Miles on Haldane on Economics in Crises

Anything that says economics is in crisis always gets a lot of attention, particularly after Brexit (because economists are so pessimistic about its outcome), and Andy Haldane’s public comments were no exception. But former Monetary Policy Committee colleague David Miles has hit back, saying Haldane is wrong and economics is not in crisis. David is right, but (perhaps inevitably) he slightly overstates his case.

First an obvious point that is beyond dispute. Economics is much more than macroeconomics and finance. Look at an economics department, and you will typically find less than 20% are macroeconomists, and in some departments there can be just a single macroeconomist. Those working on labour economics, experimental economics, behavioural economics, public economics, microeconomic theory and applied microeconomics, econometric theory, industrial economics and so on would not have felt their sub-discipline was remotely challenged by the financial crisis.

David Miles is also right that economists have not found it difficult to explain the basic story of the financial crisis from the tools that they already had at their disposal. Here I will tell again a story about an ESRC seminar held at the Bank of England about whether other subjects like the physical sciences could tell economists anything useful post-crisis. It was by invitation only, Andy Haldane was there throughout, and for some reason I was there and asked to give my impressions at the end. In the background document there was a picture a bit like this.

UK Bank leverage: ratio of total assets to shareholder claims. (Source Bank of England Financial Stability Report June 2012) Added by popular request 17/1/17 [3]: 

I made what I hope is a correct observation. Show most economists a version of this chart just before the crisis, and they would have become very concerned. Some might have had their concern reduced by assurances and stories about how new risk management techniques made the huge increase in leverage seen in the years just before the crisis perfectly safe, but I think most would not. In particular, many macroeconomists would have said what about systemic risk?

The problem before the financial crisis was that hardly anyone looked at this data. There is one institution that surely would have looked at this like this data, and that was the Bank of England. As Peter Doyle writes:

“ .. it was not “economics” that missed the GFC, but, dare I say it (and amongst some others), the Bank of England.”

If there is a discussion of the increase in bank leverage and the consequent risks to the economy in any Inflation Reports in 2006 and 2007 I missed it. I do not think we have been given a real account of why the Bank missed what was going on: who looked at the data, who discussed it etc. I think we should know, if only for history’s sake.

What I think David Miles could have said but didn’t is that macroeconomists were at fault in taking the financial sector for granted, and therefore typically not including key finance to real interactions in their models. [1] As a result, the crisis has inspired a wave of new research that tries to make up for that, but this involves using existing ideas and applying them to macroeconomic models. There has also been new work using new techniques that has tried to look at network effects, which Andy Haldane mentions here. Whether this work could be usefully applied much more widely, as he suggests, is not yet clear, and to say that until that happens there is a crisis in economics is just silly.

The failure to forecast that consumers after the Brexit vote would reduce their savings ratio is a typical kind of forecasting error. Would they have done this anyway, and if not what about the Brexit vote and its aftermath inspired it, we will probably never know for sure. This kind of mistake happens all the time in macro forecasting, which is why comparisons to weather forecasting and Michael Fish are not really apt. [2] That is what David Miles means by saying it is a non-event.

What is hardly ever said, so I make no apologies for doing so once more, is that macroeconomic theory has in some ways ‘had a good crisis’. Basic Keynesian macroeconomic theory says you don’t worry about borrowing in a recession because interest rates will not rise, and they have not. New Keynesian theory says creating loads of new money will not lead to runaway inflation and it has not. Above all else, macroeconomic theory and most evidence said that the turn to austerity in 2010 would delay or weaken the recovery and that is exactly what happened. As Paul Krugman often says, it is quite rare for macroeconomics to be so fundamentally tested, and it passed that test. We should be talking not about a phoney crisis in economics, but why policy makers today have ignored economics, and thereby lost their citizens' the equivalent of a lot of money.

[1] In the COMPACT model I built in the early 1990s, credit conditions played an important role in consumption decisions, reflecting the work of John Muellbauer. But as I set out here, proposals to continue the model and develop further financial/real linkages were rejected by economists and the ESRC because it was not a DSGE model.

[2] Weather forecasts for the next few days are more accurate than macro forecasts, although perhaps longer term forecasts are more comparable. But more fundamentally, while the weather is a highly complex system like the economy. It is made up of physical processes that are predictable in a way human behaviour will never be. As a result, I doubt that simply having more data will have much impact on the ability to forecast the economy.

[3] Total asset are the size of the bank's balance sheet. Shareholder claims are the part of those assets that belong to shareholder, and which therefore represent a cushion that can absorb losses without the bank facing bankruptcy. So at the peak of the financial crisis, banks had over 60 times as many assets as that cushion. That makes a bank very vulnerable to loss on those assets.

DSGE critics and future directions for macro

Microfounded macromodels, aka DSGE models, hold a dominant position in academic macro, and their influence in central banks is increasing. (The Bank of England’s core model is DSGE, but the approach has not yet quite achieved a similar dominance in the Fed or elsewhere.) At the risk of gross oversimplification, you can class the critics of this situation into two groups: the reformers and revolutionaries. The reformers (like myself) see DSGE analysis as always forming a central part of macro, but want greater diversity, with in particular more analysis using time series econometrics. The revolutionaries want to confine DSGE analysis to a much more minor role, if not the bin.

In a sense debate between these critics is a bit pointless. We are standing on the same train platform, agreed on the direction of travel, but at the moment the train shows no sign of moving. There is a danger that we spend too much time arguing about when the train should stop, and not thinking enough about how to get it going in the first place. Nevertheless I think it is worth having the debate, if only because of tactics. Those DSGE modellers who are sympathetic to reform can easily become defenders of the status quo in the face of more extreme attacks.

So let me give one argument for reform rather than revolution that I have only made implicitly before. When I studied macro and then began working as a macroeconomist, mainstream macro was divided into schools of thought. In an environment where both inflation and unemployment were high, you had monetarists saying that you just needed to control the money supply, some Keynesians arguing that we should focus on unemployment because it had nothing to do with inflation, and New Classicals saying unemployment was not even a problem. Each school had its models, and each claimed empirical backing. Econometric analysis was not strong enough to discriminate between schools. Different schools tended to talk across each other, and anyone trying to look for common ground or ultimate sources of disagreement had a hard time, and ended up writing lists. For a policymaker or student it must have seemed like a nightmare, and no wonder many chose which school to follow based on its ideological associations.

In my view microfoundations brought some order to this chaos (see this from here). Now for heterodox economists who think the microfoundation approach is fundamentally flawed, this is a problem: we are looking at alternatives through the wrong lens. But for those who think that, for at least some problems, basic micro reasoning is a good place to start, microfoundations provided a common language with which to discuss and appreciate different points of view. Note that this is not an argument for complete synthesis, but just a shared language.

As Diane Coyle noted about the conference we both recently attended, the UK’s social science funding agency (the ESRC) is considering what kind of research in macro is needed post crisis, and therefore what funding initiatives might be appropriate. Here I want to present a cautionary tale. Macro is dominated by US economists of course, but one area where the UK was strong was in the building and empirical evaluation of econometric macromodels. This reflected strength in time series economics (David Hendry, Hashem Pesaran, Andrew Harvey to name just three), but was embodied in the ESRC Macroeconomic Modelling Bureau, directed by Ken Wallis from 1983 to 1999. However with the intellectual tide moving ever more strongly in favour of calibrated DSGE models, macro papers by those involved with this area were not hitting the top journals. Partly as a result, the ESRC (which really means the academic and other macroeconomists advising the ESRC) decided to discontinue funding for the centre.[1]

I thought that was a huge mistake at the time, and that conviction has been reinforced by recent events.[2] What the Bureau did was bring modellers from policy institutions and academics together around the concrete endeavour of comparing the models used by those institutions. At the very least, modellers became aware of alternative perspectives, and models used by policymakers were subject to critique. This has now been lost.  The moral I draw from this mistake is that it is dangerous to sacrifice strengths to fashion. The UK retains strengths in time series macro: one of the strongest papers at the conference was presented by John Muelbauer, whose work on financial liberalisation and consumption I have discussed before. However the UK also has a number of economists producing strong work in the DSGE tradition, and this should also be encouraged. What the UK really lacks (and the key message from the report Diane cites) is academic macroeconomists, and the reason for that is for another post.  

---

[1] The Centre was co-funded by the Treasury and the Bank of England, and the absence of strong support from these institutions may also have been important in this decision. Both institutions were of course subject to the same intellectual tide, and may have had mixed feelings about being open to external critique.
[2] Unfortunately this was not the first time lack of support from the ESRC killed off a very innovative and productive macro research team. Many of the issues involved in optimal policy analysis in rational expectations models were first investigated by David Currie and Paul Levine in the 1980s, but funding support for this team was not renewed by the academics advising the ESRC.