Senate Confirms John Bryson as Secretary of Commerce

On October 20, the Senate by a vote of 74-26 confirmed John Bryson as the new Secretary of Commerce.   Bryson had been nominated by President Obama on May 31 to replace Gary Locke, who is now the U.S. Ambassador to China.   Rebecca Blank, former Dean of the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and former COSSA Annual Meeting Speaker, had been Acting Secretary since Locke's nomination as Ambassador in July 2011.

Blank will now revert back to her job as Acting Deputy Secretary, a position she has held since her elevation in November 2010 from Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, a job she still also holds.

Bryson, whose bailiwick includes the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, is the former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison. Since leaving the company in 2008, he has been an advisor to KKR, a private equity company. He was one of the co-founders and legal counsel for the National Resources Defense Council, a major environmental group.   This position and his views on global warming, he believes it is happening, caused a hold on his nomination and led to the vigorous opposition of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

The new Secretary has also been the chairman of the California State Water Resources Control Board, and the president of the California Public Utilities Commission. He has served on the Boards of the Boeing Company and Walt Disney Company

Bryson has his bachelor's degree from Stanford University, where he served on its Board of Trustees, and his J.D. from Yale Law School. 

COSSA Executive Director Speaks at University of Texas

Howard J. Silver, COSSA's Executive Director, at the invitation of the University of Texas' Population Research Center, directed by Mark Hayward, spoke at the University of Texas at Austin on October 14. His topic "Science in the Age of Austerity," reflected the difficulties the emphasis on federal budget deficits has placed on funding for research today and possibly into the future.

He had earlier given similar talks to the American Education Research Association on September 11 focusing primarily on the National Science Foundation and to the Association of Public Data Users on September 23 focusing on the agencies of the federal statistical system.

After a brief introduction to COSSA and its 30 year history of advocating for the social and behavioral sciences, Silver described the optimism many felt with the presentation of President Obama's FY 2012 budget in February 2011, which included significant increases for many research and data-focused agencies.

That sense of joy soon came up against the realities of the federal fiscal situation and the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the determined Republican minority in the Senate, who have made cutting federal programs a priority.

After describing the current state of the appropriations process (see other article) and the role of the Deficit Reduction or Super Committee, Silver discussed the coping strategies agencies are adapting to deal with budgetary difficulties. He indicated that "partnerships" with other agencies, universities, businesses, and international entities are some of the coping mechanisms employed by agencies.

The slides from the Texas presentation are available here.

NIH CTSA/NCATS Integration Working Group Release Recommendations

As it waits for Congressional action regarding standing up the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) as recommended by the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has posted the recommendations of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) and the NCATS Working Group on the agency's Feedback page on the agency's website. According to the website, the Working group, chaired by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases director Stephen Katz presented the recommendations to NIH director Francis Collins who subsequently shared them at the recent Consortium Steering Committee Meeting of the CTSA Principal Investigators.

In April, Collins convened the Working Group to "determine how the strengths of the CTSAs could enhance the mission of NCATS and how to make the transition as smooth as possible." The specific charge to the Working Group was to: (1) Enumerate the roles and capabilities of the CTSAs that can support and enhance the mission of NCATS; (2) Identify CTSA needs and priorities; and (3) Propose processes for ensuring a smooth transition from the National Center of Research Resources (NCRR) to NCATS.

The Working Group concluded that the CTSA program "offers invaluable resources for conducting and supporting clinical and translational science research, much of which will be essential in realizing the NCATS mission." Additionally, it emphasized that the "NCATS must be linked not only to basic and translational research in the categorical institutes and centers, but to the broader resources available at academic and health care organizations...NCATS leadership should capitalize upon these opportunities as it transitions the CTSAs into the new Center." The Working recommendations include:

1. Continue to provide infrastructure supporting the full spectrum of translational research while encouraging CTSA institutions to develop their unique strengths. The Working Group agreed that there are essential core components that are critical to the conduct of translational science and should be baseline requirements in future RFAs. The Working Group concluded that the existing funding process does not create sufficient incentives for CTSAs to develop innovative approaches in specific areas. For this reason, the Working Group suggests that in future RFAs, the application requirements and evaluation criteria should allow each CTSA to develop unique strengths.

2. Strengthen CTSA consortia activities. The Working Group noted that the recent establishment of a Coordinating Center is an important step in strengthening CTSA consortia activities. Moreover, an additional benefit of encouraging each CTSA to cultivate its own strengths while relying upon other CTSA sites for support in areas in which it does not excel has the potential to minimize redundancy and facilitate the formation of a Consortium that is stronger as a whole. To build upon this further, some portion of individual CTSA program funds should be dedicated to consortia activities, on both national and regional levels. It also will be critical for NCATS to monitor the landscape for critical translational research needs and to have funds reserved to direct CTSA consortium activities on an as needed basis in support of the NCATS mission.

3. Strengthen mechanisms for enabling IC-CTSA interactions. The Working Group concluded that widespread utilization of the CTSA resources to facilitate IC-supported research has yet to be achieved. To harness the full capabilities of the robust CTSA network, mechanisms for interaction should be strengthened, including the development of suitable processes that allow the investment of IC funds in project-specific research, which will leverage the existing resources.

4. Evaluate each institutional award on its performance and allocate funds accordingly. The Working Group recommends that the CTSA program develop a revised process to determine individual CTSA funding levels based on performance measures that align with the goals of NCATS.

5. Allow current CTSA awardees to submit revisions to current awards prior to their anticipated renewal date. In light of the proposed changes to future CTSA RFAs, the Working Group recommends that current recipients of CTSAs should be afforded the opportunity to revise their current grants in order to reallocate resources - if desired - to enhance their strengths. These revised applications will be subjected to review.

6. Develop an explicit process for exchanging information. The CTSAs will continue to seek guidance about the priorities, functions, and expectations of NCATS as they further evolve. To ensure a smooth transition of the program into the new Center, the Working Group recommends that the CCEC remain a point of contact for engaging this community.

The SMRB meets again on October 26. The agenda includes a discussion of "Advancing the Translational Sciences."

CNSTAT Seminar Examines Impact of 'Great Recession'

On October 21, the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies held a seminar examining: The Effects of the Great Recession on Our Economy and Society: Insights from Public Data. CNSTAT, directed by Connie Citro and chaired by Lawrence Brown of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, is entering its fifth decade helping to improve federal statistics.

The seminar highlighted chapters from a recent book, The Great Recession, edited by David Grusky, Bruce Western, and Christopher Wimer, and published by the Russell Sage Foundation.

Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michael Hout, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, presented the labor market effects of the recent economic downturn and compared them to the earlier recessions in 1980-82 and 2001. The 2007-2009 recession has had a longer duration, been of greater magnitude, and evidenced a significant gender gap in its effect, Hout concluded.

Using statistics indicating weeks on unemployment, Hout noted that in 1982 the average time a person spent out of work was 16 weeks. In the 2007-09 downturn that climbed to 34 weeks.   The data reflecting unemployed-per-job-opening also demonstrated the magnitude of the current situation. In 2001, the ratio was two-three unemployed to each job opening; in 2009 it was seven.   Currently, it has decreased to four, Hout indicated.

Regarding the gender gap, the recent recession has hurt men more than women, Hout asserted, although the movement of women into the labor force - the great story of post-war labor markets up until the 1990s - has steadied at around 70 percent.   For some men, who have lost their jobs in their fifties, "their work lives are over," Hout declared.   One significant difference this time around is that technology, specifically robots building cars, means many of the jobs once held by these folks, are gone.

How to get out of the current mess? Hout indicated that the construction industry led the plunge into the earlier recessions and then led the recoveries.  The problem is that the housing crisis that was a large cause of the current problem created a greater magnitude of layoffs in that industry this time. Hout called for reviving consumer demand as a key to recovery.

For Tim Smeeding, Professor of Economics and director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, the current recession has had devastating effects on income inequality and the lives of the poor.

He noted that the recession has led to a declining state of living for the bottom 70 percent of the income distribution in this country.   For these folks the "recession is still ongoing" and for many, each month sees them "falling off another cliff."

He indicated that there has clearly been a "labor market polarization" in which those who are college-educated and technologically savvy are doing well, while those folks with just a high school education or less are "screwed."   There is no longer a path to the middle class for the less educated as there was in earlier times, Smeeding argued, since the manufacturing and construction industries have declined and service sector jobs available to these people barely pay a living wage.   He also asserted that the recession has helped "crash" the burgeoning black and Latino middle class.

As poverty rates continue to climb and the bottom four quintiles in the income distribution continue to see their incomes decline, Smeeding suggested that coping mechanisms include moving in with "somebody else." He admitted that federal programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps) have been enormously helpful. However, he pointed out that only 20 percent of the unemployed collect unemployment insurance.

At the upper end of the income scale the recovery, Smeeding asserted, has been greater.   The stock market has recouped 75 percent of its pre-recession value.   Housing prices, on the other hand are still down 30 percent, making it more difficult for people to move for new employment opportunities.

The solutions, according to Smeeding, will involve more training in technical skills. However, he was not very optimistic and talked about "a lost generation" of young people, who are caught up in a "structural" alteration of the American economy that is leaving them behind.

Fertility Rates in the Recession Affected by Political Divide

S. Philip Morgan, Professor of Sociology and director of the Social Science Research Institute at Duke University, reported on the fertility response to the current economic difficulties.   Using state vital statistics data, Morgan indicated that the fertility rate fell by five percent during the years 2007-2009. There was a significant correlation between a state's unemployment rate and fertility.

However, what was most intriguing to Morgan was the differential response in the states was related to the Red State/Blue State political divide. He first noted how responses to Gallup Poll questions regarding the state of the economy shifted with the change from President Bush to President Obama in 2009. Republicans were much more optimistic and supportive of economic policies during Bush's stewardship of the recession and then became more critical when Obama took over. Democrats' views were the reverse.  

In examining the relationship between the Bush vote in 2000 and the fertility rate during the recession, Morgan reported it was quite strong.   He indicated that there was very little effect of the recession on fertility in the Blue states, but particularly in the Reddest states like Oklahoma and Utah, the rate declined significantly during the economic downturn.

He also noted that the "doubling up" phenomena showed a "modest increase," but still remains relatively rare. There was also no "mean effects" on union formation during this period, although he suggested that the data on marriage "are not good."

Commenting on the presentations, Lisa Lynch, Dean and Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, pointed out that the one of the differences of the recent recession from the one in the 1980s, was the impact of the aging of the American workforce. The 1980s recession hit the young the hardest, she told the audience. This time it was different, as Hout noted earlier.   She suggested that examining what has happened inside workplaces would also help to tell the story of the current economic difficulty.   Another outcome of the recent situation that also needs more research, she noted, are the "scarring effects" in localities like Detroit. The impact on retirement decisions and employer hiring decisions are other facets for study, she concluded.

Although the National Bureau of Economic Research, the "official" arbiter of when recessions start and end in this country, indicated that the economic downturn ended in 2009, it is clear the impacts have been significant and are still occurring.  

ERS Funds Research on Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs

On October 21, Agriculture Under Secretary for Economics Catherine Woteki announced new research grants and cooperative agreement awards designed to examine, evaluate, and enhance the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) nutrition assistance programs.

The research projects were competitively awarded by USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) through a publicly announced and peer-reviewed process. These competitive grants and cooperative agreements fund research on the relationships among food assistance programs, food choices, and the economy; and on using behavioral economics and incentives to promote child nutrition. The latter topic is part of an ongoing collaboration with USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) initiated in FY 2010 to develop a research program in behavioral economics as applied to USDA's child nutrition programs.

According to Woteki, USDA's food and nutrition assistance programs-including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the school meals programs-affect the lives of millions of people each day. About one in four Americans participates in at least one food assistance program at some point during the year.

The recipients and their topics:

• Theodore Joyce, National Bureau of Economic Research - Food Assistance Programs, Food Choices, and the Economy;
• Loren Bell, Altarum Institute, Ann Arbor, MI - Effect of New WIC Food Packages on Breastfeeding and Food Package Choices;
• Linda Giannarelli, Urban Institute - The Effect of Food Programs on Alternative Poverty Measures;
• David Just, Cornell University - Using Behavioral Economics and Incentives to Promote Child Nutrition;
• Joseph Price, Brigham Young University - Using Nudges and Incentives to Promote Long-Run Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables in Children; and
• Gregory Madden, Utah State University - Long-term Effects of Incentivizing Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.

Further information is available on the Web at:

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodNutritionAssistance/Compgrants.htm.

You may also contact program contact David Smallwood at (202) 694-5466 or dsmallwd@ers.usda.gov . 

Federal Role in Agricultural Risk Management Examined

On October 11, the Farm Foundation Forum held an event, "The Future Role of the Federal Government in Agricultural Risk Management." Speaking were:   Carl Zulaf, a professor of agricultural economics at Ohio State University as well as three farmers - Ann Jorgensen, who also served on the board of the Farm Credit Administration, Jimmy Dodson from the coastal bend of Texas, and Clair Hauge, a fourth-generation farmer/rancher.

Zulaf focused his discussion on an explanation of the different kinds of risks farmers face. He described shallow loss (a loss smaller than the deductible of crop insurance) and deep loss (which crop insurance would cover). The causes of risk can be idiosyncratic (farm specific) and systemic (large scale). Area systemic risk, such as drought, carries massive danger since it can result in losses for years for farmers. Going forward, there are many different questions as to how crop insurance could be modified to address these risks according to Zulaf, and the farm community needs to clearly illustrate why insurance is vital to begin with. The farmers on the panel served to demonstrate why crop insurance is indispensible, addressing topics like insurance audits, risks like yield and price, crop insurance as collateral and more.

It seems as though Congress heard the call of this event. On October 17 the House and Senate Agriculture committees sent a letter to the 12-member Deficit Reduction Committee that proposed a net $23 billion in mandatory spending cuts to programs under their jurisdiction over the next decade. The letter co-signed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Reps. Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Collin Peterson (D-MN), Chair and Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee,offered no specifics or any mention of agriculture research and data. The legislators noted that the Committees would unveil a complete legislative package by November 1. Roberts declared in a separate statement, his intention to protect the federally subsidized crop insurance program. The baseline, he asserted, will be kept whole regardless of the interaction with other programs.

For more on Farm Foundation Forum events, go here.