The time is right for the world’s major central banks to reconsider the framework they use in conducting monetary policy. The US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are grappling with sustained economic weakness, despite years of low interest rates. In Japan, Shinzō Abe of the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) was elected prime minister December 16 on a platform of switching to a new, more expansionary, monetary policy.  Mark Carney, the incoming governor of the Bank of England, has made clear that he is open to new thinking. 

Monetary policymakers would do well to consider a shift toward targeting nominal GDP.   (Carney is evidently contemplating precisely this.)  The switch could be phased in via two steps, without abandoning the established inflation anchor.

     A number of monetary economists pointed out the robustness of nominal GDP targeting after monetarist rules broke down in the 1980s.  (Meade and other references are given below.)  ”Robustness” refers to the target’s ability to hold up in the long term under various shocks. The context at that time was the need in the US and other advanced countries for an explicit anchor to help bring expected inflation rates down.  The status quo regime to achieve this, during the heyday of monetarism, had been a money growth rule.  Relative to the money growth rule, the advantage of nominal GDP targeting was robustness with respect to velocity shocks in particular.

    These days the presumptive nominal anchor and cyclical context are both very different than they were in the 1980s.  The popular regime is Inflation Targeting.   The advantage of a nominal GDP target relative to a CPI target is robustness, in particular, with respect to supply shocks and terms of trade shocks.    For example, a nominal GDP target for the European Central Bank could have avoided the mistake of July 2008: the ECB responded to a spike in world oil prices by raising interest rates to fight consumer price inflation — just as the economy was going into recession.    A nominal GDP target for the US Federal Reserve might have avoided the mistake of excessively easy monetary policy during 2004-06, a period when nominal GDP growth exceeded 6 per cent.

Why have proposals for nominal GDP targeting been revived at this particular juncture, after two decades of living in obscurity?  The motive, in large part, is to deliver monetary stimulus and higher growth — needed in the US, Japan, UK and Euroland — while still maintaining a credible nominal anchor.   For an economy on the fence between recovery and recession, such as Euroland, a target for nominal GDP that constituted 4% increase over the coming year would in effect supply as much monetary ease as a 4% inflation target.  (The new proponents show up on the left, the right, and the center of the political spectrum:  Romer, 2011, and Krugman, 2011  on the Left; Scott Sumner, Lars Christensen and David Beckworth, on the Right; and Goldman Sachs, 2011, and Woodford, 2012, in the center.)

    There are at least three reasons why central bankers are wary of the proposals for nominal GDP targeting.  First, a longstanding concern is that the public doesn’t know the difference between nominal GDP, real GDP and inflation.  But communications clarity is not a reason to go with a complicated function of inflation and real growth (as in the ubiquitous Taylor rule) in place of the simpler nominal income target.  Furthermore, the financial markets do understand the differences among these variables. 

Secondly, central bankers also worry they may not be able to achieve the nominal GDP target.   Needless to say, the margin around the target could and should be wide, though there is no reason why it has to be wider than the bands around the old M1 targets or the more recent inflation targets and there are reasons to think the width of a nominal GDP band could be a bit less.  Moreover, under current conditions, the shift in policy need be nothing more than a commitment to keep monetary policy easy so long as nominal GDP falls short of the target.  It would thus serve a purpose similar to the Fed’s December 12, 2012, announcement that it would keep interest rates low so long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5% - but it would not suffer the imperfections of the unemployment number (particularly its inverse relationship with the labor force participation rate and its tendency to lag other measures of expansion).

Third, in the current context, central bankers fear that it would undermine their long-term inflation anchor.

Some economists, such as Paul Krugman (2012) and the IMF’s chief economist Olivier Blanchard (2010) have proposed responding to recent high unemployment by explicitly setting a target for expected inflation above the traditional 2% — say, 4% — as a way of reducing real interest rates in the presence of the Zero Lower Bound on nominal interest rates.  They like to remind Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke of similar recommendations that he made to Japan in the past.    

But there is little support for the proposal to set a high inflation target.   Many central bankers are strongly averse to countenancing inflation rate targets of 4% or even 3%.  They do not want to abandon the hard-won 2% number that has succeeded in keeping inflation expectations well-anchored for so many years.   The economists can say that the upward change in the inflation target would be made explicitly temporary; but the central bankers worry that to target a higher number even temporarily would do permanent damage to the credibility of the long-term anchor.

Central bankers worry that to set a target for nominal GDP growth of 5% or more in the coming year would inevitably be interpreted as setting an inflation target in excess of 2%, and thus again would damage the credibility of the anchor permanently.   They don’t want to give up on the 2% number.   Their view on this is unlikely to change.  But it doesn’t have to.  

      The practical solution for overcoming these worries entails phasing in a nominal GDP target in two steps.  Here is how to do it.  

One of the main communications devices currently used by the US Federal Reserve is the Summary of Economic Projections.   The governors and regional presidents give their forecasts of real growth rate and inflation rates for each of the next three years and for the long run.   (Also for interest rates.)   The press interprets these as policy statements, even if they are only labelled projections.   

My proposal is to start, in Phase I, by omitting near term projections for real growth and inflation.   Do keep the longer run projections, and keep the inflation setting where it is, 2% [formerly 1 ½ -2% for the US].  But add a longer run projection for nominal GDP growth as well.  It should be around 4-4 ½ % to avoid any discontinuous jumps:  That number would imply a long-run real growth rate of 2-2 ½ %, the same as now.  Nobody could call such a move inflationary.   For Japan, the targets for nominal and real GDP growth would have to be set at lower levels, due in part to the absence of population growth.

A few months later, in Phase II, add projections for nominal GDP growth for the next three years.  These numbers should be greater than 4 % – perhaps 5 ½ %  – but with the long run projection unchanged at 4 or 4 ½ %.   Much public speculation would ensue, as to how the 5 ½ % breaks down between real growth and inflation.  The truth is that the central bank has no control over that - monetary policy determines the total but not the breakdown - and thus doesn’t know what the answer is any more than anyone else does.  But the nominal GDP target would insure that either (i) real growth will accelerate, as we hope, or else, (ii) if real growth falls short, there will be an automatic decline in the real interest rate which will push up demand, which again is what is desired.  The targets for nominal GDP growth could be chosen so as to put the level of nominal GDP on an accelerated path back to its pre-recession trend.  In the long run, when nominal GDP is back on its path of 4-4 ½ %, real growth will be back at its potential, say 2 ½ %, and inflation back at 1 ½ % - 2%.

This way of phasing in nominal GDP targeting delivers the advantage of some stimulus now, when it is needed - while satisfying the central bankers’ reluctance to abandon their cherished low inflation target.

References

    Bean, Charles (1983), “Targeting Nominal Income: An Appraisal”, The Economic Journal, 93:806-819.
    Bernanke, Ben (2000), “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” Chapter 7 in  Ryoichi Mikitani and Adam S. Posen, eds., Japan’s Financial Crisis and Its Parallels to U.S. Experience (Institute for International Economics), pp. 149-166. 
    Blanchard, Olivier, Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, and Paolo Mauro (2010), “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy,” IMF Staff Position Note, 12 Feb.
    Feldstein, Martin and Jim Stock (1994), “The Use of a Monetary Aggregate to Target Nominal GDP”,  in N. Gregory Mankiw, ed.,   Monetary Policy, NBER (University of Chicago Press).
    Frankel, Jeffrey (1995), “The Stabilizing Properties of a Nominal GNP Rule,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, no. 2, May, 318-334. Reprinted in Financial Markets and Monetary Policy (MIT Press. 1997).  
    Frankel, Jeffrey (2012), “Inflation Targeting is Dead. Long Live Nominal GDP Targeting,” VoxEU, June 19.
    Hall, Robert and N. Gregory Mankiw (1994), “Nominal Income Targeting,”  in N. Gregory Mankiw, ed., Monetary Policy (University of Chicago Press), 71-93.
    Hatzius, John (2011), “The Case for a Nominal GDP Level Target,” US Economics Analyst, issue 11/41,Goldman Sachs, Oct.
    Krugman, Paul (2011) “A Volcker Moment Indeed (Slightly Wonkish),” Oct. 30.
    Krugman, Paul (2012a), “Two per cent is not enough”, The New York Times, 26 January.
    Krugman, Paul (2012b), “Earth to Bernanke”, The New York Times, 24 April.
    McCallum, Bennett and Edward Nelson (1998), “Nominal Income Targeting in an Open-Economy Optimizing Model,”  Journal of Monetary Economics, 43(3):553-578.
    Meade, James (1978), “The Meaning of Internal Balance,” The Economic Journal, 88:423-435.
    Romer, Christina (2011), “Dear Ben: It’s Time for Your Volcker Moment,” New York Times, Oct. 29.
    Tobin, James (1983) “Monetary policy: Rules, Targets and Shocks,” Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 15, 506-518.
    Woodford, Michael (2012) “Methods of Policy Accommodation at the Interest-Rate Lower Bound,” presented at the Jackson Hole symposium, August (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City).

A short version of this post appeared at Project Syndicate;  comments can be posted there.  A version also appears at VoxEU.

The Hour of the Technocrats has arrived.   In desperation from debt crises that their gridlocked political systems have created, Italy and Greece both in November chose new Prime Ministers who are technocratic economists rather than politicians:   Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos, respectively.  One can even describe them as professors:  Monti has been president of the prestigious Bocconi University when not a European Commissioner in Brussels, and Papademos has been my colleague at Harvard Kennedy School in the year since he finished his term as Deputy Governor of the European Central Bank (even teaching a class I usually teach).

No doubt, whatever happens, pundits who evaluate their performance will soon be writing: “Professors Earn ‘A’ in Economics, but Flunk Politics.”   This will be unfair.   It is not lack of political ability that will stymie them, but lack of political power in the mandates they have been given.    Mario Monti, despite very strong popular support among Italians for his technocratic government, does not have a parliamentary majority that he can rely on.   Berlusconi, in boasting that he can pull the plug on Monti anytime he wants, has made it clear that he still will not lay aside his personal political interests for the good of the country even when everyone understands what he is doing.   

Lucas Papademos in Greece has been dealt an even weaker hand.  Despite his best efforts to insist on a term longer than three months and the ability to appoint some members of his cabinet, as requirements for accepting the Prime Ministership, in the end he could not get even these minimum conditions.

The elevation of these two outstanding civil servants comes after a period when some other professors have been squeezed out by the political process.   Several good technocratic economists from emerging market countries were passed over in June, when choosing the successor to Dominique Strauss-Kahn as Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

Next, an example from Germany. Axel Weber in January 2011 resigned as President of the Deutsche Bundesbank and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.  The interpretation in the press was that his statements opposing ECB purchases of bonds issued by troubled periphery countries had been evidence of political naivety on his part.   The press could not imagine that a technocrat might voluntarily relinquish a sure shot at a position of great power — successor to Jean Claude Trichet as ECB President — on a matter of principle.    But that is precisely what Weber was doing.  The willingness to give up power if necessary is one of the advantages of professors for such positions.  (It is a different matter that the ECB presidency then went to Mario Draghi, who is also an economist and technocrat, and in fact the perfect man for the job.)

It is a mistake to conflate technocrat elites (they are the ones with the PhDs or other advanced economics degrees) with other kinds of elites (the ones with money or power, especially if they got them from their parents).   Most economists understood very well the possible downside of European monetary union.  In the late 1980s, when Jacques Delors asked major European leaders what the next step should be in the European integration project, they underestimated the technical difficulties when they opted for monetary integration.

Technocrats can play a useful role.  One of their advantages is acting as an honest broker when traditional politicians have become discredited or parties are deadlocked.  Another is the credibility that comes when they are not motivated by getting re-elected, either because their term in office has been limited in advance or because it is know that they in fact prefer the quiet life back at the university.  The most obvious advantage to technocrats comes when the biggest problems facing the country are in large part technical such as proposing economic reforms or negotiating loan terms.  A good precedent in Italy is Carlo Ciampi, who took the governing reins in 1993 after Italy was forced to drop out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, but managed to repeal the scala mobile (the wage indexation system), beat down inflation, and re-board the train of European monetary integration. 

Obvious disadvantages of some technocrats include lack of managerial experience, lack of perceived legitimacy, and lack of a domestic political powerbase.   Monti and Papademos both have managerial experience and, for now, perceived legitimacy.   The last of the three factors will be the limiting factor for them.

Among current heads of state who could be considered technocrats are President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, President Sebastián Piñera of Chile, and President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia.  Nobody could accuse these three of having led sheltered lives or being unaccustomed to making difficult decisions.   But it happens that all three received their ivory tower training at the Harvard.  Calderón took a record three courses from me.   Unfortunately, dealing with violent drug lords was not on my syllabus. 

Having shiny international credentials is not always an advantage.  When Sirleaf received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, the speculation was that this evidence of her good image abroad could hurt her with the voters at home in her campaign for re-election.   Analogously, Prime Ministers Monti and Papademos hold gold card memberships in the clubs of EU and euro elites that will help them obtain support for their countries abroad but leave them vulnerable domestically to charges that they are lackeys of foreign powers.

It is good that Rome and Athens, the two seats of classical western civilization, have turned to these two civilized men for leadership. I hope the politicians realize that Monti and Papademos cannot work miracles if they are not given the political tools to get their policies enacted.   

[A version of this column appeared Nov. 25 on Project Syndicate.  Comments can be posted there]

A subsequent blog post will extend the discussion of technocrats to some recent examples from the United States of highly qualified academics who have been blocked from office for political reasons.

My preceding blogpost identified three mistakes made by leaders of the European Economic and Monetary Union in dealing with Greece.   But what is done is done.  The mistakes now lie in the past.  How can Europe’s fiscal regime be reformed to avoid future repeats of this crisis?  

The reforms that are now underway are not credible.  (”We are going to make the fiscal rules more explicit and make sure to monitor them more tightly next time.”)    Similarly, most proposals for how to put teeth into the rules are not credible — penalties such as monetary fines or loss of voting privileges. 

It is too late for Greece. But it is not too late for a euroland reform that would help avoid the re-emergence of unsustainable sovereign debt levels next time around by applying the lesson of mistake number two: to adjust the ECB policy of accepting the debt of all member states as collateral.  This is the policy that short-circuited warning signals that the private markets would otherwise have sent via interest rates during 2002-2007.  

My proposal:   The eurozone should in the future adopt a rule that whenever a country violates the fiscal criterion of the Stability and Growth Pact (say, a budget deficit in excess of 3% of GDP, structurally adjusted), the ECB must stop accepting that government’s debt as collateral.  This system would achieve the elusive objective of true automaticity.   If a country exceeded the threshold for justifiable reasons, such as natural disaster, the private markets could perceive that and impose little or no default risk premium.   No judgment of the merits by bureaucrats or politicians would be required.   More likely, for periphery countries, the result of such a re-classification would be the re-emergence of sovereign spreads of moderate magnitudes, in between the extremes of the 2002-07 lows and the 2009-11 highs (see chart).  The interest rate premium would send a message far more credibly, forcefully, and promptly than any warning that any Brussels bureaucracy will ever turn out.  

This is how it works among the U.S. states and municipalities.  Despite the absence of their own currencies, the recurrence of dysfunctional local politics and excessive deficits, and even a history of state defaults in the 19^th century, federal bailouts are not delivered and are not expected.   Without some such device, the new European Stability Mechanism is in danger of becoming a mechanism for instability.

[Niels Thygesen made the case in favor of the current reform track in "Governance in the Euro Area" at the Challenge of Europe session of INET's Annual Conference, Bretton Woods, NH, April 10, 2011. I gave my comment there as well. (Video)]

[Comments can be posted on the Vox.eu site (which has the copyright.)]

By now just about everybody agrees that the European bailout of Greece has failed:  The debt will have to be restructured.    As has been evident for well over a year, it is not possible to think of a plausible combination of Greek budget balance, sovereign risk premium, and economic growth rates that imply anything other than an explosive path for the future ratio of debt to GDP.

There is plenty of blame to go around.  But three big mistakes can be attributed to the European leadership.  This includes the European Central Bank - surprisingly, in that the ECB has otherwise been the most competent and successful of Europe-wide institutions.

Mistake number 1 was the decision in 2000 to admit Greece in the first place.   The country was an outlier, geographically and economically.  It did not come close to meeting the Maastricht Criteria, particularly the 3 % ceiling on the budget deficit as a share of GDP.  No doubt most Greeks would agree with the judgment that they would be much better off today if they were outside the euro, free to devalue and restore their lost competitiveness.

The second mistake was to allow the interest rate spreads on sovereign bonds issued by Greece (and other periphery countries) to fall almost to zero during the period 2002-2007.   Despite budget deficits and debt levels that far exceeded the limits of the Stability and Growth Pact, Greece was able to borrow almost as easily as Germany.  Part of the blame belongs to international investors who grossly underestimated risk on all sorts of assets during this period.  And part of the blame belongs to the rating agencies who, as usual, have been lagging indicators of European debt troubles, rather than leading indicators.  But in this case, both groups might justify their attitudes by pointing out that the ECB accepted Greek debt as collateral, on a par with German debt.

The third mistake was the failure to send Greece to the IMF early in the crisis, before Greek interest rates went to 600 basis points (see graph).  By January 2010 the need to go to the Fund should have been clear.  Rather than going into shock, leaders in Frankfurt and Brussels could have welcomed the Greek crisis as a useful opportunity to establish a precedent for the long-term life of the euro.   The idea that a debt problem of this sort would eventually arise somewhere in euroland cannot have come as a surprise.  After all, why had the architects of the Maastricht fiscal criteria and the No Bailout Clause (1991) and the Stability & Growth Pact (1997) written them in the first place?   Skeptical German taxpayers believed that, before the project was done, they would be asked to bail out some spendthrift Mediterranean country.  European elites adopted the fiscal rules precisely to combat these fears.   

When the rules failed and the crisis came, the leaders should have thanked their lucky stars that the first test case had arisen in a country that met two characteristics admirably:   
(i) The Greek government had broken the rules so egregiously and so frequently that one could with a clear conscience judge that a firm stand was merited.  The only alternative was to risk establishing the precedent that even profligate governments can expect ultimately to be bailed out, with all the moral hazard headaches that precedent implies.    (ii) The Greek economy was small enough to make it feasible for Europe to come up with the funds necessary to insulate others who were vulnerable to contagion but not as blameworthy:  banks that hold Greek debt and governments such as Ireland that had tried to follow responsible policies in the period before the global financial crisis.

European leaders also should have thanked their stars that the IMF exists.   Instead of acting as if such a crisis had never been seen before, they should have realized that imposing policy conditionality in rescue loan packages is precisely the IMF’s job.  International politics is less likely to prevent the Fund from enforcing painful fiscal retrenchment and other difficult conditions than it is among regional neighbors or other political allies.   Europe is no different in this respect than Latin America or Asia.  

But the reaction of leaders in both Frankfurt and Brussels was that going to the Fund was unthinkable, that this was a problem to be settled within Europe.   They chose to play for time instead, to treat insolvency as illiquidity.  Against all evidence — despite a decade of SGP violations — they still wish to believe that they can impose fiscal discipline on member states.  Despite two decades in which citizens of Germany and other European countries have expressed clearly that they do not share their leaders’ enthusiasm for Economic and Monetary Union, the latter apparently still wish to believe that further progress to political and fiscal union is possible.  The emu has long since become an ostrich, burying its head in the sand.

It turned out that the German taxpayers had been right all along.   How, in light of that democratic deficit, can anyone think that Europe is ready for a transfer union? 

Next week’s post:   A proposal to avoid future repeats of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis.

These matters were discussed in a session on the Challenge of Europe at the Annual Conference of George Soros’ INET, April 10, 2011.  Video & slides are available, including my own comment.

[Comments can be posted on the Vox.eu site.]