Modern Macroeconomics Family Tree

Dylan Matthews (via MR) provides a short history of modern macroeconomics and this nice family tree of the subject.

Confession of the week!

In four years of reflection and rather intense involvement with this financial crisis, not a single aspect of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium has seemed worth even a passing thought.

Lawrence Summers

Examining the failure of economic thinking

Mark Thoma is spot on in this passionate assessment of what ails the modern economic system,

"It's distribution, not production that has failed us over the last 30 or 40 years. We produce far more than we ever have, and we will continue to increase our ability to squeeze more and more out of the resources we have. We have the ability to produce enough stuff. But the distribution of the things we produce has been tilted toward the top. Instead of wages rising with productivity as our textbooks say they should, wages have stagnated and the rewards have gone elsewhere. Thus, while the pessimism of the past was about production not being able to keep up with population - many classical economists looked forward to a long-run outcome of a dismal, stationary state with most people struggling at subsistence wages - the pessimism of the present is driven largely by a failure of distribution. The haves get more and more, and the have nots get less and less even though overall output is rising... Pessimism about breaking through the wealth and power structures that stand in the way of change is understandable, as is the desire of the winners in our increasingly two-tiered society to keep the focus on growth rather than distribution."

The remarkable achievements of the past few decades - rapid advances in information and communication technology, spectacular economic growth in emerging Asia etc - is confirmation of the fact that markets have allocated scarce resources very efficiently. But the growing evidence of failures and sufferings across the world is ample proof that market systems have failed to ensure fairness in allocation of these resources.

Fortunately, many of these market failures are the inevitable consequence of the process of efficient allocation of scarce resources and they can be atleast partially mitigated by appropriate public policy interventions and through formal and informal social and political institutions. Progressive taxation, social safety nets, subsidies and concessions, and institutionalized regulatory restraints are some of the commonplace policy options used to address such failures in distribution or achieve fairness in allocation. Political parties in democracies, social interest groups, trade unions etc have played significant role in creating an environment that promotes fairness in allocation.

Traditionally, governments have intervened, often very aggressively, with such policies to address failures in the fair distribution of resources. The vibrancy of social and political institutions have also played a major role in containing the excesses emerging from the dynamics of untrammelled free market. However, the disruptive socio-economic changes of the past couple of decades have unleashed forces which have considerably undermined the tenuous balance between efficiency and fairness.

As the concentration of economic power and resultant widening of economic inequality has accelerated spectacularly in recent years, many of these traditional checks and balances have either been dismantled wholesale or their strength considerably eroded. Across the world, thanks to the spectacular growth of financial market incomes, the past few years have seen the emergence of a class of uber-rich elite, whose economic power has found reflection in the traditional political institutions. In other words, economic power has spawned political power.

This has had two fold impact. It has loosened the restraints put by social and political institutions. More worryingly, these changes have seriously undermined the resolve of governments at all levels to step in to rectify market failures. A false consciousness has been sought to be created that the big winners are the beneficiaries of a competitive merit race, and the outcome is a reflection of the natural order of things. Such explanations brush under the carpet the ovarian lottery that increasingly defines a major chunk of life's outcomes.

The strong opposition, not only in the West but also in many emerging economies, to increasing taxes on even the richest, withdrawing concessions to corporate groups, stronger regulation of financial markets, and expanding the role of government, even if only to provide basic social safety cushions to those most affected by economic shocks, is a reflection of this changing dynamics of social and political power.

Unfortunately, as a profession, economics has failed to either anticipate or do anything meaningful to highlight the implications of this failure. It has been too concerned with studying "efficient allocation of scarce resources" that it appears to have forgotten that the sustainability of this allocation depends on it being fair.

I am inclined to believe that this skewedness in focus among economists is attributable to two factors - limitations of mathematical models and ideological bias. Modern macroeconomic research is heavily dictated by mathematical formalism. However, unlike issues of efficiency (which is essentially a maximization problem, subject to certain constraints), those of fairness in distribution is not easily amenable to mathematical modelling. Fairness involves the exercise of human judgement, in some form or other, to bring about a desired final state of the system.

Then there are the ideological biases of economists, most of whom work in free-market democracies. Unlike the ideal systems of modern economic theories, the real world is full of imperfections, where the ideal world assumptions do not hold. In the circumstances, fairness demands interventions that seek to re-distribute resources and thereby correct the business as usual state of affairs in the system. But such remedial interventions, more often than not, go contrary to the ideological principles that underpin the theoretical foundations of these economists.

Update 1 (2/10/2011)

Mark Thoma argues that there is a need to revisit the socio-economic and political power balance, but is not sure how it will happen. He writes,

"Congress has no interest in doing so, things are quite lucrative as they are. Unions used to have a voice, but they have been all but eliminated as a political force. The press could serve as the gatekeeper, but too many outlets are controlled by the very interests that the press needs to take on and this gives them the ability to cloud most any issue. Presidential leadership could make a difference, and Obama’s election brought hope for change, but this president does not seem inclined to take a strong stand on behalf of the working class...

Another option is that the working class itself will say enough is enough and demand change. There was a time when I would have scoffed at the idea of a mass revolt against entrenched political interests and the incivility that comes with it. We aren’t there yet – there’s still time for change – but the signs of unrest are growing and if we continue along a two-tiered path that ignores the needs of such a large proportion of society, it can no longer be ruled out."

The Great Macroeconomic Policy Debate - How to restore growth?

The biggest macroeconomic challenge now is to manage a recovery from the stubbornly persistent economic slowdown. But a fierce ideological battle is on about what strategy is required to achieve economic recovery.

Everyone agrees that across both US and large parts of Europe, household, bank, and government balance sheets are suffering from huge debt over-hang. As households cut back on consumption and banks refuse to lend, businesses are postponing investments. The high unemployment rates show no signs of coming down and the economies remain stuck at the trough, far longer than the aftermath of previous recessions. Governments, the only other agency capable of engineering a turn-around, are faced with huge sovereign debts and battered fiscal positions. With interest rates at zero bound and even extraordinary quantitative easing measures already having been tried out, monetary policy appears to have limited traction. So what is the way out?

Conservatives are unambiguous in their advocacy of fiscal austerity and placing deficit reduction at the center of the macroeconomic agenda. They fear about the dangers of inflation taking hold and bond-market yields rising. They claim that the fiscal and monetary expansion of the last decade or so has produced several excesses that need to be wrung out before any meaningful economic recovery can begin. To this extent they advocate immediate re-balancing of public finances with policies to cut government expenditures, raise revenues (albeit without raising taxes), and carry out structural reforms.

They admit that while this will generate some short-term pain, it will be for the long-term good. They argue that this will generate "contractionary expansion", restoring market (business, investor, and consumer) confidence and shaping expectations and thereby encouraging business investments. See Robert Barro (academician), Stephen King (Business), and Wolfgang Schauble (politicians) advocating austerity and fiscal consolidation over expansion.

Liberals differ and propose further fiscal and monetary expansion as the only way out of this mess. The argue that the high persistent unemployment rates should be the central focus of policy makers. They point to historical evidence from US in 1930s and recently from Japan, to argue that unless governments undertake aggressive Keynesian stimulus spending and unconventional monetary expansion, the economy risks being stuck at the bottom for a long time.

They also point to the evident inability and reluctance of businesses to invest in such uncertain and weak environments, especially that of the job-creating but credit constrained small businesses. They see government spending as the only source of generating additional aggregate demand. They also argue that the ultra-low interest rates provide an excellent opportunity for governments to invest in infrastructure and other long-term spending so that the platform for longer-term growth is laid at the cheapest cost. They see little evidence of government spending crowding out private borrowing, inflation emerging as a concern anytime soon, or bond-markets catching cold. See Martin Wolf (Journalist), Mark Zandi (Business), Adam Posen (policy maker) and Dani Rodrik (academician) advocating expansionary policies.

There are also some others who have refrained from taking an explicit position, preferring to suggest specific measures. Some like Ken Rogoff have rightly argued in favor of policies that directly address the issue of cleaning up household and bank balance sheets. To this extent they advocate inflating away debts with a slightly higher inflation target, something which Olivier Blanchard, the IMF Chief Economist too had advocated earlier. However, the efficacy of higher inflation targeting has been questioned on credible enough grounds by Raghuram Rajan.

Interestingly, both sides invoke the magisterial historical examination of sovereign debt crisis, induced by various factors including banking collapses, by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Conservatives point to their finding that high-levels of growth dampen growth. Liberals point to their findings about the deep nature of recessions that follow banking collapses and argue that government support therefore is essential for expediting recovery.

All these views carry considerable ideological baggage and are evidently constrained by the need to accommodate their respective ideological predilections. Warts and all, the main issue is about which mixture of policies would be most effective in enabling a sustained recovery. An objective assessment reveals inconsistencies or practical difficulties with both sides.

The problem with the conservatives' position is that if all the actors - governments, businesses, financial institutions, and households - are badly constrained, then where would the thrust for recovery come from? Their argument is that debt restructuring and the dynamics that get generated could restore market confidence and thereby pull the economy up the recovery path. But, given the depth of the problems, will it carry the momentum required to pull the economy out? Even traditionally conservative institutions like the IMF have raised serious doubts about fiscal austerity arguing that it could hurt incomes and job prospects. Further, the experience in the current recession with such policies is hardly encouraging.

As several estimates of growth required to bring unemployment in the US to normal levels and also bridge the yawning output gap show, the scale - magnitude and time - of growth required to restore normalcy in the medium term is substantial. In the absence of a strong engine or anchor, what will be the source of this growth? The justifiable fear then is that the recovery process could go on for years.

The fundamental premise of the liberals' argument is that it is necessary to do everything possible to pull the economy out of recession. They fear, based on historical precedent, that in the absence of aggressive expansion, the unemployment problem will assume structural nature and become a socio-economic problem, and a lost decade will be inevitable. I am inclined to believe that this fear too has strong justifications. However, some of the liberals policy measures are not fully supported by fact and appear to based more on hope than objective considerations.

Their hope is that aggressive fiscal and monetary actions will buy enough time for the markets to repair battered balance sheets of all parties and set the stage for a sustainable recovery. But what if it does not? The trillions of dollars so far spent on fiscal and monetary stimulus in the US had not had the expected impact (there could be a counterfactual problem here). What is the certainty that more rounds of stimulus will work? More critically, it is possible that the amount of stimulus required to make any meaningful dent is so large as to make it fiscally and politically impossible. In the circumstances, expansionary policies would be merely throwing money down the drain.

So, if the fears of inaction appear well-justified, and the possible policy alternatives are fraught with deep uncertainty, then are the developed economies set to suffer a long and tortuous period of restructuring, high unemployment and low growth? Is this the inevitable cost of the excesses that got built-up over the past decade or so? Is it desirable to have a medium-term period of de-leveraging that is necessary to wring out the excesses and distortions, rebalance balance sheets, and achieve normalcy? In the meantime, is it appropriate if public policy refrains from anything proactive (either expansionary stimulus or austerity) and confines itself to the provision of a basic minimum social safety to those worst affected by the economic weakness?

Unfortunately this approach too appears untenable. It presupposes a longer period of high unemployment rates and economic weakness. However, there are widespread concerns about its long-term impact on the labour force itself. Longer the people stay unemployed, greater the difficulty to rejoin the workforce. Skills will atrophy and productivity will decline. The socio-economic impact of this will be pernicious. The long-term impact on America's labour force and the economy in general will be damaging. See also this excellent study by Alan Krueger and Andreas Mueller.

Then there is also the danger of Japan. That country ahs been stuck in the trough for nearly two decades now and no end appears in sight. Though there are considerable dis-similarities, there are exists striking similarities - similar asset crashes, huge public debts, aging work-force, and possibly a nominal zero-interest liquidity trap. The magnitude of the downside associated with these risks are so huge that not doing anything proactive appears unwise.

In view of all the aforementioned, and given the extremity risks, inactivity may not be desirable. But there is no clarity on which strategy is most effective in stimulating a recovery. In the circumstances, the only alternative may be to throw everything at the problem and hope that some mixture of policies does enough to put the economy in the recovery path.

The contraction with "expansionary fiscal consolidation"!

The big macroeconomic debate of our times is over whether economies facing the Great Recession should indulge in more fiscal and monetary expansion or should embrace fiscal austerity and monetary contraction.

Advocates of more stimulus point to dismal economic conditions - aggregate demand slump, lack of business confidence, idle capacity, depressed business investments, high unemployment rates etc - and argue that the economy would remain in a deep recession in the absence of expansionary policies. The zero-bound in interest rates, they say, only exacerbates the problems.

The Austerians point to the huge build up of public debts across most developed economies and demand immediate steps to bring them down to sustainable levels. They also see dangers of an inflationary spiral and even asset bubbles unleashed by the extended expansionary monetary policy. They also fret at bond-vigilantes driving up interest rates.

In recent months, they have pointed to the work of Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna (pdf here, earlier version here) who examined episodes of all large fiscal policy stances, both stimuli and adjustments, in OECD countries from 1970-2007. They found,

"Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions."

This has repeatedly been invoked to justify "expansionary fiscal contraction" or "expansionary austerity", where fiscal consolidation will result in increased growth. It is argued that fiscal consolidation by way of spending cuts or tax increases today will, by reducing the expectations of the need for a larger and disruptive fiscal adjustment later, raise household and business expectations about their future incomes and thereby stuimulate private consumption and business investments.

They also argue that if current fiscal policy can influence agents' expectations about interest rates by signalling to them about the government's resolve, by way of fiscal stabilization, to rein in public debt, "they can ask for a lower premium on government bonds". Further, aggregate demand components sensitive to real interest rates too get a boost if such credible expectations about fiscal stabilization and lower future interest rates are conveyed. They forecast a possible consumption/investment boom if such expectations can be credibly conveyed. This study has also been used to justify the preference of tax cuts over government spending if stimulus is deployed.

A recent paper by IMF economists Jaime Guajardo, Daniel Leigh, and Andrea Pescatori have examined the dataset used by Alesina and Ardagna and find that their findings may have been compromised by the bias within the examples used. The IMF economists drew a distinction between fiscal consolidations motivated by a desire to reduce budget deficit and those responding to prospective economic conditions. They focussed on the impact of short-term fiscal consolidation arising out of only the former and found

"Using this new dataset, our estimates suggest fiscal consolidation has contractionary effects on private domestic demand and GDP. By contrast, estimates based on conventional measures of the fiscal policy stance used in the literature support the expansionary fiscal contractions hypothesis but appear to be biased toward overstating expansionary effects...

Based on the fiscal actions thus identified, our baseline specification implies that a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation reduces real private consumption by 0.75 percent within two years, while real GDP declines by 0.62 percent... Our main finding that fiscal consolidation is contractionary holds up in cases where one would most expect fiscal consolidation to raise private domestic demand. In particular, even large spending-based fiscal retrenchments are contractionary, as are fiscal consolidations occurring in economies with a high perceived sovereign default risk."

As Paul Krugman writes, the Alesina and Ardagna findings are muddled by reverse causation - they mistake the rise in revenues and/or fall in expenditures that generally follows fiscal consolidation (since safety-net spending falls or government prunes down expenditures) to claim that economic expansion follows all spending cuts and/or tax increases.

Counterfactuals and economic analysis

As the debates on monetary and fiscal policy options during the sub-prime crisis and Great Recession have shown, macroeconomic theories can rarely explain with certainty whether one set of policies are superior to another or are certain to succeed in a given circumstance.

For every example of success with a certain set of policies, opponents are quick to show failures with them. They also point to apparent successes with an alternative set of policies. And in any case, no two situations are the same. Such debates usually end in a stalemate over the relative merits of two opposing theoretical and ideological positions. Further, in such ideological battles, even blatantly untenable views have remarkable persistence. Ideologies are not easily buried.

Since successes or failures with a specific set of policies are rarely cut-and-dry, post-mortems of economic policies too are never non-controversial. For example, despite overwhelming evidence about how TARP and ARRA prevented a complete financial meltdown, created employment and off-set deeper output contraction, sceptics refute the evidence.

Supporters who claim success with a set of policies would face opposition from those arguing that an alternative approach would have yielded better results. Even more, they would argue that conditions would have been better off without those policies - Wall Street would have recovered faster and stronger if there were no bailouts.

Supporters will counter by saying that the recovery would have been more swifter and stronger if their prescriptions were applied in full. For example, economists like Paul Krugman have long argued in favor of much stronger fiscal stimulus measures to mitigate the hardships of the Great Recession. Counter-factuals can only be debated about, never satisfactorily, leave alone conclusively, proven.

The NYT reports of the latest example with such from Europe.

Another missed opportunity for Europe? Over the last year, the European Union and the International Monetary fund have pledged 640 billion euros ($890 billion) to bail out distressed economies on the Continent’s periphery. Yet the interest rates on benchmark bonds in Greece, Ireland and Portugal remain at or near their record highs.

Critics of the bailout will surely see the persistent high interest rates as arising from an inability to convince the confidence fairies and a failure of the policy itself. Supporters would argue that there would have been sovereign defaults from Greece and Ireland in the absence of such bailout backstops.

In simple terms, economic policy are equally handicapped in explaining their policies both ex-ante and ex-post.

Update 1 (28/9/2011)

Paul Krugman has this excellent description of the counterfactual debate on stimulus spending in the US.

Re-thinking macroeconomic policies - a graphical summary

The sub-prime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession have questioned several underlying assumptions of modern macroeconomics. Paul Krugman famously called it the "Dark Age of Macroeconomics" and many standard macroeconomics text books are currently undergoing wholesale revisions in the light to these experiences.

What should be the role of Central Banks, especially in ensuring financial stability? What are the policies and instruments that can be deployed by central banks? What should be the optimal inflation target? What are the exit routes available for central banks from extraordinary monetary accommodation? Do central banks have a role in stabilizing output, that goes beyond interest rate changes, especially when faced with deep recessions?

What regulations are required to ensure greater stability and improve the crisis-resilience of banks? What can be done to contain the build up of systemic risks and limit the contagion effects of deleveraging and resultant liquidity crisis? How do we mitigate the moral hazard concerns arising from financial bailouts? What type of financial market regulations are required to limit the possibility of asset bubbles?

What are the fiscal policy options for governments faced with an economic recession and zero-bound in interest rates? How should fiscal policy be organized during such recessions? Which policies deliver the greatest bang for the buck? How can we swiftly deploy stimulus measures in the face of political paralyses and gridlocks? Should governments restrain from stimulating the economy, when faced with zero-bound recessions, with short-term fiscal measures for fear of deficits and debts?

What is the role of global macoreconomic imbalances in causing and sustaining asset bubbles? What is required to prevent the build up of such imbalances? How should cross-border financial flows be regulated? What is the optimal capital account policy for emerging economies? What sort of international monetary system is required to satisfactorily resolve cross-national financial crises?

I have tried to consolidate the learnings from events of the last three years and the post-mortems and other research that has gone into more satisfactorily understanding and explaining macroeconomic policy making. The result is this graphic. While I must admit that it is highly simplified (all such beautiful flow-charts are meant to simplify complex policy eco-systems), it only seeks to broadly highlight all the different elements of a post-crisis macoreconomic policy framework.

It is clear that the mandate of central banks have to expand beyond inflation targeting and include financial market stability. And when faced with deep recessions, central banks have a credit policy role, whence it could become a lender, buyer, and insurer of last resort. Fiscal policy becomes critical when monetary policy loses traction and when interest rates are at the zero-bound. Its main instruments are automatic stabilizers and discretionary spending measures. The specific instruments of each policy, as indicated in the chart, are illustrative and is meant to merely guide discussion.



(Please click on the graphic to enlarge)

In fact, the IMF recently brought together some of the world's leading economists to a conference where the Fund and participants urged a wholesale re-examination of macroeconomic policy principles. See also this concise presentation by Olivier Blanchard.