LSE LSE Research Laboratory LSE
LSE Research Laboratory (RLAB)

Latest RLAB News

Below are the latest headlines for CEP and STICERD. For full coverage see the CEP News and Visitors Site and the STICERD News and Visitors Site

Huffington Post
Managing Our Minds: The Economic Case for Investment in Mental Health

Lord Richard Layard of the LSE has campaigned heavily for increased expenditure in mental health care, having demonstrated the economic viability of taking such measures. Layard estimates that the costs of providing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to all those who need it would be quickly recovered, and that the longer-term impact on the economy would be wholly positive.

This article appeared in the Huffington Post on 17 December 2014 link to article

Related Publications
Thrive: the Power of Evidence Based Psychological Therapies, Richard Layard and David M Clark, Penguin, July 2014 Details here

Related links
Richard Layard webpage
Wellbeing webpage

Psychology Today
Thick Presence: Taking Collaboration One Step Further

Last year, a study by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found that participants ranked “paid work” second to last out of 39 activities.

This article appeared in Psychology Today on 17 December 2014 link to article

Related Publications
Are You Happy While You Work? Alex Bryson, George MacKerron, February 2013 Paper No' CEPDP1187 link to article

Related Links
Alex Bryson webpage
Labour Markets webpage

International New York Times
Along with art and jewels, the rich now collect passports

“These programs bring huge benefits to the Russian oligarchs or the various Chinese wanting to benefit from the rule of law, good educations and robust capital markets,” said David Metcalf, chairman of the British government’s Migration Advisory Committee and a professor emeritus at the London School of Economics. “But the fundamental question is, What does everyone else get out of it?”

This article appeared in the International New York Times on 15 December 2014 link to article

Also in:
Latest rich collectible: Passports link to article

Weekly Voice
Collecting passports is the new fad for those with the money link to article

Related links
David Metcalf webpage
Labour Markets webpage
David Metcalf CEP publications webpage

New analysis published
Poor lose, and rich gain from direct tax and benefit changes since May 2010 – without cutting the deficit

New analysis from Essex University and the LSE analyses the impact of benefit and direct tax changes since the election in detail. This shows that the poorest income groups lost the biggest share of their incomes on average, and those in the bottom half of incomes lost overall.
  • In contrast those in the top half of incomes gained from direct tax cuts, with the exception of most of the top 5 per cent – although within this 5 percent group those at the very top gained, because of the cut in the top rate of income tax.

  • In total, the changes have not contributed to cutting the deficit.  Rather, the savings from reducing benefits and tax credits have been spent on raising the tax-free income tax allowance.

  • The analysis challenges the idea that those with incomes in the top tenth have lost as great a share of their incomes as those with the lowest incomes

The full paper can be downloaded here (pdf)

The research, by Paola De Agostini, John Hills and Holly Sutherland suggests that who has gained or lost most as a result of the Coalition’s policy changes depends critically on when reforms are measured from.

  • Treasury analysis, suggesting that those at the top have lost proportionately most starts from January 2010 and therefore includes the effects of income tax changes at the top announced by Labour in 2009 and taking effect in April 2010, before the election.

  • But if the Coalition’s impacts are measured comparing the system in 2014-15 with what would have happened if the system inherited in May 2010, they have more clearly regressive effect. 

  • This resulted from the combination of: changes to benefits and tax credits making them less generous for the bottom and middle of the distribution; changes to Council Tax and benefits from which those in the bottom half lost but the top half gained; higher personal income tax allowances which meant the largest gains for those in the middle, but with some income tax increases for the top 5 per cent; and the ‘triple lock’ on state pensions which were most valuable as a proportion of their incomes for the bottom half.

  • Some groups were clear losers on average – including lone parent families, large families, children, and middle-aged people (at the age when many are parents), while others were gainers, including two-earner couples, and those in their 50s and early 60s.

Prof Sutherland, Director of EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex commented: “It is striking how seemingly technical issues or minor differences in assumptions like which tax system is taken as the starting point for Coalition reforms, or whether to assume 100% take-up of benefits have very big implications for what we conclude about whether the rich or the poor were harder hit.”  

Prof Hills, Director of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at LSE, commented: “What is most remarkable about these results is that the overall effect of direct tax and benefit changes under the Coalition have not contributed to cutting the deficit.  The savings from benefit reforms have been offset by the cost of raising the tax-free income tax allowance.  But those with incomes in the bottom half have lost more on average from benefit and tax credit changes than they have gained from the higher tax allowance.”

Paola De Agostini is Senior Research Officer at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex.

John Hills is Professor of Social Policy and Director of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the London School of Economics.    

Holly Sutherland is Research Professor and Director of EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex. 

The paper was prepared as part of CASE’s Social Policy in a Cold Climate programme, which is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Nuffield Foundation, and with London-specific analysis funded by the Trust for London.  The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.  The analysis uses the tax-benefit model, EUROMOD, based at the University of Essex.

The Executive Time Use Project
What do CEOs do all day?

Markerplace's Sally Herships interviewed Professor Andrea Prat from Columbia University, who is one of the principal investigator of STICERD's Executive Time Use Project. In the article from November 10th, Prat points out that CEOs spend most of their days in meetings. And, he notes, most of the meetings are with employees inside the company. Contrary to common belief, he says that the more time a CEO spends in meetings with his or her employees, the better the company does.

The Executive Time Use Project is an international data collection effort to analyze how corporate leaders in the US, Europe and Asia organiser their working time. It generates reports that help policy makers understand the behaviour and the priorities of top corporate leaders.