Government

Writing for The New York Times, Prof. Catherine Wolfram and Columbia Prof. Glenn Hubbard make the case that to help end the war between Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. should “impose sanctions on any company or individual – in any country – involved in a Russian oil and gas sale.” They write: “Ideally, the policy would pressure Russia into negotiations, where its removal could be part of a deal. If not, the United States would still collect billions annually, which could help fund Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts.” 

Prof. Jeffrey Harris speaks with Newsweek reporter Jasmine Laws about how a recession could impact Medicare. "A recession could impact many critical decisions of federal lawmakers, private insurers, healthcare providers, and patients,” says Harris. “The U.S. Congress may decide to let stand the Medicare physician payment cut that became effective on January 1 of this year. Reduced physician payments under conventional Medicare may cause doctors, hospitals and other providers to shift their resources toward the care of younger, commercially insured patients."

Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with GBH All Things Considered news anchor Judie Yuill to address recession concerns. “I think the important takeaway I have is that the real risks for our nation are not really short term, they’re long term,” explains Gruber. “We are a knowledge, investment and innovation-based economy. That’s what made America great for 80 years. The base of that innovation — the base of this knowledge economy — is our world-leading universities. If we start cutting them, we’re going to pay a long-run price in terms of our ability to grow as a nation.”

Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with WCVB reporter Jackie DeFusco about the role of tariffs on manufacturing jobs in the United States. "Regardless of where the tariffs end up, the fact they're moving around so much is going to lower hiring,” says Gruber. “Whether the tariffs end up raising or lowering hiring once they're locked in, I think it is unclear.” 

Writing for the Financial Times, Prof. Abhijit Banerjee and Prof. Esther Duflo highlight the importance of foreign aid. “Reaffirming the most basic principle of aid would provide clarity,” they write. “The goal should be to invest in projects that will have the largest impact on the quality of life of poor people around the world. Saving lives during environmental catastrophes qualifies, as does financing global public goods such as vaccinations or epidemic control. Helping local actors to learn from each other and adopt the most effective ways to fight poverty can also have enormous benefits, even if this sounds a bit vague. That is because any aid money invested can then be spent in the best way possible.” 

Writing for The Boston Globe, Prof. Pierre Azoulay and Prof. Jeffrey Flier of Harvard Medical School make the case that any reforms at the NIH “should be grounded in evidence rather than tradition, avoiding the influence of special interests or political considerations.” They add that this approach “is an acknowledgement of NIH’s accomplishments and a charge to adapt it to the new realities of 21st-century science. The overarching goal must be to secure and enhance the decades-long role of the United States at the forefront of biomedical research, an outcome that the public both wants and deserves.”

A study by researchers from MIT and elsewhere has concluded that tariffs have “failed to restore jobs to the American heartland,” reports Paul Wiseman for the Associated Press. The study found that “tariffs ‘neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment’ where they were supposed to protect jobs,” writes Wiseman. 

Writing for The Boston Globe, President Emeritus L. Rafael Reif highlights the fundamental contributions made by universities across the United States in the advancement of scientific and technological innovations, and the role of government funding in these sectors. “Since World War II, the ideas born in university research laboratories have helped to make America great,” writes Reif. “Universities’ contributions should be recognized, and the systems that allow them to contribute should not be recklessly derailed.” 

Prof. Jonathan Gruber speaks with GBH’s Boston Public Radio hosts Jim Braude and Margery Eagan about the CARD Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “There is a legitimate role for credit in our society for those who use it appropriately,” explains Gruber. “And you don’t want to shut that down… We need to really be rethinking how we do regulation in the U.S.”

Prof. Christopher Knittel speaks with GBH reporter Robert Goulston about the potential impact of tariffs on imported metals and lumber. “When you place a tariff on an imported good, it’s not just the price of the imports that increase, but it’s also the price of the domestically manufactured products that increase,” explains Knittel. “Obviously the cost of importing steel and aluminum will increase, but domestic manufacturers will also raise their price because they can.”

Prof. Jeff Gore speaks with WBUR Here & Now host Peter O’Dowd about retiring the U.S. penny. “I think that the primary cost of continuing to mint the penny is the fact that it means we feel we actually have to use it,” explains Gore. “I think that the value of our time that is wasted handling pennies is worth even more than the wasted materials.” 

Prof. David Autor speaks with NPR Planet Money host Greg Rosalsky about his working paper exploring “what happened to American communities after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001,” also known as the “China Shock." Autor and his colleagues found that while regions impacted by the China Shock did eventually recover, the people hurt by the China Shock did not. “The China Shock research suggests that classic, free market economic theory blinded many to the reality that free trade can destroy the livelihoods of many people and that they have a hard time adjusting," says Rosalsky.

Researchers from MIT and elsewhere have found that tariffs “failed to restore jobs to the American heartland,” reports Paul Wiseman for the Associated Press. The study found that “the tariffs ‘neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment’ where they were supposed to protect jobs,” writes Wiseman. 

Writing for The New York Times, Institute Prof. Daron Acemoglu makes the case for “a new liberalism that is more faithful to its original values but adapted to our times.” Acemoglu emphasizes that “a renewed liberalism must rediscover its most inspiring roots: an energy coming from opposition to the unfair and unrestrained use of power; a commitment to freedom of thought and celebration of different approaches to our common problems; and a concern for the community as well as the individual as the basis of efforts to improve the opportunities of the disadvantaged.”

Writing for The Hill, Prof. Emeritus Henry Jacoby and his colleagues highlight implications of climate change denial on a global scale. “Denying there is a problem stimies efforts to correct the damaged insurance system, organize disaster relief appropriate for changing threats, and properly inform decisions about protective investment,” they write. “Besides the urgent need to protect programs to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to bring the nation back into the global effort, the federal administration and recalcitrant state leaders must be convinced to pull their heads out of the dirt and face the change that is coming — whether they want to acknowledge it or not.”