Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

The Rural Healthcare Crisis

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

Nationwide, 104 rural hospitals have closed since 2005, and more than half of those remaining operate in a financial deficit. According to a 2024 report by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, because of these closures, as well as the rising cost of medical care and insurance, people living in rural America now have a 43% higher chance of dying from otherwise common illnesses. This effect is especially pronounced among women, due to the lack of proper pregnancy-related care.

According to the Georgia Hospital Association, since 2013, 12 rural hospitals have closed in Georgia, leaving a void in critical services and forcing residents to travel longer distances to visit an ER, receive a primary care check-up, or access a specialist. The same report found that 18 of Georgia’s 30 remaining rural hospitals were in danger of closure.

One of the most debated solutions to improve healthcare access in rural areas is Medicaid expansion. Proponents argue that expanding Medicaid would provide insurance coverage to a larger portion of the population, thereby increasing access to necessary medical services and reducing unpaid medical debt, which weighs down cash poor rural hospitals.

According to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, expanding Medicaid could insure over 400,000 Georgians, many of whom reside in rural areas. Currently, Georgia is one of 10 states left that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, a decision that has left many low-income individuals without coverage.

However, political opposition to Medicaid expansion remains strong in Georgia. Critics are concerned about the long-term financial stability of Medicaid and the potential for entitlement abuse. Despite these concerns, data from states that have expanded Medicaid show significant benefits, including reduced mortality rates and improved health outcomes for low-income populations.

As rural hospitals close and healthcare providers become scarcer, telemedicine has emerged as a potential solution to bridge the gap in healthcare access. Telemedicine allows patients to consult with doctors remotely, reducing the need for long-distance travel. In South Georgia, several initiatives have been launched to promote telemedicine.

For instance, the Georgia Partnership for TeleHealth has expanded its services, providing more than 200,000 telehealth encounters annually. Also, during and after COVID, the state allowed telemedicine providers to act much as an in-person doctor’s visit, such as allowing them to prescribe controlled medications.

In the face of these challenges, local communities in South Georgia are taking action. Community health centers, such as those operated by the Georgia Primary Care Association, provide essential services to underserved populations. These centers offer a sliding fee scale based on income, ensuring that financial barriers do not prevent individuals from receiving care.

Additionally, mobile health clinics bring medical services directly to remote areas, further enhancing access. Finally, the non-profit organization CareSource recently invested $5 million to keep rural hospitals open.

Addressing the healthcare crisis in rural South Georgia requires a multifaceted approach. Expanding Medicaid, investing in telemedicine infrastructure, and supporting local health initiatives are all critical steps toward ensuring that all residents have access to the care they need. Political leaders must prioritize these issues and work collaboratively to develop sustainable solutions for all Georgians.

As we move forward, it is essential to keep the well-being of our rural communities at the forefront of policy discussions. Access to healthcare is not just a political issue; it is a matter of life and death for many Georgians.

Drew S. Cagle, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Social Sciences at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at dcagle@ccga.edu.

CONSERVATION PAYS OFF

Written by Heather Farley on . Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

In my last From the Murphy Center column, I wrote about the dwindling number of Atlantic right whales and the need for increased conservation efforts. There’s more to explore on this policy issue.

Shortly after I wrote the article, I learned about a wildlife campaign from the non-profit organization One Hundred Miles, urging the Biden Administration to issue expanded protections for right whales. As a conservationist, I support these actions enthusiastically, but as a policy analyst I am also thinking about the ‘why’ in our policy actions.

The question of why we should protect a critically endangered species might feel like an obvious one. We can’t just let them die off, right?! What a sad and unfortunate future that would be. For many of us, avoiding extinction is simply the right thing to do. While avoiding the extinction of a large charismatic species might tug at our heartstrings, however, policymakers often need pragmatic reasons.

In all policy decisions – in the development of laws, regulations, and agency rules – we are challenged with balancing competing interests. Expanding the habitat zone where vessel speeds must be reduced and increasing the number of vessels included in the rule will reduce vessel strikes and protect more whales (including right, humpback, fin, and sei whales), but it can also impact the maritime transport industry. The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), for example, contends that an expanded rule could put more than 810,000 jobs and nearly $230 billion in economic contributions at risk.

Given such a huge potential impact, what is the case for protecting the whales beyond the moral case alone? How does extinction impact us? Put simply, everything is tied to everything else. The interconnectedness of ecosystems means that the loss of a species can fundamentally change the ecosystem services available to us. The health of the marine ecosystem has far-reaching economic effects, especially on the food chain. In the case of the Atlantic right whale, effects would be seen in phytoplankton populations. Whale excrement is a nutrient source for these tiny ocean plants, which are vital for producing oxygen (about 50% of our earth’s oxygen) and sequestering carbon dioxide. They are also primary producers in the marine food web and impact fisheries. A decline in whales would result in a decline in phytoplankton which in turn impact fishery production. Will all the phytoplankton die suddenly if the right whale goes extinct? No. But that ecosystem will become less stable, less healthy, and less productive.

Just this month a study published in the journal Science highlighted that conservation efforts are not only highly effective in reducing biodiversity loss but also provide excellent economic returns. The study, a meta-analysis of 186 different studies and 665 trials, evaluated the impact of conservation interventions globally over the past century. The analysis revealed that more than half of the world’s total GDP, approximately $44 trillion, is moderately or highly dependent on ecosystem services. Investment in the conservation of these services proves to be highly beneficial; for every dollar spent on conservation, there is an estimated return of $100 in ecosystem services. Conservation works and it has the potential to improve both environmental and economic conditions.

Protecting the Atlantic right whale and other endangered species makes sense both economically and environmentally. Ecosystem health is closely tied to the survival of species. The interconnectedness of our ecosystems means that the loss of a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity and the services these ecosystems provide. The recent study in Science underscores the significant economic returns on investment in conservation. By prioritizing conservation, we are safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring a healthier, more productive future.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration and Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

The economics of summer camp

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

For students attending Glynn County schools, this Friday marks the beginning of summer break! As a child I always enjoyed school, but I also approached summer with relief and excitement. Two whole months of play, vacationing, relaxing, summer camps, etc.—two whole months of just living the dream.

Now, as the parent of a school-aged child, summer break still brings an air of excitement, but it is far less carefree than it seemed as a child.

I realize now what a privileged childhood I had, with a two-parent household, and a full-time working dad who made enough money to allow my mom to stay home with my sisters and me full-time. My son certainly enjoys many privileges that come with my reduced summer work schedule, but summer break for the child of a single, working mom looks a lot different than my summer breaks did. We look forward to the beach days, the pool days, and summer travel, but like many children of working parents, my child also will spend many summer days in some form of childcare, often rebranded as “summer camp.”

Summer camp is big business! One local website lists 34 different organizations offering summer camp opportunities this year in the Golden Isles. Summer camps vary widely in price and depend on the length of camp, whether camp is day-only or overnight, and the types of activities campers will participate in. The American Camp Association says camp fees vary from less than $100 to over $1500 per week. In my experience shopping for day camps in the Golden Isles, average day camps around here are around here are $150-$250 per week.

The American Camp Association is currently collecting data for a national study on the economic impact of summer camps. Their website, though, cites a 2021 study of 348 day and overnight camps (600,000+ campers) in Wisconsin. The study finds a $717 million economic impact on the state from summer camps. A similar study in the Northeastern U.S. in 2017 found a $3.2 billion impact of summer camps in that region. But, these two studies include only the operating expenditures and employment of the camps.

If you read my last article for this column, you already can identify some major shortcomings of this measure of economic impact. If summer camps did not exist, these employees would not necessarily be unemployed, and the money spent on camp would not necessarily go unspent. Thus, this measure may be useful in some contexts, but it does not truly represent what is gained in the state’s economy through the existence of summer camps.

The true impact of summer camp is in the service it provides. The American Camp Association article mentions, but does not include in the economic impact calculation, the benefits to children of the physical, educational, and social activities camp offers. Camps not only offer enriching activities that add to what students learn throughout the school year, but they also can help to mitigate the effects of summer learning loss and helping students bounce back into school the next year with greater ease.

But, perhaps the most significant economic impact of summer camp is in labor force participation of parents, specifically women. The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research  published findings that women’s employment-to-population ratio drops significantly from May to July. They find this drop is greatest among mothers of younger children, and they track the trend across states with differing school schedules to show that the drop in employment coincides with school closure. Women’s earnings fall 3.3 percent over the summer. And that is with the existence of summer camps! The true economic impact of summer camp is in how much greater the drop in women’s employment and wages would necessarily be without summer childcare.

In my family alone, that impact is huge. While I can do a lot of my summer working from home or while traveling, writing is especially hard with distractions. When you see publications or articles like this one from me during the summer break, we all have summer camp to thank.

———–

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

Three Strong Economies: U.S., Georgia, and Glynn

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

It warrants repeating: the performance of the U.S. economy over the past 4 years is remarkable.

Despite four years and counting of continuous adversity – the pandemic, followed by inflation, followed by the Federal Reserve’s tight monetary policy – the U.S. economy has posted decent or better real GDP growth in each of the last seven quarters and unemployment rates below 4% in each of the last 27 months.

More remarkable are the performances of the economies of Georgia and Glynn over the past four years. 

Both economies were strong heading into 2020. Georgia finished 2019 with a solid 3.3% increase in real gross state product. Its labor force grew by 82,622 to 5,208,593. Its labor market was tight: 96.5% of the 5,208,593 were employed.

County output data are of dubious reliability for my taste, but experience plus data related to output that are reliable indicate that the Glynn economy was thriving ahead of 2020. Most telling is the decrease in Glynn’s unemployment rate from 3.7% in 2018 to 3.5% in 2019. A tight local labor market that becomes even tighter is a symptom of a thriving local economy.

In March 2020, the pandemic hit. It hit Georgia hard. It hit Glynn harder.

In April, Georgia’s labor force sunk to 4,946,604; its unemployment rate jumped to 12.4%. In the first quarter of 2020, Georgia’s real GSP fell at an annualized rate of 8.7%. In the second quarter, it fell at an annualized rate of 26.7%.

In February 2020, Glynn’s labor force numbered 39,237; its unemployment rate, 3.4%. In April, Glynn’s labor force numbered 36,964; its unemployment rate, 16.4%.

The spike in Glynn’s unemployment rate is no surprise. The industry hit hardest by the pandemic was leisure and hospitality – Glynn’s largest industry. Leisure and hospitality typically accounts for around 22% of total employment in Glynn.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, leisure and hospitality employment in Glynn numbered 8,453. In the second quarter of 2020, it numbered 6,008.

The two economies clawed their way through the next five months, then surged in the last three. At year’s end, Georgia’s labor force numbered 5,166,537; its unemployment rate, 5.1%. Glynn’s labor force numbered 38,847; its unemployment rate, 4.8%. Leisure and hospitality employment in Glynn numbered 7,624.

To appreciate the rebound in Georgia and Glynn in the second half of 2020, note that the U.S., which was rebounding faster than any other nation, posted a year-end unemployment rate of 6.7%.

Extraordinary measures taken by the Federal Reserve in the first months of the pandemic caused the U.S. money supply to increase, from February 2020 to February 2022, by 40.5%. That caused the 12-month rate of inflation to increase from 1.4% in January 2021 to 9% in June 2022.

The Fed began its monetary tightening to check the inflation in March 2022. By August 2023, short-term interest rates were up four to five percentage points; medium and long-term rates were up three to four percentage points. And since August 2023, that’s where rates have remained.

In years past, monetary tightening of this magnitude would all but guarantee a recession. Thus far, our current Georgia and Glynn economies seem impervious to it. Georgia’s unemployment rate fell below 4% in July 2021 and has been no higher than 3.3% since November 2021. Glynn’s unemployment rate fell below 4% in April 2021 and has been below 3% more often than above 3% since November 2021.

A final note. In the U.S., leisure and hospitality employment has yet to surpass its pre-pandemic level. In Georgia, it did so in the second quarter of 2023; in Glynn, in the second quarter of 2022.

Why the Opposition to Mining the Okefenokee

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

Twin Pines Minerals proposes to strip-mine for titanium and zirconium near the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. However, there has been unprecedented opposition to the proposed mining. Why do people care about protecting the Okefenokee Swamp?

There have been more than a quarter million individual comments at the state and federal level about the proposed mining on private land adjacent to the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, according the Southern Environmental Law Center. The SELC notes that at least 19 local governments have passed resolutions calling for protection of the Okefenokee and there have been numerous letters of opposition from elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Additionally, more than 70,000 comments were submitted to the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources during the public comment period on draft permits to mine the land adjacent to the Okefenokee.

For most of American history, swamps held negative connotations; they were viewed as wastelands that are only useful if converted into land that’s suitable for farming or development. Just a few years ago, Trump vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington. Clearly, negative connotations about swamps persist.

My colleague, Dr. Chris Wilhelm, professor of history at the College of Coastal Georgia, explains shifting attitudes toward swamps in his book From Swamp to Wetland: The Creation of the Everglades National Park. The first national parks were developed out of a concern for protecting scenery for the benefit of tourism. The Everglades National Park was different because it was designed to protect the habitats and ranges of the indigenous flora and fauna.

The twentieth century saw a shift in Floridian and American attitudes toward the environment; people increasingly found value in ecological and biological diversity. The Florida Everglades came to be recognized as ecologically fragile and valuable “wetland” that required protective status. Politicians and the tourism industry saw the establishment of the Everglades National Park as a boon for tourism and economic growth.

The establishment of the park was a catalyst for modern environmental campaigns to protect wilderness and biological diversity in the US. According to Wilhelm, progressive conservationists’ concern with ecological and biocentric diversity laid the groundwork for modern environmentalism. Resistance to mining in the Okefenokee Swamp ecosystem is evidence that these attitudes have gone mainstream.

The Okefenokee Swamp is the largest blackwater wetland ecosystem in North America and the least disturbed freshwater ecosystem on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Over 90% of the swamp is protected within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. Due to its high level of biodiversity and limited disruption by man’s activities, the Okefenokee is on the US Tentative List to be designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

There is concern that mining would do irreparable harm to the swamp. The proposed mining would occur on Trail Ridge, an earthen dam on the eastern side of the Okefenokee that maintains the swamp’s water levels. Additionally, one of the mining permits would allow the company to withdraw 1.4 million gallons per day from the Floridan Aquifer. Both permits threaten the hydrology and ecology of the Okefenokee.

The initial permits are for a 582-acre demonstration mine, but Twin Pines Minerals owns thousands of acres in the area. If approved, expanded mining operations are anticipated. Proponents of the proposed mine contend that the project will generate new jobs. Opponents of the mining warn that the project jeopardizes the local tourism economy associated with the swamp.

Georgia Senate Bill 132 would have imposed a three-year moratorium on new or expanded mining near the Okefenokee Swamp. The House passed SB132 with a vote of 167 to 4, but the bill was not brought up for a vote in the Senate before this year’s legislative session adjourned.

The Environmental Protection Division that issued draft mining permits will review and respond to public comments. There is no timeline for EPD’s final decision. What’s for sure is that the future of the Okefenokee and other wetlands will be shaped by federal and state politics, economic interests, environmentalists, and civically-engaged citizens.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Doing “Right” by the Whales

Written by Heather Farley on . Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

The excitement of another sea turtle season is upon us. Earth Day is coming up in mere days. But, the closing of our right whale season in Georgia has delivered some somber realities. The North Atlantic right whale is a well-known species in Coastal Georgia not because they are easily spotted, but because they are now so rare. Presently, there are only 360 right whales left, among whom only 70 are reproductive females. This small number means that the species’ survival depends on each successful birth during the calving season.

Births must outpace deaths for the species to persist, but females don’t become sexually mature until around age 10, they give birth to a single calf after a 12-month gestation, and females give birth on average every nine years. These factors add concern for the population’s continuation.

During the calving season, which spans from November through April in the Southeastern US, the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina become particularly active areas for calving. To reach our coast, these whales migrate from the Northeastern United States, encountering dangers such as boat strikes and entanglements in commercial fishing gear along the way.

Despite the birth of 19 calves this season, the species continues to suffer high mortality rates—four calves have already been lost this season. Two of those calves were found off Tybee Island and Cumberland Island respectively. Additionally, two young whales from previous seasons and an adult were all victims of vessel strikes or fishing gear entanglement, leading to death as well. According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), a stable right whale population requires 50 new births annually, while 20 signifies a productive breeding season. However, years of fewer than 20 new births could lead to extinction, with current models predicting the disappearance of the right whale by 2035.

Whaling, the initial major threat to the North Atlantic right whale, nearly drove the species to extinction by the 1890s. The abolition of whaling in the US in 1971 and in Canada in 1972, along with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, mandated government protection for the whales and their habitat. However, the implementation of evidence-based solutions lagged.

The vessel strikes that have resulted in numerous right whale fatalities were preventable. Research indicates that limiting vessel speeds to 10 knots or less during calving season, in calving areas, could reduce ship strike mortality by 80–90%. Responding to this, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued mandatory vessel speed restrictions in 2008 along the U.S. eastern seaboard. Location reporting on the part of vessels is meant to ensure compliance. Despite this, fatal vessel strikes persist.

As it stands, the 2008 vessel speed rule is the primary measure protecting right whales from vessel strikes, with minimal defenses against commercial entanglement. Unfortunately, the 2008 vessel speed rule was applicable in areas and at times during the season that these whales were most likely to be at risk in 2008 – 16 years ago. Since then, right whales have shifted their habitat due to climate change, and new data indicate that smaller vessels also pose a significant risk to the whales. It is likely that the deceased calf found on Cumberland Island this year was killed by a vessel between 35 and 57 feet long. The regulation no long suffices.

Conservation organizations along with NOAA have proposed to strengthen the 2008 rule to align with these new migration patterns and vessel sizes. That proposal has been mired in legislative and court delays for two years. These conservation organizations are not willing to wait. The IFAW, in collaboration with other stakeholders, are engaging in campaigns to improve outcomes for the species. They have developed a Whale Alert App to allow communication between mariners and the public who have spotted whales. It serves as an alert to recreational and commercial vessels alike to be cautious. They are also working on trials of more advanced fishing gear that could reduce entanglements.

These kinds of solutions – strengthening legislation, improving technologies, and improving communication with seafarers – may provide a viable path to the protection of the right whale. It will take not only rules and regulations, but the commitment and empowerment of those on the water to ensure that right whales can safely live, raise their young, and migrate through the waters they share with humans. We owe that to them and to future Coastal Georgians.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration and Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

What is economic impact?

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

My friend Dr. Heather Farley and I recently published an article in Journal of Public Child Welfare titled “Economic impact of CarePortal donations in Glynn County, Georgia.” I have written about CarePortal in this space before. It is a tool, hosted by local non-profit Hope 1312 Collective, that allows caseworkers from the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) to connect with community members to meet needs of local families at risk of having their children brought into foster care. I knew when I started looking into it that the full impact of the CarePortal system would be much greater than simply the dollar value of the met needs. Indeed, we found that approximately $32,000 in donations had a total impact of over $5.7 million.

But, what does that mean? What is economic impact, and what is involved in an economic impact study? ChatGPT defines economic impact as “the effect that a particular event, policy, project, or activity has on the economy of a specific region or area.”

For most private-sector industries or firms, a standard economic impact study comes down to three primary categories of impact:

  1. Direct effects- value of the firm’s sales and employment.
  2. Indirect effects- value of inputs the firm purchases from its suppliers and employment this generates within those supplier firms.
  3. Induced effects- value of household spending by the employees in the firm and its supply chain.

At the Murphy Center, when we approach an economic impact study, we start with the question what would the world be like if this industry, organization, policy, project, etc., were not here? And, when it comes to the three types of effects listed above, it is not always clear that those calculated impacts would disappear completely if the firm ceased to exist. Usually, the employees would find other jobs, and the money would find other ways to be spent.

But, for many organizations, and especially for non-profit entities, the impact of their work is far greater than their spending and employment impacts. We hear this in the stories they tell of the changes they are effecting for individuals, communities, or the natural world. The challenge for those allocating resources (private donors, grant funders, governments) is to translate those intrinsically invaluable effects into measurable economic impacts.

This is a two step process: 1) Describe the relationships between the program outcomes and changes in public or private spending. 2) Quantify those changes in spending.

For example, in the case of CarePortal, research links the trauma of foster care with many negative post-foster care outcomes. These include, but are not limited to, increased chance of teen pregnancy, mental and physical health conditions, and incarceration, as well as reduced future earnings for the child. Society bears a dollars-and-cents cost for each of these negative outcomes: increased government spending on Medicaid, food stamps, court expenditures, etc.; costs to victims of crime; and decreases in payroll taxes and individual spending from wages. If a donation to CarePortal prevents a child from entering foster care, that donation saves society these costs. Adding together all the costs avoided, a donation that prevents one child from spending one year in foster care in Georgia saves society around $83,000.

Other non-profit activities no-doubt have similar impacts when considered in this way. It is much more complex to calculate the economic impact of these activities than to calculate direct, indirect, and induced effects of business spending. But, these are impacts that are lasting and that we can more confidently claim would not persist without someone doing this or similar work. These are true economic impacts.

———– Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

This is One Strong U.S. Economy

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

The record of the U.S. economy over the past four years is remarkable. It is a record of steady economic growth, productivity growth, labor force growth and exceptionally low unemployment.

What makes that record remarkable is it has been achieved under a stream of adversity: the pandemic, followed by inflation, followed by exceptionally tight monetary policy.   

The U.S. economy moved into 2020 in solid shape. In the fourth quarter of 2019, real GDP increased at an annualized rate of 2.6%. (Since 2000, the average annual rate of real GDP growth is 2%.) In February 2020 the labor force numbered 164,412,000; the unemployment rate, 3.5%.

The pandemic hit in March.

In April, the labor force numbered 156,276,000; the unemployment rate, 14.8%. In the first quarter of 2020, real GDP fell at an annualized rate of 5.3%. In the second quarter, it fell at an annualized rate of 28%.

In May, as the pandemic worsened, the economy began to recover. In the third quarter of 2020, real GDP increased at an annualized rate of 34.8%. In the fourth quarter, it increased at a 4.2% annualized rate.

By year’s end the labor force was up to 160,761,000, the unemployment rate was down to 6.7%.    

In the first quarter of 2021, real GDP increased at a 5.2% annualized rate to $20,990.5 billion, which eclipsed the pre-pandemic high of $20,951.1 billion posted in the fourth quarter of 2019. For all of 2021, U.S. real GDP increased by 5.8%. At year’s end the labor force numbered 162,429,000; the unemployment rate returned to the sub-4% zone at 3.9%.

In November 2022, the labor force rose to 164,441,000, eclipsing the level posted in February 2020. In December 2022, the unemployment rate fell to 3.5%, the rate posted in February 2020.

No national economy recovered from the pandemic as quickly as the U.S. economy did. 

On February 23, 2020, a massive outbreak of coronavirus in Italy set off a global financial panic. On March 16, the panic became a meltdown. To stop the meltdown, the U.S. Federal Reserve System and other central banks pumped a trillion dollars of reserves into banks and other financial institutions. They continued to load banks with reserves until the pandemic was clearly in retreat. 

The Fed prevented a global financial disaster at the onset of the pandemic. But as the economy recovered, banks turned reserves into loans. New loans become new money. Between February 2020 and February 2022, the U.S. money supply increased by 40.5%.

That increase in the money supply caused the 12-month rate of inflation in the U.S. to increase from 1.4% in January 2021 to 8.9% in June 2022.

Only a central bank can cause inflation, and only a central bank can reduce inflation. The surge in inflation prompted the Fed to reverse course and tighten credit conditions. Aggressively.

In a series of steps between March 16, 2022 and July 27, 2023, the Fed increased its key interest rate (its IORB rate) from 0.15% to 5.4%. Market interest rates followed the same path. Mortgage rates moved from the 3-plus % range into the 7-plus% range.

In years past, monetary tightening of this magnitude would all but guarantee a recession. Not in this U.S. economy. Real GDP has increased in six consecutive quarters at rates ranging from 2.1% to 4.9%. The unemployment rate hasn’t budged from the 3.5-3.9% range.

I don’t know what has enabled this U.S. economy to perform as well as it has in the teeth of such adversity. I do know that it’s remarkable, and it’s not getting the attention or appreciation it deserves.

Equally remarkable: Georgia and Glynn. Stay tuned.  

Donald Black: A Theoretical Sociologist

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

One of my mentors, Donald Black, University Professor Emeritus of the Social Sciences at the University of Virginia, passed away in late January. Here, I’ll discuss Black’s vision for sociology. I believe that he would find my focus on his scientific contributions to be a more prudent tribute than a review of biographical details of his life, though he was very interested in biographies of intellectuals. A conventional obituary of his credentials, appointments, publications, and awards can be found on the American Society of Criminology website.

Black self-identified as a theoretical sociologist. He approached studying human behavior like a physicist studies the universe. Black developed testable theories that hold true across all societies and all time.

Black devised his own approach to explaining human behavior. “Pure sociology” is a type of sociology with no psychology. Pure sociology explains social behavior with its location and direction in social space—its social geometry.

Black is best known for his book The Behavior of Law in which he developed a general sociological theory of law. The book contains a series of theoretical formulations that predict and explain the quantity and style of law in various locations and directions in social space.

For example, Black states “Law varies inversely with other social control.” In a society or group where there are other social controls—family, school, work, religion—there will be less law. In a society where these controls are absent, there will be more law. The book is full of these falsifiable propositions. Collectively, these constitute his general theory of law.

Black’s sociology predicts and explains social life without regard to the individual. Pure sociology makes no presumptions about any essential human nature. His theory does not account for how individuals experience reality. It includes no psychology. Black sought to focus on “the social” and “declare independence from psychology.”

Most social scientists would explain a police officer’s act of making an arrest in terms of an officer’s motivations, background, biases, decision-making, or some other aspect of their psychology. Black transcends an individualistic focus, removes all psychology, and explains arrest as a function of the behavior of law. To use Black’s language, “the social geometry” of the encounter explains whether or not an arrest occurs.

Black was troubled by overt activism in modern sociology. Black contended that ideology doesn’t belong in social science, unless ideology itself was the subject of study. Pure sociology is value-free, including being free of any ideology.

Many sociologists regard value-free sociology as undesirable and make value-judgements in the name of sociology, often to address perceived injustices. For example, a sociologist might research capital punishment in the U.S. and conclude that there are racial disparities in who is sentenced to death. Many sociologists go one step further and advocate for eliminating capital punishment because they deem the practice to be racist and inhumane.

Black would repudiate the intrusion of one’s personal values into sociology. Conversely, he would commend a scientific explanation of the social conditions in which governments employ the death penalty as a form of conflict resolution. For Black, the goal of sociology is to explain human behavior, not to enact social change.

Black influenced how I do sociology. Like Black, I try to develop markedly sociological explanations of behavior; I locate causality in social institutions, not in the psychology of individuals. Additionally, I strive for objectivity and to prevent my own values and biases from intruding into my scholarship or teaching. In my From the Murphy Center columns, I believe that Black would praise my commitment to advancing sociological explanations of phenomena including firearm deaths, declining teen mental health, homelessness, and other subjects. He would challenge me to remove all psychology from my sociology. Finally, I think that he would caution me that taking time to write for the public distracts from advancing theoretical sociology.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Georgia’s New Place in National Politics

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

In the evolving landscape of American politics, Georgia has emerged as an unexpected battleground, signaling a shift in its traditional ideology. Long considered a Republican stronghold (before 2020, the state had only gone for Democratic Presidential Candidates twice since 1978), recent elections, especially the 2020 General Election and 2022 Midterms, have shattered that narrative. This transformation seems more than a temporary blip; instead, it is evidence of a more profound shift within Georgia’s society and culture.

The roots of this shift are complex. Over the past 15 years, demographic changes have altered the GA electorate, resulting primarily from an increase in the state’s population diversity combined with an influx of residents from other states. Atlanta’s reputation as “Little Hollywood” has drawn in more liberal individuals from states such as California and New York. Urbanization, mainly in and around Atlanta, has brought a more progressive viewpoint to previously conservative areas of the state. Meanwhile, grassroots civic groups, such as those spearheaded by perennial Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, have been remarkably successful in engaging with previously underrepresented communities.

Our state’s newfound political relevance was never more apparent than from November 2020 to January 2021. In a historic sweep, GA voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since Clinton’s first election in 1992, and followed that up by electing two Democrats to the Senate, enough to shift the balance of power towards the liberal party. The key is that these elections in Georgia did not only affect Georgia herself; our decisions had major ramifications for national politics. This fact signals Georgia’s growing role moving forward.

Much attention is now being paid to Georgia politics not only by individuals but also by national political parties and political donors. Political investment in Georgia has grown exponentially. For example, in 2022, approximately $146.3 million was spent on the GA Senate race. In 2020, Jon Ossoff and David Perdue combined for a whopping $513.9 million. $100 million has been spent already this year on the 2024 elections in Georgia, a whole 7 months before Election Day. This investment serves as recognition that both parties know winning Georgia’s electorate over may be the key to political power.

The state’s meteoric rise has not been without its challenges, however. Allegations of voter suppression, concerns over election integrity, and the severity of political polarization remain potent forces in Georgia. The state has become not just an electoral battleground but also a philosophical one. The debate on the future of American democracy rages on within our capital, Atlanta. Even so, within these challenges lie opportunities for Georgians to lead on national policy, from social to economic issues, by leveraging its newfound notoriety and power to influence outcomes across the country.

Georgia’s journey from Republican bastion to critical swing state reflects broader national trends and the ever-changing face of American governance. As we continue to navigate our new reality, your participation and civic engagement are now more important than ever. Our impact on the country will be shaped by the voices, opinions, and votes of people right here at home.

In this new era, we must prioritize staying informed, becoming engaged, and remaining active in the political process. Georgia’s role in the national landscape underscores the power of every vote and the critical nature of civic participation. As Georgians, the opportunity to influence the direction of not only our state, but the country, is in our hands, a call to action that resonates with the very ideals at the heart of our democracy.

Drew S. Cagle, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Social Sciences at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at dcagle@ccga.edu.