{"title":"The Likelihood of Generic Confusion","authors":"Deven R. Desai","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4566089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4566089","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21927,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research Network","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135442613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Till Weber, Jonathan Schulz, Benjamin Beranek, Fatima Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Simon Gachter
{"title":"The Behavioral Mechanisms of Voluntary Cooperation Across Culturally Diverse Societies: Evidence from the Us, the UK, Morocco, and Turkey","authors":"Till Weber, Jonathan Schulz, Benjamin Beranek, Fatima Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Simon Gachter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4568756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4568756","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21927,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research Network","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135442628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Risk Aversion and Savings Behavior","authors":"Antoine Bommier, François Le Grand, Lionel Wilner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4570245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4570245","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21927,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research Network","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135442637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA)1 likely marks the beginning of the end of the overt use of race in university admissions. The Court’s decision, however, has much broader implications. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) classified applicants based on racial and ethnic categories adopted by the federal government in the 1970s. SFFA concluded that these classifications were so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional. SFFA therefore offers a broad new avenue of attack for litigants challenging racial preferences and other race-based policies based on these ubiquitous classifications. Any entity that is sued for engaging in discriminatory preferences or for otherwise allocating goods or services by race will need to explain why the racial classifications it relies upon don’t fail the arbitrariness test. Part I of this article briefly reviews the history of the use of racial preferences by universities starting in the 1960s. From the Bakke case in 1978 to the commencement of the SFFA litigation in 2014, universities were required, at least officially, to limit their racial preferences to those necessary to achieve “diversity” on campus. Universities divided their applicants by racial classifications concocted by the federal bureaucracy. They then gave admissions preferences to “underrepresented” groups—African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans—to enhance diversity. This meant, by logical necessity, disfavoring members of groups deemed to detract from diversity, namely whites and Asian Americans.
{"title":"Students for Fair Admissions and the End of Racial Classification as We Know It","authors":"David Eliot Bernstein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4568618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4568618","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA)1 likely marks the beginning of the end of the overt use of race in university admissions. The Court’s decision, however, has much broader implications. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) classified applicants based on racial and ethnic categories adopted by the federal government in the 1970s. SFFA concluded that these classifications were so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional. SFFA therefore offers a broad new avenue of attack for litigants challenging racial preferences and other race-based policies based on these ubiquitous classifications. Any entity that is sued for engaging in discriminatory preferences or for otherwise allocating goods or services by race will need to explain why the racial classifications it relies upon don’t fail the arbitrariness test. Part I of this article briefly reviews the history of the use of racial preferences by universities starting in the 1960s. From the Bakke case in 1978 to the commencement of the SFFA litigation in 2014, universities were required, at least officially, to limit their racial preferences to those necessary to achieve “diversity” on campus. Universities divided their applicants by racial classifications concocted by the federal bureaucracy. They then gave admissions preferences to “underrepresented” groups—African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans—to enhance diversity. This meant, by logical necessity, disfavoring members of groups deemed to detract from diversity, namely whites and Asian Americans.","PeriodicalId":21927,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research Network","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135443117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examine the impact of the last five decades of financial globalization on world GDP and income distribution, using a novel multi-country dynamic general equilibrium model that incorporates a demand system for international assets. We introduce, estimate and validate new country-level measures of inward and outward Revealed Capital Account Openness (RKO), derived from wedge accounting. The implementation of our framework requires only minimal data, which is available as early as 1970 (national income accounts, external assets and liabilities positions). Our RKO wedges reveal enormous heterogeneity in the pace of capital account liberalization, with richer countries liberalizing much faster than poorer ones. We call this pattern Unbalanced Financial Globalization. We then simulate a counterfactual trajectory of the world economy where the RKO wedges are fixed at their pre-globalization levels. We find that unbalanced financial globalization led to a worsening of capital allocation, a 2.8% lower world GDP, a 12% rise in the cross-country dispersion of GDP per capita, lower wages in poorer countries and lower cost of capital in high-income countries. These findings starkly contrast with the predictions of standard models of financial markets integration, where capital account barriers decline symmetrically across countries. In a counterfactual scenario where countries open their capital account in a symmetric or convergent fashion, we find diametrically opposite effects: significant improvements in capital allocation efficiency and lower cross-country inequality, higher wages in poor countries, etc... Our results highlight the pivotal role played by country heterogeneity in shaping the real consequences of capital markets integration.
{"title":"Unbalanced Financial Globalization","authors":"Damien Capelle, Bruno Pellegrino","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4568761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4568761","url":null,"abstract":"We examine the impact of the last five decades of financial globalization on world GDP and income distribution, using a novel multi-country dynamic general equilibrium model that incorporates a demand system for international assets. We introduce, estimate and validate new country-level measures of inward and outward Revealed Capital Account Openness (RKO), derived from wedge accounting. The implementation of our framework requires only minimal data, which is available as early as 1970 (national income accounts, external assets and liabilities positions). Our RKO wedges reveal enormous heterogeneity in the pace of capital account liberalization, with richer countries liberalizing much faster than poorer ones. We call this pattern Unbalanced Financial Globalization. We then simulate a counterfactual trajectory of the world economy where the RKO wedges are fixed at their pre-globalization levels. We find that unbalanced financial globalization led to a worsening of capital allocation, a 2.8% lower world GDP, a 12% rise in the cross-country dispersion of GDP per capita, lower wages in poorer countries and lower cost of capital in high-income countries. These findings starkly contrast with the predictions of standard models of financial markets integration, where capital account barriers decline symmetrically across countries. In a counterfactual scenario where countries open their capital account in a symmetric or convergent fashion, we find diametrically opposite effects: significant improvements in capital allocation efficiency and lower cross-country inequality, higher wages in poor countries, etc... Our results highlight the pivotal role played by country heterogeneity in shaping the real consequences of capital markets integration.","PeriodicalId":21927,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research Network","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135443176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Interpretation of Personhood: AI and Its Inability to Copyright Works of 'Original' Character","authors":"Bright Shalom","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4565695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4565695","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21927,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research Network","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135443380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：