The year 2013 marks the 100^th anniversaries of two separate major institutional innovations in American economic policy:  the Constitutional Amendment enacting the federal income tax, ratified on February 3, 1913, and the law establishing the Federal Reserve, passed in December 1913.  
           It took some time before the two new institutions became associated with the explicit concepts of fiscal policy and monetary policy, respectively.   It wasn’t until after the experience of the 1930s that they came to be viewed as potential instruments for managing the macro-economy.  John Maynard Keynes, of course, pointed out the advantages of expansionary fiscal policy in circumstances like the Great Depression.   Milton Friedman blamed the Depression on the Fed for allowing the money supply to fall.    [Tools of fiscal policy used by governments, in addition to tax rates and tax deductions, are spending and transfers.  Tools of monetary policy used by central banks include interest rates, quantities of money and credit, and instruments such as reserve requirements and foreign exchange intervention used in various (non-US) countries.]

           In subsequent debate, Keynes was associated with support for activist or discretionary policy.  The aim was counter-cyclical response to economic fluctuations: expansion in recessions, discipline in booms.  (It is a myth that he favored big government generally.  He said “the boom is the time for austerity.”)    Friedman opposed activist or discretionary policy, believing that government institutions, whether monetary or fiscal, lacked the ability to get the timing right.   But both great economists were opposed to pro-cyclical policy moves, such as the misguided US tightening of 1937 at a time when the economy had not yet fully recovered. 
          After World War II, the lessons of the 1930s were incorporated into all the macroeconomic textbooks and, to some extent, into the beliefs and actions of policy-makers.  But many of these lessons have been forgotten in recent decades, crowded out of public consciousness by experiences such as the high-inflation 1970s.  As a result, many politicians in advanced countries are repeating the mistakes of 1937 today.  This despite conditions that are qualitatively similar to those that determined Keynes’ policy recommendations in the 1930s: high unemployment, low inflation, and rock-bottom interest rates.

         The austerity-versus-stimulus debate has been thoroughly hashed out.   On the one hand, proponents of austerity correctly point out that the long-term consequences of permanently expansionary macroeconomic policy [both fiscal and monetary] are unsustainable deficits, debts, and inflation.    On the other hand, proponents of stimulus correctly point out that in the aftermath of a recession, when unemployment is high and inflation low, the immediate consequences of contractionary macroeconomic policy are continued unemployment, slow growth, and debt/GDP ratios that go up rather than down.  Procyclicalists, both in the US and Europe, represent the worst of both worlds:  they push in the direction of expansion during booms such as 2003-07 and in the direction of contraction during recessions such as 2008-2012, thereby exacerbating both the upswings and downswings.  Countercyclicalists have it right:  working in the direction of fiscal and monetary discipline during booms and ease during recessions.

           Less thoroughly aired recently is the question whether — given recent conditions - monetary or fiscal expansion is the more effective instrument.   This question was addressed clearly in 1937 by Sir John Hicks in a once-famous article titled “Mr. Keynes and the Classics.”  The graphical model is known to many generations of undergraduate students in macroeconomics under the label “IS-LM.”   
           The answer to the question which form of policy is more effective:  under the circumstances that held in the 1930s and that hold again now - which are conditions not just of high unemployment and low inflation, but also near-zero interest rates — stimulus in the specific form of fiscal expansion is much more likely to be effective in the short-term than stimulus in the form of monetary expansion.   Monetary expansion is rendered relatively less effective because interest rates can’t be pushed below zero.  (Flat LM curve.)  This situation, labeled by Keynes a liquidity trap, is today called the Zero Lower Bound.  In addition, firms are less likely to react to easy money by investing in new plant and equipment if they can’t sell the goods they are producing in the factories they already have.  (Steep IS curve.)  The hoary — but still evocative — metaphor is “pushing on a string.”  Meanwhile, fiscal expansion is rendered relatively more effective than in normal times, in that it doesn’t push up those rock-bottom interest rates and thereby crowd out private-sector demand.
           Despite the inability of central banks to push short-term nominal interest rates much lower, one should not give up completely on monetary policy, especially because fiscal policy is so thoroughly hamstrung by politics in most countries.  It is worth trying all sorts of things:  quantitative easing, forward guidance, nominal targets.   Even if the short-term interest rate channel is inoperative, such steps may work through other channels:  long-term interest rates, credit channel, risk premia, expected inflation, asset prices, commodity prices or exchange rates.  But the effects of each are highly uncertain. 

          That monetary policy is less effective than fiscal policy under conditions of high unemployment and zero interest rates should not be a novel position.  But many economists have forgotten much of what they knew and politicians may not have even heard the proposition. 
          Introductory economics textbooks have long talked about the Keynesian multiplier effect:  the recipients of federal spending (or of consumer spending stimulated by tax cuts or transfers) respond to the increase in their incomes by spending more as well, as do the recipients of that spending, and so on.  Again, the multiplier is much more relevant under current conditions than in the normal situation where the expansion goes partly into inflation and interest rates and thus crowds out private spending.  By the time of the 2008-09 global recession even those who believed that fiscal stimulus works had marked down their estimates of the fiscal multiplier — intimidated, perhaps, by theories of policy ineffectiveness.   (These are some of the same theories that predicted that a tripling of the monetary base over five years, or a near-doubling of M1, should double or triple the price level !)
          The subsequent continuing severity of recessions in the United Kingdom and other countries pursuing contractionary fiscal policies, apparently to the surprise of the politicians enacting them, suggested that fiscal multipliers are not just positive, but greater than one, as the old wisdom had it.   The IMF Research Department has now reacted to this recent evidence and bravely confessed that official forecasts, including even its own, had been operating with under-estimates of multiplier magnitudes.
          A new wave of econometric research estimates fiscal multipliers using methods that allow them to be higher in some circumstances than others.   Baum, Poplawski-Riberio and Weber (2012) allow the estimate to change when crossing a threshold measure of the output gap.  Batini, Callegari and Melina (2012) allow regime-switching, across recessions versus booms.  Others that similarly distinguish between multipliers in periods of excess capacity versus normal times include Auerbach and Gorodnichenko (2012a, 2012b), Bachman and Sims (2012), Baum and Koester (2011), and Fazzari, Morley and Panovska (2012).  Most of this research finds high multipliers under conditions of excess capacity and low interest rates.  Gordon and Krenn (2011) and Shoag (2012) have the same implication.    Related studies confirm other conditions that matter for the size of the fiscal multiplier in precisely the way the traditional textbooks say, for example that they are lower in small open economies because of crowding out of net exports.  (Perhaps due to fear of sounding old-fashioned, few of these studies have the courage to mention that these are the findings that one would have expected from the elementary textbooks of 50 years ago.) 

          Needless to say, the effects of fiscal policy are subject to substantial uncertainty.   One never knows, for example, when rising debt levels might suddenly alarm global investors who then start demanding abruptly higher interest rates, as happened to countries on the European periphery in 2010.    (For this reason, the United States would be well-advised to lock in a long-term path toward debt sustainability, even while undertaking a little short-term stimulus.)   In the case of stimulus in the form of tax cuts, one never knows how much of the boost to disposable income will be saved by households rather than spent. We are also uncertain as to the magnitude of negative effects of high tax rates, via incentives, on long-term growth.   And it is true that monetary policy is much better understood than it was in the past. 
            Nevertheless, if the question is whether it is monetary policy or fiscal policy that can more reliably deliver demand expansion under current conditions, the answer is the latter.  One might even dramatize the contrast by speaking of “monetary alchemy and fiscal science.”

            A much-admired 2010 paper by Eric Leeper had it the other way around: it characterized monetary policy as science and fiscal policy as alchemy.   It is true that the state of knowledge and practice at central banks, which actually set the instruments of monetary policy, is close to the best that modern society has to offer.    It is likewise true that the instruments of fiscal policy are set in a very political process that is poorly informed by the state of economic knowledge and motivated largely by politicians’ desire to be re-elected.  These political realities may be what the author of “Monetary Science, Fiscal Alchemy” had in mind.
             But the ancient alchemists were not in fact stupid or selfish people in general, notwithstanding their search for the “philosopher’s stone” that was to turn lead into gold (of which modern proponents of returning monetary policy to the pre-1914 gold standard are reminiscent).  Nor was the alchemists’ problem that the monarchs of their day refused to listen to them.  It was rather that the state of knowledge fell far short of what the modern science of chemistry can tell us.   
            The term alchemy could be applied to pre-Keynesians like US Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (whose Depression prescription was that President Herbert Hoover should “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system”).  It could also be applied to the “Treasury view” in the UK of 1929. (Churchill:  ”The orthodox Treasury view … is that when the Government borrow[s] in the money market it becomes a new competitor with industry and engrosses to itself resources which would otherwise have been employed by private enterprise, and in the process raises the rent of money to all who have need of it.” ).  But in light of all that was learned in the 1930s, it would be misleading to characterize the current state of fiscal policy knowledge as alchemy.

References

   Miguel Almunia, Agustín Bénétrix, Barry Eichengreen, Kevin O’Rourke, and Gisela Rua, 2010, “From Great Depression to Great Credit Crisis: Similarities, Differences and Lessons,” Economic Policy, 25 (62), pp. 219-65.
   Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2012a, “Measuring the Output Responses to Fiscal Policy,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 4(2), pp. 1-27, May.
   Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, 2012b, “Fiscal Multipliers in Recession and Expansion,” NBER Chapters, in Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis, edited by Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi (University of Chicago Press).
   Rüdiger Bachmann and Eric Sims, 2012, Confidence and the transmission of government spending shocks,” Journal of Monetary Economics vol. 59, no.3, pp.235-249.  NBER WP No. 17063, May.
   Nicoletta Batini, Giovanni Callegari and Giovanni Melina, 2012. “Successful Austerity in the United States, Europe and Japan,” IMF Working Papers 12/190, International Monetary Fund.
   Anja Baum and Gerritt Koester, 2011, “The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Economic Activity Over the Business Cycle - Evidence from a Threshold VAR Analysis” Deutsche Bundesbank, Research Centre in its series Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies  no. 2011,03.
   Anja Baum, Marcos Poplawski-Riberio and Anke Weber, 2012, “Fiscal Multipliers and the State of the Economy,” IMF Working Paper 12/286, International Monetary Fund, December.
   Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh, 2013, “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers,” IMF Working Paper No. 13/1, January.  Forthcoming, American Economic Review, May.  
   Steven Fazzari, James Morley, and Irina Panovksa, 2012, “State-Dependent Effects of Fiscal Policy,”  UNSW Australian School of Business Research Paper No. 2012-27, April.      
   Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, 1963,  A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 (Princeton University Press).
   Robert Gordon and Robert Krenn, 2011, “The End of the Great Depression 1939-41: Policy Contributions and Fiscal Multipliers,” NBER Working Paper No. 16380.
   John Hicks, 1937, Mr. Keynes and the Classics: A Suggested Reinterpretation,” Econometrica, pp. 147-59.
   Ethan Ilzetzki, Enrique Mendoza & Carlos Vegh, 2011. “How Big (Small?) are Fiscal Multipliers?,” IMF Working Papers 11/52 (International Monetary Fund.)  Forthcoming, Journal of Monetary Economics.
   Eric Leeper, 2010, “Monetary Science, Fiscal Alchemy,” NBER Working Paper No. 16510.
   Christina Romer and David Romer, 2013, “The Most Dangerous Idea in Federal Reserve History: Monetary Policy Doesn’t Matter,” UC Berkeley, January.
   Daniel Shoag, 2012, “The Impact of Government Spending Shocks: Evidence on the Multiplier from State Pension Plan Returns,” Harvard Kennedy School.
   Antonio Spilimbergo, Steven Symansky, and Martin Schindler, “Fiscal Multipliers,” Staff Position Note No. 2009/11, International Monetary Fund.

[This post appears at VoxEU.  And also at  Econbrowser. Comments may be posted there.]

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.]

What do Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and the current US Congress have in common with Joseph Stalin?

No, it’s not that they are dead.

Recently I appeared on one of those TV shows where a right-wing host interrupts the guest frequently. (Not that I had realized what it was. I had not heard of the guy, Glen Beck, and the producer had only told me they wanted me to talk about Washington’s reaction to new recession fears.) On the show I said I thought it would be a good idea if the recipients of tax rebates this time around included lower-income Americans, at least those workers who did not make enough to pay income taxes, but who did pay payroll (social security) taxes. This would be in contrast to the last 7 years of tax cuts which have left these people out. The TV host’s reaction was “Welcome to the show Mr. Stalin.” A media watch site called Media Matters for America picked this up, as an egregious comment even by the standards of talk show hosts. Of course the Democratic and Republican leadership of Congress, with the encouragement of the White House, have decided to include precisely these lower-income workers in the tax cuts this time. So I guess they are Stalinists. And Milton Friedman originally proposed the negative income tax, which was enacted as the Earned Income Tax Credit, and became highly successful when expanded by Ronald Reagan (1986) and Bill Clinton (1993). Quite a few Stalinists around!

I think the serious point is that conservatives like to think that they are keenly aware of the adverse effect of marginal tax rates on work incentives. Effective marginal tax rates on lower-income Americans trying to lift themselves out of poverty can be higher than on ultra-wealthy Americans. Yet the fixation of the Republican party from 2001 to 2007 was to make sure that the tax cuts went largely to the upper end and that they excluded workers at the bottom. Incentives are a third argument for tax rebates at the lower end, in addition to the two more familiar arguments we have been hearing: (1) income distribution, and (2) lower-income Americans will spend the money, which is supposed to be the point of the new fiscal stimulus.