Smart economic policymaking invariably requires trading off some pain today for greater future gains.
However, this is a difficult proposition politically, especially in democracies. It is always easier for elected leaders to indulge their constituents immediately, on the hope that the bill will not arrive while they are still in office.
Moreover, those who bear the pain caused by a policy are not necessarily those who would gain from it.
That is why today’s more advanced economies created mechanisms that allow them to make hard choices when necessary. Chief among these are independent central banks and mandated limits on budget deficits. Importantly, political parties reached a consensus to establish and back these mechanisms irrespective of their own immediate political priorities.
One reason that many emerging markets have swung from crisis to crisis is that they failed to achieve such consensus.
However, recent history shows that developed economies, too, are becoming less tolerant of pain, perhaps because their own political consensus has eroded.
Financial markets have become volatile once again, owing to fears that the US Federal Reserve would tighten its monetary policy significantly to control inflation, even though many investors still hope that the Fed will go easy if asset prices start to fall substantially.
If the Fed proves them right, it would become that much harder to normalize financial conditions in the future.
Investors’ hope that the Fed will prolong the party is not baseless.
In late 1996, then-Fed chair Alan Greenspan warned of financial markets’ “irrational exuberance.”
However, the markets shrugged off the warning and were proved correct. Perhaps chastened by the harsh political reaction to Greenspan’s speech, the Fed did nothing, and when the stock market eventually crashed in 2000, it cut rates, ensuring that the recession was mild.
In a testimony to the US Congress Joint Economic Committee the previous year, Greenspan said that while the Fed could not prevent “the inevitable economic hangover” from an asset price boom, it could “mitigate the fallout when it occurs and, hopefully, ease the transition to the next expansion.”
The Fed thus assured traders and bankers that if they collectively gambled on similar assets, it would not limit the upside, but it would limit the downside if their bets turned bad.
Subsequent Fed interventions have entrenched such beliefs, making it even harder for it to rein in financial markets with modest moves.
Now that much more tightening and consequent pain might be needed, a consensus in favor of it might be harder to achieve.
Fiscal policy is also guilty of peddling supposedly painless economic measures.
Most would agree that the COVID-19 pandemic created a need for targeted spending (through extended, generous unemployment benefits, for example) to shield the hardest-hit households.
However, in the event, the spending was anything but targeted.
The US Congress passed multitrillion-dollar bills offering something for everyone.
The US Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), for example, provided US$800 billion in grants (effectively) for small businesses across the board.
A new study from Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist David Autor and his colleagues estimates that the program helped preserve 2 million to 3 million job years of employment of more than 14 months, at a stupendous cost of US$170,000 to US$257,000 per job year.
Worse, only 23 to 34 percent of this money went directly to workers who would otherwise have lost their jobs. The balance instead went to creditors, business owners and shareholders.
All told, an estimated three-quarters of PPP benefits went to the top one-fifth of earners.
Of course, the program might have saved some firms that otherwise would have collapsed, but at what cost?
While capitalists anticipate profits, they also sign up for possible failure. Moreover, many small businesses are tiny operations without much organizational capital. If a small bakery had to close, the economic fallout would have been mitigated by the enhanced unemployment insurance, and if it had a loyal clientele, it could restart after the pandemic, perhaps with a little help from a bank.
The standard line is that the unconstrained spending was driven by a sense that unprecedented times called for unprecedented measures. In fact, it was the response to the 2008 global financial crisis that broke the previous consensus for more prudent policies.
Lasting public resentment that Wall Street had been helped more than Main Street motivated politicians in the US’ two major parties to spend with abandon when the pandemic hit.
However, targeted unemployment benefits were associated with the Democratic Party, leaving Republicans seeking wins for their own constituencies. Who better to support than small businesses?
While political fractures were driving up untargeted spending, budget hawks were nowhere to be found: Their voices had been steadily drowned out by economists.
In addition to the cranks who show up periodically to advocate ostensibly free lunches through money-financed spending, a growing chorus of mainstream economists had been arguing that prevailing low interest rates gave developed countries significantly more room to expand fiscal deficits.
Politicians who were eager to justify their policies ignored these economists’ caveats — that spending had to be sensible and that interest rates had to stay low. Only the headline message mattered, and anyone suggesting otherwise was dismissed as a hair-shirt fanatic.
Historically, it has been the Fed’s job to take away the monetary punch bowl before the party gets frenzied, and Congress’ job to be prudent about fiscal deficits and debt.
However, the Fed’s desire to spare the market from pain has driven more risk-taking and reinforced expectations of further interventions.
The Fed’s actions have also added to the pressure on Congress to do its bit for Main Street, which in turn has led to inflation and a belief that the Fed would back off from raising rates.
All of this makes a return to the previous consensus more difficult. When the Fed does raise rates significantly, the US government’s costs of servicing the debt from past spending would limit future spending, including on policies to reduce inequality (which has fueled political fragmentation), combat future emergencies and tackle climate change.
Every economy has a limited reservoir of policy credibility and resources, which are best used to mitigate genuine economic distress, not to shield those who can bear some pain.
If everyone wants a free lunch, the bill would eventually be paid by those least able to afford it. Emerging market economies have had to learn this the hard way. Developed countries might have to learn it again.
Raghuram Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, is a finance professor at University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder
Former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) used to push for reforms to protect Taiwan by adopting the “three noes” policy as well as “Taiwanization.” Later, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) wished to save the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by pushing for the party’s “localization,” hoping to compete with homegrown political parties as a pro-Taiwan KMT. However, the present-day members of the KMT do not know what they are talking about, and do not heed the two former presidents’ words, so the party has suffered a third consecutive defeat in the January presidential election. Soon after gaining power with the help of the KMT’s