Public consumption and the business cycle

One aspect of government purchases the current crisis has highlighted is how volatile they can be. Quite obviously, they are influenced by politics, to the point of complete reversal between massive spending and severe belt-tightening within months as in the US and the UK. But there could also be a more systematic component that is linked to the business cycle. After all, the government may be trying to improve the welfare of its constituents and for example substitute public consumption for lacking private consumption, or the same for investment.



Ruediger Bachmann and Jinhui Bai look at this using an augmented real business cycle model. They claim that 25-40% of the variance of public consumption can be accounted for by shocks to total factor productivity once implementation lags and costs of public consumption, as well as taste shocks to public vs. private consumption. I am no particular fan of taste shocks, as they are the symptoms of a modeler who is giving up on trying to explain something and simply equates the error term in the Euler equation to a shock. Then much is driven by how this shock is calibrated, in this case to match a four year electoral cycle and some data moments. When I think about shocks in this context, I think indeed about who is in power to decide on public expenditures. But that is not completely exogenous. Indeed, the state of the economy has an impact on who gets elected or reelected. And this can be calibrated without trying to match the data moments one is trying to explain.

Convergence in recessions

Growth theory and data teach us that, at least in developed countries, economies tend to converge in the long run: the dispersion across regions or nations of per capita income (or similar indicators) tends to decline. While this is a long term phenomenon, there is a priori no reason to believe this is a constant process.



Eldon Ball, Carlos San Juan and Camilo Ulloa study total factor productivity in agriculture across US states. While they indeed find a general trend towards convergence, it turns out that its speed is much faster during recessions. Why would this happen? If we follow Schumpeter, the worst firms should be dropping out during a recession, thereby relatively increasing TFP in the worst areas. And voilà, you have faster convergence. But only farm-level data would tell whether my conjecture is true.

Policy risk and the business cycle

The US economy seems stuck in its tracks, and many blame uncertainty about future public policy, including me. Indeed, private firms are currently sitting on a lot of cash and are making very good profits, yet they are not investing or hiring. This really looks like a wait-and-see game. But it this justification well-founded or is it just a cheap excuse to justify higher than usual profits in the face of high unemployment?

Benjamin Born and Johannes Pfeifer put some structure into these arguments by taking a standard New Keynesian model and adding uncertainty about monetary and fiscal policy. They measure this by looking at tax rates and monetary policy shocks with time-varying volatility. Previous literature already looked at the impact of aggregate uncertainty, which policy makers can do little about. But policy uncertainty is another matter. And there is hope, as Born and Pfeifer show that the impact of policy uncertainty is not that important (but much larger than uncertainty about productivity shocks) thanks to monetary policy reaction through a Taylor Rule. So that is somewhat reassuring, but then the size of the current policy uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than when this paper was written, and monetary policy is bound by non-negative nominal interest rates.

Fiscal policy as insurance

The goal of fiscal policy is at the macroeconomic level to steer the economy towards efficiency and, depending on the country, to smooth somewhat economic fluctuations. It has long been debated whether this is desirable or possible at all, given the large delays in implementing public expenses. But changes to tax policies are quicker to put in place and implement. At the microeconomic level, the focus is more on the long term, again try to attain better efficiency as well to optimize some definition of fairness across economic agents, however this may be defined in the respective countries. These micro and macro aspects have largely been regarded as separate. This does need to be so.

Eduardo Engel, Christopher Neilson and Rodrigo Valdés look at the particular fiscal policy of Chile. This country is characterized, like many emerging economies, by wild fluctuations in economic activity. In this case this is triggered by changes in commodity prices, in particular for copper. The most important implication is that government revenue varies wildly (a macroeconomic impact) between 1 and 8% of GDP, which changes Chile's ability to redistributes across heterogeneous households (a microeconomic impact). Adhering to a balanced budget rule would have a dramatic effect, in terms of aggregate welfare it would be like renouncing to half of the copper revenue. The reason is that households' incomes is also correlated with copper revenue, and a countercyclical policy is then optimal. And to be the most effective, the poorest households are helped in hard times, both because they have the highest marginal utility from consumption and because they have the highest propensity to consume.

Chile has been pursuing so far something that is close to a balanced budget rule: expenses are related to a permanent income measure of income. This means expenses are relatively constant, except for the last years, where expenses grew significantly despite a reduction in copper prices. This appears to have worked well, in particular because the poor have been the target of this largesse, not the rich. That was stimulus spending done right. This paper shows how this can be done even better.

What is a sticky price?

An amazing amount of scholarly effort is devoted to figuring out optimal stabilization policies in developed economies. I am not convinced this effort is well-placed, as fluctuations in developing economies are much larger and long-term trends quickly swamp short-term fluctuations in welfare assessment for developed economies. The last recession in the US may make it worth to look at stabilization though.

Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl have a piece of rather pedagogical nature trying to convince us that stabilization policy is worthwhile. Their model is essentially the one that is taught to undergraduates: a two-period model with households maximizing intertemporal utility from consumption, a government, and firms that maximize discounted profits. Oddly, firms do not care about the resale value of capital in the second period, which makes investment largely irrelevant. Finally, prices are fixed the first period, but can be changed in the second period.

Beyond the pedagogical merit, can this model be used for serious policy prescriptions, which Mankiw and Weinzierl even quantify? For one, the last recession was sufficiently important that prices and wages actually adjusted down in the short term, which violates the critical premise of the model. Indeed, all what policy tries to do is undo the frictions stemming from price rigidity. Second, when prices do indeed not change in the short-term, it is presumably when it is not worth doing do so, thus policy intervention also does not seem worth it. Of course, it could be that there is a genuine Keynesian lack of demand, but this can be attacked best by dealing with what causes the lack of demand, not by creating artificial demand through government expenses. For the last recession, this would have been easing collateral constraints. Third, the model assumes a money quantity equation, which imposes a constant money velocity. I thought we all had agreed long ago this was a silly assumption.

I really do not understand the point of this paper. After all, as Mankiw likes to say on his blog, all this can already be found in his favorite textbook.

Socialist economies smooth better the cycle

Capitalism is often presented as a wild economic system where conditions are harsh as everyone fights for his survival. The fact that economic agents are not sheltered against shocks leads them to be more efficient and possibly protect themselves better against events. Incentives are not as well aligned in a socialist economy, as free-riding is more prevalent and weaker agents may be more likely to survive in such a sheltered system. The endless discussions on which system is better ultimately boil down to preferences about risk tolerance and fairness, and on which system offers higher welfare.

Bruno Amable and Karim Azizi point out that more socialist economies appear to be better at smoothing out business cycles in the aggregate. Indeed, they tend to adopt more readily Keynesian policies, which do smooth somewhat economic fluctuations, France being the prime example. But that does not yet mean these economies are better: while fluctuations are lesser, the average level may also be lower. And fluctuations may be optimal, as we have learned from the real business cycle literature. So the jury is still out.

Crime on the job and the business cycle

The cyclical behavior of work effort is rather puzzling. One would expect that people would work harder during a recession to avoid getting laid off, yet measures of labor productivity (per worker or per hour) are consistently positively correlated with GDP. This also runs counter to the argument that the least productive workers are laid off first in a recession, which should improve the productivity of the remaining ones through a composition effect. Survey data is much more mixed, though, but that is often based on perceptions rather than facts.

One reason why labor productivity may vary could also come from counterproductive efforts from the workforce: stealing, sabotaging, annoying co-workers. Aniruddha Bagchi and Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay fold all these activities under the crime label and ask whether this is linked to the business cycle. There is no data about this, unless you think like the authors that this is only dimension that makes labor productivity vary. So you are left with purely theoretical exercises. The authors highlight here to contradictory effects. First, pretty much everyone gets a job in a boom, including those "criminals," which would lead to a negative correlation of labor productivity with output. But this effect could go the other way if labor market prospects are likely to weaken and jeopardize re-employment. Second, they assume that deviancy requires a setup cost, which one is less likely to bear when the labor market weakens. This would even reinforce this negative correlation.

This possible ambiguity would need to be sorted out with a tight calibration exercise at least, or some structural estimation with hidden variables. But the authors just wave hands and claim things can go either way. In any case, they are probably right not to pursue. Using a two-period model to study business cycles is silly anyway.

Search effort under mass unemployment

As discussed previously here, one good reason for prolonging the duration of unemployment insurance insurance coverage in a deep recession like the last one is that it would be unfair to expect from the unemployed workers to find as easily a job as in normal circumstances. Or, in other words, even if they apply the same work effort, they have a smaller chance of finding a job given the labor market tension and should be allowed to be protected for a longer time.

Alan Krueger and Andreas Mueller study what happens to search effort when there is a smaller change of finding a job. Specifically, they interviewed several thousand unemployed weekly during the last recession about their reservation wage and their search effort. They find that the reservation wage is essentially constant, expect for older workers with sufficient cash reserves, but workers are willing to go below that reservation wage for part-time work. The time devoted to search, however, dips quickly over the unemployment spell. That should not be surprising given how little time people spend looking for a job (from a study by the same authors). What is more interesting is how all this compares to a normal recession. Unfortunately, Krueger and Mueller offer no discussion in this regard.

The impact of the extension of unemployment insurance benefits in the US

Given the depth of the last recession and the obvious difficulties unemployed workers have to find new jobs, the US government has successively and temporarily extended the usual 26 week period during which unemployment insurance benefits are given, up to 99 weeks for some workers. On consequence that has been worrying some is that this will leads job seekers to seek less jobs, as there is less urgency to be employed. But pointing to the longer duration of unemployment is not appropriate, as this depends to a (very large?) extent on the general business climate. Just looking at data is not sufficient, you need to put in some structure in the form of a theory.

Makoto Nakajima builds an elaborate model that features job search à la Mortensen-Pissarides with variable search effort, consumption-saving decisions, borrowing constraints, skill depreciation in unemployment and appreciation in employment. This complex model is then calibrated to the average state of the US economy, and set to start in a state as close as possible to the one in 2007. Then the transition paths are computed as the economy is hit by shocks, with and without benefit extensions, assuming economic agents did not expect the extensions. All in all an impressive exercise. The conclusion: about a quarter of the 4.8 point increase in the unemployment rate is due to the longer duration of benefits. This is not insignificant, but it could be an acceptable price to pay for the exceptional circumstances.

Online dating and the business cycle

During an unemployment spell, people spend significantly more time on leisure and may thus be more interested in social activities like dating. It is simply a matter of available time. But for those who suffer from a reduction in wages during a recession, things are not so clear: the income effect would lead to a reduction in leisure, while the substitution effect would favor an increase. And this interest in dating is not trivial, as 10% of people in the US a registered with an online dating service at any time, while this is 18% in Europe.

Véronique Flambard, Nicolas Vaillant and François-Charles Wolff point out that this ambiguity is even stronger with the demand of dating services, as some would want to find more solace in a partner during hard times, while other feel less secure in dating. The impact of a recession on dating services thus needs to be sorted out empirically. They do this for France with a short monthly times series on economic sentiments, an indicator of dating services (searches for a popular online service on Google) and lagged fertility (as a proxy for those leaving the dating market for good). I am not completely convinced that 56 months of data are sufficient to capture what happens over business cycles (of which there is only one in the data), but let us take this seriously. Using a VECM using four lags (thus we are down to 41 degrees of freedom, they find evidence that dating services demand increases during a downturn. That should hardly surprise us given the impact of the unemployed. Using microeconomic data that distinguishes between the employed and the unemployed would have delivered more interesting results. In fact, using more direct observations of what is to be measured would make results credible.

An unexpected consequence of crises: birth weight loss

Periods of crisis generate hardship, in particular if people do not have good ways to insure against these kind of shocks. In theory, temporary losses in income should not have much of a permanent impact, but in practices they may. For example, losing a job entails a wage loss in the next job, because one may have lost human capital, firm specific skills or good outside options. And those wage losses are quite persistent.

Carlos Bozzoli and Climent Quintana-Domeque identify a different persistent effect of a crisis by looking at Argentina. They notice that babies born around 2002 have had a birth weight 30 grams lower than usual, a non-trivial difference that corresponds to a difference between the US and Pakistan. Now, birth weight has been identified to be a remarkably good predictor of future outcomes for a population in terms of health, education and income. Thus, the effects of the 2002 crisis could linger in Argentina for decades.

The Great Depression: demand or supply shocks?

The fact that we are in a big recession has renewed interest in the Great Depression, and this has revived the questions about its origin. In particular, the eternal question on whether demand or supply shocks have driven it is back.

This time it is asked by Mark Weder, who runs a horse race between tow versions of a real business cycle model: one with only shocks to total factor productivity (supply shocks) as measured by Solow residuals, one with only preference shocks (demand shocks), measured as residuals of an Euler equation. The latter, though, are not associated with monetary or fiscal variables. Both types of shocks are the evaluated in their ability to forecast what happened to GDP, and none is a clear winner.

But is this really the best one could do? Clearly the models are way to simple to 1) forecast anything, 2) to capture the changing policy environment during this period, as highlighted by Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz, Harold Cole, Lee Ohanian and many others. Also, the relative importance of the two shocks may have shifted over time, something that would have been worthing looking at.

How good is it to have a stable banking sector?

You know the feeling, it is only once you lost something that you realize how much you cared about it. Nowadays that we are affected by instability in the banking sector, we realize how good it was to have stable banks. How could we quantify this?

There is ample research on the impact of banking crises, but it treats data in a black or white fashion: either you are in a crisis or you are not. Pierre Monnin and Terhi Jokipii, however, use a continuous measure, the probability that banks would fail, in 18 OECD countries. Their panel VAR indicates clearly that bank instability leads to lower real GDP growth, more volatility of growth, and over-prediction of future growth. Looking at the numbers, the impact is not large, though: a one standard deviation shock to output increase the bank failure measure by 11% of its standard deviation, while it is 7% the other way around. While statistically significant, this does not strike me as economically significant. And one should not interpret too much these results, as VARs are only good to describe the data, but not good for understanding behavior and policy.

Of course, for such an exercise, details are also very important. For example, how do you measure the probability of default of a banking sector? Monnin and Jokinii model it as the probability that the whole banking sector would exercise an option to renege its debts. Why not use the Z-Score, which is available for individual banks and already widely used, and work from there? How sensitive are the results to the many choices the VAR econometrician has? There is always danger of data mining here, so having some theory to guide choices would be good.

Vernon Smith discovers the business cycle

The current recession has certainly increased the academic interest in business cycles, their origin and their cures, if any. Many prominent economists ventured outside their traditional field of research to weigh in, most prominently Paul Krugman, a trade theorist. Add now Vernon Smith, an experimentalist and also a Nobel Prize winner, to the mix.

Steven Gjerstad and Vernon Smith do an exercise that is very reminiscent of Burns and Mitchell: a graphical analysis of various recessions to determine their dynamics. They conclude that various types of investment fluctuate the most, that residential investment leads the cycle, while business investment lags it. In other words, they have discovered some of the stylized facts that have been driving business cycle research of the last decades. This is their third paper on the topic, I am sure there will be more.

Expectation-driven business cycles

Are business cycles driven by expectations? Standard business cycle theory would tell you every depends on current fundamentals, but as expectations build on those fundamentals, both should matter. Take a real business cycle model. If people expect a total factor productivity shock to be persistent, they will adjust consumption and investment accordingly. But waht are the relative contributions of current fundamentals and expectations?

Sylvain Leduc and Keith Sill use various surveys on economic expectations and find they matter. That should not surprise too much, if one looks at the 1990 and 2008 recessions in the United States. But expectations are very hard to quantify, plus surveys have significant measurement issues. Still, their VAR gives a clear message.

This makes me wonder how much a business cycle can be "manipulated" by media and authorities. Think about the last crisis, where government and media were claiming we were slipping into the Great Depression. That could only be self-fulfilling. Or how Bush Jr. told Americans to consume after 9/11 to prevent a recession. Or the Soviets showing eternal optimism about their economy. But the latter could not be credible in the long run.

Nowcasting: recession ended in July 2009

There is always considerable interest in learning about current economic conditions, just see how financial news concentrates on the impact of the latest data releases on where the economy stands now. Actual data on GDP, for example, is released with a four month lag, and is subject to revisions. One could thus try to forecast current GDP in real time, nowcasting.

Boragan Aruoba and Francis Diebold assess the current state of nowcasting. There is rather little data available for nowcasting, as one needs data that is of higher frequency and quickly available. One can then work using dynamic factor analysis, which is about finding some commonness among them and interpreting this as current macroeconomic conditions. While this is now an established art and a real-time index is now maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Aruoba and Diebold paper is mainly about adding a nominal factor to the analysis that summarizes information about inflation.

These factors seem to tract quite well in real time historical data. This allows to draw some conclusions already about the current recession. First, it is unusually deep and long, which should not be a surprise too many. Second, it seems to have ended in July 2009. However, one could not exclude that a double-dip recession is in the works. Finally, there is still of increase in inflation visible.

I wonder whether this paper will be frequently revised to adjust for progress in the literature, something like nowreviewing nowcasting.

Do not buy American

Whenever a major bump on the road to economic prosperity is hit, say a Great Depression or a Great Recession, governments resort to protectionism. During the Great Depression, it happened with import tariff wars, and it took decades with GATT and WTO to undo the damage. In the current recession, resisted tariff hikes, but still called for buying local, especially for any stimulus money expenses. Does this work?

Mario Larch and Wolfgang Lechthaler say no it does not, but government cannot resist to the temptation. They do this by looking at a macro model (which can look at fluctuations, instead of a trade model (which can only look at steady states), in other words a model à la Ghironi and Melitz. Temporary protectionist measures heart both the domestic and foreign economies (in aggregate) because they shifts production from efficient foreign firms to inefficient domestic ones, and the domestic consumer faces thus higher prices. But domestic, non-trading firms gains, and if the economy is sufficiently closed or if those firms have a strong lobby, politicians will still favor such policies. Once again, do not leave politicians in charge of running an economy.

Entry on the labor market and social beliefs: the impact of recessions

Do the economic conditions in which you grew up have an impact on beliefs and opinions about the economy? We all have notice how our grand-parents, having lived through the restrictions of the Great Depression or the Second World War, lived in a more thrifty way than us, never throwing away something. But could this experience also have an impact of beliefs about markets and social issues?

Paola Giuliano and Antonio Spilimbergo use the General Social Survey and exploit regional and chronological differences in economic conditions where respondents grew up to look at this question. They find that growing up in a recession makes you believe more that personal success is due to luck rather than effort, you support redistribution more but without believing government is there to help you. While should not be too surprising, how persistent such beliefs are is astonishing.

Now imagine that the current recession last longer than usual (some say there could be a double-dip) and this could plant the seeds of a profound change in the US. This country is the most capitalistic and the least relying on government at the moment. But attitudes could change over the next generation and indeed bring major reforms like public health care, more redistribution and more regulation of business as those in their formative years now experience (relative) hardship.

Why all the fuss about business cycles?

There is a surprising amount of research on business cycles, and also public concern about recessions, if your consider the most influential work on the topic. In his 1987 book, Robert Lucas claimed that the welfare cost of business cycle was minimal. The model he used was utterly simple, in particular with a represntative household and has been attacked many times since. But in his 2003 AEA presidential address, Lucas claims that all modifications to his model from the literature taken together are not able to give a significant welfare improvement from the elimination of business cycles.

In recent years, there has been much progress in working with heterogeneous agent models with business cycles. And these models can highlight costs from business cycle fluctuations in the order of 1% of consumption. Their more important result is that this cost is very unequally distributed, which makes it very significant to some. Take two examples. Tom Krebs argues that the real cost of business cycles is in the long-term job displacement of workers. The reason is that short-term fluctuations can have long-term consequences. Or Per Krusell, Toshihiko Mukoyama, Ayşegül Şahin and Anthony Smith show that the elimination of business cycles not only smooths variables, but also changes their average level. The latter happens because of changes in precautionary savings and through the resulting changes in prices. Both papers also show that there are strong redistribute forces at work, and the welfare impact of aggregate fluctuations is worth several percents of consumption in some worker categories, something worth caring about.

Housing market boom-bust cycles and monetary policy

The preceding boom and current bust in the housing market have been blamed on the false expectations of market participants that house prices would always increase. While this expectation was historically correct (the Case-Shiller for the United States never decreased until now), this is obviously wrong for local markets. So, it cannot be true that everyone would buy the myth of ever increasing house prices. Can boom and bust then still happen?

Hajime Tomura shows that it is possible even when market participants have heterogeneous beliefs. And these fluctuations also impact the rest of the economy, just like we observe now. The model is rich enough to show that a monetary policy that is actively fighting inflation exacerbates these boom-bust cycles. So maybe it is a good idea that many central banks are putting aside inflation considerations for the moment.