5/4/19: Does Government Debt Matter? The Reality of Fiscal Multipliers

There has always been a lot of debate in economics about the effects of debt (especially sovereign debt) on growth and fiscal dynamics. And, despite numerous papers on the subject, the debate is far from settled.

Here is an interesting new study that looks at the effect high levels of government indebtedness have on the effectiveness of fiscal policy stimulus. The reason this topic is important is simple: fiscal policy can and is used to offset or smooth out recessionary shocks. The extent to which fiscal policy is effective in doing so (the impact expansionary fiscal policy may have on unemployment and output) can be varied across different economies and under different crises conditions. But, does this extent vary under different debt conditions?

In theory, the debt levels carried by a given sovereign can impact the size of fiscal multipliers (the effectiveness of fiscal policy) through two main channels:

1. The so-called Ricardian channel: a government with a weak fiscal position (high debt) deploying fiscal stimulus (an increase in public spending) can cause households to expect future tax increases. The result is that in economies with high public debt levels, deploying fiscal stimulus can trigger increased savings by households, reducing consumption, and lowering the size of fiscal policy multiplier.
2. An interest rate channel: when the government debt is high, so that the government fiscal position is weak, fiscal stimulus can increase concerns about sovereign credit risk amongst government bond holders and buyers. This can increase bond yields, raise borrowing costs, lower liquidity of bonds for the sovereign, but also increase cost of capital across the private sector. The result is the crowding out effect, whereby public spending crowds out private investment and credit-finance consumption.

In theory, both channels imply that fiscal policy is less effective when fiscal stimulus is implemented from a weak initial fiscal position (position of high starting government debt levels).

A new World Bank paper, authored by Huidrom, Raju and Kose, M. Ayhan and Lim, Jamus Jerome and Ohnsorge, Franziska, and titled "Why Do Fiscal Multipliers Depend on Fiscal Positions?" (March 2019, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8784: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3360142) considers the two theoretical channels operating simultaneously. Using data for 34 countries (19 advanced economies and 15 developing economies),  over 1Q 1980 through 1Q 2014, the authors show that "the fiscal position helps determine the size of the fiscal multipliers: estimated multipliers are systematically smaller when the fiscal position is weak (i.e. government debt is high).

Looking at the longer run panel in the chart above, fiscal multipliers rapidly reach into negative territory as Government debt rises to around 37-40 percent of GDP. Over a medium term horizon, of 2 years, multipliers hit negative values for debt levels above 75 percent of GDP.

Similar dynamics are confirmed in the chart below:

The authors subsequently "show that when a government with weak public finances conducts expansionary fiscal policy, the private sector scales back on consumption in anticipation of future tax pressures (Ricardian channel) and risk premia rise on mounting concerns about sovereign risk (interest rate channel)." In other words, high starting debt position does trigger both theoretical effects to reinforce each other.

This is an unpleasant arithmetic for uber-Keynesians who hold that fiscal policy is always effective in stimulating economic growth during periods of economic crises. The findings also support the view that the 'fiscal policy space' is indeed bounded by the reality of pre-crisis fiscal policy paths: there is no free lunch when it comes even to sovereign financing.

22/8/2013: Burry the Debt... Forever!

Pierre Pâris, Charles Wyplosz, 6 August 2013 column for Vox.eu, titled "To end the Eurozone crisis, bury the debt forever" is a perfect referencing point for my thinking on the debt crisis. Read it here: http://www.voxeu.org/article/end-eurozone-crisis-bury-debt-forever

Synopsis: "The Eurozone’s debt crisis is getting worse despite appearances to the contrary. How can we end it? This column presents five major options for reducing crisis countries’ debt. Looking into the details, it seems the only option that is both realistic and effective is for countries to default by selling monetised debt to the ECB. Moral hazard aside, burying the debt seems to be the only way we can end the crisis".

Can't say it better myself!

22/8/2013: Why This Time Things Might Be Different...

The readers of this blog know that I am seriously concerned with the issues of private (household) debt sustainability in the Euro area, as well as in other advanced economies around the world. In fact, my (simplified or stylised) POV on the current crisis is that we have now reached the point of long-term saturation with leverage and this is the main driver for the current Great Recession.

In a normal recession, deleveraging by one side of the economy is accommodated by leveraging up in another. For example, in a Keynesian policy set up, deleveraging of the households and non-financial corporates is accommodated by leveraging up of the fiscal side of the GDP equation. In a monetary policy setting, deleveraging of fiscal / public sector side is accommodated by lowering debt costs and thus increasing credit to the private economy. Lastly, in a normal balancesheet recession, both side of the economy can be helped in deleveraging by a combination of two policies accommodation.

In the current Great Recession, neither one of the three approaches above can work, unless at least one approach directly reduces debt levels - either via a sovereign default/writedown or a private sector writedown on a systemic scale. The reasons for this are two-fold:

1. Too much debt on all lines of the economic balancesheet: fiscal, household, NFCs and, thus, banks means that lowering the cost of debt financing is not sufficient to deliver signifcant enough room for new debt expansion; and
2. With emerging markets and middle income economies showing increasingly South-South internalised trade and investment flows patterns, the advanced economies are witnessing structural reductions in the pools of surplus (investable) savings available to them - the effect that is compounded by the adverse demographics in these economies. This means that monetary policy accommodation is funding the liquidity in the financial markets, where normally it would have been going to fund real activity.

In short, debt is the source of the crisis this time around, not the solution to the crisis as in previous recessions. And it is a proverbial perfect storm, as it comes on foot of demographic decline coincident with severe fiscal crises. The resulting squeeze on pensions in the advanced economies and on other age-related public services is yet to come.

Here is an interesting view on the continued crisis dynamics in the area of household debts in the US (with an ample warning for the rest of the advanced world) from Michael Hudson: http://www.alternet.org/economy/big-threat-economy-private-debt-and-interest-owed-it-not-government-debt (H/T to @rszbt Beate Reszat).

20/1/2012: A Question for Keynesianistas

Keynes remarked that:


"The theory of economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique for thinking, which helps the possessor to draw correct conclusions."


Sounds plausible. 


A question to Keinesianistas, then: Why on earth would you argue that for every recession in every country, there is only one solution that is fully anchored in one Aggregate Demand identity? And that - irrespective of the nature of the path an economy takes into a recession or its underlying causes, irrespective of the economic conditions at the onset of the recession?