Search

A lack of consensus remains on what should form the theoretical core of the undergraduate intermediate macroeconomic course. In determining how to deal with the Keynesian/classical divide, instructors must decide whether to follow the modern approach of building macroeconomic relationships from micro foundations, or to use the traditional approach based on aggregate models of the macroeconomy. In this article, the authors discuss the advantages and shortcomings of each approach in the context of course objectives. Because there is significant heterogeneity in textbook coverage, the authors summarize some of the approaches taken in current intermediate-level textbooks, which should serve as a useful starting point for new instructors. The authors also discuss how each approach can be extended to analyze the recent recession in the United States. (Contains 2 tables and 14 notes.)

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has become the federal government's largest cash-assistance program for low-income families, making it the centerpiece of anti-poverty programs in the United States. Approximately 15 [...]

Since 1990, the United States has experienced a geographic dispersion of Mexican migrants from traditional gateways to new regions. Using data from the Mexican Migration Project, we find significant differences in both the likelihood of remitting and the amount remitted by Mexican migrants across U.S. regions. Specifically, Mexican migrants living in U.S. regions that have experienced considerable increases in migrant populations since 1990 (the Northeast, Southeast, Mountain, and Midwest regions) remit at higher rates and in larger quantities than migrants living in more traditional migrant destinations (the Pacific and South Central regions), even after controlling for observed differences in migrant populations. (JEL F22, F32, J11, R23), I. INTRODUCTION According to Bartel (1989), migrants in the United States have historically clustered in a few regions and have thus been more geographically concentrated than U.S. natives. However, according [...]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.02.007 Byline: Kartik B. Athreya (a), Nicole B. Simpson (b) Abstract: In U.S. data, income interruptions, the receipt of public insurance, and the incidence of personal bankruptcy are all closely related. The central contribution of this paper is to evaluate bankruptcy protection and public insurance in a unified setting where each program alters incentives in the other. Our analysis delivers two striking conclusions. First, we find that U.S. personal bankruptcy law is an important barrier that prevents the public insurance system from improving welfare. Second, contrary to popular belief, we find that increases in the generosity of public insurance will lead to more, not less, bankruptcy. Author Affiliation: (a) Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, P.O. Box 27622, Richmond, VA 23261, USA (b) Department of Economics, Colgate University, 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY 13346, USA Article History: Received 24 November 2004; Revised 15 February 2005; Accepted 25 February 2005 Article Note: (footnote) [star] We thank Elise Couper, Dora Gicheva and especially Jon Petersen for excellent research assistance. We appreciate detailed comments from an anonymous referee. We also thank Gwendolyn Alexander, Ahmet Akyol, Chris Carroll, Huberto Ennis, Jonathan Fisher, Richard Hynes, Bob King, Narayana Kocherlakota, Igor Livshits, Jim MacGee, Sophie Mitra, Roisin O'Sullivan, Bob Rebelein, Pierre Sarte, Steve Williamson, and seminar participants at U. Western Ontario, Iowa, Richmond Fed., Kansas City Fed, Fed. Res. Board, Virginia, Delhi School of Economics, ISI-Delhi, York, Toronto, and the 2004 AEA, EEA and Midwest Macro Meetings.