Any solution to the euro crisis must meet two objectives.  One is short run and the other is long run, and they tend to conflict.

The first necessary objective is to put Greece, Portugal, and other troubled countries back on a sustainable debt path, defined as a long-term trajectory where the ratio of debt to GDP is declining rather than rising.  Austerity won’t restore debt sustainability.  It has raised debt/GDP ratios, not lowered them.   A write-down would do it.  New bigger bail-outs might too, or might not.  But either write-downs or bailouts would then create moral hazard and thus make even it even harder to satisfy the second necessary objective.

That second objective is to reform the system so as to make it less likely that similar debt crises will recur anew in the future.   Fiscal rectitude in the long run is indeed the way to accomplish this.  But it is hard to commit today to fiscal rectitude in the future.  Rules to cap debt such as the Maastricht fiscal criteria, “no bailout” clause and Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) didn’t work because they were not enforceable.

Eurobonds could be part of the solution, if designed properly to take into account fiscal fundamentals, both short term and long term.  These are defined as government bonds that would be the liability of euroland in the aggregate.

The creation of a standardized Eurobond market would bring a boost to help a reform plan come together, badly needed in light of the damage that years of failed European summits have done to official credibility.  That boost is the latent global portfolio demand for a good eurobond.  Even when the euro was at the height of its success five years ago, it suffered from lack of a counterpart to the US Treasury bill market.  Bonds are issued by the 17 member governments.  This fragmentation has hindered European financial integration and impeded any bid by the euro to rival the US dollar as international reserve currency.  Central banks in China and other big developing countries are still desperate for an alternative form in which to hold their foreign exchange reserves, an alternative to holding US government securities, that is.   US Treasury bills pay extremely low interest rates, and the value of the dollar has been on a negative downward trend for 40 years (ever since President Richard Nixon took the dollar off gold and devalued in 1971).   Despite all of Europe’s problems, a Eurobond would be attractive to central bankers and other portfolio investors around the world, both to achieve higher expected returns than on US treasury bills and to diversify risk.

But that latent global demand for Eurobonds will not come to the table unless they are by design backed up with solid economic and political fundamentals.

Germany opposes Eurobonds on the sensible grounds that if individual national governments were allowed to issue them freely, the knowledge that somebody else was paying the bill would make the incentive to spend beyond their means worse than ever.  This version of Eurobonds would be bound to fail, both economically and politically.   This seems to be the version that some opponents of austerity have in mind, such as the new French president, François Hollande; but it is hard to tell.

A different version of the Eurobond proposal has recently begun to gain traction in Germany.  The German Council of Economic Experts - usually called “wisemen,” although it includes a woman — proposed last year a European Redemption Fund (hence yet another new acronym, ERF).   The plan would convert into defacto Eurobonds the existing debt of (approved) member nations in excess of 60% of GDP, the supposed threshold specified in the Maastricht and SGP criteria.  The ERF bonds would then be paid off over 25 years.   Steps toward this proposed solution to the short-term debt problem would be paired - politically and logically - with approval of the Fiscal Compact, Angela Merkel’s proposed solution to the long-term problem.

But this seems upside down.  Yes, any solution to save the euro asks German taxpayers to put still more money on the line.   But to use Eurobonds as the mechanism for eliminating the big debt overhang looks like the nail in the coffin of the longer term moral hazard objective.  It offers absolution precisely on the margin where countries in the future will in any case have the most trouble resisting the temptation to sin again, the margin where they cross the 60% threshold.

If the Fiscal Compact or proposed “debt brakes” could be relied on as a firm constraint on future behavior, then fine.  But there is little reason to believe that they could, especially after confirmation of the precedent that individual spendthrifts are relieved of their excess debt burdens.

The new Fiscal Compact is unlikely to succeed where the Maastricht criteria failed, the “no bailout” clause failed, and the SGP failed.  It is less credible that excessive deficits will be punished than it was three years ago - and it wasn’t credible even then.   Rules don’t work without some enforcement mechanism.   The problem with the SGP wasn’t that it wasn’t written strictly enough or even that it wasn’t incorporated into the constitutions of the member countries as the Fiscal Compact would have it.  The problem with the SGP was that no matter how many times a member government’s deficit or debt exceeded the specified limit, the country’s officials could say (often sincerely) that the gap was the fault of unexpected circumstances such as slow growth and low tax receipts and that they expect to do better next time.  Even if some court in Brussels or Frankfurt were given life-and-death power to enforce the rules, exactly which officials would it punish for violations, and how?  No version of the SGP or Fiscal Compact has ever provided a satisfactory answer to that question.

Hope by some Europeans that the Fiscal Compact would finally make enforcement credible by writing the constraints into the constitutions of member states might be based on misunderstanding of the US system.   One can see the logic:   The US federal government has never bailed out one of the states and nobody expects it to do so in the future.  How has the US solved the problem of moral hazard that so plagues euroland?  The 50 states have rules to limit deficit spending (well, 49 of them do; these laws are voluntary on the part of the states, and Vermont does not have one).  That must be the answer !

State laws are not the primary explanation for the absence of US moral hazard.  The primary explanation is that the right precedent was set in 1841 when the federal government declined the opportunity to bail out 8 troubled states and let them default.  Euro leaders should have done the same with Greece a year or two ago. A second (related) explanation is that, ever since the 1840s, when American states start to run up questionable levels of debt the private market demands an interest rate premium to compensate for the default risk.   The premium acts as an automatic disincentive to further profligacy.  This mechanism should have operated after the euro was created in 1999, but it never did:  Greece and the other high-borrowers were able to borrow at interest rates that — disturbingly – had fallen virtually to the same levels as German bunds.  The final explanation is that when citizens started to ask more from their governments in the 20^th century (defense, entitlement spending, etc.), the expansion in the case of the United States took place at the federal level, not the state level.  For this reason even the fiscally most dysfunctional of the American states, which is probably California, does not operate on a scale remotely like European national governments.   US federal spending is 24% of GDP versus an EU budget of 1.2% of GDP.  Europeans are not ready to transfer most spending and taxation from the national to the federal level.   And even if they decide some day that they are ready, if the bailout precedent still stands then this federalization will not solve the moral hazard problem regarding the spending that remains at the national level.

The version of Eurobonds that might work is almost the reverse of the Germans’ Redemption Fund proposal.  It goes under the more colorful name of “blue bonds,” originally proposed two years ago by Jacques Delpla and Jakob von Weizäcker at the think tank Bruegel.   Under this plan, only debt issued by national authorities below the 60% criteria could receive eurozone backing, be declared senior, and effectively become Eurobonds.  These are the “blue bonds” that would be viewed as safe by investors.  When a country issued debt above the 60% threshold, the resulting junior “red bonds” would lose eurozone backing.   The individual member state would be liable for them.  This proposal structures the incentives “right side up.”

The blue bonds proposal has been extensively debated in Europe.  As usual in such controversies, many participants in the euro debate fixate on one evil or the other –moral hazard or austerity — and fail to grapple with practical proposals to balance the two.

As I see the plan, the private markets could make the judgment as to whether a country was in the process of crossing the threshold, even before the final statistics were available, and therefore assess whether default risk on the new red bonds required an interest rate premium.  If private investors judged that the new debt had genuinely been incurred in temporary circumstances beyond the government’s control (say a weather disaster), then they would not impose a large interest rate penalty.  Otherwise, the sovereign risk premium mechanism would operate on the red bonds, much as it does among American states, and much as it did in Italy, Greece and the others before they joined the euro.   Similarly, if the ECB after 2000 had operated under a rule prohibiting it from accepting as collateral the debt of SGP-noncompliant countries, the resulting default risk premum might possibly have headed off the entire euro sovereign debt problem early in the decade.

The point is that the mechanism would be truly automatic, as desired.  Perhaps in ambiguous borderline cases the judgment whether a country had truly exceeded the limit, or whether it was still in good standing so that its debt qualified for eurobond status, would ultimately have to be made by a eurozone agency or court, with an inevitable lag.  But, in the meantime, private investors could apply informed views about the merits from moment to moment.  The resulting market interest rates would provide the missing discipline. Compliance would not rely on discretionary letters from Brussels bureaucrats, which have proven toothless no matter how many exclamation points are put at the end of their penalty threats, nor would it require unenforceable debt ceilings legislated at the national level.  The U.S. has one of those too.  It has never had any effect, except on a very few occasions, when Congress has actively used the debt ceiling law to make everything worse.

Of course the euro countries cannot jump to a blue bond regime without first solving the problems of debt overhang and troubled banks that are front and center.   Otherwise, in today’s world, the plan by itself would be destabilizing since it would put almost all countries immediately into the red.   The debt paths that are currently unsustainable in many countries result from the combination of debt/GDP ratios that are already far in excess of 60%, combined with very high sovereign spreads and recessions.    Relieving them of responsibility for debt up to 60% would be substantial assistance, but would not in itself restore sustainability to all members.

Thus Eurobonds are emphatically not the complete solution to these vexing problems.  It is hard to say, at this late date, what the right short-term solutions are.   In Greece’s case, it may be forced to default and to drop out of the euro.  The banks and sovereigns in other countries will then have to be insulated from the conflagration through a combination of acronymic “bailout” money (EFSF, ESM, ECB…) and serious policy conditionality, as always.  Creating this fire break between Greece and the heart of Europe would have been far easier two years ago, before debt/GDP levels and sovereign spreads climbed so high and before the credibility of the euro leaders sank so low, or even one year ago.  Now the fire has spread over a much larger area and there are no natural gaps in sight for creating firebreaks.

But one thing seems clear.  German taxpayers, whose longstanding fears that they would be asked to bail out profligate Mediterranean euro members have been proven correct, will not be happy when asked to put up still more money in the cause of European integration by the same elites whose assurances of the last 20 years have proven false.   They will at a minimum need some credible reason to believe that future repetitions have been rendered unlikely, that the bailout is “just this once.”   Official assurances do not constitute that credible reason.    Nor does the Fiscal Compact, in itself.   The red bonds / blue bonds scheme just might.

[A much condensed version of this posting appears in Project Syndicate, June 14, 2012.]

In my preceding blogpost, I argued that the developments of the last five years have sharply pointed up the limitations of Inflation Targeting (IT), much as the currency crises of the 1990s dramatized the vulnerability of exchange rate targeting and the velocity shocks of the 1980s killed money supply targeting.   But if IT is dead, what is to take its place as an intermediate target that central banks can use to anchor expectations?

The leading candidate to take the position of preferred nominal anchor is probably Nominal GDP Targeting.  It has gained popularity rather suddenly, over the last year.  But the idea is not new.  It had been a candidate to succeed money targeting in the 1980s, because it did not share the latter’s vulnerability to shifts in money demand.  Under certain conditions, it dominates not only a money target (due to velocity shocks) but also an exchange rate target  (if exchange rate shocks are large) and a price level target (if supply shocks are large).   First proposed by James Meade (1978), it attracted the interest in the 1980s of such eminent economists as Jim Tobin (1983), Charlie Bean (1983), Bob Gordon (1985), Ken West (1986), Martin Feldstein & Jim Stock (1994), Bob Hall & Greg Mankiw (1994), Ben McCallum (1987, 1999), and others.

Nominal GDP targeting was not adopted by any country in the 1980s.  Amazingly, the founders of the European Central Bank in the 1990s never even considered it on their list of possible anchors for euro monetary policy.  (They ended up with a “two pillar approach,” of which one pillar was supposedly the money supply.) 

But now nominal GDP targeting is back, thanks to enthusiastic blogging by Scott Sumner (at Money Illusion), Lars Christensen (at Market Monetarist), David Beckworth (at Macromarket Musings), Marcus Nunes (at Historinhas) and others.  Indeed, the Economist has held up the successful revival of this idea as an example of the benefits to society of the blogosphere.  Economists at Goldman Sachs have also come out in favor. 

Fans of nominal GDP targeting point out that it would not, like Inflation Targeting, have the problem of excessive tightening in response to adverse supply shocks.    Nominal GDP targeting stabilizes demand, which is really all that can be asked of monetary policy.  An adverse supply shock is automatically divided between inflation and real GDP, equally, which is pretty much what a central bank with discretion would do anyway.

In the long term, the advantage of a regime that targets nominal GDP is that it is more robust with respect to shocks than the competitors (gold standard, money target, exchange rate target, or CPI target).   But why has it suddenly gained popularity at this point in history, after two decades of living in obscurity?  Nominal GDP targeting might also have another advantage in the current unfortunate economic situation that afflicts much of the world:  Its proponents see it as a way of achieving a monetary expansion that is much-needed at the current juncture.

Monetary easing in advanced countries since 2008, though strong, has not been strong enough to bring unemployment down rapidly nor to restore output to potential.  It is hard to get the real interest rate down when the nominal interest rate is already close to zero. This has led some, such as Olivier Blanchard and Paul Krugman, to recommend that central banks announce a higher inflation target: 4 or 5 per cent.   (This is what Krugman and Ben Bernanke advised the Bank of Japan to do in the 1990s, to get out of its deflationary trap.)  But most economists, and an even higher percentage of central bankers, are loath to give up the anchoring of expected inflation at 2 per cent which they fought so long and hard to achieve in the 1980s and 1990s.  Of course one could declare that the shift from a 2 % target to 4 % would be temporary.  But it is hard to deny that this would damage the long-run credibility of the sacrosanct 2% number.   An attraction of nominal GDP targeting is that one could set a target for nominal GDP that constituted 4 or 5% increase over the coming year - which for a country teetering on the fence between recovery and recession would in effect supply as much monetary ease as a 4% inflation target - and yet one would not be giving up the hard-won emphasis on 2% inflation as the long-run anchor.

Thus nominal GDP targeting could help address our current problems as well as a durable monetary regime for the future.

It is with regret that we announce the death of Inflation Targeting.    The monetary regime, known affectionately as “IT” to its friends, evidently passed away in September 2008.   That the demise of IT has not been officially announced until now testifies to the esteem in which it was widely held, its usefulness as a figurehead for central banks, and fears that there might be no good candidates to assume its position as preferred anchor for monetary policy.

Inflation Targeting was born in New Zealand in March 1990.   Admired for its transparency and accountability, it achieved success there, and soon also in Canada, Australia, the UK, Sweden and Israel.  It subsequently became popular as well in Latin America (Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, and Peru) and in other developing countries (South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and Turkey, among others).   

One reason that IT gained such wide acceptance as the champion nominal anchor was the failure of its predecessor, exchange rate targeting, in the currency crises of the 1990s.   Pegged exchange rates had succumbed to fatal speculative attacks in many of these countries.  The authorities needed something new to anchor the public’s expectations of monetary policy.  IT was in the right place at the right time.

Before the reign of exchange rate targeting, in turn, the fashion in the early 1980s had been money supply targeting, the brainchild of monetarist Milton Friedman.   The money supply rule had succumbed to violent money demand shocks rather quickly.  Friedman’s general argument for rules over discretion, in order to make a commitment to low inflation credible, however, is still very influential.

Inflation Targeting was best known as a rule that told central banks to set a target range for the yearly rate of change of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and to try their best to attain it.    Close cousins included targeting the price level (instead of the inflation rate) and targeting the core inflation rate (that is, excluding the volatile food and energy components of prices) instead of the headline number.    

There were also proponents of Flexible Inflation Targeting, who held that it was fine to put some weight on real GDP growth in the short run, so long as there was a clear target for CPI inflation in the longer term.     But some felt that if the definition of IT were stretched too far, it would lose its meaning.

Regardless, Inflation Targeting has taken some heavy blows over the last four years, analogous to the crises that hit exchange rate targets in the 1990s.   Perhaps the biggest setback came in September 2008, when it became clear that central banks that had been relying on IT had not paid enough attention to asset bubbles. 

Central bankers had told themselves that they were giving asset markets all the attention they deserved, by specifying that housing prices and equity prices could be taken into account to the extent that they carried information regarding goods inflation.  But this escape clause proved insufficient:  When the global financial crisis hit, suggesting at least in retrospect that monetary policy had been too loose during the years 2003-06, it was neither preceded nor followed by an upsurge in inflation.  

That the boom-bust cycle could take place without inflation should not have come as a surprise.  The same thing had happened when asset market bubbles ended in crashes in the United States in 1929, Japan in 1990, and Thailand and Korea in 1997.  And the Greenspan hope that monetary easing could clean up the mess in the aftermath of such a crash proved wrong in the great recession of 2008-09.

While the lack of response to asset market bubbles was probably the biggest failing of Inflation Targeting, another major setback was inappropriate responses to supply shocks and terms of trade shocks.  An economy is healthier if monetary policy responds to an increase in the world prices of its exported commodities by tightening enough to appreciate the currency.   But CPI targeting instead tells the central bank to appreciate in response to an increase in the world price of the imported commodities — exactly the opposite of accommodating the adverse shift in the terms of trade.  For example, it is widely suspected that the reason for the otherwise-puzzling decision of the European Central Bank to raise interest rates in July 2008, as the world was sliding into the worst recession since the 1930s, was that oil prices were just then reaching an all-time high.  Oil prices get a substantial weight in the CPI, so stabilizing the CPI when dollar oil prices go up requires appreciating versus the dollar.

One promising candidate to take the position of preferred nominal anchor has lately received some enthusiastic support in the blogs:  Nominal GDP Targeting.   The idea is not new.  It had been a candidate to succeed money targeting in the 1980s, since it did not share the latter’s vulnerability to velocity shocks. 

Nominal GDP Targeting was never adopted at that time.  But now it is back.  Its fans point that it would not, like Inflation Targeting, have the problem of excessive tightening in response to adverse supply shocks.    Nominal GDP targeting stabilizes demand, which is really all that can be asked of monetary policy.  (An adverse supply shock is automatically divided between inflation and real GDP, equally, which is pretty much what a central bank with discretion would do anyway.)

A dark horse candidate is Product Price Targeting.  It would focus on stabilizing an index of producer prices rather than an index of consumer prices, and so would not like IT have the problem of responding perversely to terms of trade shocks.  The supporters of both Nominal GDP targeting and Product Price Targeting claim that IT sometimes gave the public the misleading impression that it would stabilize the cost of living even in the face of supply shocks or terms of trade shocks, over which central banks have no control.

IT is survived by the gold standard, an elderly distant relative.   Although some eccentrics favor a return to gold as the monetary anchor, most would prefer to leave this relic of another age to its peaceful retirement, reminiscing over burnished fables of its long lost youth.

[This post originally appeared as an op-ed in Project Syndicate.]

Why do so many countries so often wander far off the path of fiscal responsibility? Concern about budget deficits has become a burning political issue in the United States, has helped persuade the United Kingdom to enact stringent cuts despite a weak economy, and is the proximate cause of the Greek sovereign-debt crisis, which has grown to engulf the entire eurozone. Indeed, among industrialized countries, hardly a one is immune from fiscal woes.

Clearly, part of the blame lies with voters who don’t want to hear that budget discipline means cutting programs that matter to them, and with politicians who tell voters only what they want to hear. But another factor has attracted insufficient notice: systematically over-optimistic official forecasts.

Such forecasts underlie governments’ failure to take advantage of boom periods to strengthen their finances, including running budget surpluses. During the expansion of 2001-2007, for example, the US government made optimistic budget forecasts at each stage.  These forecasts supported enacting big long-term tax cuts and accelerating growth in spending (both military and domestic).  European countries behaved similarly, running up ever-higher debts.  Predictably, when global recession hit in 2008, most countries had little or no “fiscal space” to implement countercyclical policy.

In most cases, the problems have long been plain for objective observers to see, but public officials kept their heads buried in the sand.  Over the period 1986-2009, the bias in official U.S. deficit forecasts averaged 0.4 % of GDP at the one-year horizon, 1% at two years, and 3.1% at three years.  Forecasting errors were particularly damaging during the past decade.  The U.S. government in 2001-03, for example, was able to enact large tax cuts and accelerated spending measures by forecasting that budget surpluses would remain strong.   The Office of Management and Budget long turned out optimistic budget forecasts, no matter how many times it was proven wrong.   For eight years, it never stopped forecasting that the budget would return to surplus by 2011, even though virtually every independent forecast showed that deficits would continue into the new decade unabated.

How were American officials in the last decade able to make forecasts that departed so far from subsequent reality?   In three sorts of ways.  The first comes in the form of optimistic baseline macroeconomic assumptions such as a high and everlasting growth rate.  OMB forecasts of economic growth were biased upward:  by a huge 3.8% at the three-year horizon.

Second, some politicians argued that tax cuts were consistent with fiscal discipline by appealing to two fanciful theories:   the Laffer Proposition, which says that cuts in tax rates will pay for themselves via higher economic activity, and the Starve the Beast Hypothesis, which says that tax cuts will increase the budget deficit but that this will put downward pressure on federal spending. 

Sanguine macroeconomic assumptions will do the job in the context of OMB forecasts and fanciful theories about the effects of tax cuts can deliver the rosy scenarios of presidential speeches.  But to get optimistic fiscal forecasts out of the Congressional Budget Office a third, more extreme, strategy was required.  (In 2003, when some Lafferite congressmen tried to get CBO to say that “dynamic scoring” of the effects of  tax rate cuts would show higher revenue, the estimates from the independent agency did not give the answer they wanted.) 

To understand the third strategy, begin with the requirement that CBO’s baseline forecasts must take their tax and spending assumptions from current law.   Elected officials in the last decade therefore hard-wired over-optimistic budget forecasts from CBO by excising from current law expensive policies that they had every intention of pursuing in the future.  Often they were explicit about the difference between their intended future policies and the legislation that they wrote down. 

Four examples: (i) the continuation of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which were paid for with “supplemental” budget requests when the time came, as if they were an unpredictable surprise); (ii) annual revocation of purported cuts in payments to doctors that would have driven them out of Medicare if ever allowed to go into effect; (iii) annual patches for the Alternative Minimum Tax (which otherwise threatened to expose millions of middle class families to taxes that had never been intended to apply to them); and (iv) the intended extension in 2011 of the income tax cuts and estate tax abolition that were legislated in 2001 with a sunset provision for 2010, which most lawmakers knew would be difficult to sustain.    All four are examples of expensive policy measures that Congress fully intended would take place, but that it excluded from legislation so that the official forecasts would misleadingly appear to show smaller deficits and a return to surplus after 2010.

Unrealistic macroeconomic assumptions, fanciful theories about tax cuts, and legislation that deliberately misrepresented policy plans all worked as intended, yielding over-optimistic forecasts.  These in turn help to explain excessive budget deficits. In particular, they explain the failure to run surpluses during the economic expansion from 2002-2007: if growth is projected to last indefinitely, retrenchment is regarded as unnecessary.

Many have suggested that budget woes can best be held in check through fiscal-policy rules such as deficit or debt caps. Some countries have already enacted laws along these lines.  The most important and well-known example is the eurozone’s fiscal rules, which supposedly limit budget deficits to 3% of GDP and public debt to 60% of GDP for countries to join.  The European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) dictated that member countries must continue to meet the criteria.   We have now seen how well that worked out.

Other countries have also adopted fiscal rules, most of which fail.  Switzerland’s structural budget rule (”debt brake”) is well-designed to allow higher deficits in recessions automatically, counterbalanced by surpluses in expansion periods. But the success of any budget rule depends on accurate forecasts of government spending and revenues. Getting those forecasts right has proven to be difficult for most countries.

Part of the problem is that governments that are subject to budget rules, such as Europe’s SGP, put out official forecasts that are even more biased than the US or other countries.  The Greek government, for example, in 2000 projected that its fiscal deficit would shrink below 2% of GDP one year in the future and below 1% of GDP two years into the future, and that the fiscal balance would swing to surplus three years into the future. The actual balance was a deficit of 4-5% of GDP - well above the EU’s 3%-of-GDP ceiling.

In almost all industrialized countries, official forecasts have an upward bias, which is stronger at longer horizons. On average, the gap between the projected budget balance and the realized balance among a set of 33 countries is 0.2% of GDP at the one-year horizon, 0.8 % at the two-year horizon, and 1.5 % at the three-year horizon.  So, how can governments’ tendency to satisfy fiscal targets by wishful thinking be overcome? In 2000, Chile created structural budget institutions that may have solved the problem. Independent expert panels, insulated from political pressures, are responsible for estimating the long-run trends that determine whether a given deficit is deemed structural or cyclical.

The result is that, unlike in most industrialized countries, Chile’s official forecasts of growth and fiscal performance have not been overly optimistic, even in booms. The ultimate demonstration of the success of the country’s fiscal institutions:  unlike many countries in the North, Chile took advantage of the 2002-2007 expansion to run substantial budget surpluses, which enabled it to loosen fiscal policy in the 2008-2009 recession. Perhaps other countries should follow its lead.

[A shorter version of this op-ed was published by Project Syndicate.   It draws on several recent academic publications of mine, especially "Over-optimism in Forecasts by Official Budget Agencies and Its Implications,"  Oxford Review of Economic Policy  27, no.4, 2011, 536-562.]  

         My preceding blog-post discussed the process whereby the undervalued renminbi and large Chinese trade surplus have begun to adjust in earnest, over the last three years.

        The adjustment in the Chinese trade balance is reminiscent of Japan with a 30-year lag, like other aspects of the US-China relationshkp (though not all).  Japan’s balance of trade in goods and services went into deficit in 2011, for the first time since 1980.  Special factors have played a role in the last year, including high oil prices and the effects of the tsunami in March 2011.  But the downward trend in the trade balance is clear.   Even the current account temporarily showed a deficit in January.  (Because Japan has long been the world’s largest creditor, a large surplus in investment income is usually enough to change any trade deficit into a surplus on the overall current account.)

           This development has received relatively little attention in the United States.  This is curious in the respect that two decades ago the Japanese trade balance, which then was in substantial surplus, was the subject of intense focus and worry.  At the time, some influential foreign commentators warned that Japan had discovered a superior model of “the capitalist developmental state,” featuring strategic trade policy among other attractions, and that the rest of us had better emulate them.  Either that or the Japanese were cheating and we had better stop them.  

          Most economists did not share the views of these “revisionists,” but argued rather that the trade balances were determined by macroeconomics: Japan’s current account was so high because its national saving rate was so high.  The best explanation for the high Japanese saving rate, in turn, was not cultural differences or government policies, but rather demographics.  The Japanese population was relatively young then compared to other advanced economies, but it was rapidly aging, as the result of a decline in the birth rate since the 1940s and an increase in longevity.  In 1980, 9% of the population was age 65 or older; now this ratio is more than 23%, one of the very highest in the world.   As a consequence, Japanese citizens who 30 years ago were saving for their retirement are now dissaving, precisely as economic theory predicted. (E.g., Horioka, 1986, 1992.)    Household saving has declined from 14% of disposable income twenty years ago to 2%.   The trade and current account balances have now come down as well.    

       The downward trend in Japan’s saving rate and trade balance illustrate again that the laws of international economics eventually work, even in Asia.

[This post, and the one preceding it, were together published as an op-ed by Project Syndicate.]

 References

Jeffrey Frankel, 1993, “The Japanese financial system and the cost of capital,” in Japanese Capital Markets, edited by Shinji Takagi (Basil Blackwell Inc.): 21-77.

Charles Yuji Horioka, 1992, “Future trends in Japan’s saving rate and the implications thereof for Japan’s external imbalance,”  Japan and the World Economy, Vol. 3, Issue 4, April: 307-330.

        The world is waiting to see whether China has successfully achieved a soft landing, slowing down the economy from its overheated state of a year ago to a more sustainable rate of growth. Some China-watchers fear it could hit the ground in a crash landing as have other Asian dragons before it. But others, particularly American politicians in this presidential election year, talk only about one thing: the trade balance.
        Here the important message is that long-term forces of adjustment are at work in the Chinese economy.  Foreign perceptions need to be adjusted as well. It is true that not long ago the yuan was substantially undervalued and China’s trade surpluses were very large. But the situation is changing.
        China’s trade surplus peaked at $300 billion in 2008, and has been declining ever since. In fact it even reported a trade deficit in the month of February ($31 billion, its largest deficit since 1998). It is not hard to see what is going on. Ever since the Middle Kingdom rejoined the world economy three decades ago, its trading partners have been snapping up exports of manufacturing goods, because low Chinese wages made them super-competitive on world markets.  It was known as the unbeatable “China price.”  But in recent years, following the laws of economics, relative prices have adjusted to the demand.
        The change can be captured by real exchange rate appreciation. This comprises in part nominal appreciation of the yuan against the dollar, and in part Chinese inflation. Government officials would have been better advised to let more of the real appreciation take the form of nominal appreciation (dollars per RMB). But since they didn’t, it has shown up as inflation instead. (See charts below, which show both nominal and real appreciation, against the dollar or against an index.)
        The natural process was delayed. In the first place, as is well-known, the authorities intervened to keep the exchange virtually fixed against the dollar, in the years 1995-2005 and 2008-2010. In the second place, workers in China’s increasingly productive coastal factories were not paid their full value. The economy has not completed its transition from Mao to market, after all. As a result of these two delaying mechanisms, Chinese continued to undersell the world.
        But then two things happened. First, the yuan was finally allowed to appreciate against the dollar during 2005-08 and 2010-11, by 25% cumulatively [=17% + 8%]. Second, and more importantly, labor shortages began to appear and Chinese workers at last began to win rapid wage increases. Major cities raised their minimum wages sharply over each of the last three years [FT, Jan. 5]: 22% on average in 2010 and 2011 (somewhat less this year, in response to slowing demand: 8.6 % in Beijing, 13% in Shenzhen and Shanghai).  Meanwhile another cost of business, land prices, rose even more rapidly.
        As a result, whereas all signs still pointed to a substantially undervalued yuan as recently as four or five years ago, this is no longer the case. One important measure of undervaluation — a comparison of China’s prices with what is normal given the country’s level of income (the so-called Balassa-Samuelson relationship) – showed the renminbi as undervalued against the dollar by as much as 36% on 2000 data (Frankel, 2005) .  Even after an improvement in the international  price data, Balassa-Samuelson regressions estimated the undervaluation at roughly 30% in 2005  and 25% as recently as 2009.   (Others had other ways of estimating undervaluation; see Goldstein, 2004, and those surveyed by Cline and Williamson, 2008.)   
       The renminbi’s real appreciation against the dollar over the last three years has amounted to 12%, reducing the degree of undervaluation by roughly half, depending on whether one measures it against the dollar or against all countries.  More is to be expected, as Chinese relative wages continue to rise.  In any case, China’s real exchange rate is already closer to this measure of equilibrium than are most countries’ exchange rates (Cheung, Chinn and Fuji, 2010).

      In response to the new high level of costs in the factories of China’s coastal provinces, five types of adjustment are gradually taking place. First, some manufacturing is migrating inland, where wages and land prices are still relatively low. Second, some export operations are shifting to countries like Vietnam where wages are lower still. Third, Chinese companies are beginning to automate, substituting capital for labor. Fourth, they are moving into more sophisticated products, following the path blazed earlier by Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries in the “flying geese” formation. Fifth, multinational companies that had in the past moved some stages of their production process out of the US, or out of other high-wage countries, to China are now moving back. Productivity is still higher in the US, after all. All five of these ways of reallocating resources represent the economic process operating as it should. A sixth seems still to lag behind, despite the consensus in favor of it: expansion of the services sector.
        None of this comes as news to most international observers of China. But many Western politicians (and, to be fair, their constituents) are unable to let go of the syllogism that seemed so unassailable just a decade ago: (1) The Chinese have joined the world economy; (2) their wages are $0.50 an hour; (3) there are a billion of them, and so (4) their exports will rise without limit: Chinese wages will never be bid up in line with the usual textbook laws of economics because the supply labor is infinitely elastic. But it turns out that the laws of economics do eventually apply after all — even in China.

       My next post will recall the precedent of Japan’s trade balance.

[A version of this post was published by Project Syndicate, which has the copyright.]

Chinese relative prices have risen as much (since 2009) via inflation as via RMB appreciation

(click her for larger image) 

References

     Chang, Gene Hsin, 2008, “Estimation of the Undervaluation of the Chinese Currency by a Non-linear Model,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics Vol.15, No. 1, April, 29-40.

      Chang, Gene H. , 2012, “Theory and Refinement of the Enhanced-PPP Model for Estimation Equilibrium Exchange Rates — with Estimates for Valuations of Dollar, Yuan and Others”, SSRN abstract=1998477,  Feb. 2.

      Cheung, Yin-wong, Menzie Chinn and Eiji Fuji, 2010, “China’s Current Account and Exchange Rate,” in China’s Growing Role in World Trade, edited by Rob Feenstra and Shang-Jin Wei (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

     Cline, William, and John Williamson, 2008, ‘Estimates of the Equilibrium Exchange Rate of the Renminbi,” in Debating China’s Exchange Rate Policy, edited by M.Goldstein and N.Lardy (Peterson Institute for International Economics), 155-165.  

      Frankel, Jeffrey, 2005, “On the Renminbi,”  CESifo Forum, vol.6, no.3, Autumn (Ifo Institute for Economic Research, Munich): 16-21.

      Subramanian, Arvind, April 2010, “New PPP-Based Estimates of Renminbi Undervaluation and Policy Implications,” PB10-08, Peterson Institute for International Economics.

With November’s election fast approaching, the Republican candidates seeking to challenge President Barack Obama claim that his policies have done nothing to support recovery from the recession that he inherited in January 2009. If anything, they claim, his fiscal stimulus made matters worse.  And, despite recent improvement, the level of unemployment indeed remains far too high.not blame George W. Bush for the recession that began two months after he took office in 2001. There hadn’t yet been time for bad policies to damage the economy.)

Obama’s Democratic defenders counter that his policies staved off a second Great Depression, and that the US economy has been steadily working its way out of a deep hole ever since.  Middle-ground observers, meanwhile, typically conclude that one cannot settle the debate, because one cannot know what would have happened otherwise.

There is a good case to be made that government policies - while not strong enough to return the economy rapidly to health — did indeed halt an accelerating economic decline.    By “government policies,” I mean not just the fiscal stimulus the new president steered through Congress when he took office, but also the Obama version of TARP, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s aggressive monetary stimulus.   All three policy initiatives remain extremely unpopular with Republicans, and ambiguous among swing voters.

But the middle-ground observers are of course right that one cannot prove what would have happened otherwise.   It is also true that it is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the economy immediately.  These things usually take time.  One cannot infer the merit of a new president’s policies from the path of the economy during his first few months in office.  (For example, I did

But here is the remarkable thing: whether one listens to the Republicans, the Democrats, or the middle-ground observers, one gets the impression that the economic statistics show no discernible improvement around the time that Obama took office. In fact, the reality could hardly be more different.

This is especially true if one looks at revised economic statistics, which show the US economy to have been in far worse shape in January 2009 than was reported at the time. In January 2009, the annualized growth rate in the second half of 2008 was officially estimated to have been negative 2.2%; but current figures reveal it to have been a horrendous negative 6.3%. This is the main reason why the level of economic activity in 2009 and 2010 was so much lower than had been forecast, which in turn explains why unemployment was so much higher.

Figure 1 shows the quarterly economic growth rate. The maximum rate of contraction — a veritable freefall in the economy — came in the last quarter of 2008 (the quarterly GDP data come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Commerce Department).   More specifically, it came in December, according to the monthly GDP estimates from the highly respected MacroAdvisers.   (See monthly income figures in the form of growth rates in Figure 2 or levels of GDP in Figure 3.)  This was the month before Obama was inaugurated.  The situation miraculously began to improve as soon as Obama’s term began! 

(click here for larger graphs)

The full force of the fiscal stimulus package began to go into effect in the second quarter of 2009.    The NBER officially designates the end of the recession as having come in June of that year.  GDP growth turned positive in the third quarter.

US economic growth slowed down again in late 2010 and early 2011, as one can see in Figure 1.  The timing coincides with the beginning of withdrawal of the Obama fiscal stimulus. Indeed, the government has been the one sector to experience contraction in income and employment over the most recent five quarters.  The private economy has been expanding.

Other economic indicators, such as interest-rate spreads and the rate of job loss, also turned around in early 2009. Labor-market recovery normally lags behind that of GDP - hence the “jobless recoveries” of recent decades. But the graph of monthly job losses and gains reveals that here, too, the end of the freefall came precisely when Obama was inaugurated.  The last two charts show the same “V” shaped pattern in the monthly job change figures that are released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as the GDP growth figures that are released by the BEA.  The rate of job growth over the last two years, inadequate as it is, actually exceeds the rate of job growth during the Bush Administration, even if one counts only the period before the big recession hit in December 2007.

Again, these graphs do not demonstrate that Obama’s policies yielded an immediate payoff. In addition to the lags in policies’ effects, many other factors influence the economy every month, making it difficult to disentangle the true causes underlying particular outcomes.

What is the right way to assess whether the fiscal stimulus enacted in January 2009 had a positive impact?   Start with common sense. When the government spends $800 billion on such things as highway construction, teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off, and so on, it has an effect. Workers who would otherwise not have a job now have one. Furthermore, they may spend some of their income on goods and services produced by other people, creating a multiplier effect.

Those who claim that this spending does not boost income and employment (or that it even hurts), apparently believe that as soon as a teacher is laid off, a new job is created somewhere else in the economy, or even that the same teacher finds a new job right away. Neither can be true, not with unemployment so high and the average spell of unemployment much longer than usual.

They also think that the government deficit drives up inflation and interest rates, thereby crowding out other spending by consumers and firms. But interest rates are rock bottom, even lower than they were in January 2009, while core inflation is running at its lowest levels since the early 1960’s. The conditions of the last four years - high unemployment, depressed output, low inflation, and low interest rates - are precisely those for which traditional “Keynesian” remedies were designed.

Economists’ more sophisticated forecasting models also show that the fiscal stimulus had an important positive effect, for much the same reasons as the common-sense approach.   The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office reports that the 2009 spending increase and tax cuts gave a positive boost to the economy, and indeed had the extra multiplier effects of the traditional Keynesian models. Allowing for a wide range of uncertainty [to allow for different economists' views], the CBO estimates that the stimulus added 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent to the level of GDP by the fourth quarter, relative to where it otherwise would have been.  The boost to 2010 GDP, when the peak effect of the stimulus kicked in, was roughly twice as great.

To be sure, of the many theoretical models produced by eminent macroeconomists at prestigious universities, some say that fiscal stimulus has no positive effect on the economy, even under recent economic conditions.  (The theoretical innovations underlyng the models have even won Nobel Prizes for the innovators, and not without justice.)  But these models are not sufficiently realistic to meet the market test:  they are not used by private businessmen for whom getting good forecasts matters to their planning and in turn to the success of their businesses.

Of course, econometric models do not much interest the public at large. A turnaround needs to be visible to the naked eye to impress voters. Given this, one can only wonder why basic charts, such as the 2008-2009 “V” shape in growth, have not been used - and reused - to make the case.

(Click here for larger versions of all 5 graphs.)

[Appears also at Fair Observer.

A shorter version appeared as an op-ed at Project Syndicate, which has the copyright.]

A recent video interview from Project Syndicate recaps some of my recent op-eds.  It covers the following territory:

•           The Obama Recovery.    The U.S. economy was in free fall in late 2008, whether measured by GDP statistics, the monthly jobs numbers, or inter-bank spreads.     Was the end of the recession in mid-2009 attributable to policies adopted by President Obama?   A full evaluation of that question to economists’ standards would require delving into the complexity of mathematical models.  The public generally has a simpler standard:   was the impact big enough to be visible to the naked eye?   Amazingly, the answer is “yes.”   Whichever of those statistics one looks at, and whether it is coincidence or not:  the economic free-fall ended almost precisely the month that Obama took office, January 2009.
•           Emerging markets have generally had much better economic fundamentals over the last decade than advanced economies.    For example, one third of developing countries have succeeded in breaking the historical syndrome of procyclical (destabilizing) fiscal policy.   For the first time, they took advantage of the boom of 2003-08 to strengthen their budget balances, which allowed a fiscal easing when the global recession hit in 2008-09.
•           The 15-year cycle in EMs.  Market swings that start out based firmly on fundamentals can eventually go too far.   Some emerging markets like Turkey look vulnerable this year.  A crash would fit the biblical pattern: seven fat years, followed by seven lean years.  Here are the last three cycles of capital flows to developing countries:
  • 1975-81: 7 fat years (”recycling petrodollars”)
  • 1982: crash (the international debt crisis)
  • 1983-1989: 7 lean years (the “Lost Decade” in Latin America)
  • 1990-1996: 7 fat years (Emerging Market boom)
  • 1997: crash (the East Asia crisis)
  • 1997-2003: 7 lean years (currency crises spread globally)
  • 2003-2011: 7 fat years (the triumph of the BRICs)
  • 2012: ?

This morning the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its first estimate for 2011 GDP.   It showed national output for the first time surpassing the pre-recession peak, which occurred in the last quarter of 2007.    (See chart below)    The expansion in 2011 was led by autos, computers, and other manufactured goods.

Given that the economy hit its trough in mid-2009, the long slow climb since then has been disappointing.   The outcome turns out to have been worse than the conventional wisdom that sharp declines tend to be followed by sharp recoveries.   On the other hand, the outcome turns out to have been somewhat better than the Reinhart-Rogoff thesis that when the cause of a recession is a financial crisis, the recovery tends to take many years.  

To be sure, the housing market has yet to recover and households are still painstakingly rebuilding their battered balance sheets.   But is this the complete explanation for the disappointing state of the economy — the origins of the crisis in a housing bubble and financial collapse?   

The first point to note is that the biggest single reason why the level of GDP over the last three years has been lower than most people forecast in January 2009 has nothing to do with overly optimistic forecasts in January 2009 of the rate of growth looking forward, nor with how good or bad Obama’s policy proposals were, nor with how effective the Republicans turned out to be at blocking them.  The BEA subsequently revised the GDP statistics substantially downward, and now reports that the real growth rate of the economy in the last quarter of the Bush Administration, instead of negative 3.8% per annum as reported that January, was in fact negative 8.9% per annum! The trough of the V was far deeper than was realized at the time.

The second point to note is that construction, which usually helps lead the economy out of a recession, remained, indeed had a strong negative influence on GDP throughour 2006-2010.   Fortunately, in the latest figures, residential construction finally returned to a (small) positive source of growth in the economy over the last three quarters.

The third point to note is that the government sector has been the one component of demand to exert a substantial negative effect througout the last five quarters.   The reason is the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus at the federal level, at a time when state and local governments are also cutting back sharply on spending and employment. 

Obama’s slogan for the SOTU last night, “An Economy Built to Last,” was a way of referring to one of the accomplishments of his first years: successfully reviving the auto industry, which many had said couldn’t be done without nationalizing it.   References to other accomplishments were stated more quickly, such as national security (withdrawal from Iraq, disposing of Osama bin Laden) or more obliquely, such as health care reform, financial reform, and arresting the freefall of the economy that Obama inherited in January 2009 (via fiscal stimulus and TARP - both of which are not especially popular programs).

I realize of course that some will not view these as true “accomplishments.”  They will argue that we should have let the auto industry go bankrupt, or should have spent another 10 years in Iraq, or that bin Laden was deprived of his human rights, or that the Dodd-Frank bill went too far in financial regulation (or not far enough), or that a federal effort to reduce unnecessary hospital infections constitutes “socialism” or “death panels.”  But most Americans wanted these policies.

Evidently the President also has in mind reducing American dependence on imported oil.  And slowing the big rise in income inequality, in part by allowing to expire on schedule the tax cuts on the top earners like Mitt Romney that ten years ago brought their tax rates down to 15%.

To me, the phrase “built to last” suggests that the medium-term goal is economic growth that resembles the record expansion of the late 1990s, which was driven by expanding exports, technology, and private sector employment. This would be an improvement over the unsustainable finance-based economic expansion of the 2002-2007, or those of the 1960s, 70s or 80s;  they were built on easy monetary or fiscal policy and an expanding government sector, and thus contained the seeds of their own destruction when inflation, debts and asset prices got out of control.

Indeed, as inadequate as the current economic recovery has been, the expansion of private sector jobs over the two years has exceeded the rate during the Bush Administration (when the government sector was the primary source of what limited job creation there was).  This comparison holds even if one excludes the two recessions at the beginning and end of the 8-year Bush period, as the graph shows.

[TV clip, Post Mortem on the State of the Union Message," BNN," 2012.]