Italy Travel

Delicious Italy - travel questions and indpendent visitor advice for holiday planning Find your Italian region ....................................... Abruzzo & Pescara Basilicata Calabria Campania & Naples Friuli Venezia Giulia Emilia Romagna & Bologna Lazio & Rome Liguria & Cinque Terre Lombardia & Milan Marche & Ancona Molise Puglia Piemonte & Turin Sicily Sardinia Tuscany Trentino Alto Adige Umbria Valle d'Aosta Veneto & Venice Search Delicious Italy ® Entire Site Products Services News & Events About us Search where? 10 25 50 100 Number of results per page ------------ Ranking Result Size Last Date updated Arrange in order ------------ Delicious Italy ® is compiled for anyone who enjoys eating and traveling well. Sample the latest food and tourism initiatives as well as our first hand suggestions for local restaurants, itineraries, tours, traditional events, authentic regional recipes and artisan products. info@deliciousitaly.com INDEPENDENT TRAVEL GUIDES Independent travel advice Whether you are planning a visit to Italy or are simply curious to ask a question about Italian food, regional culture and lifestyle, then we can point you in the right direction from our Rome base. Please read our disclaimer We want to keep this feedback service free and ask all readers to complete the form below. We can also only guarantee a reply if you join our mailing list . Please note that our feedback is designed to support your own research and we cannot forward telephone numbers, business addresses, specific timetables or travel brochures. All email addresses are treated with respect for the rules of privacy according to Legge 675/96. No personal information will be passed on to third parties without the written consent of the individual concerned. Business, press and media may also use the email on this page but do provide us with your name, organisation, location and contact number. Enter your travel question below Full name (*) Location (*) E-mail (*) I wish to join the mailing list Organisation Type Private Tour operator / Agency Press Request (*) (*) Compulsory © Delicious Italy s.r.l. All rights reserved. Hosted by Mondoweb s.r.l.

travel insurance quotes -

Travel Insurance - compare cheap travel insurance quotes - MoneySupermarket UK Travel Insurance - compare cheap travel insurance quotes - MoneySupermarket UK moneysupermarket.com HOME MONEY loans cards mortgages current accounts savings refused finance business finance shares INSURANCE car home travel life critical breakdown pet mortgage income bike dental medical van TRAVEL flights hotels car hire travel insurance top destinations MOTORING new cars car insurance loans car breakdown motorbike insurance car hire van insurance car leasing GAS & ELECTRICITY dual fuel gas electricity Travel Insurance Compare Over 450 Travel Insurance Policies Use our Travel Insurance tool to compare insurance policies and buy the cheapest, best buy policy for your needs online. Do you require cover for: Annual multi trip Single trip Add Winter Sports cover? Select your destination AbuDhabi Afghanistan Alaska Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antartic Antigua Argentina Armenia Aruba Ascension Islands Australia Austria Azerbaijan Azores Bahamas Bahrain Balearics Bali Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire(Antilles) Bosnia-Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British Dependent Ter British Virgin Isles Brunei Daussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Canary Islands Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Rep Chad Chile China Colombia Comoro Islands Congo Cook Islands Corfu Corsica Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire Crete Croatia Cuba Curacao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Eire El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia Gabon Galapagos Islands Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Hawaii Holland Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Ibiza Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Kos (Greek Island) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lanzarote Laos Latvia Lebanon Leeward Islands Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Madeira Majorca Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Midway Island Minorca Moldavia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Monserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles Nevis Island New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Ireland Northern Marianas Norway Oman Pakistan Palua Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Phillippines Pitcain Islands Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Rhodes Rodriguez Island Romania Russia Rwanda Saipan Samoa (Western) San Marino Sao Tone & Principle Sarawak Sardinia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somali Republic South Africa Spain Sri Lanka St Helena St Kitts & Nevis St Lucia St Martin St Pierre & Miquelon St Vincent and The Grenadines Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Tenerife Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad & Tobago Tristan Da Cunha Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks & Caicos Isles Tuvalu UAE Uganda Ukraine United Kingdom Uruguay USA Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Isles (UK) Virgin Isles (US) Wake Island Wallis & Futuna Yemen Yugoslavia (Former) Zaire Zambia Zanzibar Zimbabwe Select your destination Europe inc UK Worldwide Please confirm start date / / Please confirm end date / / IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Insurers may not provide insurance if you are travelling to a country where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have advised against travel. For advice on countries not to travel to and for global information prior to travel visit www.fco.gov.uk/travel . Travel Insurance Guide Travel insurance policies provide a comprehensive list of risks covered, however as with other insurances, they do have exclusions and it is important to ensure that the policy provides you with sufficient cover. Read our travel insurance guide to ensure that your policy, be it cheap holiday insurance, annual travel insurance or backpacker travel insurance adequately covers your trip. Frequently Asked Questions Use this section to answer questions you may have about buying a travel insurance policy and to compare travel insurance issues. European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) Important information for people using E111 forms On 31 December 2005, your E111 will cease to be valid. From 1 January 2006, you will need a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) to receive healthcare that becomes necessary during your visit to an EEA country or Switzerland. To apply for your new EHIC please visit www.dh.gov.uk/travellers or calling 0845 606 2030. For General EHIC enquiries please call 020 7210 4850. Rate Alert Register now for up to date news on the cheapest financial deals. Overhauling your finances is thirsty work, so moneysupermarket.com has teamed up with Virgin Wines to offer all users registering for RATE Alert the opportunity to get 20 off a case of wine. Moneysupermarket.com Limited is an appointed representative of Moneysupermarket.com Financial Group Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA FRN 303190). Moneysupermarket.com Financial Group Limited, registered in England No. 3157344. Registered Office: Moneysupermarket House, St. Davids Park, Ewloe, CH5 3UZ. Telephone 01244 665700. Contact Us - About Us - Awards - Add to Favourites - Careers - Press - Terms & Conditions - Security © Moneysupermarket Financial Group 2005

Golf Vacation Resorts to

Golf Vacation Resorts to Love  You are here: About > Travel > Honeymoons / Romantic Getaways > Romantic Places > Vacations with a Difference > Golf Vacation Resorts to Love Travel Honeymoons Essentials 10 Ideas for a Great Romantic Getaway All-Inclusive Resorts Best Months to Go Nude Beach Guide Photo Galleries Articles & Resources Valentines Day Adults-Only Travel Honeymoon 101 Romantic Places Best of the USA Honeymoon in Hawaii Las Vegas Caribbean & Mexico Love Boats: Cruises for Two Destination Weddings Love & Romance Inexpensive Trips Honeymoon Buzz Weekend Getaways A - Z Romance Index Buyer's Guide Anniversary Gifts Cheap Champagne Find a Gift by Price Gown & Garment Bags Travelers' Gifts Forums Help FREE Newsletter Sign Up Now for the Honeymoons / Romantic Getaways newsletter! See Online Courses   Search Honeymoons / Romantic Getaways Stay up to date! The American Club, Wisconsin Email to a friend Print this page Suggested Reading Activities and Sports Vacations Top-Ranked Hotels, Resorts, and Destinations Find a Golf Instructor or School Related Guide Picks Top 5 Ski Resorts for Couples in the USA and Canada Most Popular Best New Romantic Hotels 2006 Romantic Getaway Ideas Love Quotes Anniversary Gift Last Minute Travel What's Hot Royal Caribbean Honeymoons New Year's Resolutions Beverly Hills Hotels Palmilla Resort in Mexico Travel Contests Related Topics Caribbean for Visitors Adventure Travel Canada for Visitors Hawaii / South Pacific for Visitors Marriage Top 10 Golf Vacation Resorts to Love Guide Picks From Susan Breslow Sardone , Your Guide to Honeymoons / Romantic Getaways . FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! If one or both of you golf, you probably want to take your next vacation -- even if it's your honeymoon -- at a resort with a superior golf course and golf facilities plus other amenities. At the following golf resorts both players and non-players can expect to have an exceptional vacation. The majority offer golf vacation packages, and some also feature romance packages. So if you one of you wants tee times and the other loves dinner by candlelight, you can choose a place that offers both. 1) The American Club, Wisconsin The Midwest's only AAA Five-Diamond resort hotel, the American Club is located in Kohler, named the top golf resort destination in the United States by readers of Golf Magazine. Golf course designer Pete Dye created two championship courses at both Blackwolf Run and Whistling Straits. For non-golfers, a vacation at the American Club can include shopping for antiques, visiting the innovative Kohler Design Center, spa treatments, hiking, and canoeing. The resort also hosts weddings. Buy Direct 2) Hyatt Dorado Beach Resort & Country Club, Puerto Rico Sunny days, warm breezes, and the sparkling Caribbean wrap the Hyatt Dorado Beach Resort & Country Club's four 18-hole golf courses, all designed by Robert Trent Jones Sr., in tropical splendor. The 4th hole on the East Course (6,665 yards) is ranked by Jack Nicklaus as one of the top 10 holes in the world. Both East and West (6,431 yards) seaside courses wind through tropical forests and citrus groves, along the Atlantic Ocean, past a chain of lakes, and a man-made lagoon. Read Review Buy Direct 3) Williamsburg Inn, Virginia Golf course designer Robert Trent Jones Sr. called the Golden Horseshoe's Gold Course his finest design, and many leading golf publications concur. Yet there's so much to do and see on a Williamsburg vacation that the allure of the links may fade. Travel back in history as you walk the streets, attend a town hall meeting at the brink of the American Revolution, stroll among the gardens, and dine on authentic 17th-century cuisine in the historic center or sophisticated fare at the elegant Inn. Read Review Buy Direct 4) Sea Pines Resort, South Carolina Twelve-mile-long Hilton Head Island holds an astonishing 22 golf courses, including three at 5,200-acre Sea Pines Resort. When you're not playing golf, there's boating, biking, fishing, horseback riding, kayaking, birdwatching, parasailing, and swimming to keep you active on your vacation. Read Review Vendor's Site 5) The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, Florida Ritz-Carlton boasts two award-winning hotels in Naples. This one, where golf is the focus, was named no. 1 hotel in Florida on Condé Nast Traveler's Gold List. It contains the Tiburon Golf Club with two 18-hole courses designed by Greg Norman and the Rick Smith Golf Academy. Guests have access to The Ritz-Carlton, Naples, also a Mobil Five-Star property, located just three miles away on the Gulf of Mexico. Non-golfers can use the pristine beach, fitness, and spa facilities. Read Review Vendor's Site 6) Mauna Lani Resort, Hawaii Rated the no. 1 golf resort on the Big Island by Condé Nast Traveler, Mauna Lani has two extraordinary golf courses carved out ot black lava fields that overlook the sparkling Pacific. At this ultra-luxury resort, you can unwind in a canopied chaise for two on the immaculate beach, experience an open-air sauna as part of the extensive spa, and dine at Canoe House, named the best restaurant on the island. While on the island, don't miss touring still-simmering Volcanoes National Park. Read Review Vendor's Site 7) Greenbrier Resort, West Virginia Three 18-hole championship courses and the Golf Digest Academy, which offers advanced instruction, attract golf aficionados to White Sulphur Springs. Non-golfers can swim in indoor and outdoor pools, depending on the weather, use the fitness center, and play tennis. They can also tour the bunker, secretly designed to harbor members of Congress during the Cold War. Additional recreation choices include whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and romantic carriage and balloon rides. Read Review Vendor's Site 8) Alisal Guest Ranch & Resort, California Northwest of Santa Barbara, the Alisal has been welcoming guests since 1946. Two 18-hole championship courses satisfy those who come to golf on either the private and secluded Ranch Course or the scenic and popular River Course. Set on a 10,000-acre working cattle ranch, the Alisal is also favored by horseback riders, who can choose from 100 steeds. If you like, the management will give you directions to a private spot overlooking the lake and a gourmet picnic basket to fortify you. Read Review Vendor's Site 9) Turning Stone Casino Resort In the midst of central New York's rolling farmland lies Turning Stone Casino Resort, an ever-expanding complex that features five golf courses. Among the designers: Tom Fazio, Rick Smith, and Robert Trent Jones, Jr. Non-golfing partners can gamble, swim, use the spa, or visit local attractions (including a huge mall). Read Review Publisher's Site 10) Four Seasons Resort Scottsdale at Troon North, Arizona No mention of great American golf resorts is complete without acknowledging the world-class resort golf courses of Arizona. From the Phoenician Hotel to the Boulders Resort to the Four Seasons, it just doesn't get much better. So take your pick, and rest assured that the non-golfer in your relationship with find that the spas, shops, swimming, tennis, restaurants, and weather on your golf vacation fit him or her to a tee. Read Review Vendor's Site Important product disclaimer information about this About site.        Topic Index | Email to a Friend Our Story | Be a Guide | Advertising Info | Work at About | Site Map | Icons | Help User Agreement | Ethics Policy | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy ©2005 About, Inc., A part of the New York Times Company . All rights reserved. Around About New Video iPod - Review POLL: Must-Have Gadgets VIDEO: Portable Gaming VIDEO: Choosing a TV Hugh Hefner's Life What's Hot Royal Caribbean Honeymoons New Year's Resolutions Beverly Hills Hotels Palmilla Resort in Mexico Travel Contests

Russia travel Discount airfare

Russian visa service at Russia-visa.com Visa services | Fee schedule | Why us | Russia travel | Customer care | Partnership Russian visa to Russia Russia-visa .com is exclusive choice of Russian visa service for American - Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry | arcci.org Russian visa works At first, your Russian visa instructions seemed too good to be true, but now when I got my passport with visa to Russia delivered exactly as advertised, I know for a fact your service is truly good! more testimonials Live help Russian visa requirements have never been easier Russia-visa.com is the leading online source for all Russian visa needs. Located on the Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. we closely work with the Russian Embassy, however we operate nationwide throughout the United States for all types of visa services and worldwide for Russian visa support only. If you have already experienced "do-it-yourself" hassles with obtaining visa to Russia, proceed with online application without further adieu. If you are still considering a third party to process your Russian visa, please take a moment to read through our "Why Us" reasons , explaining our belief that you have come to the right place. To quantify our belief we offer 110% low price guarantee securing you with the best value for your money. Apply for Russian visa online Apply now This page will take through the most straight forward process in applying for a visa to Russia. The only thing, which stops us from labeling these Russian visa instructions as a "Dummies Series," is a great respect for our clients. We truly think that getting visa to Russia with our company is a smart choice. In this case, simplicity is the product of our experience and efforts to save you time. Reasons to secure Russian visa with us Why us Here you will find five bullet points reflecting our competitive advantage and commitment to business. We believe that sincere relations with our clients are the foundation for trust. This is a first step to build the trust with those who visit Russia-visa.com for the first time. There is no way to value trust in dollars or other currency, and here is our proof. Russia-visa.com customer care Customer care Whether you still have question on Russian visas or want to comment, feel free to contact us by all means possible. Give us a call, send a fax or drop a line - we are always happy to hear from our clients. Please, make sure to check our Web site first for any kind of questions you might be looking for. We take into account all prior requests and constantly update Russia-visa.com pages. Visa service Apply for visa | Testimonials | Low price guarantee | Affiliates | Visa in UK Customer care Visa status | Returning clients | Contact us | Russian visa information Russia travel Discount airfare | Russian Embassy | Miscellaneous | US Passport services e-Related Ukraine visa | Moldova visa | China visa | Travel visa | Brazil visa Toll-free: 1-800-567-4175 © 2005 VisaHQ™, Embassy Row, 2005 Massachusetts Ave. Washington DC 20036 | Russia visa .com

European Vacation There's a

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis - The Region - European Vacation (December 2003) I'm at: Home > Publications > The Region > December 2003 > Article Publications Expand All Collapse All The Region Index by Issue Interviews President's Columns fedgazette Index by Issue Topics Index Annual Report Quarterly Review Community Dividend Banking and Policy Studies Articles Toolbox ( advanced search ) December 2003 European Vacation There's a simple reason Americans work longer hours than Europeans, says economist Ed Prescott. And it isn't what you think Douglas Clement Editor It's no secret that Europeans work less than Americans do. Every Labor Day the media tell us that Europeans have just enjoyed weeks of summer vacation while Americans have been toiling away. These stories often depict Americans as hard-working drones who revere material possessions above all else. Europeans meanwhile bask in the good life of long lunches and months at the beach. There is some truth to the portrayal, at least in terms of hours worked. The International Labor Organization reports that the average American worked 1,815 hours in 2002, well above the comparable figures for France (1,545) and Germany (1,444), for example. (The average South Korean, on the other hand, worked over 2,400 hours.) But if it's widely acknowledged that Americans work more hours than Europeans, it remains a puzzle quite why there's such a large difference. With similar economies and social structures—at least relative to the rest of the world—it would seem that labor patterns should also be alike. Social scientists have been hard-pressed to explain the disparity. Most accounts focus on cultural explanations. The most popular is the notion that Europeans have a fuller appreciation of la dolce vita —the sweet life—the Italian version of the idea that life is to be enjoyed, not endured. Work is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The idea of cultural and religious influences on economic activity isn't new. German sociologist Max Weber wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism nearly a century ago, attributing the rise of capitalist economies to the “Protestant work ethic.” It was an immensely persuasive theory in its time, and derivative explanations have held great sway ever since. “Why do Europeans and Americans differ so much in their attitude toward work and leisure? I can think of two reasons,” opines a recent Time magazine essay. “Broadly speaking, Americans value stuff—SUVs, 7,000-sq.-ft. houses—more than they value time, while for Europeans it's the opposite. Second, ... in the puritanical version of Christianity that has always appealed to Americans, religion comes packaged with the stern message that hard work is good for the soul. Modern Europe has avoided so melancholy a lesson.” “It all comes down to what people feel is important and how they feel about their lives,” argues a September 2003 U.S. News & World Report editorial. “We value more money and more stuff; they value more leisure time. ... We are proud of being busy—it is a virtue; being idle is perceived as a vice.” Economic explanations Economists have always been suspect of such cultural explanations. Standard economic theory assumes that people's preferences are, on average, homogeneous, and that choices depend largely on economic factors. Still, while economists agree that dollars and cents lie behind the work pattern differential, there is little harmony among them as to the right economic explanation. Some economists say work regulations keep Europeans from working longer hours and point favorably to recent European reforms on vacation time. Others argue that greater inequality in the United States motivates workers to try harder to get ahead. Most of these explanations come from the perspective of labor economics and its core belief that social structures and institutions such as unions are the major determinants of labor patterns. But in a recent series of papers and lectures, Edward C. Prescott, senior monetary adviser to the Minneapolis Fed and economist at Arizona State University, looks at the labor supply question through the prism of the growth model—a different perspective altogether—and provides a convincing and remarkably straightforward explanation for the dramatic differences in hours worked. It is an explanation that has far-reaching implications for policymakers—and for anyone else who's ever received a paycheck. According to Prescott, the reason for these large differences in labor supply is not culture. “French, Japanese, and U.S. workers all have similar preferences,” he writes. “The French are not better at enjoying leisure. The Japanese are not compulsive savers.” The reason for the wide range in working hours is, in a word, taxes. Europeans supply less labor because there's a much larger wedge in most European countries between what a worker is paid and what that worker actually gets to keep after taxes are taken out. This tax wedge, argues Prescott, distorts the trade-off people make between consumption and leisure by making consumption more expensive. And since people work, ultimately, to earn money to pay for consumption goods, they'll supply less labor if consumption goods become relatively more expensive. The cheaper alternative: leisure. Hello, Riviera. If the concept seems straightforward, its evolution was anything but. Like most ideas that seem obvious in retrospect, the awareness that taxes distort labor markets dramatically and account for major international differences in work patterns came about indirectly and as a revelation to those who happened upon it. The discovery Prescott's discovery about the role of taxes in labor supply variation began, simply enough, in his classroom at the University of Minnesota, where he taught from 1980 to 2003. “I was making up exercises for my students,” he recalled in a recent interview. “I said, 'use this nice little growth model.'” The “nice little model” he presented to his students is the workhorse of modern macroeconomics; it says, mathematically, that a nation's total output (or gross domestic product, GDP) is dependent on three sources: labor, capital and the efficiency (or productivity) with which it merges them to create economic value. The other key part of this standard theory is, in the jargon of economics, a utility function: a formula representing the notion that households try to maximize their happiness by finding the best possible combination of leisure and consumption, given their resources. Prescott wanted his students to become familiar with this model by looking at how it performed in different nations over time, and how key variables—capital endowments, productivity, labor supply—could account for differences among nations in per capita GDP. “I wanted to try to get across the basic ideas and the importance of productivity,” said Prescott. “And then I thought, let's put a few taxes in.” The intuition was far more significant than Prescott suspected, but that became clear only after looking at the relative contributions of capital, productivity and labor. The data, compiled by the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, showed that in the mid-1990s among developed countries—the United States, much of Europe and Japan—relative levels of capital differ little and explain just a small portion of the variation in per capita GDP (see adjacent table). “The capital factor is not an important factor in accounting for differences in incomes across the OECD countries,” writes Prescott in his 2002 Richard T. Ely Lecture to the American Economic Association. “[It] contributes at most 8 percent to the differences in income between any of these countries.” Capital, Labor, Productivity and GDP 1993-96 Country Capital/ Output Ratio (1990) Hours worked per Week per Person 15-64 Productivity: GDP per hour Worked; US=100 GDP per Person 15-64; US=100 Germany 2.7 19.3 99 74 France 2.2 17.5 110 74 Italy 2.6 16.5 90 57 Canada na 22.9 89 79 United Kingdom 2.6 22.8 76 67 Japan 2.5 27.0 74 78 United States 2.3 25.9 100 100 Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Staff Report 321 and Working Paper 618 . Productivity, on the other hand, is very important, at least for some national differences. Japan and the United States, for example, have similar levels of labor and capital, but per capita GDP in Japan is far below that in the United States because its productivity is less than three-quarters that of the United States. But what of European countries like France, Italy and Germany? Why are their levels of per capita GDP so much lower? All these nations have capital endowments comparable to the United States. Their productivity levels also are similar to U.S. rates, or in the case of France, even higher. The data suggest that the differences in wealth are due almost exclusively to the markedly lower number of hours worked in these European countries. Germany, for instance, had a slightly higher capital endowment than the United States and an equal level of productivity, but just 74 percent of the U.S. per capita GDP. The evident reason: Its workers supplied just over 19 hours of labor per week compared to nearly 26 hours a week per American worker. While many believe that cultural differences lead to fewer hours worked in Europe than in the United States, Prescott doubts it. After all, data from the early 1970s show that the French actually worked more hours per week than did Americans at that time. Has French culture changed radically over the last two decades? Probably not: They still like good wine, aged cheese and, inexplicably, Jerry Lewis. Prescott's hunch was that differences in marginal tax rates might explain the differences in labor supplied and thus account for differences in per capita GDP. Enter the tax wedge “What is important is the price of consumption relative to leisure,” Prescott writes in the lecture he gave in April 2003 as he accepted Northwestern University's prestigious Erwin Plein Nemmers Prize in Economics. “And it is determined by the consumption tax rate and the labor income tax rate.” (See the lecture, “ Why Do Americans Work So Much More Than Europeans? ”) By introducing these taxes into the growth model, and making standard microeconomic assumptions, Prescott derived what he calls “the key equilibrium relation.” 1 It's a mathematical formula for labor supply that says workers will supply labor dependent on, among other things, their preference for consumption now over consumption later (spend or save?), their preference for leisure relative to consumption (play or work?) and the effective tax rate. Holding the first two variables fixed and looking empirically at different national tax rates enables Prescott to see if tax differences can account, fully or partially, for variations in labor hours supplied. Estimating the effective tax rates in these countries was, in itself, a major accounting exercise. Consumption taxes include value-added taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and property taxes. Labor is subject to both income taxes and Social Security taxes. For each nation under consideration, Prescott and his students crunched the numbers, determined a tax rate, plugged it into the formula along with fixed estimates of the other variables, and derived predictions of labor hours supplied per week per worker. How good were the predictions? Dead-on for Germany and the United Kingdom, a bit low for Canada and the United States, and a bit high for the other countries (see table below). Given measurement inaccuracies, the rough nature of the tax-rate estimates and the difficulty of international comparisons, writes Prescott, the model's predictions were “surprisingly close to the actual.” Tax Rates and Labor Supply 1993-96 Country Tax Rate (percent) Actual Hours Worked per Week per Person 15-64 Predicted Hours Worked per Week per Person 15-64 Difference (Predicted Minus Actual) Germany 59 19.3 19.5 0.2 France 59 17.5 19.5 2.0 Italy 64 16.5 18.8 2.3 Canada 52 22.9 21.3 -1.6 United Kingdom 44 22.8 22.8 0.0 Japan 37 27.0 29.0 2.0 United States 40 25.9 24.6 -1.3 Source: “ Why Do Americans Work So Much More Than Europeans ?” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Staff Report 321. Here, notes Prescott, “the important observation is that the low labor supplies in Germany, France and Italy are due to high tax rates. In these countries if someone works more and produces 100 additional euros of output, that individual gets to consume only 40 euros of additional consumption and pays directly or indirectly 60 euros in taxes.” Put in such stark terms, it seems obvious that many Europeans might opt to work less, while Americans and Japanese, taxed more lightly, would be keen to put in extra hours. Confirmation and implications Prescott found further confirmation for his hypothesis when he looked at tax rates and labor supply in the early 1970s (see table below). While his model's predictions of labor hours supplied diverge from the actual in several cases—Italy and Japan, in particular—Prescott observes that “when European and U.S. tax rates were comparable, European and U.S. labor supplies were roughly equal.” Tax Rates and Labor Supply 1970-74 Country Tax Rate (percent) Actual Hours Worked per Week per Person 15-64 Predicted Hours Worked per Week per Person 15-64 Difference (Predicted Minus Actual) Germany 52 24.6 24.6 0.0 France 49 24.4 25.4 1.0 Italy 41 19.2 28.3 9.1 Canada 44 22.2 25.6 3.4 United Kingdom 45 25.9 24.0 -1.9 Japan 25 29.8 35.8 6.0 United States 40 23.5 26.4 2.9 Source: “ Why Do Americans Work So Much More Than Europeans ?” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Staff Report 321. As for the outliers, Italy and Japan, Prescott suggests that other factors may be significant. In Italy, cartels may have played a role in depressing labor supply below its predicted value. In Japan, significant measurement errors in actual hours worked could account for the overly high prediction by the model. And what seems another anomaly is very likely an indirect confirmation of the importance of marginal tax rates on labor supply, according to Prescott. In the United States, actual hours worked per person increased by 10 percent from the 1970s to the 1990s, though the marginal tax rate remained at 40 percent. Prescott argues that U.S. tax reforms in the 1980s changed the effective marginal tax faced by married couples—dropping the rate in half for the second earner's income—even though it remained nominally at 40 percent. “In the 1993-96 [period],” he writes, “the marginal income tax on the labor income associated with switching between a one-earner and a two-earner household is only 20 percent, not 40 percent.” The issue warrants more attention, he says, and indeed, his colleagues Larry Jones, Rodolfo Manuelli and Ellen McGrattan have recently released a paper on this exact question. (See “ Wives at Work .”) On the whole, Prescott states, the results show that “people are remarkably similar across countries” and not only for these relatively prosperous and homogeneous nations, but for Chile, Mexico and Argentina, as well, where other economists have found similar relationships. “Apparently, idiosyncratic preference differences average out and result in the [representative] household having almost identical preferences across countries.” The policy implications are enormous for high-tax countries. If France were to lower its effective tax rate from 60 percent to 40 percent, estimates Prescott, its people would work more (taking 6.6 percent less leisure) and—remember their high productivity?—would generate considerably more output. Tax revenues wouldn't diminish, because the 40 percent rate would be levied on a higher base. And overall French “welfare gains,” as economists put it, would increase nearly 20 percent. In the United States, reducing marginal tax rates would have a more modest impact, according to the model: A 10 percent rate reduction would produce a 7 percent welfare gain. But even in the United States, Prescott's findings have huge implications for the viability of the Social Security system. (See “ Shrinking a deadweight loss .”) Foreign affairs In recent months, Prescott has traveled widely, presenting his findings not only to American audiences but to economists and policymakers in London, Berlin, Toulouse, Tokyo and elsewhere overseas. And in fact, says Prescott, Europeans tend to be more receptive than Americans. “The economists there understand that there is a problem,” he said after returning from France in mid-September. “I got some excellent suggestions when I presented the paper, the best so far.” But at all venues, he observes, the common denominator is surprise. Prescott is the first to admit that he, too, thought the results were startling, unexpected. “I find it remarkable that virtually all of the large difference in labor supply between France and the United States is due to differences in tax systems,” he writes in his Ely lecture. “I expected institutional constraints on the operation of labor markets and the nature of the unemployment benefit system to be more important.” Moreover, he concedes that cultural explanations might carry the day in a few settings. “Scandinavians seem to be a little bit different,” he said recently, referring to research by Richard Rogerson, an economist at Arizona State University. “My theory is when one of those Swedes looks at you when you're not working, it's pretty intimidating.” More seriously, he allows that in small, homogeneous cultures, social pressures can be quite strong. But even in large, heterogeneous nations, tax wedges don't always tell the whole story, according to Prescott. “Taxes are not the only reason that the labor factors differ,” says Prescott's Ely lecture. Unemployment benefits and housing subsidies—not taxes—distorted labor mobility in the United Kingdom between the first and second World Wars, contributing significantly to that country's interwar depression. New Deal policies supporting cartels in America's heavy industries distorted wages and employment in the last half of the 1930s, contributing to the depth and duration of the Great Depression in the United States. Similarly, cartels in 1970s Italy may have suppressed employment there. Prescott relies on work by University of California, Los Angeles economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian in making these conjectures. Still, while taxes aren't the all-powerful explanatory factor for all nations and eras, Prescott contends that in major developed countries in the time period under consideration, the labor supply impact of tax wedges is a powerful and undeniable fact. Other academics As befits the work of any prominent scholar, Prescott's theory has attracted close academic scrutiny—beyond the initial reaction of surprise—from both adherents and critics. In one recent paper, Peter Lindert, an economist at the University of California, Davis, refers to Prescott's study as dependent upon “a theoretical model heavily laden with assumptions. It is educated, intelligent, plausible fiction—but fiction nonetheless.” On the other hand (as Lindert points out) Prescott's model and findings are cited quite favorably by Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas in his 2003 presidential address to the American Economic Association. Lindert calls for empirical tests. Steven Davis at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and Magnus Henrekson of the Stockholm School of Economics oblige with a careful econometric analysis of the impact of labor income and consumption taxes on employment and work activity. In their study of rich countries in the mid-1990s, they find that a 12.8 percentage point difference in tax rates is associated with 122 fewer market work hours per adult per year and nearly a 5 percentage point decrease in employment—population ratios—an indirect affirmation of Prescott's theory. A very different perspective was presented earlier this year in a series of lectures by British economist Richard Layard, co-director of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. Layard takes issue with GDP itself as a satisfactory measure of human welfare—or utility, as Jeremy Bentham and subsequent economists have termed it—noting that “happiness has not increased, despite huge increases in living standards.” To summarize a lengthy argument, Layard's idea is that a tax wedge on labor income could actually increase utility by decreasing a sort of pollution: overwork brought on by the inherent human desire to do better than our peers, regardless of our absolute level of income. Keeping up with the Joneses, in other words, leads to overwork, ill health and unhappiness—rivalry distorts the leisure/labor decision. Appropriate public policy should diminish this pollution by taxing it. “In an efficient economy,” Layard writes, “there will be substantial levels of corrective taxation ... 60 percent would not seem inappropriate, and that is in fact the typical level of marginal taxation in Europe—if you allow for direct and indirect taxes.” Prescott responds Prescott's reactions to these ideas vary widely. Sitting in his seventh-floor office at the Minneapolis Fed, he reads through the first pages of Lindert's paper, then drops it on his desk. “It doesn't seem to be coherent,” he says. Davis and Henrekson's study, on the other hand, intrigues him. That might seem predictable given its broad support of Prescott's findings, but Davis and Henrekson employ a technique Prescott generally scorns: statistical regression. “Progress, don't regress,” he says with a smile, quoting the slogan featured prominently on his Internet home page. Regardless of their method, Prescott is drawn to the findings and has invited Davis to Minneapolis to get a closer look at their work. But Prescott's response to Layard's argument—more complete and nuanced—conveys a sense of Prescott himself. He begins by summarizing Layard's case in a phrase: “I'm happy if I have a lot more income—than you,” he says, grinning and quite aware that he does. As to the overwork such rivalry might cause, “that just says there's a consumption externality.” Then he conveys the concept with a story. “I always tried to create a positive externality in Pittsburgh for my neighbors who had these beautiful lawns,” he jokes of his grad school days at Carnegie Mellon University. “By my having a messy lawn, their lawns looked so much better. I mowed it, but I didn't do much else with my lawn. And it gave me utility to see them happier.” He tells the story with a verbal wink, acknowledging silently that his Pittsburgh yard care externality may well have been less than zero. The conspiratorial smile changes to professorial zeal as he begins to dissect Layard's reasoning: “Suppose everybody cares about relative consumption as well as own consumption. You work out the equilibrium, it's not Pareto optimal. Let's deal with the case where everybody enters symmetrically. So it's simple to make the ordering. Well, you can make everybody better off by just putting a tax on consumption so that they work less. That's a very standard model. Now what would be the empirical evidence for and against that?” In under five minutes, Prescott has crystallized an argument, communicated it to a visitor in plain language and personal anecdote, then converted it to the idiom of economics and laid out steps for its confirmation or refutation. It's vintage Prescott: analytically brilliant, unexpectedly funny and several beats ahead of everyone else. That last bit is the essence of a conversation with the economist. When you ask him a question, it sometimes seems that his reply is off-topic; then it dawns on you that Ed Prescott is answering the question you should have asked. A pattern of surprise Prescott's willingness to entertain alternatives, to listen to critics, to incorporate the unexpected is deeply characteristic of his work. That flexibility is, in fact, the paradoxical outcome of a rigid research discipline. In setting model parameters, for instance, or reporting research results, “the investigator has no degrees of freedom,” he says. “You have to tie your hands and if there's a deviation from your predictions, you report it. You can speculate on why, but you've got to be totally honest.” Intellectual honesty also means allowing findings to modify, even subvert initial hypotheses. It happens frequently, says Prescott. Much of the work for which he's best known—theories on time inconsistency, real business cycles, the equity premium and growth theory—has been developed in an ongoing process of research and revelation. “When I work out the implications, I'm quite often surprised: The findings change my views quite dramatically,” he says. “When I did the real business cycles work with Finn Kydland, I was certain that monetary shocks were the reason the economy fluctuated with the business cycles. Our findings were just the opposite. When I did some work with Rajnish Mehra on the equity premium puzzle, I was certain that the reason for the high historical difference in the return on equity relative to debt was just a premium for bearing aggregate, nondiversifiable risk. We found it wasn't.” For time inconsistency and the impact of taxes on labor supply, as well, surprise has been an intrinsic part of the process. Future direction As striking as his labor supply findings are—and though many aspects of it remain unresolved—Prescott senses that the big theoretical questions in economic growth lie elsewhere, and he is now turning his attention to them. “I think I've had my say on labor supply,” he concludes. In his Ely lecture, he lays out three sources of economic growth: capital, labor and productivity. The first two are important in understanding why some nations remain poor while others prosper, but the central question, contends Prescott, is what determines productivity? “Given productivity, our macro models are great,” he says. “But we treat it as exogenous. We've got to have a better understanding of mapping between policies and productivity.” In other words, what can governments do to enhance productivity? Prescott's main candidates are efficient financial markets, competition among producers and trading clubs. And currently, the last is his major focus. “What is a trading club?” he asks rhetorically. “Well, first, free movement of goods between the member states. But it's much, much more than that. ...” Prescott continues at length, with a discourse ranging from Toyota factories in Wales to trade among the U.S. states in the 19th century. He speaks quickly, and as he does there is a sense that each research question he asks leads him to a dozen more, each more interesting than the last. He will travel soon to Warsaw and then Bogotá to explore these ideas with other economists and policymakers. “It's going to be fascinating to see what's happening in Poland,” he remarks. In Colombia, “the president is trying to do some good things there, and we have to go down and help out.” He's not a policymaker himself. “I leave that to other people,” he says. “I'm no good at it. My comparative advantage is working out implications of theory.” And in so doing, it seems there is just one constraint: Even for Ed Prescott, a scholar who understands labor supply dynamics as well as anyone on earth, there are only 24 hours in a day. “Time,” observes the economist, “is the most valuable resource.” 1 The two assumptions: (1) that people decide between leisure and consumption based on their relative prices, at the margin, and (2) that in a competitive market, wages are equal to their marginal product of labor. The “key equilibrium relation” also depends on the share of a nation's output due to capital. Top of document Advanced Search Glossary See also: Shrinking a deadweight loss