<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>EconStor Community: Freie Universität Berlin</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/103</link>
    <description />
    
    <textInput>
      <title>The Community's search engine</title>
      <description>Search the Channel</description>
      <name>search</name>
      <link>http://www.econstor.eu/simple-search</link>
    </textInput>
    <item>
      <title>Government debt in economic thought of the long 19th century</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/73682</link>
      <description>Title: Government debt in economic thought of the long 19th century
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Holtfrerich, Carl-Ludwig
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: [Introduction] The first half of the long 19th century covers the publication of Adam Smiths 'Wealth of Nations' in 1776 through the work of subsequent representatives of classical political economy in Great Britain. The second half of that long century is marked by the contributions of German economists to public finance theory spanning the sixty years preceding the First World War. In this paper I will contrast the views of four classical British economists regarding the issue of public debt, namely those of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus and John Stuart Mill, with those of three German economists, Carl Dietzel, Lorenz von Stein, and, with the internationally prominent (at least up to the First World War), Adolph Wagner. The position of British economists of the classical school that government debt was an impediment to economic progress is relatively familiar. Maybe due to their harsh judgment they treated the issue only in passing. In contrast, considerably less well-known today are the contributions of these three German economists who published entire books devoted to the issue of public debt with a subtly differentiated analysis and who were led to significantly more favorable assessments of the use of debt finance by governments. Before outlining the views of the classical economists in Great Britain, I begin with a brief discussion of the origins and magnitude of the British debt problem, the times when the main representatives of the British classical school shaped their views. Having the times and doctrines of English political economy before us, we move to consider each of the three German economists to see what led them to discover a more positive role for the use of debt in a system of public finance. The paper concludes by highlighting the main differences between the two traditions.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A transfer mechanism for a monetary union</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/71275</link>
      <description>Title: A transfer mechanism for a monetary union
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Engler, Philipp; Voigts, Simon
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: We show in a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium framework that the introduction of a common currency by a group of countries with only partially integrated goods markets, incomplete financial markets and no labor migration across member states, significantly increases volatility of consumption and employment in the face of asymmetric shocks. We propose a simple transfer mechanism between member countries of the union that reduces this volatility. Furthermore, we show that this mechanism is more efficient than anticyclical policies at the national level in terms of a better stabilization for the same budgetary effects for households while in the long run deeper integration of goods markets could reduce volatility significantly. Regarding its implementation, we show that the centralized provision of public goods and services at the level of the monetary union implies cross-country transfers comparable to the scheme under study.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Flexibilisation without hesitation? Temporary contracts and workers' satisfaction</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/71274</link>
      <description>Title: Flexibilisation without hesitation? Temporary contracts and workers' satisfaction
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Chadi, Adrian; Hetschko, Clemens
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Fixed-term contracts are often considered a key policy tool for increasing employment. As we show that contract limitation lowers job satisfaction using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel study, we detect a drawback of promoting temporary employment that has not been identified so far. We find that the honeymoon-hangover effect of a new job must be taken into account to reveal this result. We examine reasons why employees suffer from temporary contracts and analyse the Flexicurity idea of compensating workers with security. Our findings contribute to research on workers` well-being as well as to the debate on labour market flexibilisation.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Flexibilisation without hesitation? Temporary contracts and workers' satisfaction</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/71274</link>
      <description>Title: Flexibilisation without hesitation? Temporary contracts and workers' satisfaction
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Chadi, Adrian; Hetschko, Clemens
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Fixed-term contracts are often considered a key policy tool for increasing employment. As we show that contract limitation lowers job satisfaction using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel study, we detect a drawback of promoting temporary employment that has not been identified so far. We find that the honeymoon-hangover effect of a new job must be taken into account to reveal this result. We examine reasons why employees suffer from temporary contracts and analyse the Flexicurity idea of compensating workers with security. Our findings contribute to research on workers` well-being as well as to the debate on labour market flexibilisation.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

