Markus Furendal

Markus Furendal is a researcher at the Department of Political Science at Stockholm Unviersity, and at the Institute for Futures Studies. He conducts resarch on topics at the intersection of politics,

Mark Budolfson

Mark Budolfson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Geography and the Environment, and the Population Wellbeing Initiative, University of Texas at Austin. He wo

Place: At the Institute for Futures Studies, Holländargatan 13, Stockholm, or online. REGISTER HEREResearch seminar with Markus Furendal, Post-Doc in Political Science, Stockholm University, and Martin

Markus Jäntti: Trends in absolute intergenerational income mobility in Sweden

Markus Jänttis research centers on income inequality, poverty, socio-economic mobility, and wealth inequality, especially in a cross-national perspective. He teaches econometrics and methods for inequ

 in: Journal of Numerical Cognition, Volume 6 (1).  AbstractAn important paradigm in modeling the complexity of mathematical tasks relies on computational complexity theory, in which complexity is measur

Markus Jänttisresearch centers on income inequality, poverty, socio-economic mobility, and wealth inequality, especially in a cross-national perspective. He teaches econometrics and methods for inequa

Philosophy & Technology 36 Abstract The last decade has seen significant improvements in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, including robotics, machine vision, speech recognition, and text ge

Working Paper 2007 No. 3 A revised version is published in the European Sociological Review, 24 (4). Lars Brännström

Arbetsrapport 2024:3Del av Studies in the Ethics of Coordination and Climate Change Abstract In a prisoner’s dilemma, if everyone follows the strategy of self-interest, then everyone is certain to be wo

Mark Jaccard, Professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, VancouverAbstractThere are obvious reasons why for three decades most jurisdictions have failPublic surveys and observation of real-world GHG reduction successes suggest that explicit carbon pricing (carbon tax and perhaps cap-and-trade) can be substantially more politically difficult than certain regulatory policies for shifting the energy system on to a deep decarbonization trajectory. Nonetheless, some people have argued that carbon pricing is an essential GHG reduction policy, suggesting that sincere politicians must do carbon pricing no matter how politically difficult. But the claim that carbon pricing is essential is factually incorrect. Deep decarbonization can be achieved entirely with regulations. Regulatory policies are unlikely to be as economically efficient as carbon pricing. But not all regulations perform identically when it comes to the economic-efficiency criterion. Flexible regulations have some attributes that make them low cost relative to regulations that require adoption of specific technologies.This talk provides evidence that assesses both the relative economic efficiency of policies and their relative political acceptability. The findings reported here suggest that some kinds of flexible regulations can perform significantly better than explicit carbon pricing in terms of relative political cost per tonne reduced while performing only marginally worse in terms of economic cost per tonne reduced. Presumably, this type of trade-off information could be of value to politicians who sincerely want deep decarbonization but would also like to be rewarded with re-election so that they and competing politicians see the value in ambitious and sustained GHG reduction efforts.