Latest RLAB News
Below are the latest headlines for CEP and STICERD. For full coverage see the
CEP News and Visitors Site
STICERD News and Visitors Site
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
Thrive: the Power of Evidence Based Psychological Therapies
, Richard Layard and David M Clark, Penguin, July 2014
Richard Layard webpage
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
Are You Happy While You Work? Alex Bryson, George MacKerron, February 2013 Paper No' CEPDP1187 link to article
Alex Bryson webpage
Labour Markets webpage
“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
Latest rich collectible: Passports link to article
Collecting passports is the new fad for those with the money link to article
David Metcalf webpage
Labour Markets webpage
David Metcalf CEP publications webpage
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.
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.
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
full paper can
be downloaded here (pdf)
by Paola De Agostini,
John Hills and
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
announced by Labour in 2009 and taking effect in April 2010, before the
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
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.
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.
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
the University of Essex.
is Professor of Social Policy and Director of the
Centre for Analysis of
Social Exclusion (CASE)
at the London School of Economics.
is Research Professor and Director of
at the Institute for Social and
Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex.
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.
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.
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.