Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

Holiday Rituals Reaffirm Our Connections to Others

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

“The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.” – Buddy the Elf

The Christmas movie Elf ends with a crowd in New York City’s Central Park singing Christmas carols, which generates the “Christmas spirit” that’s needed to save the day. While Buddy the Elf might not be a leading theorist on group solidarity, he’s on to something. Engaging in holiday rituals engenders feelings of belonging and builds community.

About a hundred years before Buddy’s declaration in the 2003 movie Elf, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim asserted that rituals serve an important function to unify groups. Taking part in religious or secular rituals reaffirms common values and deepens our social bonds with other ritual participants.

Rituals often focus on symbols or totems, which represent a group’s shared values. According to Durkheim, rituals produce “collective effervescence” or shared feeling of excitement from participating in rituals together. Engaging in rituals with likeminded folks produces a sense of belonging. Durkheim was analyzing “the elementary forms of religious life,” but his theory can help us to understand how holiday rituals bring people together.

Christmas is a time for connecting with others through holiday traditions. At some point in November, the Christmas music comes on the radio and the multicolored lights appear around the neighborhood. Christmas caroling, watching beloved holiday films, hanging Christmas lights, buying and decorating a Christmas tree, eating meals with loved ones, exchanging gifts, listening to Christmas music, and other holiday rituals allow us to reaffirm our connections with others.

Many Christians attend church services on Christmas Eve to sing “Silent Night,” light candles with other parishioners, and maybe watch children perform a Nativity play. Parents may take the kids to see Santa, leave out milk and cookies for the big guy, and watch for him on Christmas Eve. Each family has their own favored traditions.

Gift exchanges are one of the most common Christmas traditions. Excluding presents that Santa leaves under the tree for good children, most Americans exchange gifts reciprocally. In other words, one who receives a Christmas gift is expected to give a gift back to the original giver. Gifting becomes an endless cycle of giving and receiving. This ritualistic exchange builds and sustains relationships. These mutual obligations keep us connected us to our family and friends.

In both religious and secular rituals, we connect with loved ones and reaffirm shared values. Holiday traditions provide a mechanism for folks to connect and celebrate underlying values of togetherness, family, faith, and generosity. These same values are celebrated as key themes of many popular Christmas songs and films.

Unfortunately, Christmastime stressors can turn the best of us into a grinch. Overextended budgets, limited free time, travel stress, and conflicts with family can dim our Christmas cheer. Others lament the commercialization of Christmas and its modern focus on consumption and the accumulation of material goods. Dr. Seuss reminds us that “maybe Christmas doesn’t come from a store.” Embracing Christmas traditions with others in our community can redeem the grinch in each of us.

Much like Dr. Seuss’s Grinch, many Americans are starved for meaningful connection. Christmas and other holidays provide an opportunity to forge or maintain relationships with others. Gathering with loved ones on Christmas Day, watching your favorite Christmas movies together, and other holiday rituals are not just empty traditions. Participating in holiday rituals meets our psychological need for connection, reaffirms our shared values, and generates belonging in our families, relationships, and community. 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.

Gerrymandering in Georgia: A New Chapter in Redistricting

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican strategist, once said: “Usually, the voters get to pick the politicians, but in redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters.” A recent court ruling has brought this the issue of partisan redistricting to light in Georgia. The decision, which mandated the state legislature to redraw its political map, marks a significant development in the state’s ongoing struggle with fair representation.

Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor one party over another, is not new. It’s a political tool that has been wielded by both Democrats and Republicans throughout American history. However, the recent court ruling in Georgia signifies a growing concern over the fairness and integrity of the state’s electoral process.

The case in question revolved around allegations that Georgia’s legislative map was drawn in a manner that diluted the voting power of certain demographics, particularly minorities, in favor of the Republican Party. Critics argued that this not only undermined the principle of “one person, one vote” but also marginalized communities whose interests and voices are already underrepresented in the political arena.

In a landmark decision, the court sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the map did indeed violate certain principles of fair representation. As a result, the state legislature was ordered to redraw the map in a manner that more accurately reflects the demographic makeup of the state. Consequently, Governor Kemp called the State Assembly in a rare December Special Session to address the ruling.

This ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it sends a clear message that egregious partisan redistricting that disenfranchises certain groups is not to be tolerated. This is particularly important in a state like Georgia, where the demographic landscape is rapidly changing, with an increasing number of minority voters who could significantly influence the political direction of the state.

Second, the decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in the redistricting process. In an era where partisan politics often dominates the conversation, courts serve as a critical check on legislative overreach. By stepping in to correct what it saw as an unfair and unconstitutional map, the court has reaffirmed its role as a guardian of democratic principles.

However, the ruling also opens up a Pandora’s box of political and legal challenges. Drawing district maps is its own beast, complete with its own controversies. The legislature must now walk a tightrope, balancing the court’s mandate with the interests of various stakeholders, including politicians, community leaders, and voters themselves. The process of redistricting is not just about drawing lines onto a map; rather, it’s about designing the balance of political power.

Moreover, the decision has reignited the debate over how redistricting should be conducted. Should it remain in the hands of elected officials, who may have inherent conflicts of interest, or should it be entrusted to independent commissions? This question is now at the forefront of discussions about electoral reform in Georgia.

As the state embarks on this redistricting journey, it’s important for Georgians to remain engaged and informed. The new map will not just impact the next election cycle; it will shape the political landscape of the state for years to come. It’s an opportunity to create a more equitable and representative system, but it’s also a process that requires vigilance and advocacy from all corners of the state.

In conclusion, the recent court ruling on gerrymandering in Georgia is more than just a verdict on a map. It’s a reflection of the broader challenges facing our democracy. As Georgia redraws its political boundaries, it also redraws the lines of power and representation. This is a chance to build a more inclusive and fair political system, and it’s a task that requires the commitment and participation of every Georgian.

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.

Lessons in Leadership

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

In the realm of leadership, figures like Rosalynn Carter, Henry Kissinger, and Sandra Day O’Connor have left indelible marks on American history. Their legacies, whether adored or controversial, are undeniable. Similarly, at the College of Coastal Georgia, we’ve been reflecting on the impactful leadership closer to home, particularly in the wake of a recent, profound loss.

While these national figures have been widely documented, our focus at the College of Coastal Georgia has turned inward, to a leader who touched lives on a more personal scale. Dr. Skip Mounts, Dean of the School of Business and Public Management, recently shared the sad news of the passing of Dr. Jim Fullerton, a beloved Professor of Management and Leadership Development. During his tenure of over a decade at the college, he educated hundreds of students in leadership theory and practice. I wonder if he realized that he was teaching an impacting the colleagues around him in equal measure? I admired Jim and am deeply grateful for the lessons he imparted, both through his formal mentorship and the example he set.

Reflecting on my own interactions with Jim, I can attest to the profound impact of his mentorship and leadership style. When I was first hired in the School of Business and Public Management, I immediately identified Jim as a leader among the faculty. Yes, he held seniority through his rank, but that wasn’t what set him apart. He wasn’t a leader because of his position, but because of the way he served others. He was the type of colleague that graciously gave of his time and expertise.

I later learned through Jim that this was the contrast between positional leadership and servant leadership. He had clearly adopted the servant leadership model through which understanding and addressing the needs and concerns of others became his mode of operation. He regularly mentored colleagues through the tumultuous tenure and promotion process and encouraged us to step up as leaders in our own right in faculty activities.

He also knew that you can’t serve others without understanding yourself. Jim shared with me several assessments meant to help you identify your natural strengths. He led faculty teaching workshops that were designed to help us reflect on where we thrive as teachers. Consistent personal development was at the heart of his approach to helping others grow.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, Jim set the example for making connections. He believed in leading through relationship. When we held a celebration of life at the College for our colleague, it was clear from the comments that were shared that he had mastered the art of connection. His relationships on campus were universally positive. He sought to really know people and understand them as individuals. He sought out connection.

During the pandemic, for example, when we were all home working virtually, he made a point to reach out often. He would send anecdotes or interesting articles by email, and he held virtual workshops for his fellow faculty members with the same good humor we had all enjoyed from him in person. He understood the value of building relationships as a foundation for leading.

Leaders like Carter, Kissinger, and O’Connor have shaped history on a grand scale and will be remembered for generations. Yet, as Jim Fullerton’s life and work at our college demonstrate, leadership is not only about public acclaim or historical impact. It’s also about personal influence, expertise, and the ability to serve and empower those in our immediate circles. These everyday leaders may not make headlines, but they leave an indelible mark on those fortunate enough to be within their sphere.

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 Causes Inflation?

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

Apparently, most economists have forgotten what causes inflation. This unnerves me.

Perhaps it shouldn’t. Some forgetting is natural. For good reason, we instinctively focus our attention on pressing problems at hand. Once a problem at hand is resolved, we move on. The once pressing problem fades away and becomes history. And once it’s history, it’s history – as in ignored. Few people care about history. For most, the present is where it’s at.

This might be why most economists seem to have forgotten what causes inflation. Until the post-pandemic inflation, the last significant inflation in the U.S. was 1973-1982. (Inflation averaged 9% a year during those years.) The 1983-1991 stretch of choppy but moderate inflation was followed by the remarkable 1992-2020 stretch in which inflation averaged 2.2% a year and was steady to boot.

Twenty-nine consecutive years in which inflation is not an issue, never mind a problem. Out of sight, out of mind. A person might forget.

Except, how does an economist forget that the fundamental cause of any significant inflation is always, and can only be, rapid growth of the supply of money?

The lesson that significant inflation – significant being consistently greater than 5% annually – can only be caused by rapid growth in the quantity of money in circulation is one of the oldest and most important lessons in economics. Historians of economics credit the French political philosopher, Jean Bodin, for describing it first – in 1568.

Unrelenting inflation was a pressing problem in 16th century Western Europe. In a tract published in 1568, Bodin argued that the source of the European inflation was the persistent influx of gold and silver that Spain was mining in Peru, shipping home, minting into currency and exchanging for goods in trade with France, England and the rest of Europe.

In short: the primary cause of significant inflation is rapid growth of the supply of money.

Since Bodin’s tract, economists have devoted much thought and ink to the relationship between prices and the money supply. It’s a fluid and at times blurry relationship. But what Bodin described in 1568 has been observed in every significant inflation since and before, wherever it occurred: rapid growth of the money supply preceding significant inflation.

The negative also holds: significant inflation does not occur without rapid money supply growth.

Now, consider this. U.S. inflation was 2.4% in 2018, 1.8% in 2019 and 1.2% in 2020.  2021 began with inflation at 1.4%. In March, it bounced to 2.6%; in April, to 4.1%. In December, it hit 7.2%; in June 2022, 8.9%.

Any economist with a well-maintained cerebral toolbox of important lessons learned knows where to look first to figure out what caused the post-pandemic inflation: the money supply.

What unnerves me is that I have yet to find an analysis of what caused the post-pandemic inflation that even mentions money supply growth. The Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Reports don’t even mention money supply growth.

Let’s buck the trend.

M2 is the Federal Reserve’s broad measure of the U.S. money supply. M2 includes currency held by the public, checking deposits, savings deposits, CDs, money market deposits and retail money market funds. 

From 2000 thru 2019, M2 increased at an average annual rate of 6.2%. In 2020, M2 increased by 25.7%. In 2021, M2 increased by 11.4%. From February 2020 to February 2022, M2 increased by 40.4%.

Yet again: rapid growth of the money supply preceding significant inflation.

The Federal Reserve began its tight monetary policy in July 2022. Since July 2022, M2 has decreased by 4.4%. That helps explain why inflation has fallen to 3.7%.

We’ll take this up again next column.

Beware of Weaponized Statistics

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

A couple of weeks ago, my colleague Dr. Don Mathews published a From the Murphy Center column on the deceptive qualities of percentages when it comes to understanding inflation. In his column, he noted that the same percentage change will mean a small numerical change if the initial value is small and a large numerical change if the initial value is large. Dr. Mathews encouraged readers to look at the initial value to avoid being “deceived” by a percentage. I hope to build on his sage advice.

We are bombarded by statistics all the time on the economy, crime, public health, and other social problems. Americans tend to privilege quantitative evidence (statistics) as objective facts about social phenomena. However, all statistics are social constructions; statistics are the products of organizations and individuals who create them.

In his book, Damned Lies and Statistics, Dr. Joel Best asserts that activists, reporters, experts, officials, and private organizations have their own reasons to promote particular social issues. Best coins the term “problem promoters” to emphasize that people and organizations deliberately construct social problems. Problem promoters often choose one statistic over others to shape our opinions about social phenomena. We must remain vigilant not to be duped.

Weaponized statistics often take the form of percentages, absolute numbers, or comparisons. A problem promoter often chooses a statistic to “prove” their point and sway our opinions on public policy. Consider how statistics on US overdose deaths are weaponized to shape our perspectives on this social problem.

A May 18, 2023 press release from the National Center for Health Statistics offers insight into US overdose deaths: “Provisional data show that the reported number of drug overdose deaths occurring in the United States decreased by 2% from the 12 months ending in December 2021 to the 12 months ending in December 2022.” This indicates that we may have turned a corner in the opioid crisis. Alternatively, if one accounts for delays in reporting, the NCHS projects a 0.5% increase in overdose deaths for this same time period. This statistic leads one to conclude that the opioid epidemic is worsening. Without knowing the initial value, it’s hard to determine whether any significant change has occurred.

Absolute numbers are often used to highlight the severity of phenomena. After adjustments for delayed reporting, the projected number of drug overdose deaths in the US in 2022 was 109,680, according to the NCHS press release referenced earlier.

Additionally, comparisons are used to sway our opinions. A July 12, 2023 press release from the White House states, “As the Biden-Harris Administration works to fully implement President Biden’s National Drug Control Strategy, US is seeing continued progress after a full year of flattening overdose deaths, halting [a] period of rapid increases from 2019-2021.” This statistic celebrates plateaued overdose deaths in 2022-2023 compared to rising overdose deaths in 2019-2021. Comparisons can be based on quantitative or qualitative data.

Organizations and individuals with a particular political agenda weaponize one statistic over others to shape our attitudes about overdose deaths in the US. These statistics color our attitudes about drug use, the opioid crisis, and related public policy.

We experienced statistics weaponization amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical experts, government officials, and media personalities shared statistic on COVID-19 deaths, survival rates, and vaccine efficacy data to shape individual behavior and public policy.

Reflecting on weaponized statistics can lead one to nihilism or cynicism. Alternatively, I challenge readers to be critical consumers of all quantitative or qualitative evidence. Be mindful about how problem promoters present their statistics as percentages, absolute numbers, or comparisons to influence uncritical readers.

Dr. Joel Best offers some additional advice. He challenges us to ask three questions of any statistic: Who created this statistic? Why was this statistic created? How was this statistic created? These questions help us to sort out good statistics from bad statistics.

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.

Nobel Laureate’s life work affirms my life experience

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

I am a mom. When I open my Google calendar, my screen lights up like Christmas with colorful little blocks representing healthcare appointments, school conferences or events, volunteer commitments, playdates, etc. Overlay that with the Outlook calendar that reminds me of my classes, meetings, office hours, and research deadlines, and you’ve really got a work of art.

In this busy season of life, I am grateful to be working in a career that allows schedule flexibility. I hold regular class times and office hours. But, there are days when I also spend hours of daylight attending school events or meetings for my child or taking him to and from appointments. On those days, I spend the early evenings making sure everyone is fed both physically (meal time) and emotionally (family time), and I am finally able to sit down to catch up on my work after his bedtime.

It’s a routine that works for my family and me, and it is a characteristic of my job that I value almost above all else.

According to Claudia Goldin, this year’s Nobel Laureate in Economics, I am not alone in this. Goldin, whose life work has been devoted to studying women in the labor market, writes that women’s labor force participation has been tied to the ability to work flexible hours and/or to work from home since before the beginning of the industrial era, when women’s labor force participation dropped with the shift to factory and office work.

Economists call this a preference – women prefer work flexibility. But, as one who lives this truth, I think a better word might be need. It is not often my preference to write articles at midnight because I left work early to take my son to the dentist, but out of necessity, it is often where I find myself.

In my case, a single mother, it is obvious on whom the dentist burden will fall. But, data show the burden of childcare falls disproportionately on mothers, regardless of their marital status.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, on weekdays, women spend an average of 2.13 hours engaged in household activities and 0.92 hours caring for others, while men spend only an average of 1.32 hours on household activities and 0.42 hours caregiving.

Among parents, fathers spend an average of .94 hours per day and mothers 1.69 hours per day caring for and helping children in their household. Where the youngest child is under age 6, average daily hours spent caring for household children are 1.47 for fathers and 2.59 for mothers.

It stands to reason, then, that women sort into jobs allowing more flexibility. Goldin finds that this sorting, along with women’s tendency to exit the labor force for extended periods when they cannot find the flexibility they need to work and care for children, are largely responsible for the gender pay gap, around 20 cents per dollar.

Economist Steven Dubner said in a recent Freakonomics podcast on Goldin’s work, “In some ways it’s a self-inflicted wound — women make choices that lead to smaller monetary returns. On the other hand, society is set up in such a way that those choices are often not really very optional. So, what’s to be done about it?”

And Goldin provides some guidance here, too. First, she advocates for government provision of childcare for school aged children and younger. Then, employers, if a job can be done anytime and anywhere, then let it be so. But if not, Goldin says most firms could use technology to make even high-level employees substitutable for one another, reducing the need for a single worker to be always available. For example, if an electronic database contains all the information needed to make most company decisions, then one executive mom can go home in the evening to be with her kids while another tucks her kids in and takes over the work. Goldin calls this eliminating the “part-time penalty,” or the devaluing of workers just because they work fewer or more flexible hours.

Or we could work on changing the workplace and family values of a whole nation, but that’s too big a lift for a midnight article. I’m going to bed.

———–

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.

Getting Involved in Civic Engagement

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

Recently, my colleagues and I at the Murphy Center presented a broad, diverse look at civility and the need to restore civil discourse. Here, I turn towards another area of our society in need of some reinvigoration: civic engagement.

In an era saturated with digital distractions and a relentless news cycle, community participation in civic governance seems to have faded. However, it remains a cornerstone of any democracy, an invaluable tool in our pursuit of progress. The Golden Isles stand as a prime example of the importance of individual contributions in shaping the direction of local, state, and even national affairs.

Civic engagement is the active participation of individuals in their community and the political process. This can take numerous forms, from voting and attending town hall meetings, to volunteering or even running for office. It is a way for everyday people to voice their concerns, influence decisions that affect their lives, and forge connections with fellow citizens.

The Golden Isles, like many communities throughout rural Georgia, thrives when its residents take an active interest in its affairs. Our coastal city has faced its share of challenges. From concerns about local development and environmental preservation to broader socio-economic issues to a racially motivated crime that captured worldwide attention, this region is no stranger to adversity. By participating actively in local forums, town meetings, or council hearings, the residents of Brunswick have the power to steer the course of their community’s future.

And this is where the magic happens. Imagine a community where residents take ownership of their surroundings, where they feel a part of and responsible for the welfare of their community. This is not just about policy or politics – it’s about creating a sense of belonging, a shared identity. It’s about taking pride in one’s home and actively contributing to its improvement.

Georgia, as a whole, offers a unique perspective on the importance of civic engagement. Our state’s history, intertwined with historic moments of the civil rights movement, was deeply affected by individual voices collectivizing for change. The fight for voting rights, the quest for social justice, and the ongoing endeavors for environmental and economic reforms all rely on active involvement of local constituents. The lesson is clear: change is a collective endeavor, and everyone has a role to play.

In places like Southeast Georgia, the effects of civic participation are evident. Local programs initiated by citizens, community-led beautification projects, and partnerships between the city and its residents have transformed areas and improved the quality of life for many. The development of parks, better infrastructure, and community-driven educational programs are just a few examples of what can be achieved when citizens decide to be a part of the solution.

Civic engagement, however, goes beyond just attending meetings or casting votes. It’s about building relationships with neighbors, understanding their concerns, and working together for the greater good. It’s about fostering a community spirit that can overcome challenges and celebrate successes. It’s about teaching the next generation of neighbors the importance of coming together for the common good and collective well-being.

In today’s lightning fast world, it’s easy to become detached from our immediate surroundings and focused on national issues. But if we step back and invest time in our community, the rewards are immense. For the residents of Southeast Georgia, and the wider Georgia community, the message is clear: your voice matters. Your involvement can shape the future.

As we reflect on our role in society, let us remember that civic engagement is not only a duty but a privilege. In shaping the narrative of our community, we also shape our legacy. And in the heart of the Isles, as in every corner of Georgia and the country, that legacy is waiting to be written by its people.

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.

Climate Policies that Stick

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

In November 2023, nearly 200 nations will gather in Dubai for COP 28, the world’s primary climate decision-making conference. COP 21 in 2015 led to the Paris Agreement, aiming to limit global temperature increases to 1.5C (2.7F) by 2100.

Meanwhile, young activists have been taking legal action against some of these same nations. For example a recent case by six young Portuguese individuals was brought against 32 countries, including all EU members, for insufficient progress on the Paris Agreement. Similar lawsuits are emerging in the United States, reflecting impatience with governmental climate action.

Think tanks such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) have outlined key strategies for achieving the 1.5C target. Solutions such as “ramping up renewables, improving energy efficiency, cutting methane emissions and increasing electrification with technologies available today” are central recommendations. But the report emphasizes that these kinds solutions must be implemented through well-designed policies at all levels of government.

But how are these kinds of policies adopted (or not) at a national, state, and local level? Where do the ideas come from? While there are plenty of policy innovation think tanks to offer recommendations, we know that policymakers prefer not to “reinvent the wheel” and often turn to other nations, states, or localities for ideas. This is the idea of policy diffusion, a concept that evolved from US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis in 1932. He described states as ‘laboratories of democracy’ where state policymakers can observe the politics and impacts of policy in other states and can take the ideas they like for their own governments.

In the area of climate policy, this means that effective strategies can spread from one country, state, or city to another. For example, Sweden’s pioneering carbon tax inspired similar initiatives in Norway and Finland, creating a cascade effect. Likewise, British Columbia’s carbon tax inspired other regions, including California and several Canadian provinces, to implement similar mechanisms.

However, the process of policy diffusion has its challenges which may account for the slow rate of progress those young Portuguese claimants are concerned about. Some argue that policies adopted without consideration of local context and capabilities may fail. What works well in one country may not be suitable for another due to differences in geography, culture, and socioeconomic conditions. For instance, a carbon pricing mechanism that works effectively in a densely populated urban area will almost certainly not be suitable for a rural economy. Moreover, it is possible that the policy diffusion process can lead to a homogenization of climate policies, promoting a “one-size-fits-all” approach that can limit the development of new technologies and strategies.

Another concern is the speed at which policies are adopted. The desire to align with global trends can sometimes lead to hasty decisions, resulting in unintended negative consequences such as job losses in certain sectors, increased energy costs for low-income families, or even environmental trade-offs. We have seen this play out in the US as we attempt to determine the best pathway for renewable energy development without putting millions of Americans out of work who are in fossil fuels industries.

Political considerations also play a role. Policies that are adopted due to international pressure may face domestic opposition, as has been the case with the U.S. and the Paris Agreement. Many in Congress view the accord as incompatible with America’s domestic policy priorities, leading to a lack of commitment to its goals.

As countries grapple with the urgent need for climate action, the sharing of successful policies will, and should continue. However, policy diffusion should be approached thoughtfully, recognizing the importance of local adaptation, and acknowledging that not all policies are universally applicable. Policymakers should carefully assess how policies can be adapted to suit their nation’s unique circumstances, taking into account factors like political landscape, economic conditions, and public opinion. One way to facilitate this would be to incentivize innovation and creativity in our trade schools and higher education institutions allowing innovation to take on the local flavor that will fit the region and lead to policies that stick.

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 are those of the author and do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

What’s in a Percentage Change?

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

While dining with my wife and four friends recently at Reid’s Apothecary in downtown Brunswick, a question and insight came my way.

“Why is inflation measured as a percentage?  Percentages are often deceiving.”

  The question and insight are serious, as is the person who delivered them.  The person – let’s call her “Jeannie,” to protect the names of the innocent – is a top-flight number-cruncher who can solve calculus problems in her head while juggling chainsaws.

She continued.  “Take someone who was spending $100 a week on groceries.  Soon, she’s paying $10 more for the same groceries.  From $100 to $110 is a 10% increase.

“Soon, she’s paying another $10 more for the same groceries.  From $110 to $120 is a 9.1% increase.

“To economists, the decrease in the percentage increase means inflation is falling.  But to our grocery shopper, whose bill went up by $10, and then another $10, inflation isn’t falling.  Are you going to tell her she’s wrong?”

Now, this is my kind of dinner conversation.

The idea of percentage change was prompted by this question: when the numerical value of something of interest – prices, blood pressure, bowling score, etc. – changes over a stretch of time, how can we gauge whether the change is large or small?

Consider.  Suppose “Jeannie” wants to know how much real GDP – the inflation-adjusted value of U.S. production – changed from 2021 to 2022.  She retrieves the figures: $21,408 billion in 2021 and $21,822 billion in 2022.

She immediately notices a paradox.  The $414 billion increase in real GDP means the U.S. economy produced $414 billion more in goods and services in 2022 than it did in 2021.  $414 billion is a lot of goods and services.  But a change from $21,408 billion to $21,822 billion appears less impressive.

The second part of the paradox is what percentage change is about.  A percentage change expresses the change from an initial value relative to the initial value itself.  The calculation is: ((more recent value minus initial value) divided by initial value) times 100.

$414 billion is a big number, but it’s a modest 1.9% increase from $21,408 billion.  (Note: the average annual growth rate of U.S. real GDP over the past 20 years is 2.1 percent.)

Percentage change has properties that can, indeed, make it deceptive.  The same percentage change will mean a small numerical change if the initial value is small and a large numerical change if the initial value is large.  The same numerical change will mean a large percentage change if the initial value is small and a small percentage change if the initial value is large. 

The key: pay close attention to the initial value.

Now, to “Jeannie’s” question at Reid’s.  Inflation is measured as a percentage change because it’s the clearest, most straightforward way to measure inflation.  Inflation is a persistent increase in prices in general.  Measuring prices in general requires constructing a price index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  Constructing the CPI is a complex process.  See for yourself at bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/.

The process culminates in a new CPI.  The most recent CPI, for August, is 306.269.  The CPI for August 2022 is 295.320.  The increase of 10.949 means prices in general were higher in August 2023 than they were in August 2022.  That’s inflation.

We could leave it at that.  But that would leave us with an unanswered question: how much inflation is that?

This much: (10.949 divided by 295.320) times 100 equals 3.7%.

That’s down from the June 2021 to June 2022 post-pandemic peak of 8.9%.  The decrease in inflation means prices are still increasing, but not as much as they were.

Understanding is Required for Civil Discourse

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

My new colleague, Dr. Drew Cagle, wrote his first From the Murphy Center column a few weeks ago. His charge to readers was to restore civility in politics. Anyone who has followed politics in our nation knows that civility has fallen out of favor. Many Americans root for a political party like their favorite sports team and treat the other party as a hated rival. Incivility is the new norm. Dr. Cagle suggested that we must proactively seek out a diverse range of opinions, remain open-minded, and find common ground.

I wholeheartedly endorse this call for civility, but partisan politics and siloed media don’t make it easy. If you only watch Fox News or CNN, it’s hard to understand the perspective of the other side. Similarly, our social networks tend to be composed of like-minded folks. Many people don’t engage regularly with those who hold dissimilar worldviews. Thus, it’s easy to stereotype or vilify a group that we do not understand.

Students in my Introduction to Sociology course are challenged to understand those dissimilar from themselves, a skill that can be applied to promote civility. Sociologists note that our ethical and social standards reflect our own cultural context. If we want to understand the behavior of “the other,” we need to understand their values, beliefs, and cultural practices. Understanding the reality of a group or the complexity of social phenomena should be prerequisites to judgment or action. This can be applied cross-culturally or to groups within our own communities, including to supporters of political parties.

There’s plenty of intolerance and closed-mindedness on both sides of the political aisle. Stereotyping “Trump supporters” or “the woke left” will not lead to civil discourse. Conservatives often fail to understand the perspectives of certain groups, including undocumented immigrants, transgender persons, and marginalized populations. Similarly, liberals often fail to understand the perspectives of those who voted for former President Trump, gun enthusiasts, and rural Americans. Folks on both sides of the aisle can benefit from understanding the beliefs and values of those aligned with the other political party. Understanding how others see the world and why our fellow Americans support particular policies can promote civil discourse.

Beyond promoting civility in politics, understanding those dissimilar from ourselves is necessary to address real-world social problems. Understanding why someone wants to own an AR-15 or why someone uses illegal drugs should be a prerequisite to developing relevant public policy.

Another of my Murphy Center colleagues, Dr. Heather Farley, wrote a column recently on combatting homelessness in the Golden Isles. Blanket stereotypes are often imposed on those who are homeless due to a lack of understanding; homeless persons are labeled as lazy, substance abusers, or mentally ill. The reality of homelessness in the U.S. is a lot more nuanced. Most homeless people are not choosing a lifestyle of homelessness. In fact, most who are homeless are experiencing homelessness temporarily, often as the result of an adverse life event. For many single moms, the precarious financial reality of balancing paid employment and childcare leads many mothers and their kids to end up homeless. I could go on. One should understand the lived reality of a group and the dynamics of a phenomenon before developing public policy. How can you fix something that you don’t understand?

Just as there are a multitude of reasons one might experience homelessness, there are a host of reasons why people make political decisions. Understanding leads to knowledge and empathy, which allow us to find common ground and develop useful public policy.

Understanding the cultural practices of those dissimilar from ourselves is a prerequisite to civil discourse in politics. Further, understanding the perspectives of those entangled in social problems is necessary to change behavior and mitigate public issues that plague our nation.

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.