Lecturer in Economics, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London

The new ‘Lecturer in Economics’ post will add to the existing strengths SSEES has in Economics and Business. This post will take the number of permanent posts within this Programme to 9.

We welcome applications from all areas of economics and business, but particularly those that relate to our existing strengths. We are also interested in candidates whose work is strong in other policy related areas, in economic history, methodology and ideas, and in the comparative economics of emerging markets (e.g. Russia, Eastern Europe, China). We are strong in several areas of research conducted by our current permanent staff.

These include: microeconomics and applied macroeconomics (Dr Randolph Bruno); economic history, education and development (Dr Tomas Cvrcek); development and agricultural economics (Dr Elodie Douarin); econometrics and applied macroeconomics (Dr Julia Korosteleva); international trade (Dr Svetlana Makarova); FDI, migration (Dr Miriam Manchin); corporate finance (Dr Eugene Nivorozhkin); innovation studies and innovation policy (Prof. Slavo Radošević); and international macro and finance, European macroeconomic policy  (Dr Yuemei Ji).

In addition to conducting research, successful candidates will be able to demonstrate a commitment to learning, teaching and the student experience, as well as to academic administration and management. SSEES is particularly keen to strengthen its teaching provision in the following areas: macroeconomics and microeconomics; economic policy; international economics; business economics, quantitative methods/statistics and econometrics. Successful candidates may be asked to contribute to or lead core year one BA courses in macro- and microeconomics, taught to large numbers of students from diverse disciplines. Typical Lecturer loads in the Economics programmes involve 6-7 contact teaching hours per week, delivered during the two 10-week terms with examination duties undertaken in the third term.  Candidates are expected to be familiar with the SSEES student body and the BA/MA programmes in Economics and Business http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/prospective-students

More Information

15 Fully-funded Doctoral Studentships at Cass Business School, City University of London

Duration of the Funding: 48 months
Application Deadline: Feb 28, 2017
Funding for: UK Students, EU Students, International Students
Funding amount: £16,000 per annum for full-time study over 4 years

Cass Business School is offering 15 PhD studentships comprising tuition fees and maintenance grant of £16,000 pa for four years, starting in October 2017. Studentships also offer funding for conference attendance, also for four years.

Our REF 2014 results places us 6th in the UK and highlights the world class quality of Cass research, and recognises the impact it has on business, the professions and policymakers. The School provides a research and enterprise development programme to support the development of research skills and is a global University committed to academic excellence with a focus on business and the professions and an enviable central London location.

Applications are sought from exceptional UK and overseas graduates and will be given to students on the basis of outstanding academic achievement and research potential in the following subject areas:

Actuarial Science and Insurance:

·         Pensions

·         Probability and Mathematical Statistics

·         Insurance (Life and General)

·         Risk Management


·         Accounting or Corporate Finance

·         Asset Pricing and Investments

·         Banking and International Finance

·         Financial Econometrics

·         Mathematical Finance

·         Real Estate Finance

·         Shipping, Trade and Commodities


·         Strategy

·         Organization Theory or Behaviour

·         Marketing

·         Entrepreneurship and Innovation

·         Operations Management

·         Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

·         Public and Voluntary Sector Management

Scholarships will be allocated to students by a panel of senior academics. To be considered for one of the scholarships you must submit a full online application to the Cass Business School PhD Programme by 28 February 2017.

More information

Associate Professor/Professor, University of North Texas

The Department of Economics at the University of North Texas invites applicants for an associate professor/ professor position in Economics beginning in Fall 2017. Desired fields are in applied regional development, regional theory, urban development, transportation, energy economics, spatial modeling or spatial econometrics. Applicants must have a desire for research and a proven funding record. Salary is competitive and commensurate with experience and degree held. Applicants must submit the following documents: cover letter, curriculum vitae, narrative describing scholarly research, and a list of names and contact Information of three (3) references. (Letters of reference may be requested after initial review of candidates.) Applications will be considered until the position is closed. Please direct any questions to the search committee chair, Professor Michael Carroll, Department of Economics, , 940-565-4049. The University of North Texas, located in Denton, Texas (in the Dallas – Fort Worth area) has an enrollment of over 38,000 students.

More information

Adjunct Instructor, University of North Texas

The Department of Economics seeks qualified individuals for its Adjunct Instructor Pool and welcomes applicants at any time. This posting is for the Spring and Summer 2017 semesters. The specific courses involved may vary from semester to semester and openings to teach these courses develop on a periodic basis, depending on department teaching needs.

The anticipated need may include but is not limited to:
ECON 1100 Principles of Micro; ECON 1110 Principles of Macro; ECON 4020 Money and Financial Institutions; ECON4180 Economics of Health Care; other ECON courses as listed in the UNT course catalog.

More information:


Economics of Populism

Social scientists regard globalization and technological progress as major contributors to the ongoing increase in job and income polarization in the United States and Europe. This increased inequality is thought to have reduced standards of living for the median voter in both regions.  Against this backdrop, the 2007-2008 financial crisis seems to have created a political and economic climate of populism on both the right and the left of the political spectrum.  Although populist politicians have emerged in the United States and Europe before, it is in developing countries and especially in Latin America that their influence on politics and economic policy has been the greatest throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.  It may now be that our understanding of the rising populist tide in developed countries can be informed by what we have learned about so-called traditional populism and neopopulism in the developing world.

Traditional populist leaders, whose greatest influence was in Latin America, claimed to hold a political position that supported ordinary citizens and tended to be against the private sector, foreign companies and multilateral international institutions.  They had strong and charismatic personalities and tended to operate outside the realm of traditional political parties and democratic institutions. Perhaps the best known of these was Juan Domingo Perón of Argentina.  Key features of a traditional populist economic program were protectionism and the promotion of economic growth and a reduction in inequality through expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, complemented by market controls and regulations.  Once a program was implemented, even though there was a short period of economic growth, bottlenecks developed causing unsustainable macroeconomic pressures: a rise in prices and a loss of competitiveness leading to balance of payments difficulties.  The typical outcome was a major macroeconomic crisis that hurt the poorer segments of society, which were the very groups that populist politicians had said they wanted to help.

The literature on populism attempts to explain the apparent paradox whereby voters choose a politician whose policies ultimately hurt their economic interests.  One line of research emphasizes the role of natural resources in providing revenues for politicians to buy popular support. In another line of research, signalling plays an important role.  For example, one model shows that a politician has an incentive to signal that he is left wing in spite of his political bliss point being to the right of the median voter’s.  Voters choose him based of his signal but he adopts right wing economic policies after he takes office.  A different model shows that a political candidate selects strategically a narrow set of issues to display to voters during his campaign in order to establish his credibility, e.g. focusing on domestic economic crisis instead of foreign policy.  There is empirical research that supports this last finding and moreover shows that candidates tend to spend more time on divisive issues during campaigning.

Although neopopulists in Latin America hold similar political positions to those of traditional populists (i.e. they tend to be against the private sector, foreign companies and multilateral institutions), the focus of their rhetorical attacks is on globalization.  A key innovation is that neopopulists appear to appreciate the importance of macroeconomic stability.  Instead of fiscal and monetary expansion they adopt targeted interventions aimed directly at redistribution, rather than macroeconomic expansion.  Examples of modern populist policy tools are: price controls on utilities, expropriation of foreign companies, import tariffs, export taxes, and exchange rate manipulation.

There are striking similarities between anti-globalization and nationalistic discourses of neopopulists from developing countries and the populists who are ascending in developed countries.  However, the populists of developed countries go beyond their developing country counterparts with their emphasis on the association between international trade and job losses at home, and on their support of anti-immigration policies.  The current debate is over whether populists in developed countries misrepresent the facts and their corresponding policy proposals in a way that gains political support and, if so, whether or not voters are able to see through this.  A key question is whether this works in the same way as in traditional populism or whether it represents a new approach.



Acemoglu, Daron, Georgy Egorov, Konstantin Sonin (2013) “A Political Theory of Populism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128 (2): 771-805.

Autor, David, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson (2016) “The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade,” Annual Review of Economcs, 8 (1): 205-240. [working paper version]

Ash, Elliott,  Massimo Morelli and Richard Van Weelden (2016) “Elections and Divisiveness: Theory and Evidence,” Working Paper.

Banks, Jeffrey (1990) ‘‘A Model of Electoral Competition with Incomplete Information,’’ Journal of Economic Theory, 50: 309–325.

Dornibusch, Rudiger and Sebastian Edwards (1990) “Macroeconomic Populism,” Journal of Development Economics 32: 247-277.

Edwards, Sebastian (2010) Left Behind: Latin America and the False Promise of Populism, University of Chicago Press.

Egorov, Georgy (2015) “Single-Issue Campaigns and Multidimensional Politics,” Working Paper.

Harrington, Joseph (1993) ‘‘The Impact of Re-election Pressures on the Fulfilment of Campaign Promises,’’ Games and Economic Behavior, 5: 71–97.

Masten, Egil, Gisle Natvik, Ragnar Torvik (2016) “Petro Populism,” Journal of Development Economics, 118: 1-12. [working paper version]

Ottaviano, Gianmarco and Giovanni Peri (2012) “Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 10 (1): 152-197.

Storesletten, Kjetil (2000) “Sustaining Fiscal Policy through Immigration,” Journal of Political Economy, 108 (2): 300-323. [working paper version]