The Experts below are selected from a list of 249 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lee B Kovarsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
muscle memory and the local Concentration of Capital punishment
Duke Law Journal, 2016Co-Authors: Lee B KovarskyAbstract:The modern death penalty is not just concentrating in a handful of practicing states; it is disappearing in all but a few Capitally active localities. Capital punishment Concentration, however, still surfaces more as the subject of a casual observation than as the object of sophisticated academic inquiry. Normative and doctrinal analyses of the phenomenon are virtually nonexistent, in part because the current ability to measure and report Concentration is so limited.This Article is the first attempt to measure Capital punishment Concentration rigorously, by combining different sources of county-level data and by borrowing quantitative tools that economists use to study market competition. The analysis yields three major findings: (1) Capital sentencing is concentrating dramatically; (2) executions are concentrating more gradually; and (3) both trends persist within most Capitally active states. Certain normative and doctrinal conclusions follow from the empirical findings. To the extent that its causes are more bureaucratic and path dependent than they are democratic and pragmatic, Concentration violates basic punishment norms requiring equal treatment of similar offenders. This problem notwithstanding, existing death penalty jurisprudence does not account for local Concentration. For Concentration to have any influence on the outcome of constitutional inquiry, the Supreme Court would have to revise its working definition of “arbitrariness.”
-
The Local Concentration of Capital Punishment
2016Co-Authors: Lee B KovarskyAbstract:The modern death penalty is not just concentrating in a handful of practicing states; it is disappearing in all but a few Capitally active localities. Capital punishment Concentration, however, still surfaces more as the subject of a casual observation than as the object of sophisticated academic inquiry. Normative and doctrinal analyses of the phenomenon are virtually nonexistent, in part because the current ability to measure and report Concentration is so limited.This Article is the first attempt to measure Capital punishment Concentration rigorously, by combining different sources of county-level data and by borrowing quantitative tools that economists use to study market competition. The analysis yields three major findings: (1) Capital sentencing is concentrating dramatically; (2) executions are concentrating more gradually; and (3) both trends persist within most Capitally active states. Certain normative and doctrinal conclusions follow from the empirical findings. To the extent that its causes are more bureaucratic and path dependent than they are democratic and pragmatic, Concentration violates basic punishment norms requiring equal treatment of similar offenders. This problem notwithstanding, existing death penalty jurisprudence does not account for local Concentration. For Concentration to have any influence on the outcome of constitutional inquiry, the Supreme Court would have to revise its working definition of “arbitrariness.”
Krzysztof Oleszkiewicz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Concentration of Capital the product form of the law of large numbers in l1
Statistics & Probability Letters, 2001Co-Authors: Krzysztof OleszkiewiczAbstract:Abstract Let X1,X2,… be i.i.d. copies of a non-negative real random variable X having continuous distribution and such that EX(lnX)3 EX 1 X 2 …X n 1 X 1 X 2 …X n ⩾c n = 1 2 EX 1 X 2 …X n . Then there exist positive constants A and B such that A exp n EX ln X EX ⩽c n ⩽B exp n EX ln X EX .
-
Concentration of Capital—the product form of the Law of Large Numbers in L1
Statistics & Probability Letters, 2001Co-Authors: Krzysztof OleszkiewiczAbstract:Abstract Let X1,X2,… be i.i.d. copies of a non-negative real random variable X having continuous distribution and such that EX(lnX)3 EX 1 X 2 …X n 1 X 1 X 2 …X n ⩾c n = 1 2 EX 1 X 2 …X n . Then there exist positive constants A and B such that A exp n EX ln X EX ⩽c n ⩽B exp n EX ln X EX .
Filip Novokmet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Between Communism and Capitalism: Long-Term Inequality in Poland, 1892- 2015
2019Co-Authors: Pawel Bukowski, Filip NovokmetAbstract:How has Polish inequality evolved between communism and Capitalism to reach one of the highest levels in Europe today? To address this question, we construct the first consistent series on the long-term distri-bution of income in Poland by combining tax, household survey and national accounts data. We document a U-shaped evolution of inequalities from the end of the 19th century until today: (i) inequality was high before WWII; (ii) abruptly fell after the introduction of communism in 1947 and stagnated at low levels during the whole communist period; (iii) experienced a sharp rise with the return to Capitalism in 1989. Between 1989 and 2015 the top 10% income share increased from 23% to 35% and the top 1% income share from 4% to 13%. We find that official survey-based measures strongly under-estimate the rise of inequality since 1989. Our new estimates show that frequently quoted Poland’s transition success has largely benefited top income groups. We find that inequality was high in the first half of the 20th century due to strong Concentration of Capital income at the top of the distribution. The secular fall after WW2 was largely to a combination of Capital income shocks fromwar destructions with communist policies both eliminating private ownership and forc-ing wage compression. The rise of inequality after the return to Capitalism in the early 1990s was induced both by the rise of top labour and Capital incomes. However, the strong rise in inequality in the 2000s was driven solely by the increase in top Capital incomes, which is likely related to current globalization forces. Yet overall, the unique Polish inequality history speaks about the central role of policies and institutions in shaping inequality in the long run.
-
The long-run evolution of inequality in the Czech Lands, 1898-2015
2018Co-Authors: Filip NovokmetAbstract:This work analyses the evolution of top income shares in the Czech Lands from the end of the 19th century until today. Top income shares followed a U-shaped evolution in the course of the 20th century. Higher shares in the first half of the 20th century were due to high Concentration of Capital income at the top of the income distribution. Equally, shocks to top Capital incomes were the main force behind the secular fall in top Concentration. Communism led to the virtual annihilation of private Capital income and the stumbling of top income shares. A sharp decline in the first half of the twentieth century was largely due to a drop in the top percentile share. After residing at very low levels featured by the remarkable stability for several decades, top income shares have increased after the fall of Communism. The transition to the market economy saw a rise in both top labour and top Capital incomes. However, in contrast to the pre-communist period, there is a higher prominence of the working rich at the top. This evolution is explained by the continuous interplay of economic and political forces. The Czech Republic is the suggestive example of the critical role played by the interaction between private, public and foreign Capital in shaping top income patterns. Except for the socialist period, when the bulk of wealth was in the public ownership, the holders of top Capital incomes have disproportionally been foreigners.
-
Top Incomes during Wars, Communism and Capitalism: Poland 1892-2015
2017Co-Authors: Pawel Bukowski, Filip NovokmetAbstract:This study presents the history of top incomes in Poland. We document a Ushaped evolution of top income shares from the end of the 19th century until today. The initial high level, during the period of Partitions, was due to the strong Concentration of Capital income at the top of the distribution. The long-run downward trend in top incomes was primarily induced by shocks to Capital income, from destructions of world wars to changed political and ideological environment. The Great Depression, however, led to a rise in top shares as the richest were less adversely affected than the majority of population consisting of smallholding farmers. The introduction of communism abruptly reduced inequalities by eliminating private Capital income and compressing earnings.Top incomes stagnated at low levels during the whole communist period. Yet, after the fall of communism, the Polish top incomes experienced a substantial and steady rise and today are at the level of more unequal European countries. While the initial upward adjustment during the transition in the 1990s was induced both by the rise of top labour and Capital incomes, the strong rise of top income shares in 2000s was driven solely by the increase in top Capital incomes, which make the dominant income source at the top. We relate these developments to processes associated with the new phase in globalisation.
Pawel Bukowski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Between Communism and Capitalism: Long-Term Inequality in Poland, 1892- 2015
2019Co-Authors: Pawel Bukowski, Filip NovokmetAbstract:How has Polish inequality evolved between communism and Capitalism to reach one of the highest levels in Europe today? To address this question, we construct the first consistent series on the long-term distri-bution of income in Poland by combining tax, household survey and national accounts data. We document a U-shaped evolution of inequalities from the end of the 19th century until today: (i) inequality was high before WWII; (ii) abruptly fell after the introduction of communism in 1947 and stagnated at low levels during the whole communist period; (iii) experienced a sharp rise with the return to Capitalism in 1989. Between 1989 and 2015 the top 10% income share increased from 23% to 35% and the top 1% income share from 4% to 13%. We find that official survey-based measures strongly under-estimate the rise of inequality since 1989. Our new estimates show that frequently quoted Poland’s transition success has largely benefited top income groups. We find that inequality was high in the first half of the 20th century due to strong Concentration of Capital income at the top of the distribution. The secular fall after WW2 was largely to a combination of Capital income shocks fromwar destructions with communist policies both eliminating private ownership and forc-ing wage compression. The rise of inequality after the return to Capitalism in the early 1990s was induced both by the rise of top labour and Capital incomes. However, the strong rise in inequality in the 2000s was driven solely by the increase in top Capital incomes, which is likely related to current globalization forces. Yet overall, the unique Polish inequality history speaks about the central role of policies and institutions in shaping inequality in the long run.
-
Top Incomes during Wars, Communism and Capitalism: Poland 1892-2015
2017Co-Authors: Pawel Bukowski, Filip NovokmetAbstract:This study presents the history of top incomes in Poland. We document a Ushaped evolution of top income shares from the end of the 19th century until today. The initial high level, during the period of Partitions, was due to the strong Concentration of Capital income at the top of the distribution. The long-run downward trend in top incomes was primarily induced by shocks to Capital income, from destructions of world wars to changed political and ideological environment. The Great Depression, however, led to a rise in top shares as the richest were less adversely affected than the majority of population consisting of smallholding farmers. The introduction of communism abruptly reduced inequalities by eliminating private Capital income and compressing earnings.Top incomes stagnated at low levels during the whole communist period. Yet, after the fall of communism, the Polish top incomes experienced a substantial and steady rise and today are at the level of more unequal European countries. While the initial upward adjustment during the transition in the 1990s was induced both by the rise of top labour and Capital incomes, the strong rise of top income shares in 2000s was driven solely by the increase in top Capital incomes, which make the dominant income source at the top. We relate these developments to processes associated with the new phase in globalisation.
W. Neil Adger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Implications of Livelihood Dependence on Non-Timber Products in Peruvian Amazonia
Ecosystems, 2006Co-Authors: Aili Pyhälä, Katrina Brown, W. Neil AdgerAbstract:The present and future well-being of the world’s forest dwelling populations depends on their ability to gain livelihood resources from their immediate environment. Sustainable extraction of non-timber forest products has been promoted by conservationists and development agencies as a feasible strategy for forest dwellers that does not compromise the resource base. Yet surveys of actual resource use suggest that for poorer resource-dependent communities without access to markets, non-timber forest products can only ever represent a safety-net activity and a supplementary income source. Others argue that resource availability, in terms of the diversity and productivity of the forest, is the key parameter in realizing a contribution of forest products to well-being. This paper examines the scope and heterogeneity of forest product use to reveal whether resource availability necessarily provides the context for significant contributions to well-being of forest dwellers. We present data from an area of tropical rainforest, close to Iquitos in Peru, which was previously shown to have high potential value. We find, through a census survey of households within a forest reserve area, that non-timber forest products provide only a relatively small portion of income and that only a small proportion of available products are actually commercialized, despite apparent market availability. We show that the low rates of commercialization can be explained by unequal access Capital assets used for extraction, to natural resources themselves, and to product markets. They are also explained by the Concentration of Capital-poor households on subsistence gathering activities. The value of destructive uses of forests, both logging and agriculture, remain higher than returns from non-timber products. This research demonstrates that although non-timber forest products are an important livelihood source, market integration and commercialization is not everywhere an appropriate or realistic strategy.