<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>EconStor Collection:</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/81140" />
  <subtitle />
  <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/81140</id>
  <updated>2026-04-03T20:53:34Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-04-03T20:53:34Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>The pitfalls of Green Deals: Introduction and synthesis</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339279" />
    <author>
      <name>Henrekson, Magnus</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Sandström, Christian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Stenkula, Mikael</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339279</id>
    <updated>2026-03-30T11:31:55Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: The pitfalls of Green Deals: Introduction and synthesis
Authors: Henrekson, Magnus; Sandström, Christian; Stenkula, Mikael
Abstract: Green Deals have been introduced across Western economies as large-scale, mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) intended to combine economic growth with environmental sustainability. Rooted in the concept of an "entrepreneurial state," these initiatives reflect renewed confidence in governments' ability to direct technological and industrial transformation. However, their outcomes have frequently diverged from expectations. This volume examines the theoretical foundations and empirical results of Green Deals, highlighting the institutional, economic, and behavioral factors that contribute to their shortcomings. Drawing on perspectives from evolutionary economics, public choice theory, and behavioral political economy, the contributors analyze a wide range of cases, including Germany's Energiewende, Italy's Superbonus, and the European Union's hydrogen and battery programs. Across these examples, recurring challenges such as rent-seeking, mission capture, optimism bias, and distorted incentives are identified. The findings indicate that while Green Deals have advanced ambitious sustainability goals, they often undermine competitiveness and fiscal stability while generating limited environmental benefits. The volume concludes by outlining alternative pathways that emphasize incremental, technology-neutral, and institutionally grounded approaches to sustainability-approaches that align more closely with long-term economic resilience and effective environmental policy.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Revitalizing rural communities through institutional reform of quasi-markets</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339128" />
    <author>
      <name>Elert, Niklas</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Henrekson, Magnus</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339128</id>
    <updated>2026-03-30T11:30:43Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Revitalizing rural communities through institutional reform of quasi-markets
Authors: Elert, Niklas; Henrekson, Magnus
Abstract: Welfare services such as healthcare, elderly care, and education are key to ensuring quality of life generally, and vital for rural communities across urbanizing countries. While these sectors are largely tax-financed, several countries have established quasi-markets to achieve competition through private entry to unleash entrepreneurship, efficiency, and service provision innovation. The reforms notwithstanding, productivity improvements are modest, and the situation seems particularly bad in some rural communities. We argue that quasi-markets can only live up to expectations if the local institutional framework considers sectoral and local conditions. While competition and the profit motive are necessary conditions for local quasi-market entrepreneurship and innovation, they are not sufficient but require a set of complementary institutions that are epistemic in nature. These epistemic institutions enable users to make informed choices while simultaneously incentivizing entrepreneurs to compete and innovate along the dimensions that users value. Moreover, if the catchment area includes densely populated areas, rural communities may attract users from communities where costs are higher, thus creating new comparative advantages locally. As an illustration, we analyze the Swedish quasi-market for nursing homes for the elderly.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>How parenting styles shape children's lifetime outcomes</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339190" />
    <author>
      <name>Dohmen, Thomas</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Golsteyn, Bart H. H.</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Grönqvist, Hans</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Hertegård, Edvin</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Pfann, Gerard A.</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339190</id>
    <updated>2026-03-30T11:31:08Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: How parenting styles shape children's lifetime outcomes
Authors: Dohmen, Thomas; Golsteyn, Bart H. H.; Grönqvist, Hans; Hertegård, Edvin; Pfann, Gerard A.
Abstract: This study examines how parenting styles predict children's lifetime outcomes. Using a Swedish dataset which combines rich survey information on parenting styles with administrative records tracking children over five decades, we find that authoritarian parenting is negatively associated with children's long-term success, especially regarding their educational attainment. The results for other parenting styles are more mixed. Authoritarian parenting remains a robust predictor of adverse outcomes even when accounting for ability and family background. We identify children's knowledge accumulation and parental educational expectations as key mechanisms explaining these results.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>A new IV estimator of a panel VAR(p) model</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339333" />
    <author>
      <name>Mehic, Adrian</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Nordström, Marcus</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/339333</id>
    <updated>2026-03-30T11:32:32Z</updated>
    <published>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: A new IV estimator of a panel VAR(p) model
Authors: Mehic, Adrian; Nordström, Marcus
Abstract: We propose a novel dynamic panel estimator. Different from the commonly used difference and system GMM, our proposed estimator requires only one of the crosssectional dimension (N) or the time dimension (T) to grow large to be asymptotically unbiased. This improves reliability in panels with long time spans, where GMM suffers from weak instrument problems, and more generally in finite samples where results can be sensitive to instrument selection and implementation choices. Computationally simple, it extends readily to higher-order autoregressive and vector autoregressive settings. Monte Carlo simulations show that the estimator exhibits lower finite-sample bias than GMM in shorter panels, including for roots at and near unity. In three applications from political economy and macroeconomics-spanning diverse panels, outcomes, and persistence levels-our estimator yields stable, economically meaningful estimates robust to specification choices. By contrast, standard GMM methods display considerable sensitivity to instrument lags, collapsing, and the choice between difference and system variant, often producing substantively different results under comparable setups.</summary>
    <dc:date>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>

