The Surrender of Economic Policy
James K. Galbraith
[Reprinted from The American Prospect
(March/April 1996, pp. 60-67]
There is a common ground on economic policy that now stretches, with
differences only of degree, from the radical right to Bill Clinton.
Across the spectrum, all declare that the main job of government is to
help markets work well. On the supply side, government can help, up to
a point, by providing education, training, infrastructure, and
scientific research - all public goods that markets undervalue. But
when it comes to macro economic policy, government should do nothing
except pursue budget balance, and leave the Federal Reserve alone.
To accept a balanced budget and the unchallenged monetary judgment of
the Federal Reserve is, by definition, to remove macroeconomics from
the political sphere. Thus, the remaining differences between Clinton
and the Congress are over details. Should we head for budget balance
in seven years, eight, or ten? Should we cut (or impose) this or that
environmental regulation? Do Head Start, the AmeriCorps, and
technology subsidies justify their cost? And so on, in long litanies
that no one believes will make a fundamental difference in American
lives. Even if there were substantial gains to be made by public
investments on the supply side, the conservative fiscal consensus
precludes them by denying the resources.
We have now seen two Democratic presidents - Carter and Clinton -
deeply damaged because they did not dispute this orthodoxy in good
time and therefore could not control the levers of macro policy.
Macroeconomics, not microeconomics, is the active center of power.
Practical conservatives understand this. It is no accident that
conservatives always seek to control the high ground of deficit and
interest rate policy, nor any surprise that liberals defeat themselves
from the beginning when they concede it.
Yet, the economics behind this consensus is both reactionary and
deeply implausible. It springs from a never-never-land of abstract
theory concocted over 25 years by the disciples of Milton Friedman and
purveyed through them to the whole profession. Liberals - and anyone
else concerned with economic prosperity - should now reject this way
of looking at the world.
THE RIGHT-WING CONSENSUS ON EMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION
The conservative macroeconomic creed is built on three basic
elements. They are, first,
monetarism - the idea that the Federal Reserve's monetary
policy controls inflation, but has little effect on output and
employment except perhaps in the very short run. Second, there is rational
expectations, which is the idea, for which Robert Lucas just won
the Nobel Prize, that individual economic agents are so clever, so
well informed, and so well educated in economics that they do not make
systematic errors in their economic decisions, especially the
all-important choices of labor supply. And third, there is market
clearing: the idea that all transactions, including the hiring and
firing of workers, occur at prices that equate the elemental forces of
supply and demand.
Taken together, these assumptions conjure an efficient labor market
that yields appropriate levels of employment and wages. The employment
level generated by this abstraction is the core policy concept of
mainstream macroeconomics, known as the natural rate of unemployment.1
If unemployment is above the natural rate, the theory dictates that
prices and wages will fall. If unemployment is below the natural rate,
the theory dictates that inflation will rise. Sustainable,
noninflationary employment growth occurs only at the natural rate.
Among most economists these ideas are amazingly noncontroversial. The
only dispute is over a narrow point of policy - whether there is any
value in attempts to steer the economy toward the natural rate if it
happens to be, for a time, either above or below it. To the strictest
natural-raters, doing nothing is always and everywhere the right
prescription, because the economy will always return to the natural
rate on its own. Policy cannot help, and the very instruments of macro
policy should be abandoned.
The self-described "New Keynesian," a breed found
throughout the Clinton administration, believes a vestigial role for
macro policy can be preserved. Unemployment may persist above the
natural rate because wages take more time than other prices to adjust
to changes in supply and demand, leading to failure of the labor
market to "clear." That being so, there may be no harm in
policy measures - a little stimulus now and then when there is a
serious recession-to speed the return to the natural rate 'so long as
a "soft landing" is carefully engineered.
Alas, the location of the natural rate is not actually observed.
Worse, the damn thing will not sit still. It is not only invisible, it
moves! This is no problem for the never-do-anything crowd. But it
poses painful difficulties for would-be intervenors, those few voices
in the administration who call, from time to time, for summer jobs,
public works programs, and lower interest rates. How can one justify a
dash to the goalposts, if you don't know where they are? New
Keynesians obsessively estimate and re-estimate the location of the
natural rate, in order to guide their policy judgments. Sadly, they
have never yet been able to predict its location, which may be one
reason why there has never yet been a successful "soft landing."
WHERE IS THE NATURAL RATE?
To the (questionable) extent that the Federal Reserve has any
coherent macroe-conomic theory, it tends to be implicitly New
Keynesian on this issue. That is, the Federal Reserve Board is an
inveterate intervenor, raising interest rates when unemployment is too
low, and lowering them, grudgingly, to end or sometimes to avoid
recessions. And so the Federal Reserve also spends a good deal of time
and effort trying to pin down the phantom and elusive natural rate.
In 1994, with the natural rate estimated by numerous astrologers at
about 6 percent, monetary policymakers faced an interesting problem.
Actual unemployment, now at 5.8 percent, had fallen below the
estimated natural rate. So how then to interpret the rest of the data,
which contrary to theory showed no evidence of accelerating inflation?
Did the apparent lack of inflationary acceleration mean that the
natural rate had perhaps fallen, and if so to what value? Or, had the
barrier been broken and, in Robert Solow's phrase, was inflation "acceleration
just around the corner"? Or again, was the whole theory rotten
and fit for the garbage?
The Federal Reserve proved unwilling to change its estimate of the
natural unemployment rate. So it tightened monetary policy from
February 1994 through early 1995, as the economy broached the 6
percent unemployment barrier. But then the Federal Reserve shifted
course and started cutting interest rates in July 1995, even though
unemployment remained below 6 percent. Why? It will be interesting to
learn, when the full minutes are released, whether the Federal Reserve
formally changed its estimate of the natural rate in July of 1995, and
if so, on what ground and to what number, Or we may learn that the
Federal Reserve doesn't really have a natural rate theory anymore, but
is only holding on to the rhetoric of these ideas, for want of any
alternative that ideological conservatives might accept.
The components of today's low inflation rate are not at all
consistent with the natural rate theory. No part of present
inflationary pressure, such as it is, stems from wages. Wage
compensation, two-thirds of all costs, remains flat. The whole of
today's modest inflation stems from a boom in profits and investment
income, and from the effects of this boom on commodity prices and
other incidentals of the inflation process. There has also been some
contribution from the rising interest costs imposed since February
1994 by the Federal Reserve's own policy. This problem is illustrated
in "What's Driving Inflation?" (Figure 1). The old
relationship between inflation and labor costs really has busted up
since Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and he and Volcker
overvalued the dollar. Prices may be rising at 2.7 percent annually,
but real wages are scarcely moving. Indeed we find that all inflation
accelerations after I960, with the sole exception of that following
Richard Nixon's election campaign in 1972 (when price controls were in
force), were led by prices and not by wages.
THE NOMADIC AIRU
How is all of this to be reconciled with a theory of inflation
acceleration based exclusively on the natural rate of unemployment in
an aggregate labor market? It can't be done. If there is excess demand
for labor, surely a good (new) classical economist must insist that
real wages are rising. But they aren't - and haven't been in 20 years.
Something must be wrong with the natural rate model. (Good economists
at the Federal Reserve know this, and it bothers them, as it should.)
In fact, something is more than wrong with the model. The model is
junk, as we should have known long ago.
This is nicely shown by the two graphs [not reproduced here] in
Figure 2 ("Follow the Bouncing Natural Rate"). The first
shows how the unemployment rates at which inflation accelerated have
changed over the last 40 years. In the 1950s they were low, in the
1970s, quite high. But recent data rather resemble the 1950s again,
which would indicate that there is room for unemployment to come down
without kicking off inflation. Depending on how you factor in the
high-inflation decade of the 1970s, an honest estimate of the natural
rate - even if you believe it - might be 6 percent or much lower.
But the second graph shows how fruitless the search for a natural
rate really is. The graph employs centered 12-month moving averages of
monthly data for both inflation and unemployment. It illustrates that
rising inflation is essentially unpredictable: The shocks that cause
it sometimes happen at high unemployment, sometimes not until
unemployment is quite low. There is no sign in recent data of rising
inflation as unemployment falls. Indeed, the pattern of widening gyres
reversed itself after the deep recession of 1982. Through the rest of
the 1980s, unemployment fell without wage pressures and without sharp
rises in inflation. The recession of 1989 hit while inflation was low
by historic standards. And in the past four years, 1992 through 1995,
there has been falling unemployment with falling unit labor costs and
no rise whatever in inflation (see the horizontal ellipse). We do not
know where the nomadic accelerating inflation rate of unemployment
(AIRU) is today-because we don't know when the next shock might hit
us. So why not go for full employment? ...
MACRO POLICY IN A STRUCTURALIST WORLD
Conservatives employ the myth of the market to oppose political
solutions to distributive problems. But to leave things to the market
is no less a political choice than any other.
Suppose the concept of an aggregate labor market and the associated
metaphor of a natural rate of unemployment could be wiped away with a
stroke from the professional consciousness (as it deserves to be). The
policy notion that controlling the reduction of unemployment is the
principal means of fighting inflation would lose its power. It would
then become intellectually possible to revive the idea of giving a job
to everybody who wants one. The issue becomes not how many jobs but
rather who to employ and on what terms?
Investment and Consumption
Creating jobs is a matter of finding things for people to do.
Investment of all kinds creates jobs, and stabilization of private
investment demand is the traditional macroeconomic issue. Low and
stable interest rates are essential here-more on that later. Public
investment can step in where private investment will not go, and
should be designed and pursued for its direct benefits, not its
imaginary indirect ones. But consumption is also an important
and much maligned policy objective. People should have the incomes
they need to be well fed, housed, and clothed - and also to enjoy
life. Public services can help: day care, education, public health,
culture, and the arts all deserve far more support than they are
getting.
Technology
Technological renewal should be understood as part of a strategy of
maintaining investment demand. It makes sense progressively to shut
down the back end of the capital stock, for environmental, safety,
energy efficiency, and competitive reasons. Properly designed
regulation can help, and this will open up investment opportunities
for new technologies. At the same time, a flatter wage structure and
bigger safety net, including retraining but also more generous early
retirement for older displaced workers, would reduce the cost of job
loss and the resistance from affected workers. Again, this is an
adjunct of high-growth macro policy, not a substitute for it.
Inflation
Inflation policy would not go away. But the pursuit of relative price
stability, rather than being the result of sluggish growth and tight
money, would become concerned with the management of particular
elements of cost, as the economy got closer to full employment. This
includes wage pressures, and also materials prices, rent, and
interest. Management of aggregate demand - an undoubted force on
nonwage prices - could operate through channels with less effect on
employment (a variable tax on excess profits, for example). Since
wages are a major element in costs, inflation policy would be
concerned with the institutional mechanisms of wage bargaining.
Distribution
This exercise returns us to the real, inevitably political questions
obscured by technical mumbo jumbo about natural unemployment rates:
our overall structure of incomes and opportunities. What should be the
distribution of incomes? How much range, between the bottom and the
top? Between capital and labor? Between skilled and not? In my view,
the present course of rising inequality must be reversed, and liberals
should frankly support the political steps required for this purpose.
Trade unions should be strengthened and the aggressive new organizing
campaigns of the AFL-CIO strongly supported. Minimum wages should be
raised. And liberals should strongly defend the progressive income
tax, as well as support proposals for wealth taxation.
Once the basic distribution of income has been set right, further
gains in real wages can only happen, on average, at the rate of
productivity growth. But to keep the distribution from getting worse
again, these gains should be broadly distributed, substantially social
and only slightly industrial or individual. In other words, we need to
return to the principle of solidarity -that the whole society advances
together.
Higher minimum wages are especially important for this purpose. In
their book, Myth and Measurement, David Card and Alan Krueger
argue that raising the minimum wage within a reasonable range would
not cost jobs. In fact, higher minimum wages may increase employment
by reducing job turnover. This is a doubly important work, once for
its direct policy relevance and again because it flatly contradicts,
and deeply undercuts, standard models of the aggregate labor market.
Interest Rates
Low and stable has to be the watchword. Interest rates should lose
their present macroeconomic function, which has been to guarantee
stagnation. They should serve instead to arbitrate the distribution of
income between debtors and creditors, financial capital and
entrepreneurship. As a first approximation, real rates of return on
short-term money should be zero. And there is no reason why long-term
rates of interest in real terms should exceed the long-term real
growth rate of the economy. Indeed they should lie below this value,
effecting a gradual redistribution of wealth away from the creditor
and toward the debtor class and a long-term stabilization of household
and company balance sheets. Speculation in asset markets should be
heavily taxed.
Deficits
Ironically, the budget deficit hardly comes up in this discussion.
During the postwar boom, we were a high-employment, low-inflation,
low-interest-rate society with a progressive tax structure. Such
societies do not have structural-deficit problems. A peacetime
military budget would also greatly help. At any rate, the present
fixation on balancing the budget is nonsense, as all serious
economists should loudly declare.
The above, all taken together, would be a macroeconomic policy to
fight for! The liberal microeconomic supply-siders can do some useful
things - or think they can - by getting a little money into education,
training, infrastructure. But the point is to raise living standards,
to increase security and leisure, and to provide jobs that are worth
having. And that requires us to reclaim macroeconomics as a major
policy tool.
NOTES
1. Some economists prefer the term
nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment or NAIRU. The idea is
essentially the same. The natural rate/NAIRU was introduced to
supplant the older Phillips Curve idea of a static trade-off between
inflation and unemployment, and to suggest that inflation would not
only rise, but inevitably accelerate, if unemployment falls too low.
|