« I support Al Gore | Main | Remember when outsourcing was going to destroy America? »
September 21, 2006
Do economists reach a conclusion on rail transit?
Cecilia Kim and I explore this question in the latest issue of Econ Journal Watch.
Here’s the abstract:
- In the United States, the public debate over urban rail projects is complicated by the lack of agreement on goals. Supporters offer a wide variety of justifications to build and expand rail transit. If one focuses on the judgments of economists, the list of justifications shrinks considerably, but we are still left with a bundle of goals. Compared to other justifications, economists appear to be somewhat optimistic about rail transit’s impact on local economic development, but less optimistic about rail’s ability to achieve environmental improvement and serve the transit-dependent poor. Economists seem quite pessimistic about rail’s ability to achieve key transportation goals like reducing congestion. Economists often attribute rail’s political success to rent-seeking and romantic political factors. Of those economists who offer a big-picture view, there appears to be wide, though not unanimous, agreement that rail’s costs exceed its benefits. And it seems that almost all economists who write about rail agree that various demographic features, such as suburbanization, the declining influence of central business districts, and increasing wealth will make it increasingly difficult to design successful rail systems.
Article here.
Whole issue here.
Complete table of contents below the fold.
• In the Journal of Economic Surveys, Jakob De Haan, Susanna Lundström, and Jan-Egbert Sturm reviewed the scholarly literature on economic growth and economic freedom. Robert Lawson comments on their review, notably on their objection to using the level of economic freedom in regression analyses of economic growth. De Haan and Sturm reply.
• In a series of books and articles, Robert Frank has been arguing that higher taxes can help us to reduce the time and effort we waste in jockeying for relative position. Andrew Kashdan and Daniel Klein critically examine Frank’s argument. Robert Frank replies.
• The secrets of Sweden: Andreas Bergh responds to Peter Lindert, whose book Growing Public suggested that the welfare state may be a free lunch, and pointed to Sweden to make the case. Lindert replies again and concludes the exchange.
• The Journal of Economic Literature published a review (by Joseph Farrell, Jonathan Gruber, Gordon Hanson, and others) of the Economic Report of the President. The JEL authors pointed out omissions of the ERP. Daniel Klein and Michael Clark suggest that the omissions of the JEL list of ERP omissions reveal a lot about the JEL.
• There has been a heated controversy over measuring the money supply of the American colonies, with Ronald Michener and Robert Wright on one side and Farley Grubb on the other. Grubb provides the final contribution to the four-part exchange.
Do economists reach a conclusion on rail transit? Ted Balaker and Cecilia Kim investigate.
Character Issues: The public economist: For several generations in Sweden, economists were giants in the public debate, and those giants discussed the existential tensions lying therein. Benny Carlson and Lars Jonung explore the minds, souls, and ideological characters of Knut Wicksell, Gustav Cassel, Eli Heckscher, Bertil Ohlin, and Gunnar Myrdal.
Correspondence: Meir Kohn remarks on the colonial money controversy by drawing parallels to the practices of other historical experiences.
Posted by tedb at September 21, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment by: Shuragitrutty at March 26, 2008 04:06 PM
---
Hay take want to conceive of with BBcode :( for me does not veer out to beget references to the absorbing pictures and video on the topic. Or regurgitate down fasten together on this topicComment by: rarignova at April 14, 2008 06:51 PM
---
Comments