Policy

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.

Prof. Daron Acemoglu speaks with New York Times reporter Jeff Sommer about the anticipated impact of future AI on various industries. “There is a lot of hype in the industry,” says Acemoglu. While some AI companies have “impressive achievements,” Acemoglu adds that many financial and economic calculations were being based on mere “projections into the future that are sometimes exaggerated.”

Writing for Le Monde, Prof. Arnaud Costinot and Prof. Andrés Rodríguez-Clare of UC Berkeley make the case against the U.S. implementing substantial tariffs on imports. “Retaining its dominance in high-tech sectors, regaining a foothold in new green sectors, and restoring prosperity to lagging regions, to name just a few, are critical goals for US economic policy in the years to come. A richer set of economic policies are needed, with tariffs playing at best an auxiliary role,” writes Costinot. “Pursuing a policy of raising tariffs would most likely lead to a new global trade war. Its consequences, unfortunately, are not hard to predict. It would mean less trade and, most importantly, less international cooperation on the big issues of the day: war, poverty, and climate change.” 

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.” 

The Financial Times has honored the MIT Climate Pathways Project and the Aggregate Confusion Project (ACP) in their Responsible Business Education awards for research that “delivers tangible societal and scientific contributions.” The MIT Climate Pathways Project was recognized for efforts to blend “expertise across disciplines to use interactive simulations that help business leaders craft smarter climate policies.” The ACP was recognized for addressing inconsistencies in ESG ratings.  

Graduate student Shomik Verma writes for Newsweek that “we need systemic change to ensure our individual climate actions aren't going to waste. If you're serious about fighting climate change this year, instead of recycling more, consider shifting focus to policy support and investments.” Verma adds: “if we advocate for change at the federal and state level, we can build an effective bridge between our individual actions and the change we want to see in the world.”

In commentary for Newsweek, Prof. Sherry Turkle explores the consequences of Facebook’s announcement that the company would no longer conduct fact-checking. “Facebook is a major influencer of culture and politics,” says Turkle. “It did everything to put itself into this position. Once there, to argue that it's not and say that its users are responsible for moving its content in the direction of truth is irresponsible.” 

A new tabletop exercise, developed by researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has found that “a further buildup of U.S. nuclear capabilities would have limited effect on whether China might use its own nuclear weapons should a war over Taiwan erupt,” reports Brad Dress and Ellen Mitchell for The Hill. “The first large-scale war game of such an incident,” they write, “found that a U.S. buildup that goes past current modernization plans would not bolster nuclear deterrence in relation to Taiwan.” 

Prof. Daron Acemoglu speaks with Times Higher Ed’s Jack Grove about the importance of maintaining economic and political discussions in higher ed. “It is fine for academics to speak on such issues as long as you can keep that separate from your classrooms and for what constitutes high-quality research,” says Acemoglu. “There are special times when academics should speak out.”

Prof. Daron Acemoglu highlights the importance of adopting alternative technologies in the face of AI advancements, reports Jared Newman for Fast Company. “We need investment for alternative approaches to AI, and alternative technologies, those that I would say are more centered on making workers more productive, and providing better information to workers,” says Acemoglu.

Researchers at MIT and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have used a tabletop exercise to determine whether a further build-up of US nuclear capabilities would impact China’s nuclear weapon use in Taiwan, reports Kathrin Hille for Financial Times. “The US has 600-plus tactical nuclear weapons, and it is modernizing their delivery means,” explains Principal Research Scientist Eric Heginbotham. “In the game, the one US team that employed tactical nuclear weapons used fewer than a dozen. In no cases did any of the participants ever say: ‘We need SLCM-N or some other system that is not in the inventory or being deployed under the current modernization plan.’”

Ben Armstrong, executive director of the Industrial Performance Center, speaks with Financial Times reporter Michael Acton about the future of foreign semiconductor company investments in the United States. Armstrong notes that it could take some time to see returns from the CHIPS and Science Act. “You could say the chip boom hasn’t even started yet,” says Armstrong. “The real benefits in growth that could come from it are not likely to pay off until a few years from now.”

In an interview with Boston Public Radio, Prof. Jon Gruber explains the expected impact of incoming tariff proposals, reports Hannah Loss for GBH. “There is a growing consensus that economic nationalism is something worth taking seriously, in particular for sectors where we are very vulnerable to supply chains and where we have concerns that other countries might not trade fairly,” says Gruber.