A General Theory of Austerity

“If we cannot puncture some of the mythology around austerity … then we are doomed to keep on making more and more mistakes”

Barack Obama, New York Times, April 2016

I have just completed a working paper based on my talk to the Royal Irish Academy at the end of last year. (Yes, I know, that was six months ago - it’s all the media training I have to do :-)) It has the title of this post: in part an allusion to Keynes who had been here before, but also because its scope is ambitious. The first part of the paper tries to explain why austerity is nearly always unnecessary, and the second part tries to understand why the austerity mistake happened.

I start by making a distinction which helps a great deal. It is between fiscal consolidation, which is a policy decision, and austerity, which is an outcome where that fiscal consolidation leads to an increase in aggregate unemployment. If you understand why monetary policy can normally stop fiscal consolidation leading to austerity, but cannot when interest rates are stuck near zero, then you are a long way to understanding why austerity was a mistake. Fiscal consolidation in 2010 was around 3 years too early. A section of the paper is devoted to showing that the idea that markets prevented such a delay in consolidation is a complete myth.

I say that austerity is nearly always unnecessary because (given the title) I also cover the case of an individual monetary union member that has an unusually (relative to the rest of the union) large government debt problem. Here some austerity is required, but not for the reason you might think. It has nothing to do with markets: the Eurozone crisis from 2010 to 2012 was a result of mistakes by the ECB. If a union member’s government debt is not sustainable, there needs to be some form of default (Greece). If it is sustainable, then the central bank should back that government, as the ECB ended up doing with OMT in 2012. The reason some austerity is necessary is that to support financing this unusually high debt, the union member needs a real depreciation, and in a monetary union that has to occur via lower wages and prices relative to other union members.

None of this theory is at all new: hence the allusion to Keynes in the title. That makes the question of why policy makers made the mistake all the more pertinent. One set of arguments point to an unfortunate conjunction of events: austerity as an accident if you like. Basically Greece happened at a time when German orthodoxy was dominant. I argue that this explanation cannot play more than a minor role: mainly because it does not explain what happened in the US and UK, but also because it requires us to believe that macroeconomics in Germany is very special and that it had the power to completely dominate policy makers not only in Germany but the rest of the Eurozone.

The set of arguments that I think have more force, and which make up the general theory of the title, reflect political opportunism on the political right which is dominated by a ‘small state’ ideology. It is opportunism because it chose to ignore the (long understood) macroeconomics, and instead appeal to arguments based on equating governments to households, at a time when many households were in the process of reducing debt or saving more. But this explanation raises another question in turn: how was the economics known since Keynes lost to simplistic household analogies.

This question can be put another way. Why was this opportunism so evident in this recession, but not in earlier economic downturns? There are a number of reasons for this, which I also discuss here, but one that I think is important in Europe is the spread of central bank independence, coupled with a phobia that European central bank governors have about fiscal dominance. In the UK, for example, the Bank of England played a key role in 2010 in convincing policymakers and the media that we needed immediate and aggressive fiscal consolidation. Keynesian demand management has been entrusted to institutions whose leaders (but not those who work for them) threw away the manual. But as Ben Bernanke showed, it does not have to be this way. [1]

If my analysis is right, it means that we cannot be complacent that when the next liquidity trap recession hits the austerity mistake will not be made again. Indeed it may be even more likely to happen, as austerity has in many cases been successful in reducing the size of the state. My paper does not explore how to avoid future austerity, but it hopefully lays the groundwork for that discussion.

[1] Here is Bernanke is October 2010 saying “indeed, premature fiscal tightening could put the recovery at risk”, although no doubt he could have said it louder.

Ben Bernanke and Democratic Helicopter Money

“The fact that no responsible government would ever literally drop money from the sky should not prevent us from exploring the logic of Friedman’s thought experiment, which was designed to show—in admittedly extreme terms—why governments should never have to give in to deflation.”

The quote above is from a post by Ben Bernanke (who, in case anyone does not know, used to be in charge of US monetary policy). I put it up front because it expresses a macroeconomic truth that no one should ever forget: persistent recessions and deflation are never inevitable, and always represent the failure of policy makers to do the right thing.

There are many useful points in his post, but I just want to talk about one: Bernanke is in fact not talking about helicopter money in its traditional sense, but what I have called elsewhere ‘democratic helicopter money’.

When most people talk about HM, they imagine some scheme whereby the central bank sends ‘everyone’ a cheque in the post, or transmits some money to each individual some other way. It is what economists would call a reverse lump sum tax, or reverse poll tax: the amount you get is independent of your income. That makes it different from a normal tax cut.

In practice the central bank could only really do this with the cooperation of governments. It would not want to take the decision about what everyone means on its own. (Do we include children or not. How do we find everyone?) But once those details had been sorted out, a system would be in place that the central bank could operate whenever it needed to.

Bernanke suggests an alternative. The central bank sets aside a sum of newly created money, and the fiscal authorities then spend it as they wish. They could decide to use all the money to build bridges or schools rather than give it to individuals. There might be two reasons for doing HM this way. First, for some reason the fiscal authorities are reluctant to spend if they have to fund it by creating more debt, so it may allow them to get around this (normally self-imposed) ‘constraint’. Second, a money financed fiscal expansion could be more expansionary than a bond financed fiscal expansion. Lets leave the second advantage to one side, as the first is sufficient in a world obsessed by government debt.

I have talked about something similar in the past (first here, but later here and here), which I have called democratic helicopter money. This label also seems appropriate for Bernanke’s scheme, because the elected government decides on the form of fiscal expansion. The difference between what I had discussed earlier under this label and Bernanke’s suggestion is that in my scheme the fiscal authorities and the central bank talk to each other before deciding on how much money to create and what it will be spent on (although the initiative always comes from the central bank, and would only happen in a recession where interest rates were at their lower bound). The reason I think talking would be preferable is simply that it helps the central bank decide how much money it needs to create. [1]

Imagine, for example, you had a fiscal authority in one country that wanted to spend the money on ‘shovel ready’ public investment projects, and an authority in another country that wanted to spend it on some temporary tax cuts for the rich. The impact of the two different stimulus policies on demand and output are very different. If the two economies were in similar conjunctural positions, then the central bank with the tax cutting fiscal authorities would want to create a lot more money than would be required in the other economy.

In some countries it is easier for central banks to talk to the fiscal authorities than in others. When it is difficult, Bernanke’s scheme may appear attractive, but it leaves the central bank somewhat in the dark about how much money it needs to create. The big advantage of the more popular conception of HM (a cheque in the post) is that the impact of any money creation is much clearer. (As it is important to end recessions quickly, waiting to see what happens is not helpful advice.)

When central banks and governments do happily talk to each other (as in the UK, for example) then my version of democratic HM becomes an option. Arguments that this makes the central bank less independent are spurious in my view. The central bank initiates the discussion, in clearly defined circumstances. They simply ask what the government would spend any newly created money on. This question should be accompanied by the central bank’s current view on what the multipliers for various fiscal options are. The government then makes a choice, and the central bank then decides how much money to create.

While democratic HM is not talked about much among economists (Bernanke excepted), I think there are good political economy reasons why it may be the form of HM that is eventually tried. As I have said, conventional HM of the cheque in the post kind almost certainly requires the involvement of government. Once governments realise what is going on, they may naturally think why set up something new when they could decide how the money is spent themselves in a more traditional manner. Democratic HM is essentially a method of doing a money financed fiscal expansion in a world of independent central banks.

Which brings me back to the quote at the head of this post. The straight macroeconomics of most versions of HM is clear: all the discussion is about institutional and distributional details. If it is beyond us to manage to set in place any of them before the next recession that would be a huge indictment of our collective imagination, and is probably a testament to the power of imaginary fears and taboos created in very different circumstances.

[1] A sequential set-up of the kind Bernanke suggests is also more vulnerable to cheating: the government uses the money to finance something they were going to do anyway, and in effect largely offsets the money creation by reducing its own borrowing. 

Where would you get the money from?

In the recent furore in the UK over tax credits, I do not recall any government minister being asked the following question by a journalist: why don’t you just borrow more? Yet to any economist that is the most sensible, and indeed obvious, question to ask.

I just do not think most journalists (and I’m tempted to write and therefore politicians) have yet realised this crucial difference between austerity in 2010 and austerity now. [1] In 2010 debt to GDP ratios were rising fast, everyone was talking about market panic, so people like me who thought deficits should be larger had some explaining to do (although, as Ben Bernanke recently said, we were right). But now austerity already enacted has stabilised debt to GDP ratios, not just in the UK but in the US and Euro area. Over the next five years debt to GDP ratios in the UK will be falling.

This means that further austerity is no longer about stabilising debt and an imagined market panic. Instead it is about an obsessive need to cut debt to GDP really fast, or more likely a desire to shrink the state. It isn’t primarily about Keynesian economics any more [2], but instead about any kind of economics. Remember there are no economists prepared to defend Osborne’s fiscal charter. In economic terms the fiscal charter itself is the real embarrassment. The issue is no longer do we increase the level of government debt for the sake of the economy, but do we need to raise tax credits or cut vital public services just in order to cut government debt quickly.

Perhaps the most charitable explanation for this failure of journalism is that most people do not understand some very basic points. Governments running surpluses are rare. Unlike individuals, nearly all governments have always had a large amount of debt. Unlike individuals, nation states live for a very long time. Because the amount they produce also grows over time (real growth and inflation) that means that the ratio of debt to GDP (which is what matters) can stay constant even if they run deficits. For example with debt at 80% of GDP, and a conservative estimate of average 4% nominal growth, the UK’s debt to GDP ratio would stay constant with a deficit of 3.2% of GDP.

3.2% of GDP is a lot of money. It means the government could run deficits of £60 billion today (£70 billion by 2020) and not raise the debt to GDP ratio. By comparison, the now derailed cuts to tax credits were worth less than £5 billion, and the spending review is trying to save £20 billion.

So here is a simple exam question for journalists. If any politician over the next 5 years proposes not to cut some item of expenditure, or not to raise some tax, and they are asked where is the money to do this coming from, which of the following answers is most convincing?

1. We would generate more tax receipts by making the economy stronger.

1/10. Every political party thinks their policies will raise growth and therefore bring in more revenue, but they should never rely on this happening. In some cases political parties (pretend to?) believe things that we know are untrue, like tax cuts will pay for themselves. Of course some policies, like cutting tax credits, could well damage the economy by reducing labour supply, but again it is highly unlikely that such damage would make tax credits self-funding. So any interviewer would be quite right to raise their eyebrows at this answer.

2. We would save money by making public spending more efficient.
   

1/10. Same problem as above.

3. We would print more money.
   

3/10. Not as silly as it may sound when central banks have already created a huge amount of money (QE) to buy government debt. So no raising of eyebrows (or worse) appropriate in this case. But in the current UK and US context (but not the Eurozone) where central banks are talking about when they might start reducing QE it looks like an answer which is out of its time.

4. We would cut the following expenditure instead, or raise the following taxes, or get rid of the following tax breaks.

8/10. A good answer, particularly if the funding measures are specified and the sums are realistic and not double counted. Works in all seasons. Right now opposition parties have plenty of scope here, as Jolyon Maugham spells out.

5. We would borrow more.

10/10. In the current UK context the best answer, although if you had given this answer in Ireland or Spain in 2004 you would get 0/10. It may seem too easy to be true, but in the rather peculiar circumstances where you have a Chancellor that is pursuing reckless austerity for extremely dubious reasons it would be utter foolishness to turn your back on this gift horse.

Yet most politicians are incredibly reluctant to give that answer, in large part because they think they will get the raised eyebrow treatment from journalists or worse. So we have the crazy situation that no single economist is prepared to endorse the fiscal charter, but pretty well every journalist treats any suggestion that we should depart from it as unacceptable. That just cannot be right.

[1] Andrew Rawnsley rightly points out that the political reaction to the tax credit cuts over the last five months shows how little most journalists know about ordinary people as well as economics (yes, that Westminster bubble), but he fails to note the critical role of the fiscal charter, and so treats the need to find some extra money as self-evident.

[2] There still is a Keynesian argument about risk, but take that away and the case for a more gradual pace of deficit reduction is still very strong.   

Bernanke on austerity and the fiscal charter

When I and others say that the intellectual debate on the wisdom of embarking on fiscal austerity as we recovered from the Great Depression is over, some think I am indulging in exaggerated bluster. I'm not. Central bankers are notorious for their conservatism and their aversion to budget deficits, so you would expect the man who until recently ran probably the most important central bank in the world to be at best equivocal on this subject.

Here is an extract from an interview with Ben Bernanke by George Eaton in the New Statesman:

Though a depression was averted in 2008, the recovery in the US and the UK has been slow. Bernanke partly blames the imposition of fiscal austerity (spending cuts and tax rises), which limited the effectiveness of monetary stimulus. “All the major industrial countries – US, UK, eurozone – ran too quickly to budget-cutting, given the severity of the recession and the level of unemployment.”

Partly thanks to Bernanke’s leadership (and knowledge), the Great Recession was not as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Monetary policy reacted much more quickly, and financial institutions were (nearly all) bailed out. In 2009 we also enacted fiscal stimulus, but in 2010 we reverted to the policies of the early 1930s with fiscal austerity. That mistake was partly the result of panic following events in the Eurozone (see the IMF analysis discussed here), but it also reflected political opportunism on the right.

In the UK that opportunism continues with the new fiscal charter. Here is more from the Bernanke interview:

He criticises George Osborne’s new budget surplus law, which prohibits government borrowing when the economy is growing by more than 1 per cent. “I would be very cautious about putting in rules that would prevent a timely fiscal response to a slowing economy, particularly in a world of very low interest rates.” He adds that “a period of excess labour supply and low interest rates is not only a good time to invest, from the perspective of the recovery, it also makes sense from a long-term productivity perspective”.

Bernanke is again reflecting the consensus among economists: I have not found a single one who supports this charter. Alas winning the intellectual argument does not mean immediately winning the political argument. But even though I am scathing about what I call mediamacro, surely our political commentariat must notice at some stage that the rationale George Osborne gives for cutting tax credits and yet more departmental spending is built on sand.

The ECB as sovereign lender of last resort

Understandably the element of my talk at the Royal Irish Academy which generated most discussion was the role of the ECB. (Here is a media report, but ignore the last two paragraphs which are confused/wrong. Abstract for the talk is here. Paper will follow.) The proposition I put forward was that the ECB’s OMT programme should have been put in place in 2010, and if it had been countries outside Greece could have implemented a more efficient austerity programme (one that produced less unemployment) and might have retained market access (interest rates on government debt would have remained reasonable). [1]

There are two serious and related arguments against this view. The first is that it is unrealistic for the ECB to act as a sovereign lender of last resort because of the transfers between countries that this might lead to. (A sovereign lender of last resort is a central bank that is always willing to buy its government’s debt.) [2] The second is that in practice OMT is bound to be coupled with a requirement for austerity programmes that might have simply duplicated what was actually put into place by national governments. Both arguments speak to a real problem that remains unresolved within the Eurozone, but do not nullify the argument that things should have been done much better.

Government debt in advanced economies is regarded as a safe asset for two reasons. The first is that most governments that borrow in their own currency rarely default. The second is that an individual investor does not need to worry about market beliefs, because if the market panics and refuses to buy the government’s debt the central bank will step in (hence sovereign lender of last resort). If the central bank did not do this, the government might be forced to default because it cannot roll over its existing debt.

It makes sense for the central bank to act as a sovereign lender of last resort, because it avoids self-fulfilling market panics. Doubly so because such panics will be more likely to occur after a large recession when the social value of government borrowing is particularly high. The complication in the case of the ECB is the following. If the market panic is so great that the ECB was forced to actually buy a ‘distressed’ government’s debt (normally the threat to do so is enough), it is possible that this government might choose to default even with ECB support. If it did that, the ECB would make losses which would be born by the Eurozone as a whole (the transfer risk).

Partly for this reason, the ECB has to have the ability not to act as a sovereign lender of last resort, or withdraw support if circumstances change. If that ability exists (a point I will come back to), then the transfer risk associated with the ECB acting as a sovereign lender of last resort are tiny. It represents the kind of minimal risk that should always be offset by the trust and solidarity that comes with the territory of being in a monetary union. I suspect those that suggest otherwise are often trying to hide other motives.

A government that is receiving ECB support of this kind will naturally want to know what it has to do to maintain it, because the threat of its withdrawal is so great. It would be unreasonable to withhold that information. Does that in practice amount to nothing more than the kind of conditions that have in practice been imposed on Ireland and Portugal anyway? Absolutely not. Just as the market does not worry about the build up of debt in a recession in countries like the UK or Japan, a rational ECB would have no reason to impose fiscal consolidation at the time it would do most damage. The time a rational ECB might withdraw its support is once a recovery is complete and the government refuses to embark on fiscal consolidation.

So a sovereign lender of last resort in a monetary union must have the ability not to provide that support. In other words it has to sort Greece from Ireland. That decision is a huge one, because in effect it is a decision about whether the country will be forced to default. It is natural that the ECB wants to share that responsibility with member governments, but as we have seen with Greece member governments are hopeless at making that decision (particularly when their own banks may be compromised by any default). We have also seen that European central bankers are far from rational on issues involving government debt (compared with at least one of their anglo-saxon counterparts), so giving the decision to someone else other than the current ECB would seem like a good idea. However at present there is no institution that seems capable of doing this job.

In this post I suggested contracting out this task to the IMF, although that presumed a reduction in the political influence of European governments on that institution. I have also wondered about whether a body like the newly created network of European fiscal councils could play this role. Another possibility is to reform the ECB so that it is not subject to deficit phobia, and is more accountable. It seems to me that this is where current research and analysis should be going, rather than into schemes involving greater political union.

The existence of various alternatives here means that we should not take what has actually happened in the Eurozone as some kind of immutable political constraint beyond which economics cannot go. There is no intrinsic reason why the OMT that was introduced in September 2012 could not have been introduced in 2010. There is no intrinsic reason why any conditionality that went with that could not have been much more efficient in terms of unemployment costs. Beyond Greece, the Eurozone crisis happened because the ECB thought it could avoid undertaking one of the essential functions of a central bank. This was perhaps the most important of the many errors it has made.

[1] For a country within a monetary union which needs to reduce debt more rapidly than does the union as a whole, a gain in competitiveness relative to the rest of the union is required to offset the deflationary impact of fiscal consolidation. That ‘internal devaluation’ probably requires some increase in unemployment, but it is much more efficient to obtain that increase in competitiveness gradually.

[2] It could be argued that the Fed does not provide lender of last resort services to individual member states. But state debt is typically lower relative to GDP and income than for Eurozone governments. Before 2000, Eurozone governments were able to borrow more because they were backed by their central bank. That means that they are inevitably subject to a greater risk of suffering from a self-fulfilling market panic. The architects of the Eurozone might have initially believed that the SGP might avoid the need for a sovereign lender of last resort, but after the Great Recession they would have known otherwise.

Why Bernanke was right to speak out on fiscal policy

This is a comment on Cardiff Garcia’s post on fiscalists and market monetarists, and also some related criticism of Bernanke’s recent remarks on fiscal policy, criticism which I think is totally wrong. I want to argue that a ‘monetarist’ position which is indifferent to what fiscal policy is doing in current circumstances is untenable. As a result, central bankers have to speak out on the dangers of austerity. [1]

There are two lines that monetarists might take. The first is that unconventional monetary policy, Quantitative Easing (QE), is a perfect substitute for conventional monetary policy. The second is that an appropriate monetary policy regime can, through expectations, undo the restriction imposed by the zero lower bound (ZLB). Let me take each in turn.

The first argument is wrong mainly because of uncertainty. Macroeconomists know little enough, but we do know something about how conventional monetary and fiscal policy works, and we have a lot of data that can help us. We know so much less about unconventional monetary policy. What kind of model we should use is unclear, and we have very little data.

The second argument would be right if we could fix inflation expectations in exactly the same way as we could, absent the ZLB, fix nominal interest rates. Would a nominal GDP target do that? Of course not. I think it would help, particularly compared to an inflation target regime, because the latter actually inhibits inflation expectations rising above that target. That is why I have recently argued that a path for nominal GDP should be adopted by central banks as an intermediate target. Would adopting such a target raise inflation expectations and speed a recovery? - I think it would. Would it raise inflation expectations by enough to negate the need for any fiscal stimulus (or, more realistically, to counteract the impact of fiscal tightening)? There is no logical reason why it should. But let us just suppose it did. Does that mean we can ignore fiscal policy?

Absolutely not. What we are getting in this case is a recovery achieved by raising expected inflation above (in the UK, US and Eurozone) 2%. That is costly, because it means actual inflation must be allowed to go above 2%. The more we deflate demand through fiscal austerity, the higher inflation has to go (or the longer it has to be above 2%). So monetarists who believe in the expectations channel cannot be indifferent to fiscal policy, unless they also believe it has no effect, or that inflation above 2% is costless. (I make a similar point a little more carefully here.) If, as Paul Krugman says, fiscal policy makers are doing the wrong thing, that is a cost worth paying, but it is a cost nonetheless.

This is why it is really important that central banks, like the Fed, make it publicly clear the difficulties that fiscal tightening is causing them in meeting their mandate. Either this is because they are, quite rightly, uncertain about the impact of QE, or they are aware that the more fiscal tightening there is, the more inflation will have to go above 2% to counteract its impact.

The idea that to speak this truth is wrong because it might frighten the horses is silly. I have used the following analogy before. No one wants to hear a pilot tell passengers that they are no longer in control of the plane. However a better analogy in this case would be the pilot not telling the co-pilot, which would be highly dangerous. The horses that matter here are those in charge of fiscal policy, and they need frightening.

[1] Sorry Nick. I have a lot of sympathy for the point that we should not routinely exaggerate with language. The (I think just British) phrase I hate is ‘black hole’ when used to describe a worsening in the government’s accounts. The use of austerity to describe what is happening in parts of Europe and the UK right now is less obviously loaded or misleading, but I’m open to persuasion.