Category: Uncategorized

App Economy Jobs in Europe–Methodology and References

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Methodology

As noted in Part 1, we have developed a new, standardized methodology for estimating App Economy employment. This methodology can be applied to a wide variety of countries, languages, and economic environments. The methodology uses online job postings for workers with app-related skills as a real-time measure of App Economy employment. We benchmark this data against official government statistics in order to eliminate many of the well-known problems connected with using big data to measure economic variables.

Our new globally uniform methodology is built on a strong base of previous research, starting with the widely cited 2012 paper, “Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy” (see full list of previous studies at end of document). For this study, a worker is in the App Economy if he or she is in:

  • An ICT-related job that uses App Economy skills—the ability to develop, maintain, or support mobile applications. We will call this a “core” App Economy job.
  • A non-ICT job (such as human resources, marketing, or management) that supports app developers in the same enterprise. We will call this an “indirect” App Economy job.
  • A job in the local economy that is supported by core or indirect App Economy jobs. We will call this a “spillover” job.

Continue reading “App Economy Jobs in Europe–Methodology and References” →

App Economy Jobs In Europe (Part 1)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Michael Mandel [i]

In this report, we estimate that the European Union, plus Switzerland and Norway, has a surprising 1.64 million App Economy jobs as of January 2016–a sign of a growing and vital tech sector.

This is the second in our series of global App Economy reports. In the first report, released earlier this month, we used the same methodology to estimate that the United States had 1.66 million App Economy jobs, only slightly above Europe.  While Europe still lags by other measures, it’s clear that European companies and workers have been able to take advantage of the global App Economy boom in a very positive way.

Our policy agenda, in doing these reports, is to show how innovation can create jobs globally, a point that is of great interest to both workers and policymakers. Moreover, by developing this data set, we hope to link app-related job growth to government policies in different countries, to understand what can be done to spur innovation-related jobs in the future.

We focus on the App Economy because the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, followed by the opening of the innovative App Store in 2008, created a profound and almost unprecedented economic force.  It was a match made in heaven—handheld powerful computers that were always connected to the Internet, combined with the ability for developers to write and maintain the mobile applications that made smartphones useful.

The App Store was the rare case of an innovation with a clear starting point and immediate global adoption. Moreover,  the innovative design of the App Store lowered the barriers to entry for mobile app developers all around the world.  It created a low-cost mechanism for distributing apps to users that allowed even the smallest of software developers to reap global economies of scale.  In some sense, the App Store was an important step in fostering a global entrepreneurial culture.

At the same time, large companies have realized that mobile apps are the new “front door” to their business, a way of  reaching customers and potential customers. Similarly, we have reached a tipping point where more and more people of all income classes have smartphones,  allowing governments and nonprofits to use mobile apps to deliver social services and as an interface for important citizen interactions. This change, while slow, has reached a tipping point.

Looking forward, the growth of the App Economy is likely to continue, as people increasingly use mobile apps as their interface to their home, cars, schools, and health providers. Indeed, the rise of the Internet of Things will guarantee the need for more and more highly functional and sophisticated apps, serving an essential role in interacting with our environment.

Measuring the App Economy[ii]

 This report on European App Economy employment builds on previous estimates of App Economy jobs around the world,  starting with our February 2012 report “Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy.” Over the past several years, we have documented the enormous number of jobs created by the App Economy in developed countries such as the United States and Australia, and developing countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia (see past work referenced in “App Economy Jobs in Europe–Methodology and References”).  Other researchers have estimated App Economy employment for Europe and elsewhere.

But as the App Economy grows in significance globally, it becomes essential to have a consistent set of App Economy job estimates so that policymakers can compare their country’s performance with that of other countries. For that reason, we have developed a new, standardized methodology for estimating App Economy employment. This methodology can be applied to a wide variety of countries, languages, and economic environments. The methodology uses online job postings for workers with app-related skills as a real-time measure of App Economy employment. We benchmark this data against official government statistics in order to eliminate many of the well-known problems connected with using big data to measure economic variables. [iii]

Our goal is to produce a set of globally-consistent and credible estimates for App Economy employment by individual countries, by broad geographical regions, and by major cities. The ultimate objective is to be able to track the growth of the App Economy globally, and to see which countries are benefitting the most. Ideally we should be able to link App Economy growth to policy measures implemented by governments.

This preliminary report on Europe’s App Economy represents the second in a series applying our new universal methodology to countries and regions.  Our analysis includes the 28 countries in the European Union, plus Norway and Switzerland.  Our methodology is described in detail in the accompanying post. A forthcoming blog post, “App Economy Jobs in Europe–Cities (part 2),” not yet available, will estimate App Economy employment in major European cities.

Results

Our analysis shows that the European App Economy includes 1.64 million jobs as of January 2016. Companies employing workers with App Economy skills include large and small app developers; software and media companies; financial and retail companies; industrial companies; health and education enterprises; leading European and non-European tech companies; nonprofits and government suppliers; and large accounting and consulting firms.

 

 

Table 1:  The European App Economy, January 2016

Millions of jobs
EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland 1.64
EU-28 1.57

Data: Progressive Policy Institute, Indeed, public job postings

For this study, a worker is in the App Economy if he or she is in:

• An information and communications technology (ICT)-related job that uses App Economy skills—the ability to develop, maintain, or support mobile applications. We will call this a “core” App Economy job. Core app economy jobs include app developers; software engineers whose work requires knowledge of mobile applications; security engineers who help keep mobile apps safe from being hacked; and help desk workers who support use of mobile apps.

• A non-ICT job (such as human resources, marketing, or sales) that supports core app economy jobs in the same enterprise. We will call this an “indirect” App Economy job.

• A job in the local economy that is supported by the income flowing to core and indirect app economy workers. These “spillover”  jobs include local retail and restaurant jobs, construction jobs, and all the other necessary services.

To estimate the number of core App Economy jobs, we use a multi-step procedure based on data from the universe of online job postings. Our first observation is that online job postings typically describe the skills and knowledge being sought by the employer. For example, if a job posting requires that the job candidate have experience developing apps for iOS—the iPhone/iPad operating system—then we can reasonably conclude that the posting refers to a core App Economy job.

In practice, we compiled a short list of key words and phrases that would generally be associated with App Economy-related skills. These include iOS, Android, Blackberry, “Windows Phone,” “Windows Mobile,” and app. We applied these search terms to the real-time database of job postings developed by Indeed, which gave us an unadjusted count of job postings for core App Economy jobs.

However, that’s only the start. Job postings for an occupation are only a fraction of the number of people employed in that occupation, since most positions are not empty. We develop an estimate for the ratio between the number of job postings for ICT jobs and overall ICT employment.  This ratio is applied to the number of app economy job postings to generate a provisional estimate of core app economy employment. Crucially, we use a validation procedure to ensure that we are actually counting job postings that correspond to core app economy jobs. We use a conservative estimate of the indirect and spillover effects.[iv]

App Economy Jobs by European Country

As noted above, one of our goals is to develop a measure of App Economy jobs by country, in order to assess the relationship between government policies and innovation-driven job growth.  Table 2 below provides estimates of App Economy employment for the top European economies. The United Kingdom ranks first, followed by Germany and France.

 

Table 2:  App Economy Jobs by Country,  January 2016

 Country App Economy jobs, thousands
United Kingdom 321.2
Germany 267.9
France 228.9
Netherlands 125.2
Italy 97.5
Poland 84.3
Spain 78.2
Sweden 67.1
Finland 47.4
Norway 41.6
Denmark 33.4
Switzerland 28.5
Portugal 27.4
Belgium 23.2
Czech Republic 19.7
Romania 19.3
Hungary 15.3
Ireland 13.2
Austria 11.9
European Union 1572
30-country total 1642

 

Data: Progressive Policy Institute, Indeed, ILO

 

 

Before Apple opened the App Store in July 2008,  there was no such thing as an App Economy job. No employer was posting want ads looking for iOS or Android developers; no one was talking about the shortage of mobile app coders.  This has been an incredibly rapid transformation of the job market, paralleling the astounding growth of smartphone usage.

What’s more, the explosion of App Economy jobs came during the deepest recession in more than 75 years. Indeed, these 30 countries are now just making it back to the level of employment that existed in the middle of 2007.  The demand for App Economy skills drove companies to hire new ICT workers–and retain the ones they already had–even during the depth of the recession and the sluggish recovery that followed.

How important has the App Economy been for the European labor market?  That is a tough question to answer quantitatively. But we do note that  France has 229,000 App Economy jobs, only slightly less than the 289,000 net new jobs generated in the country between 2007 and 2015.

Comparisons

A globally consistent methodology is makes it easier to do comparisons across countries. Let’s start by comparing the United States with the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland. As noted at the beginning of the study, Europe has generated App Economy jobs at roughly the same pace as the United States, 1.64 million vs 1.66 million.

In other ways, however, Europe still lags behind. We define ‘app intensity’ as App Economy jobs as a percentage of all jobs.  The United States has an average app intensity of 1.2%. By comparison, the European app intensity is 0.7% (Table 3)

 

Table 3: App Economy Matchup: Europe vs the US

App Economy Jobs (millions) App Intensity *
Europe** 1.64 0.7%
United States 1.66 1.2%

*App Economy jobs as a share of all jobs.
**EU-28 plus Switzerland and Norway
Data: Progressive Policy Institute, Indeed,  Eurostat

We can do a similar comparison ranking  European countries by app intensity. Table 4 ranks European countries by app intensity. Finland takes top place with a 1.9% app intensity, showing it to be a small country with a big presence in mobile apps, led by world-class companies such as mobile game makers Rovio Entertainment (maker of the mobile game hit Angry Birds) and Supercell. Norway ranks second, followed by the Netherlands. By way of a measuring stick, the top U.S. state by app intensity is California, at 2.4%.

Germany, which ranks highly on total App Economy jobs, is only average when judged by app intensity. Italy, which is fifth in total App Economy jobs, falls to the bottom of the app intensity listings with 0.4%.

 

Table 4: Ranking European Countries By App Intensity

 Country App Intensity*
Finland 1.9%
Norway 1.6%
Netherlands 1.5%
Sweden 1.4%
Denmark 1.2%
United Kingdom 1.0%
France 0.9%
Ireland 0.7%
Germany 0.7%
Luxembourg 0.6%
Switzerland 0.6%
Portugal 0.6%
Poland 0.5%
Belgium 0.5%
Spain 0.5%
Italy 0.4%
Czech Republic 0.4%
Hungary 0.4%
Austria 0.3%
*App Economy jobs as percentage of all jobs

Data: Progressive Policy Institute, Indeed, Eurostat

 

 

Perspective

We estimate that the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland  has 1.64 million App Economy jobs—does this number make sense? This figure corresponds to roughly 547,000 core App Economy jobs. By comparison, we estimate this 30-country area has roughly 5.9 million workers in all ICT occupations.[v] As a result, roughly 9 percent of ICT jobs in Europe are associated with the App Economy.

A similar calculation for the US  shows roughly 11 percent of ICT jobs associated with the App Economy. Based on informal discussions with tech executives, neither of these numbers seem out of line. They suggest that Europe is developing a vibrant App Economy, just at a somewhat slower rate than the United States. Moreover, there is plenty of room for the number of App Economy jobs to continue to rise as apps take a central role in the Internet of Things.

 

Mobile Operating Systems

Many App Economy job postings list a mobile operating system or multiple mobile operating systems that the job candidate is expected to be familiar with. This allows us to assess the distribution of mobile operating systems in the European App Economy.

 

Table 5: European App Economy Jobs by Operating System

App Economy jobs (thousands) share of all App Economy jobs
iOS ecosystem 1227 75%
Android ecosystem 1223 75%
Blackberry ecosystem 105 6%
Windows Phone/Mobile ecosystem 150 9%

Data: Progressive Policy Institute, Indeed

 

Here’s how the App Economy job numbers in EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland break down by operating systems.  As of January 2016, we estimate that 75% of App Economy workers in Europe (1.2 million jobs) belong to the iOS ecosystem. This includes iOS specific jobs as well as jobs supporting a combination of iOS and other platforms. The Android ecosystem also accounts for 75% of App Economy workers in Europe (also 1.2 million after rounding).  The Blackberry ecosystem accounts for 6%, while the Windows Phone or Windows Mobile ecosystem accounts for 9%.

The numbers sum to more than 100% because some jobs specify more than one operating system—say, both iOS and/or Android skills. From a policy perspective, the iOS ecosystem is likely to have a larger impact on entrepreneurship and the economy in Europe. That’s because iPhone owners in Europe typically have higher incomes, and iOS apps tend to generate higher revenues for developers.

We can also estimate the number of jobs associated with major mobile operating systems across different countries in Europe. Table 6 is in alphabetical order.

 

 

 Table 6: App Economy Jobs by Country and Major Operating System

Total App Economy jobs (thousands) Jobs belonging to iOS ecosystem (thousands) Jobs belonging to Android ecosystem (thousands)
Austria 12 9 10
Belgium 23 18 16
Czech Republic 20 12 15
Denmark 33 24 26
Finland 47 36 41
France 229 163 172
Germany 268 209 201
Hungary 15 12 11
Ireland 13 11 9
Italy 97 75 79
Netherlands 125 96 99
Norway 42 32 33
Poland 84 49 60
Portugal 27 22 22
Romania 19 12 14
Spain 78 61 66
Sweden 67 54 52
Switzerland 29 23 23
United Kingdom 321 242 206

Data: Progressive Policy Institute, Indeed

 

 

Conclusion

Our analysis shows Europe’s companies and workers have been able to take advantage of the App Economy boom.  Using our new globally-consistent methodology, we estimate that the 28 countries of the European Union plus Switzerland and Norway have been able to generate nearly as many App Economy jobs as the United States since 2008, when the App Store was introduced.  This suggests a positive role for innovation in producing new jobs and new opportunities around the world.

 

 

Notes

[i] With research assistance from Michelle Di Ionno. Indeed bears no responsibility for the analysis in this report.

[ii] For the sake of clarity, this section repeats much of the material in the post “App Economy Jobs in the United States”

[iii] Steve Lohr, “Google Flu Trends: The Limits of Big Data,” New York Times (March 28, 2014).

[iv] We assume that each core app economy job is associated with two additional jobs (combined indirect and spillover). This assumption is low compared to the typical job multiplier found in the literature, which can go as high as 5 or even higher. See, for example, “Job Multipliers: Silicon Valley vs. The Motor City,“ https://www.economicmodeling.com/2012/08/31/job-multipliers-silicon-valley-vs-the-motor-city/

[v] This figure includes ICT managers, ICT professionals and ICT technicians. We derive it from  Figure 2.8 in OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015.

 

U.S. News: The Schools of the Future

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The first time I visited a Summit Public School, in February 2014, I pulled up in front of a one-story building in an office park. I was sure I had the wrong address – but no, there was a sign. This was Summit Denali, in Sunnyvale, California.

Inside, my surprise deepened. All the students, then sixth graders, were in one big, open area. Most were working on their own, at laptops. A few were working with another student, or in hushed conversations with teachers. All their chairs, desks, tables and whiteboards were on wheels, so the space could be instantly reconfigured.

Diane Tavenner, Summit’s co-founder and CEO, explained that she and her colleagues had spent two years piloting profound changes in their education process, and this year they had rolled out the new, personalized model in all seven of their Bay Area charter schools. “The industrial model is really driven by adults,” she says. “Kids come in, they’re told where to go, where to sit, what they’re going to learn, when they’re going to learn it. You’re on the assembly line. We believe the next generation models are about the students being empowered to drive their own learning.”

Continue reading at U.S. News & World Report.

Miami Herald: Florida’s innovation engine sputtering, recent analyses show

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Reporting on the state of Florida’s app economy, Miami Herald‘s Nancy Dahlberg uses data collected by Dr. Michael Mandel

The Progressive Policy Institute’s Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel recently released a list of the top 25 App Economy states that ranked Florida sixth in the nation for the number of jobs, with more than 59,000 “app economy jobs” in December 2015, up from 15,000 in April 2012.

However, when the institute measured the number of app economy jobs against all the other jobs in the state and ranked the share of app economy jobs in the workforce — what it calls its “app intensity” ranking — Florida fell to 28th, a spokesman said.

Read the article in its entirety at the Miami Herald.

Dallas Business Journal: Texas finds roughly half of its mobile application-related jobs in DFW

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Dallas Business Journal cites data collected by PPI’s chief economic strategist Michael Mandel on the growth of App Economy jobs in Dallas, Texas:

The Progressive Policy Institute based in Washington, D.C., reported that the DFW region comprised 44 percent of the states workforce within the space in the month of December. The data includes development jobs as well as jobs that are indirectly related to the mobile app economy.

‘It was kind of a surprise,’ said Michael Mandel, PPI chief economic strategist, adding that the area is not the first region typically expected to have a high percentage of this specific workforce. ‘We saw a lot of growth in places like Chicago, Dallas and New York – outside the traditional tech areas.’

Read the article in its entirety at Dallas Business Journal.

The Hill: In TPP review, focus on small business and digital trade

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the release of the full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement last November, the American people and their representatives now have an extensive opportunity to analyze the specific provisions of the proposed deal. In addition, as required by recent trade legislation, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is conducting a detailed, independent review of the likely economic impact of the TPP on specific industry sectors and the overall U.S. economy.

In recent comments filed in the USITC investigation, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) urged the Commission to pay particular attention to the beneficial economic effects of the TPP’s groundbreaking provisions on small business trade, international e-commerce, and the digital economy.

PPI has highlighted in recent reports the transformative role that digital tools—including Internet platforms like eBay—are playing in “democratizing” trade. Increasingly, smaller, digitally enabled American exporters can often sell products and services to customers around the world as easily as their large, established competitors.

But, for the digital economy to continue to transform trade, countries must resist a growing trend toward “digital protectionism.” As PPI’s submission explains, the TPP would support the continued growth of digital trade through groundbreaking rules that would require countries to allow commercial data flows; restrict “data localization” requirements that mandate where data or facilities must be located; and require privacy, consumer protection, and other rules to promote more secure and robust international e-commerce.

PPI’s comments also underscore the importance of the TPP’s many pioneering provisions to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to export. These include the creation of a special committee to assure that the agreement works for SME traders; a requirement that countries create user-friendly digital information portals to assist SME traders; and eliminating or significantly reducing high duties, regulatory barriers, and customs delays that the studies by the Commission and others show can place disproportionate burdens on smaller traders.

PPI’s submission emphasizes that these and other TPP provisions have significant potential to support substantial expansion of American SME exports and economic growth that is shared more widely by more Americans. Studies by the Commission and others have found that smaller firms that export are more productive, hire more employees, and pay higher wages than non-exporting SMEs. And PPI’s own analysis shows that woman- and minority-owned firms that export employ three to five times more workers—and pay salaries some 60 percent higher—than their non-exporting counterparts.

In short, TPP points toward the next frontier in international trade—new opportunities to promote digital trade and engage more small firms and entrepreneurs in global commerce. The International Trade Commission should assess the potential of such new forms of trade to reinvigorate U.S. economic growth and competitiveness.

This is cross-posted from The Hill‘s Congress Blog.

Why Telecom Rate Regulation is a Bad Idea

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In 2000, Americans devoted 2.7% of total personal consumption expenditures to telephone, internet, and cable service. Back then, no one had a smartphone, and almost everyone used dial-up to access the Internet.

Today, after 15 years of the greatest communications revolution in history and more than $1 trillion in investment by the telecom and broadcasting industry, many Americans practically live on their devices. And do you know how much we are spending on telephone, internet, and cable service?  A stunning (sarcastic!) 2.9% of consumer spending.

Against this backdrop, the House Subcommittee On Communications and Technology held a hearing on H.R. 2666, the “No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act.”  The bill would bar the FCC from imposing rate regulation on the broadband industry. Without taking a position on the legislation itself, we note two points. First, there is literally no evidence that rate regulation is needed. Americans are getting far more telecom services than 15 years ago, while laying out roughly the same share of consumer spending. Second, in the rapidly-changing world of the tech-telecom-content sector, rate regulation is like putting a ball and chain on an Olympic runner.  Economic growth depends on the creation of new markets, products, and services. The need to get rate approval will slow some innovations, and deter others.

In the end, rate regulation is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, while creating new ones.

 

 

 

 

The Wall Street Journal: Marshall on Anger with Wall Street

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In his analysis of how the two parties still do not agree what caused the 2008 financial crisis, Nick Timiraos of The Wall Street Journal quotes PPI president Will Marshall:

Anger at Wall Street among primary voters in both parties illustrates how “extreme antibusiness populism on the left is intersecting with extreme antigovernment populism on the right,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank.

Read the article in its entirety at The Wall Street Journal.

Schools of the Future: California’s Summit Public Schools

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The first time I visited a Summit Public School, in February 2014, I pulled up in front of a long, low, one-story building in an office park setting. I was sure I had the wrong address—but no, there was a sign. This was Summit Denali, in Sunnyvale, California.

Inside, my surprise deepened. All the students, then sixth graders, were in one big, open area. Most were working on their own, at laptops. A few were working with another student, or in hushed conversations with teachers. One was on a sofa, reading. All their chairs, desks, tables, and whiteboards were on wheels, so the space could be instantly reconfigured.

Diane Tavenner, Summit’s co-founder and CEO, explained that she and her colleagues had spent the last two years piloting profound changes in their education process, and this year they had rolled out the new, personalized model in all seven of their Bay Area charter schools. “The industrial model is really driven by adults,” she said. “Kids come in, they’re told where to go, where to sit, what they’re going to learn, when they’re going to learn it. You’re on the assembly line. We believe the next generation models are about the students being empowered to drive their own learning.”

Download “2016.01-Osborne_Schools-of-the-Future_Californias-Summit-Public-Schools”

Student Rights, Judicial Precedent and Why 2016 Could See a Profound Shift in Education Law

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A feature for the Center for Civil Justice.

Can America’s courts deliver better schools for disadvantaged students?

Some students and teachers seem to think so. In Massachusetts, five student plaintiffs who were unable to secure seats in charter school lotteries intend to file a lawsuit challenging the state’s cap on charter schools. In California, veteran teacher Rebecca Friedrichs objected to her annual union dues being used to protect ineffective colleagues; the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Ms. Friedrichs’ case this week. If Ms. Friedrichs prevails, teachers’ unions will be compelled to better represent the many teachers who want significant changes to the profession.

Do these disparate cases amount to a trend? Some judicial scholars scoff at the idea. After all, judges preserve their authority by deferring to precedent, not by transforming bureaucracies. Education decisions tend to side with school systems, not individual students or teachers. Bureaucratic lawsuits against reform continue to be filed in numerous states.

The optimists, however, may finally be right that the judicial tide is turning. Judges have dealt setbacks to union-backed lawsuits against school reform in Florida, Louisiana, and New York City. Pro-student lawsuits have won surprising victories; for example, nine California students recently won a trial court ruling that public schools unconstitutionally denied them a decent education by assigning them ineffective teachers. After nearly 150 years of anti-student rulings, students have a real shot at legal relief that will not merely defend a few individuals, but improve equity, access and choice to the entire public education system.
Continue reading “Student Rights, Judicial Precedent and Why 2016 Could See a Profound Shift in Education Law” →

App Economy–methodology and references (Part 3)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Part 3: App Economy methodology and references: As noted in Part 1, we have developed a new, standardized methodology for estimating App Economy employment. This methodology can be applied to a wide variety of countries, languages, and economic environments. The methodology uses online job postings for workers with app-related skills as a real-time measure of App Economy employment. We benchmark this data against official government statistics in order to eliminate many of the well-known problems connected with using big data to measure economic variables.

Our new globally uniform methodology is built on a strong base of previous research, starting with the widely cited 2012 paper, “Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy” (see full list at end of document). For this study, a worker is in the App Economy if he or she is in:

  • An IT-related job that uses App Economy skills—the ability to develop, maintain, or support mobile applications. We will call this a “core” app economy job.
  • A non-IT job (such as human resources, marketing, or management) that supports app developers in the same enterprise. We will call this an “indirect” app economy job.
  • A job in the local economy that is supported by core or indirect app economy jobs. We will call this a “spillover” job.

Continue reading “App Economy–methodology and references (Part 3)” →

Wall Street Journal: The App Economy and Apple

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Daisuke Wakabayashi of The Wall Street Journal mentions data collected by PPI’s Michael Mandel, that analyzes America’s app economy, in his analysis of Apple:

Apple said the business of creating apps for its products has created and supported—directly and indirectly—1.9 million jobs in the U.S., nearly three-quarters of them for app creators, software engineers and entrepreneurs. Those estimates are based on research, partly sponsored by Apple, by the Progressive Policy Institute.

Read the article in its entirety at the Wall Street Journal.

 

PPI to Congress: Scrub the SCRUB Act

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

House Republicans this week are expected to take up the ponderously titled Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) of 2015 (H.R. 1155). The Progressive Policy Institute, a strong advocate for regulatory improvement, urges progressives to oppose this highly partisan bill.

Over the last three years, PPI has worked with reform-minded Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as Independent Senator Angus King, to develop a more effective way of dealing with the problem of “regulatory accumulation,” the relentless buildup of rules over time. Sadly, House Republicans have chosen to ignore a bipartisan bill—the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (H.R. 1407)—in favor of the SCRUB Act, a conservative favorite that stands little chance of winning Democratic support.

Both bills have in common the creation of an independent commission charged with winnowing outdated, duplicative or overly burdensome federal regulations. There, the similarities mostly end. And while the House’s latest version of the SCRUB Act clearly has been tweaked in response to criticism from regulatory experts, it still fails on three grounds:

First, the bill caters to conservative demands to roll back existing regulations and make it harder to issue new ones. Rather than mandate careful consideration of rules widely thought to be in need of elimination or improvement, it requires the commission to cut regulatory costs by 15 percent—an arbitrary goal with no clear policy rationale. And while SCRUB’s vague, nonbinding language gives priority to examining “older major rules,” it could open the door to fresh assaults on favorite conservative targets: rules implementing Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. The Regulatory Improvement Act, on the other hand, explicitly prohibits consideration of rules less than ten years old by its commission.

Second, the SCRUB Act enshrines a foolishly impractical “Regulatory Cut-Go” mandate. Under this procedure, no federal agency could issue a new rule unless it cut old ones that impose equal “costs” on the economy. The idea is to offset the cost of new regulations by killing old ones. This attempt to make regulation a zero-sum game would create pressures to target cost-effective rules for elimination based on highly imprecise estimates of what a new rule might cost—and with no consideration of the many public benefits of regulation.

Third, the SCRUB Act has zero support among House and Senate Democratic leaders or within the Obama administration. As a conservative “message” vehicle, rather than a serious legislative proposal, the bill will likely die in the Senate before it can be vetoed. In contrast, the House version of the Regulatory Improvement Act introduced by Congressmen Patrick Murphy (D-FL) and Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), has an equal number of Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Defying the logic of polarization, it builds political support for smarter regulation from the center out.

At the core of this legislation is the Regulatory Improvement Commission—an independent, bipartisan commission under Congressional authority ensuring there is no hidden regulatory agenda. Consisting of nine members appointed by the president and Congress, the commission, after a formal regulatory review, would submit a list of regulatory changes to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendment. This approach would build political trust and lay the groundwork for further rounds of regulatory review and revision.

Most important of all, the Regulatory Improvement Commission would lift the burden of regulation accumulation from the backs of U.S. workers, businesses, and taxpayers. It would reduce compliance costs and—most crucially—the opportunity costs that accrue when entrepreneurs and business managers spend their energies on complying with unnecessary rules rather than creating value.

PPI urges progressives to support a more politically viable mechanism for improving the regulatory environment for economic innovation and growth—the Regulatory Improvement Act.

The Hill: Gerwin On the TPP and Small-Business

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity Ed Gerwin was quoted by The Hill‘s Vicki Needham commenting on the positive effect Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership would have on American small-businesses:

“Ed Gerwin, a senior fellow for trade and global opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), said that the business groups must help to convince lawmakers that the deal will benefit their home states and districts.

Gerwin, who argues that small business will gain a significant benefit from the TPP, said that ‘this trade agreement is really more about what’s going to happen in Washington state than what’s going to happen in Washington, D.C.'”

Read the article in its entirety at The Hill.

Forbes: U.S. Energy Policy Now Reflects Our Energy Reality

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Discussing U.S. energy policy, Forbes contributor Bringham A. McCown utilized a recent report by PPI’s Dr. Michael Mandel:

In fact, the energy industry is generating more revenue for this country than ever before. A recent report released by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) showed six out of the top 25 companies that invested in the U.S. are energy companies. In all, those six companies, ‘had a total domestic capital expenditure of $43.6 billion, which is an increase of nine percent from last year.’ While the U.S. economy most greatly benefits from the direct financial investments that the energy industry has produced to date, removing the final prohibition to trading oil on the global markets will produce positive externalities. These benefits will manifest as innovative enhancements to safety and security for domestic infrastructure, which will ultimately increase efficiency and generate energy savings.

Read the article in its entirety at Forbes.

PPI Urges Congress to Support Internet Tax Freedom Act

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON—The Progressive Policy Institute today released the following statement urging Congress to pass the Internet Tax Freedom Act:

“The development of the Internet has been the single biggest driver of growth in the United States over the last two decades, disrupting and transforming industries in every corner of our economy. Not only has it been the most valuable resource for America’s entrepreneurs and innovators, but along with its advancement has come innumerable positive externalities that have spread broadly across the rest of the economy benefitting us all. That’s why, for nearly twenty years, PPI has opposed the taxation on Internet access by states and localities that threatens to stunt the future growth and dynamism of the Internet ecosystem.

“PPI is pleased to see the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which would permanently block these taxes on access, included in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act currently being considered in Congress, and we urge pro-growth Democrats to support its passage. We would also like to thank Senator Ron Wyden for championing this issue since he first introduced the original ITFA in 1998 on behalf of millions of Americans whose livelihoods rely on a healthy, open and viable Internet.”

###