity or bonds. In addition, it would be surprising in the current environment if reverse auctions would reveal prices that are above the written-down values of many of these securities. After all, an auction does not necessarily produce valuations that reflect the “hold to maturity” price rather than the “liquidation” price for the securities, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke suggested the purchase plan would accomplish.

Accordingly, we strongly suspect that Treasury will have to purchase many securities in one-on-one deals rather than through auctions. But in doing this, it may be both legally and politically difficult for the Treasury to pay prices in negotiations that are above the valuations banks or other sellers already have given them. Section 101 (e) of EESA specifically requires the Treasury Secretary “to take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment” of participating financial institutions, and Congress could construe such language to preclude such sales.[5] Furthermore, even if there were not a specific prohibition in the EESA, Treasury may wish to avoid the public criticism it would face if it purchased assets at prices that would allow participating institutions to book gains. And, in the case of sales at prices below the explicit or implicit price of the securities carried on an institution’s books, the sales will trigger further accounting losses and thus additional deductions from reported capital.

In short, we are not at all confident that the Treasury’s planned purchases of troubled securities, by themselves, will do much to recapitalize the banking system. This does not mean that the planned asset purchases will not deliver some needed help. Although at this writing the inter-bank lending market remains frozen even though EESA has been enacted and signed into law, one reason why banks and others may not yet have confidence that it will lead to a thaw in credit markets is that the guidelines for the asset purchases have not yet been issued. Once these guidelines are announced and the purchases begin, and the markets start to see real results, it is possible that some of the missing trust in the banking system will come back.[6]

However, Treasury may not need to spend, and for reasons elaborated below we do not believe it should spend, anywhere near the full $700 billion, or perhaps even most of the initial $350 billion tranche in borrowing authority, to liquefy the markets for mortgage and other asset-backed securities. EESA requires Treasury to publish (within two days) information about each of these purchases. We urge the Department to include in such publications (presumably on its website) regular data on the defaults and delinquencies to date of the loans underlying each batch of securities it purchases. Such information should enable financial institutions that are still holding similar securities not only to price them more accurately, but also to give market participants enough confidence to begin trading these securities without further Treasury purchases.

Husbanding its resources should be a prime objective for Treasury. In conducting its purchases of troubled assets, it should target first those asset categories that are the most illiquid. The main objective always should be jump-starting private sector activity or at least bringing greater clarity to the pricing of particular classes of securities. There is no need for Treasury, therefore, to make repeat purchases of similar securities (such as collateralized debt obligations issued within several months of each other, structured in roughly a similar way). Rather, the aim should be to make a market in as many different asset categories as are reasonably necessary to provide guidance to market participants, no more, no less.

Yet no one can be confident at this point that asset purchases alone will give banks sufficient confidence to begin dealing with each other at much lower interest rates. If the asset purchases do the trick, fine. But if they don’t, Treasury should make sure it has enough financial ammunition to pursue a second, more direct, strategy for restoring banks’ confidence – the direct bank recapitalization strategy to which we now turn.

Recapitalizing the Financial System Directly

Having the government put capital into financial institutions directly is not a new idea. It is the approach followed in this crisis for Fannie and Freddie and has been used in other countries. Sweden recapitalized its banks by adding capital to them during its crisis in the 1980s. Most recently, the British government has announced a sweeping bank recapitalization amidst the current crisis. And of more relevance to the U.S. situation, Congress specifically added authority in EESA for Treasury to make direct capital injections into banks.

In recent days, Treasury Secretary Paulson has acknowledged that the Department may take advantage of this authority and thus use some of its funds to buy equity in troubled banks. This is a welcome development. Even if Treasury’s asset purchase program restores confidence in the pricing of troubled securities, many banks still believe that many other banks lack sufficient capital, and thus can still be reluctant to lend to them. The fact that the FDIC stands ready (especially with its new unlimited line of credit at the Treasury) to assist acquiring banks in taking over failing banks is probably not sufficient, even with a successful Treasury asset purchase program, to provide this confidence. Bank lenders to failed banks can still lose money in such transactions, or at the very least may have difficulty accessing their funds for some period, at times when all banks seem to want or need as much liquidity as they can get.

How might such a capital injection program work? Treasury could announce its willingness to entertain applications for capital injections, using a set pricing formula. For publicly traded banks, Treasury could buy at the price as of a given date, such as the price one or more days before its plan was announced, as has been suggested by former St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole.[7] For privately-owned banks, Treasury could use a price based on the average price-to-book value for publicly traded banks as of that date. To prevent government intrusion into the affairs of the banks, the stock should be non-voting. Treasury would make clear that it only would take minority positions. There should be no takeovers of more companies—AIG, Fannie and Freddie are quite enough. Treasury also should announce that it will dispose (or sell back to the bank) any stock acquired through these actions as soon as the financial system has stabilized and the bank is in sound financial condition (perhaps a time limit, such as three years, should be a working presumption).

The Treasury will have to be careful when it buys distressed assets to guard against the possibility that banks will just dump their worst stuff on the taxpayers. The Department also will have to be careful when buying equity in banks, especially if it decides to go for a broad, nationwide program. There cannot be an open invitation for owners to move assets out of the bank and then, in effect, say: “We don’t want this bank, you buy it.” This problem suggests that Treasury would need to work closely with the FDIC and other regulators to determine whether or not a particular bank is eligible for an equity injection. Treasury also may need to limit the scope of the program to larger banks, if it becomes infeasible to allow smaller banks to participate.

We presume that Treasury did not initially embrace the idea of a more systematic recapitalization of the banking system out of concern not to have any further government involvement in the banking system, especially on the heels of the Fannie/Freddie conservatorship and the Fed’s rescue of AIG. That Treasury is now considering direct capital injections indicates that this may no longer be a concern. In our view, limiting Treasury’s purchases to non-voting stock in any event would address this concern directly.

Conclusion

Ben Bernanke has compared the current financial crisis to a heart attack in the economy. For some heart attacks, it is enough to administer drugs and change diet and exercise habits. But in acute cases, major surgery is needed and the current crisis is in the acute phase. Direct surgery in the form of capital injected into financial institutions, along with direct asset purchases, should help calm the inter-banking lending market.

Based on recent monthly data it appears that GDP started to fall in mid-year and the economy is moving into recession so the proposals made here will not change that. Nor can the proposals compel banks to make loans to their traditional customers – consumers and businesses – in the current climate of fear. But Treasury can do something to mitigate that fear and thus, along with the recent further easing of monetary policy, likely additional fiscal stimulus and further homeowner relief, the Department will help reduce the severity of the current recession if it uses all the tools in its financial arsenal.

Downloads

• Download

INTRODUCTION

The Obama administration needs to focus on executing its existing financial rescue plans, keep the TARP focused on the banking sector, and create a contingency plan should the banking system destabilize again.

Crystal balls are dangerous, especially when it comes to economic predictions, which is why it is important for the administration to chart a path forward. Public policy must remain focused on the very real possibility that the apparent easing in the economy’s decline may be followed by little or no growth for several quarters and there could possibly be another negative turn. One of the risks is that the United States is very connected to the rest of the world, most of which is in severe recession. The global economy could be a significant drag on U.S. growth.

Cautious optimism should be the order of the day. We fear that the recent reactions of the financial markets and of some analysts carry too much of the optimism without recognizing enough of the uncertainty. There remains a lot of uncertainty and policymakers should not rest on their laurels or turn to other policies, even if they look more exciting. It is vital to follow through on the current financial rescue plans and to have well-conceived contingency plans in case there is another dip down.

We propose three recommendations for the financial rescue plans:

• Focus on execution of existing programs. The Administration has created programs to deal with each of the key elements necessary to solve the financial crisis. All of them have significant steps remaining and some of them have not even started yet, such as the programs to deal with toxic assets. As has been demonstrated multiple times now since October 2008, these are complex programs that require a great deal of attention. It is time to execute rather than to create still more efforts.
• Resist the temptation to allocate money from the TARP to other uses—it is essential to maintain a reserve of Congressionally-authorized funds in case they are needed for the banks. It would be difficult to overemphasize the remaining uncertainties about bank solvency as they navigate what will remain a rough year or more. The banks could easily need another $300 billion of equity capital and might need still more. It is essential that the administration have the ammunition readily available.
• Third, make sure there is a contingency plan to deal with a major setback for the banking system. The plan needs broad support within the administration and among regulators and, ideally, from key congressional leaders. We probably won’t need it, but there is too high a chance that we will require it for us to remain without one. The country cannot afford even the appearance of the ad hoc and changing nature of the responses that were evident last fall.

Downloads

• Download Full Paper - English

Justin Wolfers’ column titled “Debunking the Easterlin Paradox, Again” dismisses Richard Easterlin’s work as just plain wrong. I argue here, as I have elsewhere, that where you come out on the Easterlin paradox depends on the happiness question (and therefore the definition of happiness) that you use, as well as the sample of countries and the period of time.

Richard Easterlin finds no clear country-by-country relationship between average per capita GDP and life satisfaction (among wealthy countries), despite a clear relationship between income and happiness at the individual level within countries. Easterlin also found – and continues to find, based on methods different from Wolfers’ – an absence of a relationship between life satisfaction and long-term changes in GDP per capita.

Different well-being questions measure different dimensions of “happiness”, and, in turn, they correlate differently with income (something they themselves show at the end of their last paper, and admit that the relationship between income and well-being is complex). The best possible life question – which Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson primarily use in the first work, and also in the second – asks respondents to compare their life today to the best possible life they can imagine for themselves. This introduces a relative component, and, not surprisingly, the question correlates most closely with income of all of the available subjective well-being questions. Life satisfaction, which they use in the second work, also correlates with income more than open-ended happiness, life purpose or affect questions, but not as closely as the best possible life question.

Wolfers and Stevenson used the most recent and extensive sample of countries available from the Gallup World Poll, and, as the measure of “happiness”, the best possible life question therein, and challenged the Easterlin paradox. In more recent work, with Stevenson and Dan Sacks (2010), referenced in this blog, the authors look at the relationship between life satisfaction and economic growth, based on the World Values survey and GDP levels and the best possible life question, based on the Gallup World Poll. They isolate a clear relationship between life satisfaction and GDP levels, and their statistical analysis is spot on.

Recent studies by Kahneman and Deaton (2010), and Diener and colleagues (2010), for example, find that happiness in a life evaluation sense (as measured by the best possible life question) correlates much more closely with income than does happiness in a life experience sense (as measured by affect or more open ended happiness questions). This holds within the United States (Kahneman and Deaton) and across countries (Diener et al.).

My own work on Latin America, with Soumya Chattopadhyay and Mario Picon, tested various questions against each other and finds a similar difference in correlation, with affect and life purpose questions having the least correlation with income and the best possible life question the most. My work on happiness in Afghanistan found that Afghans were happier than the world average (on par with Latin Americans) as measured by an open ended happiness question, and 20 percent more likely to smile in a day than Cubans. Yet they scored much lower than the world average on the best possible life question. This is not a surprise. While naturally cheerful and able to make the best of their lot, the Afghans also know that the best possible life is outside Afghanistan.

Thus the conclusions that one draws on whether there is an Easterlin paradox or not in part rest on the definition of happiness, and therefore the question that is used as the basis of analysis. Wolfers and co-authors find a clear relationship between GDP levels and life satisfaction and best possible life – clearly important dimensions of well-being. Yet in the same paper they find much less clear relationships when they use happiness, affect and life purpose questions.  

There is also the question of the sample of countries, and whether one is examining cross section or time series data. The most recent debate with Easterlin is about the trends over time rather than cross-sectional patterns. Dropping the transition economies, as Easterlin does, may be a mistake, as Wolfers contends. But it is also important to recognize the extent to which including a large sample of countries that experienced unprecedented economic collapse and associated drops in happiness alters the slope in the cross-country income-happiness relationship (making it steeper). Wolfers also criticizes Easterlin for relying on financial satisfaction data for his Latin American time series sample (because there is not enough life satisfaction data); financial satisfaction correlates closely, but not perfectly, with life satisfaction. Easterlin’s technique allows for the inclusion of a much larger sample of middle income developing countries, a sample of countries that one can imagine is very important to the growth and happiness debate. Wolfers and co-authors use far fewer Latin American countries because comparable life satisfaction data is limited. Either approach is plausible and, as with all work with limited data, is not perfect. But I would not go as far as calling one or the other “plain wrong”.

Finally, there is the simpler question of giving credit where credit is due. We would not be having this debate, nor would we have a host of analysis on well-being beyond what is measured by income, had Easterlin not triggered our thinking on this with his original study of happiness and income over three decades ago (and his patient and thoughtful mentoring of many economists since then). In the big picture of things, Easterlin had the idea.

Downloads

• Table of Contents
• Sample Chapter

• {BE4CBFE9-92F9-41D9-BDC8-0C2CC479A3F7}, 978-0-8157-2127-7, $24.95 Add to Cart
• {9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 978-0-8157-2404-9, $18.95 Add to Cart

ABSTRACT

In recent decades economists have turned their attention to data that asks people how happy or satisfied they are with their lives. Much of the early research concluded that the role of income in determining well-being was limited, and that only income relative to others was related to well-being. In this paper, we review the evidence to assess the importance of absolute and relative income in determining well-being. Our research suggests that absolute income plays a major role in determining well-being and that national comparisons offer little evidence to support theories of relative income. We find that well-being rises with income, whether we compare people in a single country and year, whether we look across countries, or whether we look at economic growth for a given country. Through these comparisons we show that richer people report higher well-being than poorer people; that people in richer countries, on average, experience greater well-being than people in poorer countries; and that economic growth and growth in well-being are clearly related. Moreover, the data show no evidence for a satiation point above which income and well-being are no longer related.

Downloads

• The New Stylized Facts About Income and Subjective Well-Being

Downloads

• Sample Chapter
• Table of Contents

• {9ABF977A-E4A6-41C8-B030-0FD655E07DBF}, 978-0-8157-2404-9, $18.95 Add to Cart

Editor's Note: At a Zócalo Public Square* event, several experts were asked to weigh in on the following question: How should we most effectively measure happiness? Here is Carol Graham's response-

We must make it a measure that’s meaningful to the average person

Happiness is increasingly in the media. Yet it is an age-old topic of inquiry for psychologists, philosophers, and even the early economists (before the science got dismal). The pursuit of happiness is even written into the Declaration of Independence (and into the title of my latest Brookings book, I might add). Public discussions of happiness rarely define the concept. Yet an increasing number of economists and psychologists are involved in a new science of measuring well-being, a concept that includes happiness but extends well beyond it.

Those of us involved focus on two distinct dimensions: hedonic well-being, a daily experience component; and evaluative well-being, the way in which people think about their lives as a whole, including purpose or meaning. Jeremy Bentham focused on the former and proposed increasing the happiness and contentment of the greatest number of individuals possible in a society as the goal of public policy. Aristotle, meanwhile, thought of happiness as eudemonia, a concept that combined two Greek words: “eu” meaning abundance and “daimon” meaning the power controlling an individual’s destiny. Using distinct questions and methods, we are able to measure both. We can look within and across societies and see how people experience their daily lives and how that varies across activities such as commuting time, work, and leisure time on the one hand, and how they feel about their lives as a whole—including their opportunities and past experiences, on the other. Happiness crosses both dimensions of well-being. If you ask people how happy they felt yesterday, you are capturing their feelings during yesterday’s experiences. If you ask them how happy they are with their lives in general, they are more likely to think of their lives as a whole.

The metrics give us a tool for measuring and evaluating the importance of many non-income components of people’s lives to their overall welfare. The findings are intuitive. Income matters to well-being, and not having enough income is bad for both dimensions. But income matters more to evaluative well-being, as it gives people more ability to choose how to live their lives. More income cannot make them experience each point in the day better. Other things, such as good health and relationships, matter as much if not more to well-being than income. The approach provides useful complements to the income-based metrics that are already in our statistics and in the GDP. Other countries, such as Britain, have already begun to include well-being metrics in their national statistics. There is even a nascent discussion of doing so here.

Perhaps what is most promising about well-being metrics is that they seem to be more compelling for the average man (or woman) on the street than are complex income measures, and they often tell different stories. There are, for example, endless messages about the importance of exercising for health, the drawbacks of smoking, and the expenses related to long commutes. Yet it is likely that they are most often heard by people who already exercise, don’t smoke, and bicycle to work. And exercise does not really enter into the GNP, while cigarette purchases and the gasoline and other expenses related to commuting enter in positively. If you told people that exercising made them happier and that smoking and commuting time made them unhappy (and yes, these are real findings from nationwide surveys), then perhaps they might listen?

Read other responses to this question at zocalopublicsquare.org »

*Zócalo Public Square is a not-for-profit daily ideas exchange that blends digital humanities journalism and live events. 

Paris and Rome may be famous for romance, but it’s Filipinos who get the most love. That, at least, is a conclusion that can be drawn from a global love survey conducted by the Gallup Organization.

In our latest column for Bloomberg View, we mine the unique Gallup data for insights into the nature of love and its relationship to nationality, age, money and economic development. The survey, conducted in 136 countries, posed the question: “Did you experience love for a lot of the day yesterday?”

In honor of Valentine’s Day, we thought readers might be interested in seeing the full ranking. So here goes. The first number after each country name is the percentage of respondents who said they had experienced love the previous day. The second (in parentheses) is the sample size for the country.

1. Philippines 93% (2193)
2. Rwanda 92% (1495)
3. Puerto Rico 90% (495)
4. Hungary 89% (1002)
5. Cyprus 88% (988)
6. Trinidad and Tobago 88% (506)
7. Paraguay 87% (1986)
8. Lebanon 86% (970)
9. Costa Rica 85% (1985)
10. Cambodia 85% (1961)
11. Nigeria 84% (1965)
12. Guyana 83% (486)
13. Spain 83% (998)
14. Mexico 82% (989)
15. Tanzania 82% (1941)
16. Ecuador 82% (2126)
17. Jamaica 82% (534)
18. Venezuela 82% (997)
19. Cuba 82% (978)
20. Brazil 82% (1038)
21. Laos 81% (1947)
22. Argentina 81% (1985)
23. Belgium 81% (1015)
24. Canada 81% (1006)
25. Greece 81% (996)
26. U.S. 81% (1224)
27. Denmark 80% (1003)
28. Portugal 80% (995)
29. Netherlands 80% (993)
30. Vietnam 79% (1901)
31. New Zealand 79% (1775)
32. Italy 79% (1000)
33. Colombia 79% (1994)
34. Madagascar 78% (998)
35. Uruguay 78% (1969)
36. Turkey 78% (985)
37. Dominican Republic 78% (1976)
38. United Arab Emirates 77% (961)
39. Saudi Arabia 77% (978)
40. Chile 76% (1982)
41. Malawi 76% (1997)
42. Ghana 76% (1986)
43. South Africa 76% (1968)
44. Australia 76% (1199)
45. Panama 75% (1995)
46. Zambia 74% (1971)
47. Kenya 74% (1965)
48. Namibia 74% (996)
49. Nicaragua 74% (1988)
50. Germany 74% (1214)
51. Ireland 74% (992)
52. Sweden 74% (993)
53. U.K. 74% (1200)
54. Switzerland 74% (986)
55. Montenegro 74% (800)
56. Austria 73% (984)
57. France 73% (1217)
58. Kuwait 73% (934)
59. Finland 73% (993)
60. El Salvador 73% (2000)
61. Pakistan 73% (2253)
62. Zimbabwe 72% (1989)
63. Honduras 72% (1947)
64. Peru 72% (1982)
65. Egypt 72% (1024)
66. Serbia 72% (1474)
67. Bosnia and Herzegovina 72% (1896)
68. Sierra Leone 71% (1986)
69. India 71% (3140)
70. Taiwan 71% (984)
71. Bangladesh 70% (2200)
72. Belize 70% (464)
73. Croatia 69% (958)
74. Macedonia 69% (1000)
75. Mozambique 69% (996)
76. Bolivia 69% (1948)
77. Liberia 68% (988)
78. Iran 68% (963)
79. China 68% (7206)
80. Slovenia 68% (1000)
81. Haiti 68% (471)
82. Norway 67% (992)
83. Sri Lanka 67% (1974)
84. Poland 67% (939)
85. Guatemala 67% (1988)
86. Uganda 66% (1961)
87. Sudan 66% (971)
88. Israel 66% (957)
89. Kosovo 65% (983)
90. Thailand 65% (2377)
91. Jordan 65% (998)
92. Albania 64% (855)
93. Guinea 62% (952)
94. Botswana 62% (999)
95. Angola 62% (957)
96. Burkina Faso 62% (1876)
97. Malaysia 61% (2115)
98. Mali 61% (984)
99. Niger 61% (1925)
100. Palestinian Territories 61% (991)
101. Romania 61% (937)
102. Senegal 61% (1805)
103. Indonesia 61% (2013)
104. Afghanistan 60% (1128)
105. Hong Kong 60% (789)
106. Cameroon 59% (1967)
107. Japan 59% (1138)
108. Nepal 59% (1965)
109. Bulgaria 59% (927)
110. Slovakia 58% (991)
111. Singapore 58% (3002)
112. Czech Republic 58% (992)
113. Mauritania 57% (1960)
114. Benin 56% (974)
115. South Korea 56% (2056)
116. Myanmar 55% (1047)
117. Latvia 54% (1942)
118. Togo 54% (988)
119. Estonia 53% (1800)
120. Lithuania 50% (1863)
121. Russia 50% (4667)
122. Chad 49% (1915)
123. Yemen 48% (959)
124. Ukraine 48% (1930)
125. Ethiopia 48% (1913)
126. Azerbaijan 47% (1824)
127. Tajikistan 47% (1847)
128. Moldova 46% (1937)
129. Kazakhstan 45% (1871)
130. Morocco 43% (1011)
131. Belarus 43% (1992)
132. Georgia 43% (1904)
133. Kyrgyzstan 34% (1969)
134. Mongolia 32% (928)
135. Uzbekistan 32% (962)
136. Armenia 29% (1954)

Note: This content was first published on Bloomberg View on February 13, 2013.

Many scholars have argued that once “basic needs” have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of “basic needs” and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it.

Introduction

In 1974 Richard Easterlin famously posited that increasing average income did not raise average well-being, a claim that became known as the Easterlin Paradox. However, in recent years new and more comprehensive data has allowed for greater testing of Easterlin’s claim. Studies by us and others have pointed to a robust positive relationship between well-being and income across countries and over time (Deaton, 2008; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008; Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers, 2013). Yet, some researchers have argued for a modified version of Easterlin’s hypothesis, acknowledging the existence of a link between income and well-being among those whose basic needs have not been met, but claiming that beyond a certain income threshold, further income is unrelated to well-being.

The existence of such a satiation point is claimed widely, although there has been no formal statistical evidence presented to support this view. For example Diener and Seligman (2004, p. 5) state that “there are only small increases in well-being” above some threshold. While Clark, Frijters and Shields (2008, p. 123) state more starkly that “greater economic prosperity at some point ceases to buy more happiness,” a similar claim is made by Di Tella and MacCulloch (2008, p. 17): “once basic needs have been satisfied, there is full adaptation to further economic growth.” The income level beyond which further income no longer yields greater well-being is typically said to be somewhere between $8,000 and $25,000. Layard (2003, p. 17) argues that “once a country has over $15,000 per head, its level of happiness appears to be independent of its income;” while in subsequent work he argued for a $20,000 threshold (Layard, 2005 p. 32-33). Frey and Stutzer (2002, p. 416) claim that “income provides happiness at low levels of development but once a threshold (around $10,000) is reached, the average income level in a country has little effect on average subjective well-being.”

Many of these claims, of a critical level of GDP beyond which happiness and GDP are no longer linked, come from cursorily examining plots of well-being against the level of per capita GDP. Such graphs show clearly that increasing income yields diminishing marginal gains in subjective well-being. However this relationship need not reach a point of nirvana beyond which further gains in well-being are absent. For instance Deaton (2008) and Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) find that the well-being–income relationship is roughly a linear-log relationship, such that, while each additional dollar of income yields a greater increment to measured happiness for the poor than for the rich, there is no satiation point.

In this paper we provide a sustained examination of whether there is a critical income level beyond which the well-being–income relationship is qualitatively different, a claim referred to as the modified-Easterlin hypothesis. As a statistical claim, we shall test two versions of the hypothesis. The first, a stronger version, is that beyond some level of basic needs, income is uncorrelated with subjective well-being; the second, a weaker version, is that the well-being–income link estimated among the poor differs from that found among the rich.

Claims of satiation have been made for comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, comparisons between rich and poor countries, and comparisons of average well-being in countries over time, as they grow. The time series analysis is complicated by the challenges of compiling comparable data over time and thus we focus in this short paper on the cross-sectional relationships seen within and between countries. Recent work by Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers (2013) provide evidence on the time series relationship that is consistent with the findings presented here.

To preview, we find no evidence of a satiation point. The income–well-being link that one finds when examining only the poor, is similar to that found when examining only the rich. We show that this finding is robust across a variety of datasets, for various measures of subjective well-being, at various thresholds, and that it holds in roughly equal measure when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country.

Downloads

• Download full paper

Downloads

• Download full paper

Justin Wolfers, professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan, re-joins Brookings, Vice President and Economic Studies Co-Director Karen Dynan announced today.  Wolfers was a visiting fellow from 2010-2011.

A world-renowned empirical economist, Wolfers will continue in his role as co-editor, along with David Romer of the University of California, of the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA), the flagship economic journal of the Institution.  He will continue his focus on labor economics, macroeconomics, political economy, economics of the family, social policy, law and economics, public economics, and behavioral economics. His appointment as senior fellow will last 13 months.

Wolfers is also a research associate with the National Bureau for Economic Research, a research affiliate of the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London, a research fellow of the German Institute for the Study of Labor, and a senior scientist for Gallup, among other affiliations. He is a contributor for Bloomberg View, NPR Marketplace, and the Freakonomics website and was named one of the 13 top young economists to watch by the New York Times.  Wolfers did his undergraduate work at the University of Sydney, Australia and received his Master’s and Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University.  He is a dual Australian-U.S. national and was once an apprentice to a bookie which led to his interest in prediction markets. 

“We are pleased to re-welcome Justin back to Economic Studies,” said Dynan. “His work continues to challenge the conventional wisdom, and we look forward to collaborating with him once again.” 

“Justin is outstanding at communicating economic ideas to a wide audience, as evidenced by his regular writings for media as well as his large social media presence,” added Ted Gayer, co-director of Economic Studies.

“I have enormous affection for the Brookings Institution, which provides not only a home for deep scholarly research, but also an unmatched platform for engaging the policy debate,” said Wolfers.  “The Economic Studies program has a rich history of being the go-to place for policymakers, and I look forward to coming back and engaging in debate with my colleagues there.”

Abstract

We explore the relationship between agency and hedonic and evaluative dimensions of well-being, using data from the Gallup World Poll. We posit that individuals emphasize one well-being dimension over the other, depending on their agency. We test four hypotheses including whether: (i) positive levels of well-being in one dimension coexist with negative ones in another;and (ii) individuals place a different value on agency depending on their positions in the well-being and income distributions. We find that: (i) agency is more important to the evaluative well-being of respondents with more means; (ii) negative levels of hedonic well-being coexist with positive levels of evaluative well-being as people acquire agency; and (iii)both income and agency are less important to well-being at highest levels of the well-being distribution. We hope to contribute insight into one of the most complex and important components of well-being, namely,people’s capacity to pursue fulfilling lives.

Downloads

• Download the full paper

"Happiness." "Contentment." "Subjective well-being." Can we measure how happy people are and if so, what can we do with this information? In this podcast, Carol Graham, the Leo Pasvolsky Senior Fellow and author of The Pursuit of Happiness: An Economy of Well-Being, explains how happiness/well-being research works and why it matters for public policy in the U.S. and globally.

In the podcast, Graham explains two dimensions of understanding well-being, the "Benthamite/hedonic" and the "Aristotelian/eudemonic." She explained them in this earlier publication:

Those of us involved focus on two distinct dimensions: hedonic well-being, a daily experience component; and evaluative well-being, the way in which people think about their lives as a whole, including purpose or meaning. Jeremy Bentham focused on the former and proposed increasing the happiness and contentment of the greatest number of individuals possible in a society as the goal of public policy. Aristotle, meanwhile, thought of happiness as eudemonia, a concept that combined two Greek words: "eu" meaning abundance and "daimon" meaning the power controlling an individual’s destiny.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST ON ITUNES »

Show notes:

• "Why Aging and Working Makes us Happy in 4 Charts," Carol Graham
• Happiness Around the World, Carol Graham
• "The Decade of Public Protest and Frustration with Lack of Social Mobility," Carol Graham
• "Evidence for a midlife crisis in great apes consistent with the U-shape in human well-being," Andrew Oswald and others
• "You Can’t Be Happier than Your Wife: Happiness Gaps and Divorce," Cahit Guven and others
• Aristotle's definition of happiness
• The life of philosopher Jeremy Bentham
• Gallup World Poll

See more charts like this in Carol Graham's newest post on the relationship among work, age and happiness.

In "Why Aging and Working Makes us Happy in 4 Charts," Carol Graham describes a research paper in which she and co-author Milena Nikolova examine determinants of subjective well-being beyond traditional income measures. One of these is the relationship between age and happiness, a chart of which resembles, remarkably, a smile.

As Graham notes:

There is a U-shaped curve, with the low point in happiness being at roughly age 40 around the world, with some modest differences across countries. It seems that our veneration of (or for some of us, nostalgia, for) youth as the happiest times of our lives is overblown, the middle age years are, well, as expected, and then things get better as we age, as long as we are reasonably healthy (age-adjusted) and in a stable partnership.

The new post has three additional charts that showcase other ways to think about factors of happiness.