The Dangers of Deficit Reduction

Mar 5, 2010 Joseph E. Stiglitz

Even with large deficits, economic growth in the US and Europe is anemic, and forecasts of private-sector growth suggest that in the absence of continued government support, there is risk of continued stagnation – of growth too weak to return unemployment to normal levels. if these forecasts are right, a premature “exit” from deficit spending is not worth the risk.

NEW YORK – A wave of fiscal austerity is rushing over Europe and America. The magnitude of budget deficits – like the magnitude of the downturn – has taken many by surprise. But despite protests by the yesterday’s proponents of deregulation, who would like the government to remain passive, most economists believe that government spending has made a difference, helping to avert another Great Depression.

Most economists also agree that it is a mistake to look at only one side of a balance sheet (whether for the public or private sector). One has to look not only at what a country or firm owes, but also at its assets. This should help answer those financial sector hawks who are raising alarms about government spending. After all, even deficit hawks acknowledge that we should be focusing not on today’s deficit, but on the long-term national debt. Spending, especially on investments in education, technology, and infrastructure, can actually lead to lower long-term deficits. Banks’ short-sightedness helped create the crisis; we cannot let government short-sightedness – prodded by the financial sector – prolong it.

Faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues, and a 5 to 6% return is more than enough to offset temporary increases in the national debt. A social cost-benefit analysis (taking into account impacts other than on the budget) makes such expenditures, even when debt-financed, even more attractive.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Writing for PS since 2001
312 Commentaries

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

Carol Maczinsky Nov 24, 2012

I think we ought to follow the example of Frederick William I of Prussia and reduce our spending, be functional and focussed. Good governance is the trick. Prussian Prudence, not anglosaxon austerity. Don't forget the USSR bankrupted because of its excessive military spending. The US could be next given that they seem unable to reduce their military budget and adjust it to international security realities. Relying on "Debt" sounds immoral and dishonourable to me.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
philip meguire Nov 24, 2012

I agree that debt issued to finance long lived infrastructure should not count as part of the conventional deficit, as long as governmental accounting is scrupulously honest about the distinction between the current and capital budgets.

I also agree that in nations where the tax / GDP ratio is under, say, 35%, tax increases have an important role to play in deficit reduction. I advocate 250-350B of cuts in Federal expenditure, combined with at least a 200B increase in personal taxes, and a 150B increase in corporate income taxes. This should reduce the Federal deficit to about 3% of GDP. I would welcome a further orderly reduction of the deficit.

Stiglitz seems to think that current level of the Federal deficit and its rate of growth are not problematic. They do not seem problematic only because interest rates are artificially low. If the ex post real interest rate on Federal borrowing returned to 1%/year, the Federal budget would be in a major crisis.

Finally, it is wrong to focus on unemployment as a measure of how subpar the American economy is. The trouble is that the distinction between being unemployed and being out of the labour force is mostly subjective. The unemployment rate does not do justice to people employed part time who wish they were employed full time. The employment-population ratio is much more operational, but it harder to interpret because it is not a stationary time series. The BLS does not report the employment-population ratio I would prefer to focus on, namely that for persons between the 25th and 62nd birthdays, broken down by gender.

The employment-population ratio hit its all-time high in 2000. The current level of that ratio is about what it was in 1977-78, then seen as normal years. The 1980s and 90s witnessed a massive shift of married women into employed status. This century has witnessed a substantial decline in manufacturing employment. These and related data can be found on the FRED database run by the St. Louis Fed.

The trouble with offsetting the national debt with the public sector's assets, is that those assets seldom have an objective market valuation. Hence there is an irresistible temptation to overvalue those assets in order to engage in profligate fiscal policy. Greece may soon discover that its public assets cannot find buyers at anything like the price it hoped to get for them.

Continental Europe is a different kettle of fish. Recent events have shown that there is a real risk that debt markets will not buy the sovereign debt of many European nations unless they agree to pay punitive interest rates of a kind that make further deficits unaffordable.

Europe fell into its current crisis having much higher levels of taxation and expenditure (scaled by GDP) than was the case in the USA. Hence there is much less scope for tax increases, and spending cuts will be more painful. In much of Europe, there is no way forward that does not involve significant reductions in the generosity of their welfare states, and in labour market regulations that make job separations very costly. Difficult separations make for reluctant employers.
- John Brian Shannon Nov 25, 2012
  
  Hi Philip Meguire,
  
  What a great comment, I wish I had written it.
  
  One thing though, regarding your statement;
  
  "Stiglitz seems to think that current level of the Federal deficit and its rate of growth are not problematic."
  
  If you or I, or the neighbor down the street, say "The current level of the Federal Deficit and its rate of growth ARE problematic." -- the market will NOT go into a roller-coaster ride for a week.
  
  Whilst someone like Joseph E Stiglitz, or Paul Krugman saying that WOULD cause market turmoil, not to mention angry phone calls and a threat of legal action. (Not quite, but almost! We are headed in that direction these days)
  
  Best regards, JBS
  http://jbsnews.com
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert O'Regan Nov 23, 2012

On the one hand, reduce taxes-.....and then, on the other, call the IMF wrecking crew...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/RObf1FE

The Dangers of Deficit Reduction

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

The Dangers of Deficit Reduction

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification