A Manifesto for Economic Sense

Download PDF

A Manifesto for Economic Sense

More than four years after the financial crisis began, the world's major advanced economies remain deeply depressed, in a scene all too reminiscent of the 1930s. And the reason is simple: we are relying on the same ideas that governed policy in the 1930s. These ideas, long since disproved, involve profound errors both about the causes of the crisis, its nature, and the appropriate response.

These errors have taken deep root in public consciousness and provide the public support for the excessive austerity of current fiscal policies in many countries. So the time is ripe for a Manifesto in which mainstream economists offer the public a more evidence-based analysis of our problems.

• The causes. Many policy makers insist that the crisis was caused by irresponsible public borrowing. With very few exceptions - other than Greece - this is false. Instead, the conditions for crisis were created by excessive private sector borrowing and lending, including by over-leveraged banks. The collapse of this bubble led to massive falls in output and thus in tax revenue. So the large government deficits we see today are a consequence of the crisis, not its cause.
• The nature of the crisis. When real estate bubbles on both sides of the Atlantic burst, many parts of the private sector slashed spending in an attempt to pay down past debts. This was a rational response on the part of individuals, but - just like the similar response of debtors in the 1930s - it has proved collectively self-defeating, because one person's spending is another person's income. The result of the spending collapse has been an economic depression that has worsened the public debt.
• The appropriate response. At a time when the private sector is engaged in a collective effort to spend less, public policy should act as a stabilizing force, attempting to sustain spending. At the very least we should not be making things worse by big cuts in government spending or big increases in tax rates on ordinary people. Unfortunately, that's exactly what many governments are now doing.
• The big mistake. After responding well in the first, acute phase of the economic crisis, conventional policy wisdom took a wrong turn - focusing on government deficits, which are mainly the result of a crisis-induced plunge in revenue, and arguing that the public sector should attempt to reduce its debts in tandem with the private sector. As a result, instead of playing a stabilizing role, fiscal policy has ended up reinforcing and exacerbating the dampening effects of private-sector spending cuts.

In the face of a less severe shock, monetary policy could take up the slack. But with interest rates close to zero, monetary policy - while it should do all it can - cannot do the whole job. There must of course be a medium-term plan for reducing the government deficit. But if this is too front-loaded it can easily be self-defeating by aborting the recovery. A key priority now is to reduce unemployment, before it becomes endemic, making recovery and future deficit reduction even more difficult.

How do those who support present policies answer the argument we have just made? They use two quite different arguments in support of their case.

The confidence argument. Their first argument is that government deficits will raise interest rates and thus prevent recovery. By contrast, they argue, austerity will increase confidence and thus encourage recovery.

But there is no evidence at all in favour of this argument. First, despite exceptionally high deficits, interest rates today are unprecedentedly low in all major countries where there is a normally functioning central bank. This is true even in Japan where the government debt now exceeds 200% of annual GDP; and past downgrades by the rating agencies here have had no effect on Japanese interest rates. Interest rates are only high in some Euro countries, because the ECB is not allowed to act as lender of last resort to the government. Elsewhere the central bank can always, if needed, fund the deficit, leaving the bond market unaffected.

Moreover past experience includes no relevant case where budget cuts have actually generated increased economic activity. The IMF has studied 173 cases of budget cuts in individual countries and found that the consistent result is economic contraction. In the handful of cases in which fiscal consolidation was followed by growth, the main channels were a currency depreciation against a strong world market, not a current possibility. The lesson of the IMF's study is clear - budget cuts retard recovery. And that is what is happening now - the countries with the biggest budget cuts have experienced the biggest falls in output.

For the truth is, as we can now see, that budget cuts do not inspire business confidence. Companies will only invest when they can foresee enough customers with enough income to spend. Austerity discourages investment.

So there is massive evidence against the confidence argument; all the alleged evidence in favor of the doctrine has evaporated on closer examination.

The structural argument. A second argument against expanding demand is that output is in fact constrained on the supply side - by structural imbalances. If this theory were right, however, at least some parts of our economies ought to be at full stretch, and so should some occupations. But in most countries that is just not the case. Every major sector of our economies is struggling, and every occupation has higher unemployment than usual. So the problem must be a general lack of spending and demand.

In the 1930s the same structural argument was used against proactive spending policies in the U.S. But as spending rose between 1940 and 1942, output rose by 20%. So the problem in the 1930s, as now, was a shortage of demand not of supply.

As a result of their mistaken ideas, many Western policy-makers are inflicting massive suffering on their peoples. But the ideas they espouse about how to handle recessions were rejected by nearly all economists after the disasters of the 1930s, and for the following forty years or so the West enjoyed an unparalleled period of economic stability and low unemployment. It is tragic that in recent years the old ideas have again taken root. But we can no longer accept a situation where mistaken fears of higher interest rates weigh more highly with policy-makers than the horrors of mass unemployment.

Better policies will differ between countries and need detailed debate. But they must be based on a correct analysis of the problem. We therefore urge all economists and others who agree with the broad thrust of this Manifesto to register their agreement at www.manifestoforeconomicsense.org, and to publically argue the case for a sounder approach. The whole world suffers when men and women are silent about what they know is wrong.

View All

Signed By

Aaron Goldzimer - Stanford Graduate School of Business / Yale Law School
Alan Manning - London School of Economics
Alan Maynard - University of York
Alan S. Blinder - Princeton University
Alasdair Smith - University of Sussex
Alfonso Lasso de la Vega - Former Deputy Director in UNCTAD
Ali Rattansi - Professor, City University, London
Andrew Graham - Oxford University
Barbara Petrongolo - Queen Mary University and CEP (LSE)
Barbara Wolfe - University of Wisconsin-Madison
Barry Bluestone - Northeastern University
Barry Supple - University of Cambridge
Charles Wyplosz - The Graduate Institute, Geneva
Chris Pissarides - London School of Economics and Political Science
Christian Kroll - University of Bremen / Jacobs University
Christopher Allsopp - Director, Oxford Insitute for Energy Studies, Oxford
Colin Thain - University of Birmingham, UK
David Blanchflower - Dartmouth College
David Hemenway, economist - Harvard School of Public Health
David Sapsford - Edward Gonner Professor of Applied Economics (Emeritus), University of Liverpool
David Soskice - University of Oxford
David Vines - Oxford University
Demetrios Papathanasiou - The World Bank
Donald R. Davis - Columbia University, Dept. of Economics
Eric van Wincoop - University of Virginia
Erzo F.P. Luttmer - Dartmouth College
G C Harcourt - University of New South Wales, School of Economics
Gary Mongiovi - St Johns University, New York
Geoffrey M. Hodgson - Professor, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Geraint Johnes - Lancaster University
Gianni Zanini - World Bank (Consultant; former Lead Economist)
Hannes Schwandt - CEP/LSE and Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Heinz Kurz - University of Graz, Austria
J. Bradford DeLong - U.C. Berkeley
Jan-Emmanuel De Neve - University College London & LSE Centre for Economic Performance
Jeffrey Frankel - Harvard University
Jeremy Hardie - LSE Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science
Joan Costa Font - London Sschool of Economics
Jocelyn Boussard - European Commission
John H Bishop - Cornell University
John Van Reenen - Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
Jonathan Portes - National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Joseph Gagnon - Peterson Institute for International Economics
Justin Wolfers - Princeton University
Kalim Siddiqui - Business School, University of Huddersfield, UK
Ken Coutts - Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge
Kevin ORourke - University of Oxford
Larry L Duetsch - Emeritus Prof of Econ, U of Wisconsin - Parkside
Lesley Potters - European Commission
Marcus Miller - Warwick University
Mariana Mazzucato - University of Sussex
Mark Setterfield - Trinity College, Connecticut
Mark Stewart - Warwick University
Max Steuer - London School of Economics
Michael Ambrosi - Professor Emeritus, University of Trier
Michael Graff - ETH Zurich and Jacobs University Bremen
Michael Waterson - University of Warwick
Nathan Cutler - Harvard Kennedy School
Nattavudh Powdthavee - University of Melbourne and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Politcal Sciences
Nicholas Rau - University College London
Olaf Storbeck - Handelsblatt - Germanys Business and Financial Daily
Oriana Bandiera - London School of Economics
P.E. Hart - Emeritus Professor of Economics,University of Reading
Patricia Rice - University of Oxford
Paul Anand - Open University/ HERC Oxford University
Paul Gregg - Professor, Dept of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath
Paul Krugman - Princeton University
Paul Whiteley - University of Essex
Peter E. Earl - University of Queensland
Peter Elias - University of Warwick
Peter J. Hammond - University of Warwick
Peter Taylor-Gooby - University of Kent
Peter Temin - MIT
Philip Arestis - University of Cambridge
Philippe Martin - sciences po (paris)
Professor Sir Richard Jolly - Institute of Development Studies
Raffaella Sadun - Harvard Business School
Raja Junankar - University of New South Wales, University of Western Sydney, and IZA
Raquel Fernandez - NYU
Richard J. Smith - Faculty of Economics University of Cambridge
Richard Jackman - London School of Economics
Richard Layard - LSE Centre for Economic Performance
Richard Murray - former chief economist, Swedish Agency for Public Management
Richard Parker - Harvard University
Rick van der Ploeg - University of Oxford
Robert A. Feldman - IMF and Adjunct Professor Georgetown U. (retired)
Robert H. Frank - Cornell University
Robert Haveman - University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert Neild - Emeritus Professor,Trinity College, Cambridge
Robert Pollack - Boston University
Robert Skidelsky - Wawick University
Roger Middleton - University of Bristol
Roger Stephen Crisp - St Annes College, Oxford
Ronald Schettkat - Schumpeter School, University of Wuppertal
Sergio Rossi - Department of Economics, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap - University of East Anglia
Sheila Dow - University of Stirling (emeritus position)
Simon Wren-Lewis - Oxford University
Stefan Szymanski - University of Michigan
Stephen E. Spear - Carnegie Mellon University
Stephen Gibbons - London School of Economics
Susan Himmelweit - The Open University, UK
Terry Barker - University of Cambridge
Tony Venables - University of Oxford
Victor Halberstadt - Leiden University
Wendy Carlin - UCL
William Brown - University of Cambridge
William T. Dickens - Northeastern University and The Brookings Institution

 

View All Comments

Recent Comments

• The debate definitely needs a sound economic foundation. But, the next question is: what is preventing the policymakers from recognizing the widely-agreed economic principles?
  Nitika Bagaria
• I am an emeritus professor of economic history at Cambridge,and wish to emphasise as strongly as possible that governments - and especially the UK government - are making a dire problem worse by misguided pursuit of austerity policies that have proved self-defeating and inequitable.
  Barry Supple
• It was the turn of the century, and I was arguing to anyone who would listen that the economy was in a classic asset bubble and that taxes needed to be raised to improve fiscal positions and improve the long-term funding of the welfare state, and my province preferred to cut everyone a cheque and flatten taxes... now, of course, having starved the beast, they complain the beast is so weak, it can do little for those needing the most help. Never again.
  Valerie Keefe
• I think Governments should plan and build for the "LONG TERM" good of their people. Individuals and small to medium sized businesses should normally act in a "short term" manner, but large global corporations must also follow a long term plan if they want to keep and grow their global customer base.
  Paul Kelly
• Agree. Public deficits were fuelled by heavy public financing and rescue of private banks. Remedies are killing taxpayers spending, increasing unemployment and reducing budget receipts.
  Fernando Jorge Cardoso
• Honest straight forward media coverage is the key to making change.
  John Manning
• Watching this debate closely for four years. Austerity, as the core strategy, at this time is completely wrong.
  Kevin Pittman
• the manifesto (even though up to the point) excludes Greece and has led to missunderstanding.
  Nikolopoulos Konstantinos
• Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Since the Reagan administration we have been following the same policies of "trickle down" economics, deregulation, and blaming the poor for their being poor with devastating results to our country and the world. During the post-WWII period till Nixon we had much higher taxes, government investment in our country, and worked to end racism and poverty. Since Reagan we have proven that our current policies not only do not work but they exacerbate the pain for the vast majority of us. It is time to give the policies that were working a new lease on life and see if they will help us prosper once again?
  Richard Wallick
• Personal blog http://robsant.altervista.org
  Roberto Santilli
• This is all good, but explanation for the excess in speculation is missing. I would simply state that such excesses in speculation occur when the opportunities for investment in real productive activity disappear, due to massive overproduction and excess capacity (determined primarily by insufficient demand, driven by insufficient wage income, which is in turn driven by inadequate ROI, a vicious cycle in this stage of financial implosion). In the future early signs of such excess speculation as a symptom of impending overproduction need to be heeded, and alternate solutions (such as the democratization of profit in the production process, and increased fair distribution of that profit to wage earners, as income) need to be engaged at that point. Thats my message to a future I don expect to be a part of, unfortunately.
  Steven Wartofsky
• Excellent effort. I will send this around to everyone that I know.
  Michael Fish
• We need to get across the message that the era of lightly regulated uber-liquid financial markets, low consumer goods inflation combined with real estate price inflation, and heavy "financialisation" of mainstream economics is over and that historically this state of affairs was a very short, unsustainable blip.
  Juraj Draxler
• Even though i disagree with many parts (eg part of the causes and the nature of the crisis) I strongly agree with the rest of it. Spread the word.
  Achilleas Mantes
• I agree completely with the manifesto. The world suffering from the paradox of thrift, and the suffering is man made and unnecessary.
  John McCracken
• It seems like ideologies are far too strong to be convinced by reason and common sense. Humanity will commit the same mistakes as long as truth is open to subjective interpretations.
  Myrto Vlazaki
• The world is running carelessly on credit/major risk taking. As a general citizen we are always advised to not get into debt & not waste money or make extreme risks. What are these financial leaders doing breaking all of these rules? We should not get into debt for warfare that is not our own problem, we should not be bailing out banks. The banksters have a crazy monopoly, how is it that they have been allowed to make the most profit ever this year (corporations), while the entire world suffers. What about Glass-Steagall? This would protect us and help us build our economy back up or else the entire globe is headed for financial doom, riots, homeless people, businesses bankrupt etc etc ... is this what the Government wants? Put someone in power that has some sense. I have a degree, but there are no jobs ... get the country back on its feet so businesses can thrive instead of dive!
  Yolanda Goddard
• A great value of this is that it gives us a brief that can be circulated, and that it will help provide a consistently repeated vocabulary used to advocate for effecting changes in policy.
  John B. Stubblebine, Ph.D.
• Brad DeLong, Krugman, Simon Johnson, James Galbraith,Joseph Stiglitz...Martin Wolf why I sign is due to informed citizen knowing good policy.
  Dana Smith
• A solution exists under our noses in the going from strength-to-strength on the local scale of employee ownership (eg John Lewis Partnership) and Co-ops. As Joseph Stiglitz has convincingly argued, it is the near-exponential increase in inequality that has destroyed the broadly prosperous post-war consensus economy. A responsible government should be seeking every possible means of encouraging the former, while restraining the latter.
  Chris Blencowe