Interest rate vs fiscal policy stabilisation

One divide between mainstream and many heterodox economists is on whether monetary or fiscal policy should be used for macroeconomic stabilisation (controlling demand to influence inflation and output). What makes a good instrument in this context? As I have argued before, a key difference between the mainstream and MMT involves different answers to this question. I think the following issues are critical.

1. How quickly do changes in the instrument (e.g. increases in interest rates) influence demand?
   
   
2. How quickly can the instrument be changed? Are there limits to how far it can be changed?
   
   
3. How reliable is the impact of the instrument on demand? In other words how uncertain is the impact of a change in the instrument on demand?
   
   
4. How certain can we be that whoever has power over the instrument will use it in the necessary way?
   
   
5. Does changing the instrument have ‘side effects’ which are undesirable?
   
   

If we apply these questions to whether to use interest rates or some element of fiscal policy, what answer do we get?

Before doing that, it is worth noting this is all about the quickest and most reliable way to influence demand. It is quite separate to how demand influences inflation (as long as we are talking about underlying inflation).

The first question is important because long lags between changing the instrument and it influencing demand mess up good policymaking. Imagine how good your central heating would be if there was a day’s delay between it getting cold and the heating coming on. It is also perhaps the most interesting question for a macroeconomist. A full discussion would take a textbook, so to avoid that I’m going to suggest that the answer is not critical to why the mainstream prefers monetary to fiscal stabilisation.   

The second question is as important for obvious reasons. If an instrument can only be changed every year, that is like having very long lags before the instrument has an effect. On this question monetary policy seems to have a clear advantage given current institutional arrangements. Some of this difference is difficult to change: it takes time for a bureaucracy to move. As I noted with the fiscal expansion implemented by China after the crisis, about half of the projects were underway within a year. Others delays are in principle easier to change: there is no reason why tax changes need only happen during Budgets in the UK, for example.

The second part of the second question is a clear negative for interest rates, because they have a lower bound. This is not the case for fiscal instruments: you can always cut taxes further for example. Because this is a critical failure for interest rate policy, effectively the discussion in this post is just about what happens when interest rates are not at the lower bound. Even so, potentially having two different instruments for different situations is a count against monetary policy.

The third question is often not asked, but it is absolutely critical. Imagine raising the temperature on a room thermostat which not only had no calibration, but which acted in different ways each day or even each hour. OMT is a clear example of a poor instrument because central banks have far less idea of how effective it is than interest rate changes, partly because of less data but also because of likely non-linearities.

Are interest rate changes more or less reliable than fiscal changes? The big advantage of government spending changes is that their direct impact on demand is known, but as we have already noted such measures are slow to implement. Tax changes are quicker to makes, but many mainstream economists would argue that their impact is no more reliable than the impact of interest rate changes. In contrast some heterodox economists (especially MMTers) would argue interest rate changes are so unreliable even the sign of the impact is unclear.

The fourth question is only relevant if the power to change interest rates is delegated to central banks. Let me assume we have a UK type situation, where the central bank has control over interest rates but it has to follow a mandate set by the government. A strong argument is that, by delegating the task of achieving that mandate to an independent institution, policy is less likely to be influenced extraneous factors (e.g. there is no way interest rates rise until after the party conference/election) and therefore policy becomes more credible. (There is a whole literature involving similar ideas.)

This advantage for monetary policy simply follows from the fact that it can be easily delegated. However even if it is not delegated, fiscal policy has the disadvantage that changes are either popular (e,g, tax cuts) or unpopular (tax rises). In contrast interest rate changes involve gains for some and losses for others. That makes politicians reluctant to take deflationary fiscal action, and too keen to take inflationary fiscal action. So even without delegation, it seems likely that interest rate changes are more likely to be used appropriately to manage demand than fiscal changes.

The fifth and final issue could involve many things. In basic New Keynesian models the real interest rate is the price that ensures demand is at the constant inflation level. Therefore nominal interest rates are the obvious instrument to use. Changing fiscal policy, on the other hand, creates distortions to the optimal public/private goods mix or to tax smoothing.

So the case against fiscal policy as the main stabilisation tool outwith the lower bound might go as follows: it is slower to change and it cannot be delegated. Even if monetary policy is not delegated politicians may allow popularity issues to get in the way of effective fiscal stabilisation. While government spending changes have a certain direct effect, they are also the most difficult to implement quickly.

A potentially strong argument against monetary policy is the lower bound problem. You could argue that having monetary policy as the designated stabilisation instrument gets government out of the habit of doing fiscal stabilisation, so that when you do hit the lower bound and fiscal stabilisation is essential it does not happen. Recent experience only confirms that concern. I personally do not think mainstream macroeconomists talk enough about this problem.

The fiscal rule that Jonathan Portes and I developed, a version of which is Labour's fiscal credibility rule, does attempt to address this very issue. Switching from monetary to fiscal at the lower bound is a key part of the rule. It is also worth stressing that this rule does not prevent temporary changes in fiscal policy to counteract a downturn outwith the lower bound. (Anyone who says otherwise does not understand the rule.) For example if interest rates are already low, a fiscal expansion that is planned to last less than five years is consistent with the rule, and might be a sensible precautionary measure. (Public investment, which is outside the rule, could also be used in this way.) So Labour’s fiscal rule allows monetary policy to do its job, but fiscal policy is always there as a back up if needed.

A new mandate for monetary policy

John McDonnell wants to raise UK investment not by cutting corporation tax but by diverting funds from parts of the financial sector away from property to new investment by UK firms. That is a laudable aim. But giving the Bank of England that task with a 3% productivity target is not the best way to do that. However that is not because I think central banks cannot influence productivity.

The kind of toy model many people work with is that monetary policy is all about stabilising the business cycle, but that stabilisation has no impact on the medium term level of  output and productivity. That is because productivity is determined by the ‘supply side’ of the UK economy. And this toy model worked particularly well for the UK economy, which from the early 1950s until before the GFC seemed to always bounce back to an underlying trend rate of growth for GDP per capita of around two and a quarter per cent.

However over none of that period did we experience a recession where nominal interest rates hit their lower bound and fiscal policy turned from stimulus to austerity before the recovery had begun. In other words in none of these periods did we have a persistent period of deficient demand with growth never exceeding its long term average. I have argued that it is wrong to see the UK productivity puzzle as a period of uniform gloom since the recession, but rather there were periods of growth which were set back by uncertainty following two additional major policy shocks: austerity and the EU referendum.

Yet if you ask UK monetary policymakers whether they think they have done a good job over the last 10 years, they will say (in public at least) that they think they have. They do not say they have failed because of shocks they couldn’t control, which would be a reasonable position, but rather they have done reasonably well at controlling the economy. In the context of the slowest recovery for at least a century, with a consequent permanent hit to output (output is over 15% below previous trends), that degree of public self-satisfaction indicates a major problem. And if you ask them how they can possibly be satisfied they will talk to you about inflation.

This is a clear reason to question the inflation target. Although in toy models controlling inflation should also mean controlling output, the real world is much more confusing. By making the bottom line inflation, we are bound to make policymakers worry too much about inflation relative to output. The clearest case for me was 2011, when the ECB and almost the MPC raised rates when the recovery from recession was only just beginning.

For that reason I have long supported a more US style twin mandate. Yet although the US had a better recovery than the UK or Eurozone, the Fed still seems to be giving inflation much more weight than employment. But you cannot ignore inflation completely. The mandate I propose for monetary policy is this:

To maximise output growth subject to maintaining inflation within 1% of its target by the end of a (rolling) 5 year period.

Another thing we have learnt from the Great Recession is that policy has to change once nominal interest rates hit their lower bound. So I would, following Ben Bernanke, add to this mandate a ‘lower bound adaptation’ where the moment interest rates hit their lower bound the inflation target would be converted into an equivalent path for the price level. That would mean that if inflation undershot its target during the recession, it would have to overshoot it before rates could be lifted above their lower bound. I would also require central banks the moment they think rates will hit the lower bound to say publicly that fiscal stimulus is now required to meet its target.

This is a dual mandate, but one that puts the emphasis on output rather than inflation. [1] Why the 1% tolerance? Because it echos current UK arrangements (when the governor has to write letters) but in practice will raise average inflation. This is a feature rather than a bug: another lesson of the last recession is that there is a strong case for a higher inflation target, but in a situation where the Chancellor sets the target it is very difficult to formally raise the target because many people think higher inflation means lower real wages.

Tasking central banks to maximise output subject to an inflation constraint is certainly better than setting a probably unattainable target for productivity growth when we have no idea what the maximum productivity growth rate is. My suggestion is a dual mandate that puts the emphasis on output and makes clear inflation is a medium term concern, making it easier for central banks to see through temporary shocks to inflation like one-off depreciations. The nature of the target recognises that policy has to adapt when nominal interest rates hit their lower bound. Comments very welcome.

[1] What is the logic of giving inflation zero weight in the short run and total importance in the long run? The answer lies in asking what the costs of inflation are. Modern analysis looks at how when prices are sticky but set at different times, inflation distorts relative prices. But inflation due to changes in flexible prices is costless. Now it is not easy to distinguish between the two types of prices in price indices, but inflationary shocks that impact on flexible prices are likely to be short lived, while those that impact on sticky prices will be more prolonged. It therefore makes sense to ignore temporary changes in inflation (those that die out within five years), but because of the vertical long run Phillips curve have a medium term inflation target.     

Macroeconomic Policy Reform the IPPR way

Monetary and fiscal policy makers in the UK seem to think they had a good recession. You can tell that because neither group seem particularly interested in learning any lessons. This is despite the fact that we had the deepest recession since the 1930s, and the slowest recovery for centuries. It is also despite the fact that the level of UK GDP is almost 20% below the level it would be if it had followed pre-recessions trends, and all previous recessions have had the economy catch up with that trend.

You can tell from this paragraph that I do think serious changes are required to how monetary and fiscal policy are done. So does the IPPR, and their detailed analysis and proposals are set out in a new report by Alfie Stirling. The analysis is not too technical, well presented, well researched and I agree with a great deal of what is said. I will look a monetary policy first, and then fiscal policy.

What the Great Recession showed us (although many macroeconomists already knew) is that once nominal interest rates hit their effective lower bound (ELB) [1], monetary policy makers lose their reliable means of combating a recession. The report is dubious about Quantitative Easing (QE) for much the same reason that I have been for anything other than a last resort instrument. In brief, the impact of QE is very uncertain because it is not routinely used, and in addition there may be important non-linearities. It is not a reliable alternative to interest rates.

The report makes much the same point about negative nominal interest rates: partially or perhaps fully removing the lower bound. To quote:

“Like QE, the impacts of negative rates are uncertain and, depending on the behavioural response from banks and savers, could actually reduce spending in the economy, or else increase the number of risky loans (see for example Eggertsson, Juelsrud and Wold 2017).”

I know some macroeconomists will disagree with that assessment, but I think the point is valid.

The report also rejects helicopter money as a solution to the ELB problem. Here I found their discussion less convincing, but they do recognise that a form of helicopter money has already been undertaken by some central banks through creating money to change the relationship between borrowing and lending rates, a point that Eric Lonergan has stressed.

The two reforms to monetary policy that have been suggested and which the report does support are adopting unemployment or nominal GDP as either a second target or as an intermediate target, and raising the inflation target by one or two percent. I have argued strongly for a dual mandate and also for using nominal GDP as an intermediate target, so I have no objections here.

The report recognises, however, that none of their proposed reforms to monetary policy eliminates the ELB problem completely. We have, inevitably, to think about the other reliable and effective instrument that we have to stimulate aggregate demand: fiscal policy. Their proposed fiscal rule is very similar to Labour’s fiscal credibility rule. It includes (a) a ‘knockout’ to switch to fiscal expansion if interest rates reach their ELB, (b) 5 year rolling target for a zero current balance (c) a 5 year rolling target for public investment (d) a similar target for debt to GDP. The last in this list you will not find in Portes and Wren-Lewis, in essence because it involves double counting, and debt targets are less robust to shocks than deficit targets.

If governments followed this fiscal rule, then the ELB would not be the serious problem that it is, because reliable fiscal stimulus would replace reliable monetary stimulus at the ELB. But the IPPR worry that governments might not do what the fiscal rule, and with the knockout what the Bank of England, tells them to do. They are concerned that what they call ‘surplus bias’ might be so strong that the government would not run the deficits that the Bank asks them to run.

To overcome this concern, they suggest an alternative to QE at the ELB: the Bank should create reserves to fund projects that are part of a National Investment Bank (NIB). The NIB would be independent of government in terms of the projects it funded (but not its high level mandate), and it would normally raise funds in the open market. (This makes it different from proposals that the NIB be entirely funded by the Bank: see here.) In an ELB recession, the Bank of England would ask the NIB to fund additional projects, with the Bank providing the finance.

As public investment is particularly effective as a countercyclical tool if undertaken immediately, and as it is usually possible to some degree to bring forward investment projects, this proposal seems a superior alternative to QE, as long as the link between additional purchases of NIB debt and additional investment by the NIB was reasonably clear. The key point here is that although conventional QE might try to stimulate private investment by reducing firm borrowing costs, in a situation where there is chronic lack of demand that can be like trying to push on a string. The same problem should not arise with an NIB. In that sense it just seems like a good idea.

Whether it would be enough alone to circumvent the problem of a rabid surplus bias government during a recession I doubt. The kind of public investment that is easy to ramp up quickly in a recession are things like flood defences or filling holes in the road, rather than the kind of things an NIB would fund. A government suffering strong surplus bias could cut these things quicker than an NIB could fund additional projects. Some form of QE would be more powerful in this respect. The danger in either case is that you just encourage the government to try and get down debt even faster: if QE gives money directly to people, the government just raises VAT.

How seriously should we worry about (design policy for) a government offsetting everything the Bank is able to do to stimulate demand in a recession? The answer may be given by imagining the following scenario. The government operates a fiscal rule that has an explicit ELB knockout. The Bank of England, when rates hit the ELB, requests the government undertake fiscal stimulus. If Cameron/Osborne had been faced with both those things, would they have still cut back public investment? I suspect the answer is no. That of course by implication means that central bankers in Europe played a large part in facilitating (or encouraging) austerity, which in the UK stemmed from a failure to admit the problems of the ELB because of a naive faith in QE.

Which brings us to central bank independence and what I call the conventional assignment (outwith the ELB, monetary policy deals with macroeconomic stabilisation). The IPPR stay with the mainstream macroeconomic consensus in wanting to keep both. People with a more MMT type view, like Richard Murphy, would reverse [2] the conventional assignment, and have fiscal policy doing the macroeconomic stabilisation. I have written a great deal on the distinction and will not repeat that here. However it is worth making one point on independence.

The reasons for making central banks independent are not peculiar to monetary policy. They are that if the complex task of macroeconomic stabilisation is left in the hands of politicians who get secret advice, they can mess things up for political ends. [3] Messing things up can be minor (e.g. delaying necessary measures), structural (e.g. time inconsistency) or explosive (e.g. hyperinflation). Austerity shows that this fear is justified. MMT’s answer to the IPPRs concern about a surplus bias government is that this is just a cost of democracy or the good guys would always be in power, which I suspect many might not find reassuring. Yet that is also why European central bank’s encouragement of austerity was far from helpful to the case for the delegation of macroeconomic stabilisation.

[1] 'Effective' because in practice it is up to the central bank to decide at what point they cannot reduce nominal rates further. 

[2] Not strictly true. In the conventional assignment monetary policy does inflation/aggregate demand and government looks after its debt, while in MMT fiscal does inflation/aggregate demand and government debt looks after itself.

[3] I hope time inconsistency can be subsumed under this broad definition.

The advantage of a central bank not being ‘ahead of the curve’

Imagine the following economy. Growth has been strong for a number of years: 2.7% 2014, 3.8% 2015, 3.1% 2016 and is expected to be above 3% again in 2017. The OECD also think the output gap is positive i.e. output is above the sustainable rate. Inflation was bobbing around zero for a few years, but since 2016 has gradually crept up to the target of 2%. It was just over 2% in the summer, but dipped just below target in the last two months. Fiscal policy is broadly neutral, and is expected to remain so. The unemployment rate is still slightly above 6%, but the average rate since the crisis in the early 1990s is over 7%.

We are talking about the very healthy Swedish economy. An economy where inflation is at target and some experts think the economy is running hot. What level do you think the Riksbank, Sweden’s independent central bank, has set its interest rate at? The answer is -0.5%. What is more the general expectation (the Riksbank publishes its interest rate forecast) is that rates will not start rising above -0.5% before min-2018. In addition, the Riksbank is undertaking its form of QE.

What can explain this dovish behaviour? Central banks are supposed to be inflation averse, and elsewhere they talk about the need to ‘normalise’ rates the moment the economy starts recovering, so that they are ‘ahead of the curve’. Part of the answer lies in the past. I have told the story in real time (here, then here, then here), so just a short synopsis this time. The Riksbank started raising interest rates from its then lower bound of 0.25% towards the end of 2010, because they were worried about a potential housing bubble. Rates continued to rise to 2%, but inflation began to fall, and did not stop until it hit zero at the end of 2012. There was no growth in GDP in 2012. The eminent macroeconomist Lars Svensson resigned from the Riksbank in protest at this departure from inflation targeting.

Sweden: Consumer Price Inflation and Short Interest Rates, plus forecast (from OECD Economic Outlook)

In 2012 the Riksbank admitted their mistake, and started lowering rates to the new lower bound of -0.5%, where they have been since the beginning of 2016. Having made the error of prematurely raising rates once, they are in no hurry to risk doing so again.

The Swedish experience I think illustrates a number of points that could also be applied to other central banks.

1. Macroprudential policy is the way to deal with financial instability like housing bubbles. Using the interest rate instead can be very costly. Controlling inflation should be the only thing short term interest rates are used for.
   
   
2. Low, below target, inflation can be very sticky. Swedish interest rates went below zero at the beginning of 2015, but inflation only went above 1% just under 2 years later, and this despite growth in GDP of 3.8% in 2015.
   
   
3. Inflation went above target in July, August and September of this year. But the central bank, looking at the basic determinants of inflation like wage growth relative to productivity growth, held their nerve and kept rates at -0.5%. Inflation fell back to 1.7% in October, and has stayed below 2% in November.
   
   
4. The argument that interest rates must be raised above their floor so that central banks are ‘ahead of the curve’ has not been as influential in Sweden as it has been elsewhere.

It could still go wrong for Sweden, but if it does not then the Riksbank's 2010/11 mistake may have a silver lining. By making the central bank extremely dovish, they have allowed the Swedish economy to grow strongly and unemployment to fall substantially. Perhaps the mantra adopted by other central banks of needing to be ahead of the curve in terms of early ‘normalisation’ is not such a clever idea.

The Brexit interest rate increases and misunderstanding inflation

Last week’s rise in UK rates has been extensively analysed (see for example Tony Yates here) so I will be very selective. First, the justification for the title of this post is provided by an extract from the inflation report:

“The overshoot of inflation throughout the forecast predominantly reflects the effects on import prices of the referendum-related fall in sterling. Uncertainties associated with Brexit are weighing on domestic activity, which has slowed even as global growth has risen significantly. And Brexit-related constraints on investment and labour supply appear to be reinforcing the marked slowdown that has been increasingly evident in recent years in the rate at which the economy can grow without generating inflationary pressures.”

The last sentence is particularly important: in plain language it is saying that Brexit is contributing to lower trend productivity growth, which the Bank now put at 1.5% compared to a pre-recession level of 2.25%. The wording is chosen carefully: they are not talking about uncertainty effects, but permanent effects from a likely deal. So last year worries about the demand side effects of Brexit led the Bank to reduce rates, and now concerns about the supply side effects of Brexit are contributing to higher rates.

Whether these modest increases in interest rates continue, as the Bank are signalling, should largely depend on whether the pickup in earnings growth they anticipate actually happens. As Torsten Bell from the Resolution Foundation argues here, the set of information that might justify the Bank’s expectations of an imminent recovery in earnings growth is not empty, but nevertheless many economists regard it as a brave forecast.

However the labour market is not the only reason the Bank is raising rates. Putting labour market issues aside, they think that because firms are operating with little ‘spare capacity’, any large increases in demand will be met by firms raising prices. Ergo the Bank’s job is to use higher interest rates to stop demand rising too fast. I think this is conceptually wrong, because it underestimates the role that demand and expectations about demand play in determining investment decisions.

A firm can meet rising demand in three ways: by investing in more productive processes, by raising prices or by using more of its spare capacity. In a traditional economic upswing firms first use spare capacity, then invest, and when capacity utilisation is at a peak and there are no profitable investments to make it raises prices. At that point it is right for a central bank to step in to moderate demand growth.

This has not been a typical recovery from a recession. Firms have used up spare capacity, but have not invested in more efficient processes. This is what measures of capacity utilisation suggest (taken from an earlier Bank of England Inflation Report).

If you just take these surveys as measuring the state of the cycle (and if we ignore the Bank Agents) since 2013 the economy has been experiencing an economic boom. Yet from 2013 core inflation has been below target and falling. You can resolve this paradox by thinking about firms acting unusually, by failing to invest and meeting additional demand by utilising capacity as if they are in a boom The result of that is stagnant productivity growth.

The conceptual error is to read these capacity utilisation numbers as indicating that there are no profitable investments to make. We know these profitable investments exist, because leading firms are improving their productivity.* What we have is an innovations gap, where lagging firms are not copying leading firms and are instead holding back on investing. We do not know why they are holding back, but one obvious reason is they have expectations of low future growth and/or high uncertainty about this growth. Empirical evidence shows the strongest determinant of investment is output growth, and the obvious rationalisation for that ‘accelerator effect’ is that current growth influences expectations about future growth.

If this is right, increases in demand will be met by firms finally coming off the fence and investing, rather than raising prices. But if the central bank starts raising interest rates to choke off demand, even when it is growing slowly by historical standards, it will validate the pessimism that has been holding back investment and productivity will continue to stagnate. There is a very real danger that the Bank may be playing its part in a self-fulfilling low growth recovery.

*Postscript (8/11/17) Discussion here by Berlingieri et al shows this growing divergence between leading and lagging firms is a global phenomenon.

The lesson monetary policy needs to learn

It seemed obvious to write a post about the Peterson Institute’s recent conference on ‘Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy’, but nowadays I find it more efficient to let Martin Sandbu do the job. We agree most of the time, and he does these things better than I do. It allows me to write something only in the unlikely event that I disagree, or if I want to take the discussion further.

I only have one quibble with Martin’s column yesterday. I think Bernanke’s suggestion that following a large recession (where interest rates hit their lower bound) central banks revert to a temporary price level target is rather more than the tweak he suggests. In addition, as Tony Yates pointed out, level of NGDP targets do not resolve the asymmetry problem that Bernanke’s suggestion is designed to address.

I also thought I could illustrate Martin’s final point that “admitting one has got things badly wrong is a prerequisite for doing better” by looking at some numbers. If we look at consumer prices, average inflation between 2009 and 2016 was 1.1% in the Euro area, 1.4% in the US and 2.2% in the UK. The UK was a failure too: average consumer price inflation should have been higher than 2.2%, because we had a large VAT hike and depreciation that monetary policy rightly saw through. If we look at GDP deflators we get a clearer picture, with 1.0%, 1.5% and 1.6% for the EZ, US and UK respectively.

You might think errors of that size are not too bad, and anyway what is wrong with inflation being too low. You would be wrong because in a recovery period these errors represent lost resources that, as the Phillips curve appears to be currently so flat, could be considerable. Or in other words the recovery could have been a lot faster, and interest rates could now be well off the lower bound everywhere, if policy had been more expansionary.

What I really wanted to add to Martin’s discussion was to suggest the main problem with monetary policy over this period, particularly in the UK and the Eurozone. It is not, in my view, the failure to adopt a levels target, or even the ECB raising rates in 2011 (although that was a serious and costly mistake). In 2009, when central banks would have liked to stimulate further but felt that interest rates were at their lower bound, they should have issued a statement that went something like this:

“We have lost our main instrument for controlling the economy. There are other instruments we could use, but their impact is largely unknown, so they are completely unreliable. There is a much superior way of stimulating the economy in this situation, and that is fiscal policy, but of course it remains the government’s prerogative whether it wishes to use that instrument. Until we think the economy has recovered sufficiently to raise interest rates, the economy is no longer under our control.”

I am not suggesting QE did not have a significant positive impact on the economy. But its use allowed governments to imagine that ending the recession was not their responsibility, and that what I call the Consensus Assignment was still working. It was not: QE was one of the most unreliable policy instruments imaginable.

The criticism that this would involve the central bank exceeding its remit and telling politicians what to do is misplaced. Members of the ECB spent much of the time telling politicians the opposite, Mervyn King did the same in a more discreet way, while Ben Bernanke eventually said in essence something milder than the above. Under the Consensus Assignment we have invested central banks with the task of managing the economy because we think interest rates are a better tool than fiscal policy. As such it is beholden on them to tell us when they can no longer do the job better than government.

A better criticism is that a statement of that kind would not have made any difference, and we could spend hours discussing that. But this is about the future, and who knows what the political circumstances will be then. It is important that governments acknowledge that the Consensus Assignment no longer works if central banks believe there is a lower bound for interest rates, and this has to start by central banks admitting this. Economists like Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and myself have been saying these things for so long and so often, but I think central banks still have problems fully accepting what this means for them.       

Productivity and monetary policy

The Bank are warning of imminent rises in interest rates. As Chris Giles points out, we have been here before, and before that, but that shouldn’t mean we should dismiss this talk, because one day it will happen. [1] They (the MPC) certainly sound serious. But why when current growth is so slow are they even contemplating it? Here is a clue from Mark Carney’s latest speech (my italics).

“On the supply side, the process of leaving the EU is beginning to be felt. Brexit-related uncertainties are causing some companies to delay decisions about building capacity and entering new markets. Prolonged low investment will restrain growth in the capital stock and increases in productivity. Indeed, if the MPC’s current forecast comes to pass, the level of investment in 2020 is expected to be 20% below the level which the MPC had projected just before the referendum. Net migration has also fallen by 25% since the Referendum.

As a result of these factors and the general weakness in UK productivity growth since the global financial crisis, the supply capacity of the UK economy is likely to expand at only modest rates in coming years.”

When people, like me, say how can the Bank be thinking of raising rates when demand is so weak, the response from the Bank would be that supply has been at least as weak.

This pessimism about the supply side comes straight from the data. If I hear people talking about the UK being a ‘strong economy’, I know they either have not seen this chart or are just lying.

UK Output per hour, whole economy (ONS)

The red line is a trend that pretty well matches the trend in the data until the end of 2007, with the amount you can produce with an hours worth of labour increasing by 2.2% a year. Since the global financial crisis (GFC) there has been almost no growth at all. If you want to know the main reason real wages have stopped increasing, this is it. [2]

I hear some people say this is just oil and financial services. It is not, as this table from a recent Andy Haldane speech shows.

Start at the bottom: total average growth has been non-existent since the crisis. The rest of the table looks at the contribution of each sector to that total. To see what productivity growth would be excluding financial services, just add that figure to the total: 1.8% 1998-2008, 0.4% 2009-2016. That table makes it clear that the productivity crisis is economy wide.

It is worth looking at aggregate productivity since the GFC period in more detail (same data). I often hear people say the productivity slowdown started before the GFC. From the chart below, it clearly did not. (We have just seen the tenth anniversary of Northern Rock going bust, and the UK productivity slowdown started shortly after that event.)

We could describe this data as five phases. 1) Productivity in the recession fell, as it often does in a recession for various reasons. 2) As the economy begins to grow again, so did productivity growth. 3) As it becomes clear, in 2011, that the ‘recovery’ is going to be very weak because of austerity, productivity growth stops growing. 4) By the end of 2013, with stronger growth under way (although still no catch up to previous trends, so not a true recovery) productivity starts growing again, although rather slowly. 5) Since the 2015 election, with the prospect and then the reality of Brexit, even that modest growth disappears. (My data does not include 2017Q2, which saw a very slight fall.) I could shorten the description as follows: recession, modest optimism, pessimism, even more modest optimism, uncertainty.

That is my gloss on the numbers, but I’ve done it to make a point. Productivity growth invariably requires an investment of some kind. It may not be physical investment, but just training someone up to be able to use some new software. Whether a firm incurs that cost will depend, in part, on their expectations about the future. There is a regrettable tendency in macro (I blame RBC theory) to treat productivity growth as manna from heaven. But the idea that potential improvements in technology stopped after the GFC, and just in the UK, is simply ridiculous. The problem is that firms are not investing in new technology. What I call the ‘innovations gap’ has emerged in the UK because of weak growth and the consequent pessimistic expectations of most firms. [3]

The idea that the economy could get itself in a low growth expectations trap is increasingly being put forward by economists: here is George Evans, for example. The UK has got itself into that trap because on the two occasions that a recovery of sorts appeared to be under way, the economy has been hit with terrible policy errors (austerity and Brexit). But the idea that UK firms are incapable of upgrading their production techniques is nonsense. They will do so initially if they can be confident that the demand for their products will increase, or subsequently when the innovation pays for itself even though demand is flat.

Which is why an increase in interest rates right now would be very bad news. It would confirm the pessimistic expectations of most firms that demand is not going to grow fast enough to make innovation worthwhile. Formally, the job of the MPC is not to worry about productivity but to control inflation. But elsewhere, where the same process may be happening to a lesser extent (the productivity slowdown is worldwide, just most acute in the UK), central banks are puzzled at why inflation just refuses to rise. 

The concept of an innovations gap is one solution to that puzzle. Expanding demand allows firms to invest in more productive techniques, and so there is less incentive to choke of demand by raising prices. I suspect in an alternative world where Brexit had not happened the Bank of England would also be puzzling over why prices were not rising. As a result, if the MPC do finally raise interest rates this year, it would be one more mistake to add to the growing list under the heading Brexit.

[1] On each occasion I also wrote a post saying that they should not raise rates, starting I think at the beginning of 2014.

[2] I discussed in earlier posts why real wages are falling by even more than output per head.

[3] Or perhaps the pessimism of the bank manager lending money to those firms. The Haldane speech shows that productivity growth has remained strong among the top, frontier companies. Why? Because these companies, given their position, will be seeing growth relative to the average, and have got to the frontier through a culture of innovation.

Did the Bank of England cause Brexit?

Suppose that by the mid-2000s, immigration from the EU (and the potential for additional immigration) had led to an important shift in the UK labour market. The possibility of bringing labour from overseas meant that old relationships between the tightness of labour market and wage increases no longer held.

You might think that was bad for workers, but that is not so. It would mean what economists call the natural rate of unemployment (or NAIRU) has fallen. Unemployment can be lower without leading to wage increases that threaten the inflation target, because workers fear that the employer can resort to finding much cheaper overseas labour. It reduces the power of workers in the labour market, but also leads to overall benefits. (This is just an example of the standard result that reducing monopoly power is socially beneficial.)

But it is only good news if the Bank of England recognises the change. If they do not, we get stagnant wage growth and unemployment higher than it need be. The obvious response is that the Bank will know there has been a change because wages will start falling faster than they would expect based on previous relationships. However that effect may be masked by the well documented employee and employer reluctance to actually cut nominal wages. Add in the shock of the financial crisis, and this change in the way the labour market works might well be missed.

Here is the big leap. Suppose the above had happened, and the Bank of England did not miss the change. Monetary policy would have been much more expansionary, bringing unemployment well below the 5% mark. Nominal wage growth would have been stronger, and a buoyant labour market would have generated a feel good factor among workers. With more vacancies and less unemployment, concerns about immigration would have begun to fade. The Brexit vote would still have been close, but would have gone the other way.

You may say how could monetary policy be more expansionary given how close we are to the Zero Lower Bound? If that was the case the Bank should have said they were out of ammunition, and placed responsibility with the government and austerity. But for the last two years at least, the Bank could have cut interest rates and has not. You could blame the relentless expectation in the media and financial sector that rates would increase, but the Bank should be able to rise above that.

Of course the Brexit blame game is easy to play when the vote was so tight. The most speculative aspect of this chain of thought is the initial premise about a shift in the NAIRU created by immigration potential. While the possibility makes sense, whether the data backs it up is much less clear. Yet there is some evidence of a structural shift in the UK labour market in the mid-2000s, as Paul Gregg and Steve Machin report.    

If only someone had warned us

The title is pinched from a tweet by Tony Yates, who was one of many economists who did warn of the impact of Brexit. Of course we economists need to ask ourselves if and why our message was ignored, but that is no reason to stop us feeling angry that it happened. This post from the economist who did more than most to try and get the message across, John Van Reenen, expresses that anger better than I could.

What John’s work showed, backed up by similar analysis in the Treasury and elsewhere, is that Brexit would not just cause a short term economic downturn: cutting wages and increasing unemployment for just a year or two. By making it harder to trade with our immediate neighbours it will reduce UK trade overall, and the evidence suggests that this will permanently reduce people’s living standards. The markets clearly agree, which is why sterling fell immediately and substantially after the Brexit vote. In terms of people’s living standards that was not a ‘might be bad, might be good’ event: it makes everyone in the UK poorer. (Never start from a price change, but ask why prices changed.)

The tricky thing to do now is know how much the current downturn is just a foretaste of that, and how much is something over and above that. To the extent that it is the latter, how much

of that is offset by some short term benefit to exporters (before the impact of actual Brexit kicks in) as a result of the depreciation? That is initially the Bank of England’s problem.

Their response today, a cut of 0.25% plus more QE, tells us it is not just their problem. We are back at the lower bound for nominal interest rates, which is why the Bank is doing more QE. Because the impact of the QE is extremely uncertain, and in the absence of helicopter money, we now need fiscal action to back up this interest rate cut. That is what Labour’s fiscal credibility rule, and the academic work by Jonathan Portes and myself, utilising textbook and state of the art macro, tells us we should do. When interest rates are at the lower bound, forget about the deficit and focus fiscal policy on avoiding a recession. As the Bank’s QE action makes clear, there is no good reason to delay this: it should happen now.

But Brexit was not the first time economists have been ignored. For some years now the clear consensus among academic economists is that, when rates are at their lower bound, you need fiscal stimulus. Although Conservatives have disowned 2015 Osborne austerity, they appear not to have backtracked on his 2010 version. If they do nothing now, we will know that they are wedded to pre-Keynesian 1930s economics.

Some thoughts on Paul Mason’s McDonnell road show talk

John McDonnell has got quite a collection of talent to give talks on economics around the country, and the latest is Paul Mason. His talk is wide ranging and certainly not academic in tone, as befits the occasion, and I agree with the broad thrust of it, although not all the details. Here are a few thoughts.

The impending second crisis.

There seems to be a general presumption in certain circles that we are heading for another crash. (Perhaps I could call it ‘the end of capitalism is nigh syndrome’.) This is always a possibility (of course), but I do not think it is a probability. In the UK, do not be fooled by the referendum blip (or pause). I think it is quite likely that Prime Minister Osborne will by 2020 be presiding over strong growth, as everything that was put on hold before the referendum comes on stream. I also think we may see rapid Eurozone growth before then.

On a related theme, there is also a widely held view that after the referendum the Conservative party will fall apart - it is the Corn Laws all over again. I would put that probability much smaller than the chance we might vote to Leave, or that Boris gets to be our next PM.

Fiscal rule

I’m glad he likes Labour's new fiscal rule. He writes: “There’s a school of thought among Labour supporters, and some academics, that the deficit is irrelevant, that “taxing the rich” solves all your problems. It does not.”

‘I did not know you could do that’

His reference to the Macdonald government coming off the gold standard is certainly apposite. Too often the centre left gets trapped by what it sees as unbreakable economic or political convention, only to see the other side break it (think minimum wage).

Monetary policy

What is said in this central section sounds radical, but I think it is meant to be read in the context of the impending next recession that I talked about earlier. What I think he is worried about is that, in that context, any fiscal action would need monetary support, and with the current regime it might not get it. In other words the economy tanks, the next Labour government wants to stimulate but inflation stays close to 2%, and the Bank of England does not cut rates to allow the fiscal rule's knock out to apply. For this reason he supports the proposal, which has a number of notable advocates, that the inflation target be raised to 4%.

I would agree this could be an issue: what economists called the ‘divine coincidence’ (that inflation would always provide the appropriate signals) just does not seem to work very well any more. Whether raising the inflation target to 4% is the best way of dealing with the problem, as opposed to for example an intermediate NGDP target, I’m less sure about but I’m open to persuasion. I agree with Paul that this is a problem involving the central bank's mandate, rather than its independence.

He also supports Corbyn’s original Peoples QE proposal. He cites me as opposing it, but in fact I did not oppose the idea as an alternative to the QE that the Bank would want to do otherwise. What I thought was wrong with Corbyn’s QE was that it appeared either to negate central bank independence, or make a National Investment Bank conditional on the Bank wanting to do QE. In the past I have talked (here, or via Tim Harford here) about how governments and the central bank could cooperate to do money financed fiscal stimulus. In other words Corbyn's QE is fine as an alternative to conventional QE in the context of recession fighting, but not as a general way to finance an investment bank.

I suspect he is also just a little bit worried that the bond vigilantes might finally arrive. I think there is no way that will happen, but we have some history of a central bank governor who worried that it might and gave the wrong advice as a result. If that happened again, we would want monetary policy makers to offer monetary finance of any fiscal stimulus (in exchange for a government commitment to always recapitalise the central bank on request), rather than urge fiscal constraint. Perhaps one way to do that would be to make the central bank’s ability to do unconventional monetary policy conditional on that money finance offer being made.