Creative Class

Here’s the abstract for a new paper on said with Charlotta Mellander and Kevin Stolarick.

Economists have argued that individuals choose locations that maximize their economic position and broad utility. Sociologists have found that social networks and social interactions shape our satisfaction with our communities. Research, across various social science fields, finds that beauty has a significant effect on various economic and social outcomes. Our research uses a large survey sample of individuals across US locations to examine the effects of beauty and aesthetics on community satisfaction. We test for these effects in light of other community-level factors such as economic security and employment opportunities; the supply of public goods; the ability for social exchange, that is to meet people and make friends; artistic and cultural opportunities, and outdoor recreation; as well as individual demographic characteristics such as gender, age, presence of children, length of residence, income and education levels, and housing values. The findings confirm that perceived beauty or aesthetic character of a location has a positive and significant effect on perceived community satisfaction. It is one of the most significant factors alongside economic security, good schools, and the perceived capacity for social interaction. We also find community-level factors to be significantly more important than individual demographic characteristics in explaining community satisfaction.

The full paper is over at the MPI site, here.

Guess what country has just said a big, fat resounding “no” to industry bailouts? Sweden, that’s right, Sweden. The land of the big state, socialism, and social democracy. My colleague Charlotta Mellander writes:

It’s interesting how differently the financial crisis is being met by governmental authorities in North America and Scandinavia.  With Saab on the brink of bankruptcy, GM – which owns Saab – turns to the Swedish state asking for support, approximately in the same manner in the  US. And the Swedish government says – NO. No tax money will be spend on saving the car industry. The message is that if a company can’t make it on its own then tax money shouldn’t be  to bail it out. I must say I’m kind of surprised – but in a positive way. I didn’t think they’d have the  courage to say no to such an “institution.”

Here’s a report from Sweden’s The Local:

The Swedish government said on Wednesday it would not intervene to take over Saab. Enterprise Minister Maud Olofsson slammed Saab’s US owner General Motors for “abandoning” the struggling Swedish car maker. General Motors has warned that the unit would go under without official help. “Voters picked me because they wanted nursery schools, police and nurses, and not to buy loss-making car factories,” Enterprise and Energy Minister Maud Olofsson told Swedish public radio.

Can we get her to be our new Commerce Secretary?