Sunday, 15 February 2026

Déjà vu: It's not a tax, it's a levy

In 2018, I mocked the government for their insistence that an increase in fuel tax was an excise, not a tax. Since I'm a firm believer in equal treatment of the government of the day when they display their economic illiteracy, I thought I needed to pick up on this story from earlier in the week:

Is it a tax? Is it a levy? An additional charge for a liquefied natural gas import terminal has turned into a communications nightmare for the Government...

Asked if this was a new tax on households, the prime minister was quick to intervene.

“This isn’t a tax, it’s a levy to fund a key piece of infrastructure,” he said.

So, it's a levy, and that is different from a tax? Not according to the OED, which defines a levy as:

Levy, n.

A duty, impost, tax.

Or, if you prefer the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

1 a : the imposition or collection of an assessment

Merriam Webster then defines an assessment as (emphasis is mine):

2 : the amount assessed : an amount that a person is officially required to pay especially as a tax

A levy is a tax. It has the same effects as a tax (for example, see this post for the details) - it raises the price that consumers pay, it lowers the effective price that sellers receive (after paying the levy to the government), it delivers revenue to the government, and it creates a deadweight loss (even if there may be offsetting benefits from how the revenue is spent). Whether the government uses that revenue for a liquefied natural gas import terminal, or for any other purpose, that doesn't change the fact that the levy is a tax.

I wrote back in that 2018 post that:

...this isn't the first (and it won't be the last) government to try their hardest not to refer to taxes as taxes.

It seems I was correct in that assessment.

Read more:

Friday, 13 February 2026

This week in research #113

Here's what caught my eye in research over the past week:

  • Babiarz et al. (with ungated earlier version here) show that most of China’s fertility decline occurred during the earlier Wan Xi Shao (Later, Longer, Fewer, LLF) campaign, rather than the One Child Policy
  • Clark and Nielsen (with ungated earlier version here) conduct a meta-analysis of studies on the returns to education and find that, after controlling for publication bias, the effects are smaller than expected (but still 8.2 percent per year of education)
  • Bratti, Granato, and Havari (open access) demonstrate that a policy reducing the number of exam retakes per year at one Italian university significantly improved students’ first-year outcomes, resulting in lower dropout rates, increased exam pass rates, and enhanced credit accumulation (presumably because the students had to give the exam their best shot the first time around)
  • Buechele et al. (open access) find no systematic evidence indicating that the prestige of the doctoral degree-granting university systematically affects individuals' odds of being appointed to professorships in Germany (because the prestigious universities train a disproportionate number of the PhD graduates)

Finally, I spent today and yesterday at the New Zealand Economics Forum. I wasn't one of the speakers, so I could again enjoy the proceedings from the floor. Overall, I thought that this may have been the best Forum so far (it has been running for six years now). You can watch recordings of the sessions now (here for Day One from the main room, here for the Day One breakout room sessions, here for Day Two from the main room, and here for the Day Two breakout room sessions). Enjoy!

Wednesday, 11 February 2026

Did employers value an AI-related qualification in 2021?

Many universities are rapidly adapting to education in the age of generative AI by trying to develop AI skills in their students. There is an assumption that employers want graduates with AI skills across all disciplines, but is there evidence to support that? This recent discussion paper by Teo Firpo (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), Lukas Niemann (Tanso Technologies), and Anastasia Danilov (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) provides an early answer. I say it's an early answer because their data come from 2021, before the wave of generative AI innovation that became ubiquitous following the release of ChatGPT at the end of 2022. The research also focuses on AI-related qualifications, rather than the more general AI skills, but it's a start.

Firpo et al. conduct a correspondence experiment, where they:

...sent 1,185 applications to open vacancies identified on major UK online job platforms... including Indeed.co.uk, Monster.co.uk, and Reed.co.uk. We restrict applications to entry-level positions requiring at most one year of professional experience, and exclude postings that demand rare or highly specialized skills...

Each identified job posting is randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: a "treatment group", which receives a résumé that includes additional AI-related qualifications and a "control group", which receives an otherwise identical résumé without mentioning such qualifications.

Correspondence experiments are relatively common in the labour economics literature (see here, for example), and involve the researcher making job applications with CVs (and sometimes cover letters) that differ in known characteristics. In this case, the applications differed by whether the CV included an AI-related qualification or not. Firpo et al. then focus on differences in callback rates, and they differentiate between 'strict callbacks' (invitations to interview), and 'broad callbacks' (any positive employer response, including requests for further information). Comparing callback rates between CVs with and without AI-related qualifications, they find:

...no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups for either outcome measure...

However, when they disaggregate their results by job function, they find that:

In both Marketing and Engineering, résumés listing AI-related qualifications receive higher callback rates compared to those in the control group. In Marketing, strict callback rates are 16.00% for AI résumés compared to 7.00% for the control group (p-value = 0.075...), while broad callback rates are 24.00% versus 12.00% (p-value = 0.043...). In Engineering, strict callback rates are 10.00% for AI résumés compared to 4.00% for the control group (p-value = 0.163...), while broad callback rates are 20.00% versus 8.00% (p-value = 0.024...).

For the other job functions (Finance, HR, IT, and Logistics) there was no statistically significant effect of AI qualifications on either measure of callback rates. Firpo et al. then estimate a regression model and show that:

...including AI-related qualifications increases the probability of receiving an interview invitation for marketing roles by approximately 9 percentage points and a broader callback by 12 percentage points. Similarly, the interaction between the treatment dummy and the Engineering job function dummy in the LPM models is positive and statistically significant, but only for broad callbacks. AI-related qualifications increase the probability of a broad callback by at least 11 percentage points...

The results from the econometric model are only weakly statistically significant, but they are fairly large in size. However, I wouldn't over-interpret them because of the multiple-comparison problem (around five percent of results would show up as statistically significant just by chance). At best, the evidence that employers valued AI-related qualifications in 2021 is pretty limited, based on this research.

Firpo et al. were worried that employers might not have noticed the AI qualifications in the CVs, so they conducted an online survey of over 700 professionals with hiring experience and domain knowledge, but that survey instead shows that the AI-related qualification was salient and a signal of greater technical skills, but lower social skills. These conflicting signals are interesting, and suggestive that employers are looking for both technical skills and social skills in entry-level applicants. Does this, alongside the earlier results for different job functions, imply that technical skills are weighted more heavily than social skills for Engineering and Marketing jobs? I could believe that for Engineering, but for Marketing I have my doubts, because interpersonal skills are likely to be important in Marketing. Again though, it's probably best not to over-interpret the results.

Firpo et al. conclude that:

...our findings challenge the assumption that AI-related qualifications unambiguously enhance employability in early-career recruitment. While such skills might be valued in abstract or strategic terms, they do not automatically translate into interview opportunities, at least not in the entry-level labor market in job functions such as HR, Finance, Marketing, Engineering, IT and Logistics.

Of course, these results need to be considered in the context of their time. In 2021, AI-related skills might not have been much in demand by employers. That is unlikely to hold true now, given that generative AI use has become so widespread. It would be interesting to see what a more up-to-date correspondence experiment would find.

[HT: Marginal Revolution]

Read more:

  • ChatGPT and the labour market
  • More on ChatGPT and the labour market
  • The impact of generative AI on contact centre work
  • Some good news for human accountants in the face of generative AI
  • Good news, bad news, and students' views about the impact of ChatGPT on their labour market outcomes
  • Swiss workers are worried about the risk of automation
  • How people use ChatGPT, for work and not
  • Generative AI and entry-level employment
  • Survey evidence on the labour market impacts of generative AI
  • Tuesday, 10 February 2026

    Who on earth has been using generative AI?

    Who are the world's generative AI users? That is the question addressed in this recent article by Yan Liu and He Wang (both World Bank), published in the journal World Development (ungated earlier version here). They use website traffic data from Semrush, alongside Google Trends data, to document worldwide generative AI use up to March 2024 (so, it's a bit dated now, as this is a fast-moving area, but it does provide an interesting snapshot up to that point). In particular, Liu and Wang focus on geographical heterogeneity in generative AI use (measured as visits to generative AI websites, predominantly, or in some of their analyses, entirely ChatGPT), and they explore how that relates to country-level differences in institutions, infrastructure, and other variables.

    Some of the results are fairly banal, such as the rapid increase in website traffic to AI chatbot websites, a corresponding decline in traffic to sites such as Google, and Stack Overflow, and that the users skew younger, more educated, and male. Those demographic differences will likely become less dramatic over time as user numbers increase. However, the geographic differences are important and could be more persistent. Liu and Wang show that:

    As of March 2024, the top five economies for ChatGPT traffic are the US, India, Brazil, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The US share of ChatGPT traffic dropped from 70 % to 25 % within one month of ChatGPT’s debut. Middle-income economies now contribute over 50 % of traffic, showing disproportionately high adoption of generative AI relative to their GDP, electricity consumption, and search engine traffic. Low-income economies, however, represent less than 1 % of global ChatGPT traffic.

    So, as of 2024, most generative AI use was in middle-income countries, but remember that those are also high-population countries (like India). Generative AI users are disproportionately from high-income countries once income and internet use (proxied by search engine traffic) are accounted for. Figure 12 in the paper illustrates this nicely, showing generative AI use, measured as visits per internet user:

    Notice that the darker-coloured countries, where a higher proportion of internet users used ChatGPT, are predominantly in North America, western Europe, and Australia and New Zealand. On that measure, Liu and Wang rank New Zealand 20th (compared with Singapore first, and Australia eighth). There are a few interesting outliers like Suriname (sixth) and Panama (17th), but the vast majority of the top twenty countries are high-income countries.

    What accounts for generative AI use at the country level? Using a cross-country panel regression model, Liu and Wang find that:

    Higher income levels, a higher share of youth population, bet-ter digital infrastructure, and stronger human capital are key predictors of higher generative AI uptake. Services’ share of GDP and English fluency are strongly associated with higher chatbot usage.

    Now, those results simply demonstrate correlation, and are not causal. And website traffic could be biased due to use of VPNs, etc., not to mention that it doesn't account very well for traffic from China or Russia (and Liu and Wang are very upfront about that limitation). Nevertheless, it does provide a bit more information about how countries with high generative AI use differ from those with low generative AI use. Generative AI has the potential to level the playing field somewhat for lower-productivity workers, and lower-income countries. However, that can only happen if lower-income countries access generative AI. And it appears as if, up to March 2024 at least, they are instead falling behind. As Liu and Wang conclude, any catch-up potential from generative AI:

    ...depends on further development as well as targeted policy interventions to improve digital infrastructure, language accessibility, and foundational skills.

    To be fair, that sounds like a general prescription for development policy in any case.

    Read more: