It's the demand, stupid! The role of weak demand on productivity growth

I couldn't resist the title.

Last week I was invited to give a short talk on what I thought was the most pressing policy issue facing the world economy today.

So I presented the findings from a very interesting paper entitled "Explaining Slower Productivity Growth: The Role of Weak Demand Growth" by Someshwar Rao and Jiang Li.

The paper examines the link between demand and productivity growth in both Canada and OECD countries. This issue has been an interest of mine ever since I read these lines in a book by Alan Blinder several years ago:

Economic slack...discourages business investment because companies that cannot sell their wares see little reason to expand their capacity. In consequence, the nation gradually acquires a smaller, older, and less efficient capital stock. 

[A]lthough the state of the national is far from the only factor, who doubts that a booming economy provides a better atmosphere for inventiveness, innovation, and entrepreneurs than a stagnant one? As the cliché says, a rising tide raises all boats...From 1962 to 1973, our generally healthy economy experienced only one mild recession, an average unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, and productivity growth that averaged a brisk 2.6 percent per annum. [Between 1974 and the mid-1980s] the economy [was] frequently...out of sorts. We...suffered through two long recessions and one short one, with an average unemployment rate of 7.3 percent and a paltry average productivity growth rate of 1 percent. This association of high unemployment with low productivity growth is no coincidence. 

Surveying these concomitants of high unemployment -- lack of upward mobility for workers, sluggish investment, lackluster productivity growth -- suggests an ironic conclusion: the best way to practice supply-side economics may be to run the economy at peak levels of demand. (1986:36).

This still makes lots of sense to me.

Verdoorn's Law

During my talk I described the paper as lending support to the well-known findings of economist Petrus J. Verdoorn, who several decades ago published research showing a positive relationship between labour productivity growth and real output growth.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have discussed this since it led to a number of questions on Verdoorn and his research, which shifted the focus away from the paper and the real purpose of my talk, which was to drive home the point that there is considerable evidence that productivity growth shouldn't be viewed as solely a supply-side phenomenon.

Specifically, the paper supports the -- in my opinion, common sense -- view that a slowdown in domestic and external demand is detrimental to growth in labour productivity, real incomes and economic activity because of the negative impact of weaker demand on scale and scope of economies, formation of physical and human capital, innovation and entrepreneurial activity.

Here are the paper's main findings:

Our major findings is that 93 percent of the fall in average labour productivity growth between 1981-2000 and 2000-2012 can be attributed to the drop in real GDP growth between the two periods...In addition, our new empirical research shows that a slowdown in growth of domestic and external demand also impacts negatively some of the key drivers of productivity growth, such as, gross fixed capital formation, M&E investment (including ICTs) and R&D spending, thus leading to lower trend labour productivity. (2013:14)

I concluded my presentation by discussing some of the policy implications outlined by the paper's authors. At this point, I was hoping my comments would get the attention of the government policy analysts and economists in the audience.

First, I suggested that it would be prudent for governments to ensure that deficit and debt reduction measures are gradual in nature so that their negative impact on domestic demand would not be excessive.

Then, I explained that it's always a good idea for governments to spend on productivity-enhancing public investment, even during a period of economic slowdown, as it contributes to both today's demand as well as future productivity growth.

References

Blinder, A., Hard Heads, Soft Hearts, (Mass: Perseus Books)

Rao, Someshwar and Jiang Li, "Explaining Slower Productivity Growth: The Role of Weak Demand Growth", International Productivity Monitor, Spring 2013.

Anthony Atkinson on the public debt and intergenerational equity

It's been a long time since my last post. Much of my spare time has been spent reading and thinking about the best way to think about the economy. In the end, I've come to the conclusion that it's the big picture that matters.

Take the question of the public debt. Much of the discussion in the popular press relating to the national debt focuses on the liabilities of the government and actuarial concerns (dealing with "how to pay it off"), but it rarely discusses the link between public debt and private wealth, wealth distribution and intergenerational equity.

Anthony Atkinson, I believe, summarized it best here:

Much of the rhetoric of fiscal consolidation is concerned with the national debt as a burden on future generations [...] One lesson of the public economics literature on the national debt is that we have to look at the full picture. We pass on to the next generations:

• national debt, 
• state pension liabilities, 
• public financial assets, 
• public infrastructure and real wealth, 
• private wealth, 
• state of the environment, and
• stocks of natural resources.

We need to look at the overall balance sheet, where assets as well as liabilities are taken into account. This does not mean that the position is a healthy one. If we consider the difference between the assets of the state and the national debt, expressed as a percentage of the total national wealth, then in the 1950s the net worth of the [UK] state was negative, but it was becoming less negative, and turned positive in the 1960s [...]

The direction of change since the 1970s has however been in the wrong direction [...] In effect the process of privatisation, with the proceeds used largely to fund tax cuts, transferred wealth from the state to the personal sector. We saw that it was at the end of the 1970s that personal wealth began to rise faster than income. The worsening of the public balance sheet is the other side. Personal wealth has risen faster than national wealth since the 1970s because, in effect, assets have been transferred from the public to the private sector. We are passing on more privately to the next generation but less publicly.

Reversing this pattern can be achieved not only by reducing the national debt, but also by increasing public assets.

Now, to say that more wealth is being passed on privately rather than publicly does not mean that it's being passed on equitably.

For instance, when the government sells-off public sector assets such as parks and decommissioned military bases, the government can use the proceeds to pay down the debt, but the assets get transferred to the purchasers of those assets in the private sector, who, most of the time, don't have the same class and socio-economic profile as that of the whole population (i.e., the former "owners" of those assets).

So here's the bottom line: paying down the debt by selling off public assets to the financial interests has contributed immensely to the wealth inequality that is being discussed these days.

And the corollary to this statement is that there's still lots of wealth "out there" that could be used for public purposes and has the potential to be passed on to future generation in a more equitable manner. It hasn't disappeared, it's just changed hands.

Reference

Atkinson, A.B., "Public economics in an age of austerity", January 12, 2012

Impact of the US Payroll tax cut...and tax hike

This is a very informative (and short) piece by economists at the NY Fed on the effect of the 2011 US payroll tax cut and its recent expiration.

Here's a good summary:

Overall, our analysis suggests that the payroll tax cut during 2011-12 led to a substantial increase in consumer spending and facilitated the consumer deleveraging process. Based on consumers’ responses to our recent survey, expiration of the tax cuts is likely to lead to a substantial reduction in spending as well as contribute to a slowdown or possibly a reversal in the paydown of consumer debt. These effects are also likely to be heterogeneous, with groups that are more credit and liquidity constrained more likely to be adversely affected. Such nuances may be lost in the aggregate macroeconomic statistics, but they’re important for policymakers to consider as they debate fiscal policy.

Reference

Zafar, B., van der Klaauw, W., My Two (Per)cents: How are American Workers dealing with the Payroll Tax Hike, Federal Bank of New Work, Liberty Street Blog.

A kind word for Paul

Paul Krugman's recent posts on the abuse use by politicians of economic studies as a way to support ideologically-driven fiscal austerity have been right on. Here's from his latest:

...the important story isn’t about the sins of the economists; it’s about our warped economic discourse, in which important people seize on academic work that fits their preconceptions. Even if you don’t think Reinhart-Rogoff made much difference to actual policy, the meteoric rise and catastrophic fall of their reputation speaks volumes about why this slump goes on and on.

I made a similar point in an earlier column when I wrote that austerity was a

...prepackaged "solution to a problem" that fits with today's dominant policy-making ideology, which holds that governments have little or no purpose other than catering to financial interests and leaving the path clear for free-market actors to find solutions to every problem facing society.

...[F]iscal austerity is simply another example of a "solution looking for a problem", an empty and empirically ineffectual idea with no clear rationale other than giving the appearance that "something is being done".

This is why I continue to think that the ones who are really responsible for austerity are the politicians who support this view. Economic studies were used to provide cover for these leaders' preferred set of policy choices.

Anyway, there's no matching Prof. Krugman's performance these last few months. Not only have his forecasts been right on, but his retrospective look at why things unfolded the way they did has been downright flawless.

Moving past the 90 percent threshold: Focusing on growth

Now that the proposition of a 90 percent threshold (of public debt-to-GDP above which countries' economic growth would significantly slow) associated with the work of Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff has been refuted, it's important that the debate now turn to the critical issue of how best to achieve growth moving forward.

On this point, one important aspect to keep in mind is that the uses toward which public debt is directed and the composition of public debt tend to have a significant impact on a country's economic growth.

A recent study by the IMF entitled "Public Debt and Growth" appears to support this view. The study, which examined the public debt dynamics in over 30 countries, found that, although the elasticity of growth with respect to public debt is -0.02, the elasticity of other variables that positively impacts growth offsets this number. For instance, as Iyanatul Islam has noted, the study shows that the elasticity of growth to initial years of schooling is above 2.0.

In other words, it's quite likely that public debt directed toward productive uses has the effect of supporting growth by cancelling out some of the negative effects associated with high public debt that impede growth.

These are the sort of issues policymakers should be discussing moving forward. I think it would go a long way to help us get out of the economic doldrums we're facing today.

Reference

Manmohan and Jaejoon, Public Debt and Growth, IMF, July 2010

Public investment and productivity growth: How to provide properly for the future

Just as I was thinking about the moral aspects of economic policy, here comes Paul Krugman with a fantastic commentary on how governments today are shortchanging future generations by not taking advantage of record low interest rates and not spending on productivity-enhancing public investments:

Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we’re doing to the next generation’s economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much — and the deficit scolds, for all their claims to have our children’s interests at heart, are actually the bad guys in this story. 

So true. This reminds me of something the late economist Robert Eisner wrote:

...balancing the budget at the expense of our public investment in the future is one way that we really borrow from our children - and never pay them back. (1996)

The reason for this is that the "deficit equals bad" crowd is completely oblivious to the fact that public investment adds to the stock of productive assets that help to enhance private sector productivity in the long run. And public spending on infrastructure, education, basic research and the development of new technology is essential to achieve the level of productivity necessary to improve our standard of living in the future.

And at a time when we are facing an aging population, increasing our future productivity growth should be a (if not the number one) priority.

A good explanation for this is provided by Francis Cavanaugh, former senior US Treasury Department economist and former CEO of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, who argues that

Significant productivity increases will be necessary as a diminished labor force is called on to support an expanded group of retirees. Without such increased production per worker, a shortage of goods will lead to price increases, and it is likely that the baby boomers will suffer a significant decline in the purchasing power of their retirement dollars. Inflation could soon decimate their retirement savings. That's the economic reality; if you're not working, you're dependent on the productivity of those who are. (1996)

In other words, the best protection against the potential losses that come with an aging population is to take measures today aimed at increasing the productivity growth of tomorrow. This should be the long term goal of policymakers right now.

So Prof. Krugman is right: contrary to what most politicians and commentators believe about how to improve our long-run prospect, slashing government spending is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time. 

References

Cavanaugh, F., The truth about the national debt, Boston: HBSP, 1996

Eisner, R., "The balanced budget crusade", The Public Interest, Winter 1996

Josef Steindl on why austerity fails: A Keynesian-Kaleckian view of stagnation policy and the endogenous budget deficit

This policy of stagnation is likely to continue, since governments are preoccupied with inflation and the public debt. Budget deficits can only disappear if private investment soars again. This is unlikely in view of excess capacity, which would only disappear if there were fiscal expansion. Josef Steindl (1979)

Surely the person who wrote the statement above would have no difficulty explaining what's wrong with the world economy today.

Josef Steindl was a great Keynesian-Kaleckian economist who was a master in the art of national accounts analysis. He was a close associate of Michal Kalecki and authored several articles on the important role of government and private debt in the economy. A quick glance at some of the titles of Steindl's work reveals that his articles on these issues might be of some relevance right now. (For more on Josef Steindl, see Nina Shapiro's excellent article published last year in Monthly Review)

Steindl's work was aimed primarily at uncovering the causes of economic stagnation. According to Steindl's "stagnation theory", one reason why economies trend toward stagnation is due to the behavior of firms when they refuse to reduce prices sufficiently relative to wages during periods of low demand. Low wages relative to prices lead to a fall in demand for goods and services, which in turn compels firms to reduce investment and creates a vicious cycle of falling profits and further cost reduction and reduced investment (resulting in additional unused capacity and unemployment and falling demand).

Steindl also argued that economies stagnate as a result of "stagnation policy", ill-advised government austerity measures intended to reduce or eliminate budget deficits when the economy is weak. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Steindl argued that austerity policies only make matters worse under such circumstances.

Steindl criticized austerity because he understood that the government's financial balance in the modern era was largely an endogenous variable that is determined primarily by changes in the financial position of other sectors of the economy, not by the autonomous policy decisions of the fiscal authorities. It is the influence of government automatic stabilizers and the growing importance of both consumer credit and foreign trade in the modern economy that render the government's financial balance largely endogenous.

The core of Steindl's approach to macroeconomic analysis is intuitive and similar to that of other Keynesian economists, including James Tobin (1963), Robert Eisner (1986) and Wynne Godley, all of whom analyzed the workings of the economy by examining how different sectors of the economy interact with one another. He divided the economy into four sectors (the government, households, businesses and the foreign sector) and examined how money flowed between them.

Steindl's analysis focused on credit flows and on how changes in one sector impacted other sectors. In doing so, Steindl basically applied an elementary principle of accounting to national economies: for every borrower there must be a lender. His method relied heavily on the use of national accounts data to identify trends and changes in financial flows. According to Steindl,

[t]he instrument for analysing the circular relations in an economy are the national accounts. They are a double entry book-keeping for the society, whole groups like households, business or government being represented by separate accounts, as are also activities like investment, consumption and so on. The systematic development of national accounting received its great impetus from Keynes and his theory [...] It offers a convenient way between the sterility of the Walrasian general equilibrium and the limited scope of the partial analysis of Marshall, because it is couched in terms of variables which are statistically measurable and at the same time relevant for national economic policy.(1985)

Steindl understood that, in terms of national accounts, the government deficit finds its counterpart in the surplus of at least one other sector of the economy. Since the surpluses and deficits of the various sectors (government, households, foreign and business) must balance, Steindl recognized that a huge deficit in one sector is always offset by surpluses elsewhere.

The endogenous budget deficit and the fallacy of austerity

Steindl was critical of the ("pre-Keynesian") tendency of many economists to view government budget deficits as an irritant to be eliminated. According to him, deficits in the modern era accomplished the opposite: they helped to boost aggregate demand when the economy is weak.

As mentioned above, Steindl viewed the budget deficit as a passive symptom of a weak economy rather than a problem to be actively addressed: actively trying to eliminating budget deficits would only worsen the situation. Steindl recognized that the size of the budget deficit is largely determined by the spending flows occurring among the other sectors of the economy. In this sense, he viewed the budget deficit largely as an endogenous variable that can't be easily controlled by policymakers. On whether the government has the ability to control the size of the budget deficit by changing its level of expenditures and/or revenue, Steindl argued the following:

While it is possible, in principle, to control the volume of government spending or taxation, the same is not true for the budget deficit. This is determined by the level of GDP resulting from the interplay of lending and borrowing of the various sectors. Let me refer to the well-known identity

( I – S_B) + (X – I) + (G – T) = (S_H – H)

Which says that the budget deficit G – T together with the borrowing of business I – S_B and of the outside world X – M equals the lending of households (i.e., excess of household saving S_H over investment in dwelling houses H) of households S_H – H.

Which of these sectors plays an active role depends on institutional circumstances. The budget deficit, in connection with Keynesian policies, used to be regarded as an active element, incurred on purpose by the government. In present circumstances it is more likely to play a passive role, and to be dominated by the other sectors. This is due to the large share of taxation in an additional GDP, to the strong and quick reactions of consumers to a change in income and to the fact that the foreign balance is more often dominated by outside influences than by domestic policy (by the GDP). In consequence attempts at reducing the budget deficit by retrenchment are mostly doomed to failure. [...]

If the foreign account is balanced, the budget deficit has simply to fill the gap between the household financial saving and the borrowing of business. This will apply to some approximation in countries where the role of the foreign balance is small as compared with that of other sectors. It will fully apply to all countries taken together because they form a closed system. For them the budget deficit given the financial surplus of the households, will be largely settled by the amount of private investment. On the other hand, in countries where the foreign balance can take large values it will, together with private investment, dominate the size (and sign) of the budget deficit. In both cases the budget deficit is predominantly suffered rather than contrived.

The conclusion is not pleasant to contemplate for the treasurer because it means that he can control the deficit, if at all, only by indirect routes: Business investment, and a fortiori the foreign balance, are not easy to control. (1983) (my emphasis)

That said, according to Steindl, there are circumstances in which the budget deficit can be made to decrease. Such favorable conditions are the same as those which lead to growth in private sector investment, namely, a satisfactory utilization of capacity and a growing market. In this regard, Steindl concludes that

[o]n certain conditions it would seem therefore that the best way to combat a deficit is to increase spending. The conditions are that there are unemployed resources, and that the additional spending is not drained away by imports. In these circumstances a policy of "reflation" should have a good chance of succeeding without adding to the budget deficit at all. On the one hand, the built-in stabilisers in modern welfare state are very strong. About half of the additional spending will come back to the treasury. On the other hand we have a modern destabiliser in the form of consumer's credit and durable goods consumption which will prevent the multiplier from being too low. This response of consumption will be very quick in contrast to the response of business investment which may take one or two years at least. In the interval business will merely accumulate additional saving. At the same time the consumers, owing to the expectation of a persistently higher level of income, will increase their spending on durables more than their disposable income has increased; they will therefore, taken all together, dissave (borrow) on balance, at the margin. (1983)

Now, it's important to point out that Steindl wrote the above at a time when growth in consumer credit could function as a way to counter the deflating effect of deficit reduction. Today, this is not the case, as consumers are seeking to repair their balance sheets following the financial crisis. This means that the only solution would be the one articulated in Steindl's quote found at the top of this post.

To conclude, there is growing appreciation these days among economists and commentators of the self-defeating nature of austerity and deficit reduction measures. The difficulties that many European nations are now facing in their quest to bring down deficits is consistent with Steindl's view that government austerity is exactly the wrong strategy for reducing the size of the budget deficit and bringing down debt during a period of slow growth.

PS: I recently stumbled upon this comment by economist Herbert Simon discussing Steindl's brand of economics:

It is pleasant, in an econometric world that has become idolatrous of mathematical "elegance," to encounter an author who thinks that mathematics is a tool - one of several - to aid in carrying out reasoning about economic matters.

References

Eisner, R., How Real is the Federal Budget? (New York: Free Press), 1986

Steindl, J., “The Role of Household Saving in the Modern Economy”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, p.83, March, 1982

Steindl, J., "J.M. Keynes: Society and the Economist", Keynes' Relevance Today (London: MacMillan) 1985.

Steindl, Josef. “The Control of the Economy”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, pp. 235-248, 1983

Shapiro, N., "Keynes, Steindl, and the Critique of Austerity Economics", Monthly Review, Vol 64, No.3, 2012

Simon, H., "Random Processes and the Growth of Firms: A Study of the Pareto Law" by Josef Steindl: Review, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 61, No. 316 (Dec., 1966), pp. 1232-1233

Tobin, J., Deficit, Deficit, Who's Got the Deficit, January 1963. New Republic, 1/19/63, Vol. 148 Issue 3, p10. 

Fiscal austerity: A solution looking for a problem

Since the release earlier this month of the paper by IMF economists Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh, I've noticed a lot of comments on blogs and news websites suggesting that the IMF economists and their inability to properly measure the size of the fiscal multiplier earlier are to blame for making political leaders believe that fiscal austerity could be expansionary and for misleading them into enacting austerity measures within their respective nations.

That's nonsense.  As if the decision to go down the road of austerity depended on a technical detail such as the potency of the fiscal multiplier.  Such a statement is as implausible as suggesting that some of the ill-advised military interventions in the Middle East during the last decade would have been prevented had those leaders who decided to enter those wars had been provided better intelligence.

Those looking to blame someone for the current disaster created by fiscal austerity should instead turn to the real culprits, the politicians themselves, as well as their horde of political aides who recommended a course of action that flies in the face of both common sense and empirical evidence.

As I discussed in an earlier post, the case against expansionary austerity was well established even before nations decided to enact austerity measures.  And amazingly, the empirical evidence against expansionary fiscal austerity stems from one of the most highly circulated economics papers of 2009, which, ironically, was branded as supporting the case for expansionary fiscal austerity.

This paper is the study by Alberto Alesina and Sylvia Ardagna, which found that the combination of austerity and growth occurred in 25 percent of the relevant episodes recorded by the OECD between 1970 and 2007 (2009, Data Appendix:Table A2).

In other words, the study demonstrated that the odds of successfully reducing public debt levels and achieving increased growth through austerity were 1 in 4.  As far as empirical support in favor of expansionary fiscal austerity goes, that's pretty weak.  With such information available, going ahead with austerity was tantamount to someone deciding to intentionally leave their umbrella at home knowing that there is a 75 percent chance of rain that day.  So much for the theory of the rational decision-maker!

And now economists are to blame?

The bottom line is that the disaster of austerity is not about economists getting it wrong.  Rather, it is a typical example of a policy-making failure: policymakers making decisions without regard for the facts.  But, more importantly, fiscal austerity was a prepackaged "solution to a problem" that fits with today's dominant policy-making ideology, which holds that governments have little or no purpose other than catering to financial interests and leaving the path clear for free-market actors to find solutions to every problem facing society.

To conclude, fiscal austerity is simply another example of a "solution looking for a problem", an empty and empirically ineffectual idea with no clear rationale other than giving the appearance that "something is being done".  In this sense, fiscal austerity joins the list of other well-known solutions looking for problems that have been tried and failed in the last thirty years such as deregulation, privatization, supply-side economics and so on.

References

Alesina, A and Ardagna, S., "Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes vs Spending", NBER Working Paper No. 15438, October 2009

Blanchard, O. and D. Leigh, "Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multiplier", IMF Working Paper WP/13/1, January 2013

Evsey Domar's "On Deficits and Debt": A survival guide for making sense of today's economic challenges

As I look back to 2012, I'm reminded about how relevant the work of economist Evsey Domar, the late Professor of Economics at MIT and previously a Federal Reserve staff economist, is for making sense of the predicament facing the US and the world economies today.  Three news stories during the last year provided a good backdrop for presenting Domar’s views on public debt, budget deficits and economic growth.

First, there was the surprising about face during the summer months when European leaders switched from advocating austerity to voicing their support for actions that promote growth.  Professor Domar would have most likely approved of this change of heart by Europe’s ruling elite given that, many decades ago, Domar authored “The Burden of the Debt and National Income” (1944), a paper which argues that “the problem of the burden of the debt is a problem of achieving a growing national income” rather than one associated with the size of the budget deficit or national debt.

E. Domar

Specifically, in his paper, Domar demonstrated that, in the long run, the ratio of debt to GDP will gradually approach the ratio of the fraction of GDP borrowed each year to the rate of growth of GDP.  So, for instance, the US federal government borrowed approximately 7 percent of GDP in 2012.  If the borrowing continued at the same rate and the GDP (in money terms) grows at 2 percent per year, the ratio of debt to GDP will approach 3.5; with a 3 percent growth, it will be 2.3.

Thus, Domar showed that "less attention should be devoted to the problem of the debt and more to finding ways of achieving a growing national income" (1945:415)

According to Domar, attempting to reduce the public debt by cutting government expenditures (thus removing a significant source of income and growth from the economy) is largely self-defeating and exactly the wrong course of action if undertaken when the economy is struggling.

Then, in the fall, there was the debate among economists and bloggers about the intergenerational burden of the public debt.  Had he been around, Professor Domar would have probably been disappointed to learn that issues addressed (and, for many, put to rest) decades ago are still being debated.

And now we're facing the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’, a metaphor depicting the slowdown facing the US economy as a result of the expiry of tax breaks enacted at a time when the US federal fiscal budget situation was in better shape.  In the face of such a situation, Domar would have understood that the last thing policymakers should do when the economy is weak is to increase taxes which take away purchasing power from the economy.

As we enter a New Year, it is worth remembering Domar’s views on these and other related issues.  And nowhere are these matters best addressed than in his short, three-page article “On Deficits and Debt” published in 1993.  In this article, Domar challenges many of the widely held beliefs about debt and deficits. 

First, the article begins by taking on the popular view that considers the US federal government debt as analogous to household debt:

Our old puritanical injunctions against running into debt remain valid when applied to a private person. He or she can disregard them only at his or her peril.  A large corporation has more leeway: it can borrow by issuing bonds, and replace them with new ones when they fall due. If many large corporations simultaneously decided to pay off their debts, our economy would collapse: it is based on credit, the inverse of debt. Still any corporation, however large can go bankrupt...But, the Federal government is in a class by itself: so long as its debt is expressed in dollars (which fortunately is the case), it can always print as many dollars as it needs to pay the interest, though nowadays it would issue bonds, sell them in the market and, if necessary, have the Federal Reserve repurchase them. The Federal government, the creator of the Federal Reserve System, is its own banker.

Then, Domar describes the merits of a budget deficit:

By definition, a budget deficit means that the government spends more money then it receives, or, in other words, that it creates more purchasing power by its expenditures than it destroys through taxes.  Is this good or bad? It depends. If the economy is working to capacity, the creation of extra purchasing power will do little good and much harm: it will cause an inflation, which is easy to start and hard to stop. But when the economy has plenty of unused resources, the additional purchasing power is welcome. At such a time, we should rebuild our physical infrastructure, improve our education, health, and environment, and intensify our scientific and industrial research efforts, without raising taxes and without reducing or eliminating other needed services, always keeping a watchful eye on economic barometers to make sure that we do not overdo it.

All this sounds nice and easy, perhaps too easy to avoid suspicion. Are we to get something for nothing, as the old saying goes? Is there such a thing as a free lunch, after all? The offer of a free lunch is strictly temporary; it lasts only so long as unused resources, and particularly unemployed labor, are available, because they can be put to use with little, if any, social cost. But one they are gone government expenditures, however, desirable, must be matched with revenue.

Later in the article, Domar explains that the true burden of the national debt is distributional in that it involves a transfer of resources from one group to another group within the economy:

Some early proponents of fiscal policy argued that the size of the debt and of interest payments on it are not important because “ we owe it to ourselves”...There is some truth in this argument, but it should not be exaggerated. Even if all the Federal bonds were owned by Americans and all interest on the debt received by them, problems created by the existence of a large debt and by the need to transfer [billions of dollars] from the taxpayers to the bondholders would remain...

On the other hand, this does not mean that the...interest paid on the debt represents a net loss to the country...[T]hat interest go to other Americans, directly or not and that much of it is subject to Federal income taxes. President Eisenhower, who disliked deficits and debts, is reported to have said, shortly before he left the White House, that every American baby born at the time carried on its neck a tag indicating its share of the Federal debt. Perhaps it did; but it must have also borne a second tag showing its share of the value of the Federal bonds.

The article then presents some interesting views about whether the country’s ratio of debt to GDP is an appropriate indicator of the state of the economy:

Does the ratio of the debt to GNP matter? Yes, it does. Other things being equal, I would prefer a smaller rather than larger ratio...Other things are not equal. There are times and conditions calling for a deficit. Without it, unemployment may rise and the GNP may fall, thus raising, rather than lowering the debt burden.

The article concludes with a comment on how to best address the “debt problem”:

The proper solution of the debt problem lies not in tying ourselves into a financial straight-jacket, but in achieving faster growth of the GNP, a result which is, of course, desirable by itself. To the Republican and other politicians who are hell-bent on reducing the deficit and even repaying the debt, I would like to address a very short and simple question: Why? Are we suffering from an excess of purchasing power now?

As we head into the New Year and get ready to face many of the same concerns as in 2012, I think it would be a good idea to keep in mind these points.

On that note, I wish all readers of this blog a very Happy New Year!

UPDATE: The third paragraph was revised on January 12, 2013.  It originally indicated that Domar demonstrated in his 1944 paper that the ratio of deficit to GDP would equal the ratio of the fraction of GDP borrowed each year to the rate of growth of the economy.  Rather, Domar focused on the ratio of debt to GDP.  I also added a subsequent paragraph (after paragraph 3) which includes a reference to Domar's article "The Burden of the Debt: A Rejoinder" (1945).

References

Domar, E., "The Burden of the Debt and the National Income", American Economic Review, 34(4), December 1944

Domar, E., "The Burden of the Debt: A Rejoinder", American Economic Review, 35(3), June 1945, pp. 414-418.

Domar, E., "On Deficits and Debt", American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(4), October 1993, 475-478.

Behind the deficit: high interest rates and recessions

As a follow-up to my previous article, I thought I would post this chart:

Primary government balance, Source: Statistics Canada

It shows Canada's consolidated government financial balance with and without interest on the debt.  The government's primary budget balance (i.e., current revenue less spending excluding interest on debt) is a good indicator of the magnitude of fiscal policy, declining during downturns and rising when real GDP increases. (Refer to this Statistics Canada table to view the relevant data)

The chart shows a few things.  First, it shows that interest on the debt (and the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy in the 1980s) was an important contributing factor to the size of the deficit in the 1980s and early 1990s.  Notice how the gap between the two series shrinks as we move towards the 1990s.

Second, it drives home the point that recessions have a significant impact on the size of the government budget deficit by increasing the use of automatic stabilizers (i.e., unemployment benefits and other expenditures) and reducing government tax revenues.  Note that the primary government balance reached a surplus during the late 1980s as a result of the deficit reduction efforts of the federal Tories under Mulroney and of the provinces (see arrow).  The primary government balance only declined again as a result of the recession of the early 1990s.  The end of the recession restored the primary surplus.

Third, it makes it clear (given the above) that the series of government surpluses that Canada witnessed starting in the mid- to late-90s had their roots in the fiscal policy measures of the 1980s (e.g., tax increases and spending cuts) rather than solely in the cutbacks of the 1990s under the federal Liberals and of the provinces.  This is a point that very few commentators in Canada appreciate.

But the main lesson to take away from the above is that the large budget deficit of the early 1990s was caused by the recession. It was not a consequence of 'out of control' government spending, as most are led to believe.

Austerity in Canada: Then and Now

Canada's economic accounts for the third quarter of 2012 were released last week.  They show a very weak quarter.  Real gross domestic product barely stayed positive, growing by a mere 0.1 percent (see chart 1).  The details can be found here, courtesy of Statistics Canada (click on charts to expand).

Chart 1 Real GDP growth, quarterly % change

Many reasons have been given to explain the economy's weak performance, including the slowdown in China, the fiscal and financial situation in Europe, as well as tepid growth in the US during the summer months.

Of course, as usual, no one is pointing to the fact that Canada is currently undergoing its second most important (i.e., longest and sharpest) bout of public sector austerity in half a century.  One would think that commentators would highlight this reality in their analyses.

As you can see from the chart below, real (consolidated) government expenditure (excluding transfers) has been in decline since the fourth quarter of 2010.  Historically, such a decline in real government spending has only occurred once: during the period of fiscal restraint of the mid-1990s.

Chart 2: Real government expenditures, Source: Statistics Canada and author's calculations

The reason why commentators don't think of austerity as the potential cause of the current weak performance is that Canadians live under the illusion that government spending cuts have little or no impact on the economy.  This stems from the fact that the fiscal austerity put forth during the 1990s gave Canadians (and especially their political leaders) the false impression that cuts in government spending generally help to boost the economy.

Visually, this is how most commentators interpret Canada's experience with austerity in the 1990s (note: I'm not seeking to show a correlation between the two series. I'm simply overlapping both sets of data on a common timeline):

Chart 3: The vanishing deficit and the road to surpluses, Source: Statistics Canada

The standard view holds that fiscal austerity during the 1990s helped to shrink the deficit, thus enabling Canada to run a series of budgetary surpluses throughout the early- to mid- 2000s.  Also, this view holds that fiscal austerity played a crucial role in helping Canada recover from the recession of the early 1990s and contributed to Canada's strong economic performance during the period from the mid-1990s until the financial crisis. 

The problem with this interpretation is that it completely disregards the fact that the Canadian economy during the mid-1990s was impacted by a massive increase in demand stemming from the domestic household and external sectors.  Consider the following charts showing that, as fiscal austerity was undertaken, net borrowing by both the household and external sector exploded in Canada during that period:

Chart 3: Household sector falls into net financial deficit, Source: Statistics Canada and author's calculations

Chart 4: Increased foreign demand to the rescue, Source: Statistics Canada and author's calculations

Net borrowing is the difference between a sector's total spending and income.  It is a key indicator of the demand generated by any sector of the economy. 

Supported by a much easier monetary policy and falling exchanging rate (a consequence of US President Clinton's desire to "have a strong dollar"), the increased net borrowing generated by these two sectors was effective in offsetting the decline in net borrowing of the government sector caused by fiscal austerity.

The increase in net borrowing by the household sector between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s was unprecedented.  Between 1995 and 2007, net borrowing by the household sector increased by close to 10 percent of GDP (see arrow going down).  As for net borrowing of the foreign sector, it increased by approximately five percent of GDP.  Combined, this additional demand was more than sufficient to offset the decline in demand caused by fiscal austerity.

Today, unlike in the 1990s, the household sector is seeking to reduce its level of borrowing.  And the foreign sector, due to the strength of the Canadian dollar and the weakness of the world economy as a result of global austerity, cannot be a significant source of demand at this time.*

As a result, any attempt by Canada's policymakers to balance the budget in such a context is self-defeating and actually exacerbating the problem given that it is taking away purchasing power from households and firms.  And, as we are witnessing now, it is taking its toll and slowing GDP growth as a consequence.

Economist James Tobin said it best several years ago:

Deficit reduction is not an end in itself. It's rationale is to improve productivity, real wages and living standards of our children and their children. If the measures to cut deficits actually diminish GDP raise unemployment, and reduce future-oriented activities of government, business and households, they do not achieve the goals that are their raison-d'être; rather, they retard them. This perverse result is likely if deficit reduction measures are introduced while the economy is as weak and as constrained by effective demand as it is now.

It's time to think more clearly about these issues.  What "worked" in the past need not be the appropriate course of action today.  The Canadian economy now is not like the one that existed back then.  It's time to move forward.  Trying to relive the "success" of the 1990s will only make matters worse. 

Update:

Chart 2 should be entitled "Real consolidated government expenditures (all levels of government) (millions of chained 2002 dollars)". The title and headings in charts 3, 4 and 5 are accurate.  All data comprises expenditures on goods and services, as well as on capital formation. They exclude transfers.


*  The critical point to remember is that, as I've explained before, the government deficit cannot be reduced in isolation from the other sectors of the economy.  Public sector deficits are from an accounting standpoint the equivalent of surpluses in the private sector, plus additional net imports.  The reason for this is that government deficit spending adds to the net accumulation of private holdings of households and businesses (and/or the foreign sector, where applicable).

In other words, any reduction in government spending or tax increase has a direct impact on the financial position of the private sector.  To believe otherwise is wishful thinking.  If external demand and/or increased demand from another domestic sector (households or businesses) are not high enough to offset the demand shortfall created by reduced government expenditures, continued attempts at fiscal austerity will impose additional deflationary pressure on the economy.

Reference

Tobin, J., "Thinking straight about fiscal stimulus and deficit reduction", Challenge, March 1, 1993