Národohospodářská fakulta Vysoké školy ekonomické v Praze, nám. Winstona Churchilla 4, 130 67 Praha 3 tel.: +420 224 095 521, fax: +420 224 221 718, URL: http://nf.vse.cz
REVIEW OF THE BACHERLOR THESIS OPPONENT
Student’s name and surname:Cristian Besarab...
Thesis title: Evaluating the income inequality in the United States throughout the Reaganomics period: A socio-economic empirical analysis of the 1970s–1990s period ...
Thesis opponent: Ing. Petr Chalupecký...
1 2 3 4
Assessment of the main aspects of the thesis:
1 Structure of the thesis (logical and systematic construction) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 2 Goal of the thesis (unambiguity of formulation, adequacy) ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
3 Quality of the theoretical part ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
4 Quality of the application/analytical/empirical part ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ 5 Adequacy of the methods to the goal of the thesis ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
6 Sources (topicality, relevance, frequency) ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
7 Quality of conclusions, fulfillment of the goal of the thesis ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
8 Formal aspects (formatting, stylistics, references) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Verbal assessment (describe the strongest and weakest aspects of the thesis; especially in case of a low assessment 3-4, concrete reproaches need to be expressed):
I appreciate logic and clear structure that is corresponding to a nature of the analyzed topic.
There is a problem however with the shares of theoretical and practical. The share ½ in favour of practical part is usually recommended, not the opposite as this thesis has.
The goal is expressed in form of hypothesis that should be proved and supporting questions that must be answered by the analysis. The goal formulated as such is feasible for as student at this level of study, but it has to formulate the terms neoliberalism precisely for the purposes of empirical inquiry.
Theoretical part is elaborated very well. Despite Mr. Besarab is trying his best to be concise the width he comprehends the topic with did not enable to shorten this part much further. The only possibility would be to transfer some parts of theoretical part to the practical one. I would recommend including chapter three into practical part because it focuses on real development of U.S. economic policy during R. Reagan’s presidential terms in several key variables. From the point of factual accuracy, I have no objections, but the history of neoliberalism is a little bit
longer than Mr. Besarab suggest on the page 22. It rooted in the efforts of the circle around F.
A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises to establish such movement since the 1920s as Quinn Slobodian documents well in his work Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism released in 2018.
Practical part consists of empirical testing of chosen hypothesis and questions. I appreciate student uses econometric modeling to test hypothesis. It is based on relatively easy Markov switching model with two regimes and one explanatory variable. It is reasonable since complicated model could be less stable and problematic to interpret. However, I see several problems. The model is based only on two regimes concerning expansionary period with moderate or low inflation and period with moderate growth and high inflation is enough to describe the development of U.S. business cycle from 1970 to 1999. In my opinion it complicates assessment of long-term effects of the measures of Reagan’s administration on inequality. For example, after relatively high growth since Reagan’s years the size of inequality was temporarily stabilized at reached level during Clinton’s presidency. Was it due to continuing neoliberal policy or there were some measures that contradict neoliberal policy during Clinton’s era? Second, I am not sure if individual elements of probability matrix are interpreted correctly. If a understand Hamilton’s original paper correctly the element p11 means probability that regime 1 will follow the same regime (P(st = 1| st–1 = 1)).
Proving initial hypothesis and answering questions Mr. Besarab fulfill the goal of the thesis.
Concerning the quality of conclusions, I would be more careful especially in assessing of long- term effects.
Concerning formal aspects of the thesis, Mr. Besarab should have been more rigorous. For example, one reference in the text is missing in the final list of sources or reference on page 28 to a figure no. 3 on page 19 is mistaken because it has nothing to do with supply side approach.
Table no. 4 should have been close to the place where is mentioned in the text. Finally, I would appreciate the list of abbreviations because not all of them are explained in the text.
Complex assessment (it is necessary to state whether the thesis complies with the Methodological guidelines of the Faculty of Economics, University of Economics, Prague as concerns the quality of the content, the extent and formal requirements and whether the thesis is being recommended to the defense or not; the thesis can also be nominated to a special award, etc. ):
The thesis satisfies all requirements of the Faculty of economic on this type of thesis. Despite some reservations I am convinced about high quality of this work.
Questions to the defense:
1. What factors caused increasing of inequality in the USA since the 1970, i. e. prior Ronald Reagan’s presidency?
2. Speaking about monetary and fiscal policy during Reagan’s presidency You omitted to mention role of interest rates in a process of income distribution or redistribution. How could they contribute to the increase of inequality and was this contribution important?
Suggested grade: Excellent
Date: 28.01.2021 ...
Thesis opponent’s signature Instructions to the reviewer: The reviewer needs to fill in the verbal assessment which is adequately informative with respect to the purpose of the defense.
Assessment scale: 1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = failed.
