Director of Research
Areas of expertise
Macroeconomics • Globalization • Social insurance • Public investment
Josh Bivens is the Director of Research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). His areas of research include macroeconomics, fiscal and monetary policy, the economics of globalization, social insurance, and public investment. He frequently appears as an economics expert on news shows, including the Public Broadcasting Service’s “NewsHour,” the “Melissa Harris-Perry” show on MSNBC, WAMU’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” American Public Media’s “Marketplace,” and programs of the BBC.
As a leading policy analyst, Bivens regularly testifies before the U.S. Congress on fiscal and monetary policy, the economic impact of regulations, and other issues. He has also provided analyses for the annual meeting of Project LINK of the United Nations and the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Bivens is the author of Failure by Design: The Story behind America’s Broken Economy (EPI and Cornell University Press) and Everybody Wins Except for Most of Us: What Economics Really Teaches About Globalization (EPI). He is the co-author of The State of Working America, 12th Edition (EPI and Cornell University Press) and a co-editor of Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs: Labor Markets and Informal Work in Egypt, El Salvador, India, Russia and South Africa (EPI).
His academic articles have appeared in the International Review of Applied Economics, the Journal of Economic Issues and the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Bivens has also provided peer-reviewed articles to several edited collections, including The Handbook of the Political Economy of Financial Crises (Oxford University Press), Public Economics in the United States: How the Federal Government Analyzes and Influences the Economy (ABC-CLIO), and Restoring Shared Prosperity: A Policy Agenda from Leading Keynesian Economists (AFL-CIO and the Macroeconomic Policy Institute).
Prior to becoming Director of Research, Bivens was a research economist at EPI. Before coming to EPI, he was an assistant professor of economics at Roosevelt University and provided consulting services to Oxfam America. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the New School for Social Research and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland at College Park.
Ph.D., Economics, New School for Social Research
B.A., Economics, University of Maryland at College Park
Search publications by Josh Bivens
In an interview with WCVB-TV, EPI’s Josh Bivens says claims that President Trump’s proposed tax plan will “unleash so much growth it’ll finance itself” are “completely laughable.” Bivens says the plan would benefit the rich while doing little to help low- and middle-income families.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported today that gross domestic product (GDP), the most comprehensive measure of economic activity, grew at just a 0.7 percent annualized rate in the first three months of 2017, the slowest quarterly growth rate reported since the first three months of 2014.
During his first 100 days, President Trump has rolled back worker protections and outlined a fiscal year 2018 budget that would dramatically cut funding for the agencies that safeguard workers’ rights, wages, and safety. He has also advanced nominees to key posts—even to the Supreme Court—who are hostile to policies that boost wages, enhance workers’ bargaining power, and protect worker safety. This report evaluates President Trump’s actions during his first 100 days and analyzes their impact on this nation’s workers and our economy.
The corporate income tax is steeply progressive, and genuine tax reform should be raising more money from the corporate income tax, not less. Tax reform should close loopholes, not open new ones. Unfortunately, both the president’s and House Republicans’ opening bids show that they intend tax reform to simply mean tax cuts for the rich.
Progressives won (or least witnessed) a key first victory when efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) collapsed. The next policy battle will be over tax reform.
The report provides a rough estimate of the potential drag on job growth that will occur if Congress enacts the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
To listen to prominent Republicans asserting the need to tear up the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you would think that health plans under the ACA ask too much from patients in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, i.e., impose excessive deductibles and copays.
EPI’s Josh Bivens delivered the following testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade on Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
The Federal Reserve’s announcement today that it would raise short-term interest rates is not surprising, but is disappointing. As always, the issue is less about the direct impact of today’s 0.25 percentage point hike, and more about what this hike means, especially given that it has come relatively hard on the heels of a hike in December.
There are plenty of outrageously bad things about the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the recently proposed Republican replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The last four years have seen an extraordinarily sharp deceleration in productivity growth (the average amount of income generated in an hour of work in the economy).
In recent weeks, a number of stories have been written about the Trump administration’s excessively rosy projections for economic growth in coming years.
The battle over the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has clearly begun in earnest. A striking feature of this debate is the disconnect between commonly cited complaints about the ACA and prescriptions offered by Republican lawmakers.
American workers (and the policy wonks who criticize current trade policy on their behalf) are correct to think that the integration of the U.S. economy and the global economy has been done on terms that are bad for many—if not most—of them.
The Federal Reserve is widely expected to keep the interest rates it controls unchanged today. This decision would be welcome. It’s important, however, to not just applaud the decision, but to explain why it was the right one.
The Republican-led effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes two large fiscal changes: a tax cut and a spending cut.1 Because the U.S.
January 27, 2017 | By Josh Bivens
| Economic Indicators
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported this morning that gross domestic product (GDP, the widest measure of economic activity) grew at a 1.9 percent annualized rate in the last quarter of 2016, down from the 3.5 percent rate in the 3rd quarter.
While the crowds at the Women’s March were unprecedented, they represent just a
fraction of those who could lose health insurance if the Affordable Care Act were repealed.
It’s no secret that we at EPI have been skeptical about President Trump’s commitment to a policy agenda that would deliver the goods for low and middle-income Americans.
Josh Bivens appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” to talk about the economic policy decisions of the Obama administration and the impact they’ve had on job creation, unemployment, wages, and the federal debt.
The closing days of the Obama years give us a chance to assess the president and his administration across a range of issues.
Today’s decision by the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates another 0.25 percent is a mistake. The point of raising rates should be to slow an economy that has been growing too fast—putting too much downward pressure on unemployment and empowering workers to demand and achieve wage gains in excess of productivity.
The election of Donald Trump alerted many to what should have been obvious long ago: the U.S. economy has failed to deliver the goods to vast swathes of American families for decades.
Last week I argued that the Trump-brokered deal with Carrier industries to keep 700 jobs in Indiana shouldn’t be treated as a triumph, but instead as a sellout of those unlucky workers who hadn’t managed to make themselves useful as PR props for Trump.
A policy effort to boost public investment should include both “core” infrastructure investments such as building roads and "noncore" public investments, such as improving early child care. Both provide high rates of return. Public finance is the most accountable way of financing infrastructure. Tax credits dangled to entice private financiers and developers provide no compelling efficiency gains and open up possibilities for corruption and crony capitalism.
Donald Trump is getting lots of mileage out of the alleged deal that has been struck to keep a Carrier plant from moving to Mexico from Indiana.
Across a broad range of crucial issues, the incoming Trump administration appears likely to betray the promises he made to the American middle class. Here’s a rough sketch of how.
President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that one of his first priorities will be a plan to boost infrastructure investment. Normally, this would be welcome news for those of us who have been arguing for years that increased public investment should be a top-tier economic priority. The still-sketchy details of Trump’s plan, however, are a cause for concern.
Progressive revenue increases would provide long-run financing for projected deficits but impose only minimal short-run fiscal drag. All other deficit-reduction measures would do clear economic damage if imposed in the short run.
The Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will debate again this week whether or not they should raise interest rates to slow the economic recovery in an effort to forestall potential inflation.