Japan and the burden of government debt

I don’t write enough about Japan, and now that some of my posts are very kindly being translated into Japanese I should try to remedy that. In fact there is currently a very good reason to write about the Japanese economy, and that is a very strong 2017 Q2 performance. Annualised growth was 4%, compared to 1.2% in the UK. What is particularly heartening about recent Japanese growth is that it is led by domestic demand rather than trade. In the past Japan seemed to have the opposite of the UK’s problem: growth was often led by trade, while domestic demand was weak.

This recent growth is not just making up for poor past performance compared to other countries. Comparisons of GDP growth are misleading for Japan because (unlike the UK and US) it has relatively little inward migration, so it is better to use GDP per head for such comparisons. (As Noah Smith points out, even this my bias comparisons against Japan because its population is aging.) Between 2006 and 2016, Japan increased GDP per head by a total of about 5.5%, compared to around 5% in the US and about 3% for the UK. Good compared to other countries, but all these countries should have had stronger recoveries from the recession.

Strong growth is good news because inflation is so low (around 0.5%): way below the 2% inflation target. The government is trying to stimulate growth using a modest fiscal stimulus and large scale quantitative easing (short and long interest rates are exactly zero) as well as implementing various structural reforms. But the striking thing about all this is that their net government debt to GDP ratio is 125% and rising (OECD Economic Outlook measure). This is higher than any other OECD country except Greece and Italy.

Does the conjunction of relatively strong growth and high government debt confound economic theory, as Bill Mitchell suggests? Like high powered money and inflation, any relationship between government debt and growth just does not work when interest rates are stuck at zero. High government debt could crowd out private investment (although some dispute this), but not when real long term rates are zero and inflation is near zero. Servicing high debt could discourage labour supply, but again not when interest rates are zero. Nor is debt a burden on future generations when the real rate of interest is well below the growth rate.

Of course most people think such high debt levels are a real concern because of ‘the markets’. But the markets will only stop buying this debt if they expect default or rampant inflation, and there is no way a government with its own currency can be forced to default. There is also no way it will choose to default with interest rates so low. This is the basic truth that our leaders in the UK choose not to tell us (and pretend otherwise).

But what happens when growth finally raises inflation, and interest rates rise. Will debt not be a problem then? Maybe, but only in the long term, so the government will have plenty of time to fix that roof when the sun shines. [1] Right now Japan does worry about its high levels of government debt, but it rightly worries about the combination of low growth and low inflation much more. In that sense it sets a good example to other countries.

[1] Fixing the roof while the sun shines is one of the Cameron/Osborne little homilies I approve of. The problem when they used it was the UK economy was actually in pretty poor shape, as we could tell because interest rates were so low.    

Whatever happened to the government debt doom spiral

A number of people, including the occasional economic journalist, are puzzled about why government debt at 90% of GDP seemed to cause our new Chancellor and the markets so little concern when his predecessor saw it as a portent of impending doom. I always argued that this aspect of austerity had a sell by date, so let me try to explain what is going on.

The 90% figure comes from a piece of empirical work which has been thoroughly examined, and found to be highly problematic. (Others have used rather more emphatic language.) Part of the problem is a lack of basic thinking. Why should the markets worry about buying government debt, beyond the normal assessment of relative returns. The answer is that they worry about not getting their money back because the government defaults.

If a government cannot create the currency that it borrows in, then the risk of default is very real. Typically a large amount of debt will periodically be rolled over (new debt sold to replace debt that is due to be paid back). If that debt cannot be rolled over, then the government will probably be forced to default. Knowing that, potential lenders will worry that other potential lenders will not lend, allowing self fulfilling beliefs to cause default even if the public finances are pretty sound.

The situation is completely different for governments that can create the currency that the debt they sell is denominated in. They will never be forced to default, because they can always pay back debt due with created money. That in turn means that lenders do not need to worry about forced defaults, or what other lenders may think, so this kind of self fulfilling default will not happen.

Of course a government can still choose to default. It may do so if the political costs of raising taxes or cutting spending is greater than the cost of defaulting. But for advanced economies there is an easier option if the burden of the public finances gets too much, which is to start monetising debt. That is what Japan may end up doing, and what others may also do if QE turns out to be permanent. But this is a very different type of concern than the threat of default. And it does not, in the current environment, lead to the emergence of large default premiums and market panics.

How can I be so sure? Because with QE we have had actual money creation, and it has not worried the markets at all. It seems hard to tell a story where markets panic today about the possibility of monetisation in the future, but are quite sanguine about actual monetisation today.

So for economies that issue debt in currency they can create, there is no obvious upper limit anywhere near to current debt/GDP ratios when economies are depressed and inflation is low. Japan shows us that, and we must stop treating Japan as some special case that has no lessons for the rest of us. (How often did we hear of their lost decade in the 1990s that it couldn’t happen anywhere else.)

It was good that the IFS suggested Hammond has a look at Labour’s fiscal rule. As I explained in this post, Hammond’s new ‘rule’ is pretty worthless. But one key part of Labour’s rule that keeps being ignored but is crucial in today's environment is the knockout if interest rates hit their zero lower bound. It is for the reasons described above that this knockout is there and is perfectly safe: when interest rate policy fails you can completely and safely forget the deficit and debt and use fiscal policy to ensure the recovery. It is the basic macro lesson of the last 6 years that is fairly well understood among academic economists but still remains to be learnt by most people who talk about these things. Whether senior economists in the UK Treasury need to learn it or just keep quiet about it for other reasons I do not know.

Japan’s consumption tax: a test of modern macro?

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to go ahead with an increase in consumption taxes from 5% to 8% in April 2014, with a further increase to 10% planned for later. Will this be the first step to reducing the very high level of government debt in Japan (in net or gross terms, the highest in the developed world), or will it derail the recovery? In many ways the answer depends on whether you like your macro state of the art, or more antique.

Consider the antique first. Raising the consumption tax takes real purchasing power out of Japanese consumers’ pockets. It is a straightforward fiscal contraction, on a very large scale: the last thing you need when we only have the first signs of a recovery. Now in theory this fiscal contraction could be offset by monetary expansion, but can monetary expansion really be strong enough to offset a fiscal contraction of that size? Some macro antiques were always rather suspicious about the potency of monetary relative to fiscal policy anyway, but in a liquidity trap those suspicions become certainties. Even if the central bank does succeed in reducing real interest rates by raising inflation, is that going to be more powerful than the cut in real incomes that this higher inflation brings?

So why might modern macro be less pessimistic about the impact of the consumption tax increase? For one thing it might be more optimistic about the potency of monetary policy, particularly in an open economy. If the central bank is really committed to bringing about a recovery come what may then it may be prepared to see inflation go well above 2%. But I would suggest the more important difference lies with the fiscal impact of the tax increase. Modern macro could bring two arguments to the table.

The first is Ricardian Equivalence. The consumption tax increase has been planned for some time, so consumers will have already factored in its impact into their consumption decisions. Even if they had wondered if the tax increase might be postponed, some taxes will have to rise at some point. So if all the Prime Minister has done is confirm that tax increases are going to come sooner rather than later, the logic behind Ricardian Equivalence will mean that the impact on consumer spending will be second order.

The second involves the incentive effect of higher sales taxes, which I discussed recently. If monetary policy does not try and offset the impact that higher sales taxes will have on inflation, then anticipation of the tax could lead consumers to bring forward some consumption. What this really involves is fiscal policy mimicking monetary policy. Or to put it another way, if you were doubtful that monetary policy through Quantitative Easing could raise inflation, here is a surer way to achieve the same thing.

The common theme here is the importance that modern macro places on expectations of a fairly rational kind. Yet even if you are happy to go along with this, there is an important proviso that does not get emphasised enough. How did consumers know that the budget deficit would be reduced by raising taxes rather than cutting spending? If they had expected the deficit to be reduced by lower government spending, they will not have expected a fall in their post-tax real income. For these consumers the Prime Minister’s announcement will come as a surprise, and they will reduce their consumption as a result.

This argument is completely consistent with consumers being rational and forward looking, as I emphasise here. All the behavioural assumptions required for Ricardian Equivalence can still be there. What Ricardian Equivalence implicitly does is hold the path of future government spending fixed, but that is an artificial assumption which cannot be true in practice, if only because of political uncertainty. (The argument applies more generally to the small amount of modelling that has attempted to demonstrate ‘expansionary austerity’.)

So we can summarise as follows. If consumption remains on average unperturbed by the sales tax increase (perhaps showing a positive spike before April 2014 which is only partially offset by falls thereafter), then modern macro can pat itself on the back. On the other hand if consumption does take a significant hit, modern macro has an escape clause. Let us hope it does not need it.

Japan and the consumption tax

While most international attention has focused on recent developments in Japanese monetary policy, there are interesting developments on the fiscal side too. A key issue is the proposal to raise the national consumption/sales tax from 5% to 10% in two stages beginning in April next year. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says he will wait until probably the autumn to make a final decision, and the macroeconomic outlook will be a key factor. The proposal has the support of Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda. However the more interesting question for Kuroda is how the Bank will react to the sales tax increase.

Much of the reporting on this issue is along the familiar lines of whether it is better to focus on reducing the government’s very high level of debt (raise sales taxes) or ending deflation in Japan (don’t raise sales taxes). While this debate is a familiar one, there is an additional twist with a sales tax. An anticipated increase in sales taxes, by raising expected inflation, will - other things being equal - provide an incentive for consumers to bring forward their spending. Macroeconomists would describe this as a real interest rate effect, but in simpler terms it makes sense to buy before prices go up.

This incentive effect has been observed in Japan in the past, and in other countries. (See page 12 of this IMF report on the issue.) The UK cut VAT for just one year in response to the recession in 2009, a measure I have described as New Keynesian countercyclical fiscal policy, and this may have raised consumption by over 1%, in part because consumers anticipated that prices would rise again in 2010. (The over 1% figure comes from here, although this analysis is more conservative.)  

However, this effect only occurs if monetary policy does not react to the sales tax rise, and the increase in headline inflation that this will bring. If every percentage point increase in inflation is matched by the same increase in the nominal interest rate (and we ignore taxes), the effect will disappear. (Prices will rise, but so will the value of my savings so I can afford to wait.) If the Bank of Japan attempts to reverse the increase in inflation by tightening policy still further, then we get a very undesirable outcome.

These considerations suggest two things. First, if they take place, increases in sales taxes should be deferred by long enough to allow any bringing forward of spending to happen. The worst thing you can do in current circumstances is implement an unexpected sales tax hike. Why not raise sales taxes by 1% each year for the next five years? Those who suggest that acting gradually ‘risks losing the credibility of financial markets’ should be ignored. Second, the Bank of Japan should commit to ‘see through’ the impact of sales taxes on inflation, and not tighten monetary policy in any respect (conventional or unconventional) following the increase in inflation that higher sales taxes will bring. It would be good if that commitment can be made publicly before the increase in sales taxes is confirmed.

      

Currency Misalignments and Current Accounts

One of my favourite journal paper titles is Xavier Sala-i-Martin’s AER paper ‘I just ran two million regressions’. The problem that paper tries to deal with is that there are too many potential variables that you could conceivably put in an equation explaining differences in economic growth rates among countries. There is then a serious danger of (intentional or otherwise) data mining. A researcher may want to establish that their pet new variable is important in determining growth, so they try lots of different regressions. When one set of additional variables are included the pet new variable is significant, but when another set is used it is not. Only the first group of regressions are published. Sala-i-Martin’s paper uses techniques that involve looking at all possible permutations of variables, in order to try and assess which are robust, in the sense of tending to be significant whatever else is in the regression.  

A recent ECB working paper by Ca’Zorzi, Chudik and Dieppe does something similar with models of the medium term current account. Why is this important? In my view it’s a key ingredient in being able to say something about exchange rate misalignments. This idea is associated in particular with the work of John Williamson, who christened the approach Fundamental Equilibrium Exchange Rates, or FEER for short. (That led to probably the best title of any of the papers I have co-authored – ‘Are Our FEERs justified’ – where we test the FEER approach against PPP[1].) John’s most recent analysis, co-authored with William Cline, can be found here. This or very similar approaches often go by different names: in Peter Isard’s nice survey it is called the macroeconomic balance approach, and it continues to be used (along with other methods) by the IMF.

The idea behind the FEER approach is to model trade flows as a function of the real exchange rate and activity levels. In the medium term activity levels will be determined from the supply side i.e. the output gap will tend to zero. So if we think we know about this supply side, and we know what the current account will be in the medium term, we can back out the medium term real exchange rate. We can then form a view about the extent to which current exchange rates are misaligned (or, more precisely, what expected interest rate differentials would have to be to justify current exchange rates). I’ve used this approach on a number of occasions in the past: perhaps most notably, to try and assess what Euro/Sterling exchange rate the UK should have entered the EuroZone at if it had decided to join in 2003.

The main problem with this approach is working out what the medium term current account should be. Actual current accounts are a poor guide, because they are influenced by both noise and short term factors, like the economic cycle and currency misalignment. In long term equilibrium it is reasonable to assume that the current account should be zero, because the current account is the change in national wealth. However we know that current accounts can show persistent surpluses or deficits over many years. Intertemporal consumption theory gives us some ideas, but on its own it is not that helpful. Many other factors may matter, such as countries having different demographic profiles.  With no clear encompassing theory to use, empirical studies of the kind cited above may be our best guide.

Incidentally, the New Open Economy Macro (NOEM) approach, which is currently the most widely used microfounded open economy framework, essentially uses the same idea as the FEER: see for example this study by Obstfeld and Rogoff. It is more concerned with microfoundations, and less with data, but it shares with the FEER approach a focus on imperfectly competitive markets for internationally traded goods. As far as I know these authors have never acknowledged Williamson as a precursor, and I’m not sure why. As a result, many macroeconomists think NOEM invented this way of thinking about medium term exchange rates.

The details of which variables the authors of the ECB study find are important in determining medium term current accounts are probably not of wide enough interest to discuss in this post. What is more topical is that they use their robust models to estimate what underlying current accounts currently are for the US, UK, Japan and China. Perhaps unsurprisingly they find that, although the US would be in deficit and China in surplus, the numbers are much smaller than the deficits and surpluses observed in the recent past. More controversial, perhaps, is that they find Japan should also be running a deficit. In the past I and others have tended to assume surpluses for Japan, but this was always partly based on demographic features which were coming to an end, which is maybe what has now happened.

One slightly disappointing aspect of the study is that they did not look at Germany. There is some debate about the extent to which German surpluses represent a temporary misalignment of real exchange rates within the Eurozone, or whether they may be partly structural. The answer is rather important in assessing the extent to which deflation is required outside Germany, and it would have been very interesting to know what this study had to say on this issue.                   

---

[1] I should add that I take no credit for the title - I think it came from Rebecca.

Money and inflation

When I suggest that the ECB could, in principle, end the Euro crisis by printing money (and using that money to buy government debt), a question I am often asked by non-macroeconomists is ‘will this not increase inflation’? The idea that printing money will inevitably lead to inflation is of course the monetarist position.

                The appeal of this idea comes from a simple thought experiment. Imagine an economy without banks, where the only money was printed by the government. People hold money because they want to buy things (money as a ‘medium of exchange’), so the demand for money is proportional to the value of overall spending. The government then doubles the supply of this money, by giving everyone a Christmas gift of cash. (This is Freidman’s famous helicopter money.) People will spend this money, because they now have more than they need. If the quantity of goods produced in the economy (‘supply’) is unchanged, we have ‘too much money chasing too few goods’, and excess demand leads to rising prices. People go on spending (the money does not get destroyed) until they have the amount of money they need, which is the same proportion of the total value of spending. The process will only stop when everything costs twice as much. This is the famous ‘neutrality of money’.

                The neutrality of money is a very robust proposition. For those mathematically inclined, imagine a set of equations that describe the real economy (output, real wages etc). This real economy includes ‘real balances’: the purchasing power of money, or money divided by prices. Now suppose the government has control of one nominal quantity, money. If we start from an equilibrium where all the equations hold, and double money, then the set of equations will also hold for the same set of real quantities plus a doubled price level, because this gives us the same level of real balances.

                Now monetarists have always understood that the process from doubling money to doubling prices may take time. Furthermore, the assumption that supply remains unchanged may not be correct if we start with unemployed resources (i.e. a recession). Freidman was highly critical of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression for not printing enough money.  However, if in time unemployed resources disappear, any additional money will lead to higher prices.

                The thought experiment above involved the government giving people money. But that combines monetary and fiscal policy: it is like a tax cut financed by printing money. A pure monetary policy operation would involve the central bank using its newly printed money to buy assets like government debt. This is what we now call quantitative easing. The neutrality of money idea should still work, because by buying assets the bank raises their price, which lowers interest rates, which encourages more people to borrow and spend. But suppose interest rates have hit a zero lower bound i.e. we are in a liquidity trap. The problem now is that the central bank is swapping money for assets that pay the same as money (because interest rates are zero), so nothing has really happened. There is a lot more to say about whether Quantitative Easing will work in stimulating the economy, but at best that is what it will initially do – output will rise because there are unemployed resources, and prices will not. This is why the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve have printed money like crazy over the last few years.

                But when the economy recovers, will not the chickens eventually come home to roost? Inflation must increase in the end, surely – that’s what neutrality implies. But our thought experiment assumed that the money would stay doubled in quantity. A sensible central bank, one the economy recovers, will begin to contract the money supply. Job done, so back to business as usual. If the central bank has bought lots of government debt, it can start selling it. The central bank can certainly start raising interest rates above zero, which will encourage people to switch out of money. So the money supply will shrink back down.

                This is just a rather elaborate way of saying that printing money need not be inflationary because it can be temporary. Those who argue that printing money must be inflationary are making an implicit assumption that the extra money is permanently with us, and this is an assumption that need not hold, particularly if monetary policy is in the hands of an inflation targeting independent central bank like the ECB.

                If this all sounds too abstract, here is what happened to money (in this case M1) in Japan in the early years of this century. 

In an effort to boost the economy the Japanese central bank tried a programme of Quantitative Easing, leading to rapid growth in narrow money. Japan was also in a liquidity trap, so broader definitions of money did not increase that much. However inflation did not increase: on average inflation has been zero between 2003 and today. How much it helped expand the economy is still unclear. Below is a graph of the level of the monetary base – the money the central bank actually prints. The expansion in 2003 is clear, but so is the contraction in 2006, when the experiment ended. The bottom line: printing money can be temporary, and will not be inflationary in a recession.

Monetary Base in Japan (source: Bank of Japan)