94,902 research outputs found
A Tripartite Post-Recession Rebalancing
No full textIn this latest Advance & Rutgers Report, entitled “A Tripartite Post-Recession Rebalancing,” Dean James W. Hughes and Professor Joseph J. Seneca deliver an incisive assessment of the current market conditions and obstacles in the path of our economic recovery. They offer a statistical cautionary tale that the private and public sector need to hear and acknowledge in order for the economy to make continued progress.This report was published as Issue Paper Number 7, November 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report
Joseph Grisham to James C. Furman
No full textA two page letter and envelope from Joseph Grisham to James C. Furma
Joseph Zealy to James C. Furman
No full textA two page letter and envelope from Joseph Zealy to James C. Furma
Joseph A. Lawton to James C. Furman
No full textA one page letter from Joseph A. Lawton to James C. Furma
Joseph S. Baker to James C. Furman
No full textA three page letter and envelope from Joseph S. Baker to James C. Furma
Solar Power in the Garden State
No full textThis special issue on energy and solar power in New Jersey was made possible because of the extensive portfolio of research centers and institutes at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. Dr. Frank A. Felder, an Associate Research Professor, has been director of the School’s Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy (CEEEP) since 2006. Frank is a nuclear engineer with a PhD degree from MIT, and he, along with his CEEEP colleague, Shankar N. Chandramowli, coauthored the main article in this issue of the Advance & Rutgers Report. CEEEP has worked extensively with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on projects, including New Jersey’s current Energy Master Plan.Shining Brightly: Bloustein's Centers of Excellence / by James W. Hughes and Joseph S. Seneca -- Solar Power in the Garden States / by Shankar N. Chandramowli and Frank A. Felder.Guest contributors include Shankar N. Chandramowli and Frank A. Felder, PhD, Director—Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyReports published as Issue Paper Number 5, May 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report, Special Issue
Joseh E. Brown to James C. Furman
No full textA two page letter from Joseph E. Brown to James C. Furma
The Receding Metropolitan Perimeter: A New Postsuburban Demographic Normal
No full textThe report traces population changes for two time periods: 1950 to 1980, reflecting the nation’s unprecedented postwar suburbanization, and 2010 to 2013, for the recovery period to date from aftershocks of the Great 2007-2009 Recession. The decades between the two time periods analyzed – the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s – are also examined for the influence of overall regional growth, age-structure variations and immigration levels on population change.
Twenty-seven of the suburban-ring counties in the four states witnessed explosive growth in the 30-year period from 1950 to 1980, gaining more than 5.3 million residents, and nearly doubling their population. By contrast, the regional core of eight urban counties in New York and New Jersey contracted sharply during the same period, losing nearly a million people.
Then, during the 2010–2013 period, the trend reversed: the regional core grew at a rate more than double that of the suburban ring, adding 85,284 persons per year. The regional core accounted for most of the total population growth, a phenomenon unparalleled since World War II. All of the suburban counties with population losses were on the metropolitan outer ring with the exception of Monmouth County, which suffered impacts from Superstorm Sandy.
The authors insistently caution that this shift in population growth is not necessarily a long-term change since the latest time period is so limited. However, the data suggest a change of the crest of the wave nature indicating that the multidecade pattern of further growth on the perimeter of the region out has shifted.
The report also discusses the influence of young adults’ locational preferences for urban lifestyle and workplace choices post-2000 as one contributing factor to these shifting population patterns
Economic Soft Patch 2: A Second-Half Rebound or Redux?
No full textAs this issue (August 2011) of the Advance & Rutgers Report was on press, the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce released revised Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates on July 29, 2011 that showed the December 2007– June 2009 recession to be far deeper than originally determined. The 4.1 percent recessionary decline in real GDP was revised to a much larger 5.1 percent decrease; therefore, the analysis of economic output starting on page 8 of this report is slightly altered.
Before the revisions, GDP had fully recovered all of its recessionary losses by the fourth quarter of 2010, 36 months after the recession began. However, the revised estimates show that GDP had not yet fully recovered its recessionary losses by the second quarter of 2011, 42 months after the recession began. This affects figures 3 and 4 on pages 9 and 10 of the report.
But the conclusions in the report remain valid: The U.S. economy today is close (real GDP in the second quarter of 2011 is 0.42 percent below the fourth quarter of 2007) to producing the same pre-recessionary economic output with about 7 million fewer private-sector workers, and the time elapsed for full recovery of economic output (42 months and counting) is far more severe than the recovery time (21 months) from the July 1981-November 1982 recession, the previous post-World War II record holder.This report was published as Issue Paper Number 6, August 2011, in Advance & Rutgers Report
- …
