The End of Cheap Oil: Economic, Social, and Political Change in the US and Former Soviet Union

Article, Other literature type English OPEN
Kaufmann, Robert (2014)
  • Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
  • Journal: Energies, volume 7, issue 10 9, pages 1-17 (issn: 1996-1073)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.3390/en7106225
  • Subject: peak oil | economic history | taxes | Technology | labor productivity | wages | peak oil; labor productivity; wages; income inequality; economic history; Former Soviet Union; taxes; debt; female participation rate | income inequality | T | female participation rate | Former Soviet Union | debt
    • jel: jel:Q0 | jel:Q | jel:Q4 | jel:Q47 | jel:Q49 | jel:Q48 | jel:Q43 | jel:Q42 | jel:Q41 | jel:Q40

I use the quality and quantity of energy flows to interpret economic, social, and political changes in the US and Former Soviet Union. The economic successes of both the former Soviet Union (FSU) and the US reflect an abundant supply of high quality energy. This abundance ended in the 1970s in the US and the 1980s in the Former Soviet Union. In the US, the end of cheap oil caused labor productivity to stagnate, which stopped on-going growth in wages and family incomes. To preserve the American Dream, which holds that each generation will be better off than the one that preceded it, women entered the workforce, income was transferred from saving to consumption, the US economy changed from a net creditor to a net debtor, and debt held by families and the Federal government increased. Despite efforts to hide the income effects, the end of cheap oil also is responsible for increasing income inequality. In the FSU, the end of abundant energy supplies meant that allocating the energy surplus among the domestic economy, subsidized exports to Eastern Europe, and hard currency sales to the West became a zero sum game. This contributed to the collapse of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) alliance and the FSU. If the US is able to extricate itself from personal and governmental debt, solving the social and political concerns about inequality is the next formidable challenge posed by the end of cheap oil.
  • References (51)
    51 references, page 1 of 6

    1. Kruschev, N. Reception at the Polish embassy November 18, 1958.

    2. Osband, K. Economic crisis in a shortage economy. J. Polit. Econ. 1992, 100, 673-690.

    3. Kotz, D.M.; Weir, F. Revolution from Above, the Demise of the Soviet System; Routledge: London, UK, 1997.

    4. Cowen, T. The Great Stagnation: How America Ate all the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and will (Eventually) Feel Better; Dutton Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2011; p. 128.

    5. Hall, C.A.S.; Cleveland, C.; Kaufmann, R. Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1986.

    6. Richmond, A.; Kaufmann, R.K. Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56, 176-189.

    7. Nguyen-Van, P. Energy consumption and income: A semi-parametric panel data analysis. Energy Econ. 2010, 33, 557-563.

    8. Cleveland, C.J.; Costanza, R.; Hall, C.A.S.; Kaufmann, R. Energy and the United States economy: A biophysical perspective. Science 1984, 225, 890-897.

    9. Darmstadter, J. Energy in the World Economy: A Statistical Review of Trends in Output, Trade, and Consumption since 1925; The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MA, USA, 1971.

    10. Borestsky, M. Trends in US technology. Am. Sci. 1975, 63, 70-82.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark