• Fri
  • Dec 26, 2014
  • Updated: 9:12pm
Column
PUBLISHED : Sunday, 21 April, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Sunday, 21 April, 2013, 4:56am

Austerity frenzy proven to be wrong. So will it be halted?

Claims that an Excel error is to blame for moves by politicians and policymakers to shun people without jobs are disingenuous

In this age of information, maths errors can lead to disaster. Nasa's Mars Orbiter crashed because engineers forgot to convert to metric measurements; JPMorgan Chase's "London Whale" venture went bad in part because modellers divided by a sum instead of an average. So, did an Excel coding error destroy the Western world's economies?

The story so far: at the beginning of 2010, two Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, circulated a paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt", that purported to identify a critical "threshold", a tipping point, for government indebtedness. Once debt exceeds 90 per cent of gross domestic product, they claimed, economic growth drops sharply.

Reinhart and Rogoff had credibility thanks to a widely admired earlier book on the history of financial crises, and their timing was impeccable. The paper came out just after Greece went into crisis and played right into the desire of many officials to "pivot" from stimulus to austerity. As a result, the paper instantly became famous; it was, and is, surely the most influential economic analysis of recent years. In fact, Reinhart-Rogoff quickly achieved almost sacred status among self-proclaimed guardians of fiscal responsibility; their tipping-point claim was treated not as a disputed hypothesis but as unquestioned fact, including in a Washington Post editorial earlier this year.

For the truth is that Reinhart-Rogoff faced substantial criticism from the start and the controversy grew over time. As soon as the paper was released, many economists pointed out that a negative correlation between debt and economic performance need not mean that high debt causes low growth. It could just as easily be the other way around. Another problem emerged: Other researchers using comparable data couldn't replicate the Reinhart-Rogoff results.

Finally, Reinhart and Rogoff allowed researchers at the University of Massachusetts to look at their original spreadsheet - and the mystery of the irreproducible results was solved. First, they omitted some data; second, they used unusual and highly questionable statistical procedures; and finally, yes, they made an Excel coding error. Correct these and you get what other researchers found: some correlation between high debt and slow growth, with no indication of which is causing which, but no sign of a 90 per cent "threshold".

In response, Reinhart and Rogoff have acknowledged the coding error, defended their other decisions and claimed that they never asserted that debt necessarily causes slow growth. That's a bit disingenuous because they repeatedly insinuated that proposition even if they avoided saying it outright. But what really matters isn't what they meant to say, it's how their work was read: austerity enthusiasts trumpeted that 90 per cent as a reason to slash government spending, even amid mass unemployment.

So the Reinhart-Rogoff fiasco needs to be seen in the broader context of austerity mania: the obviously intense desire of policymakers, politicians and pundits across the Western world to turn their backs on the unemployed and instead use the economic crisis as an excuse to slash social programmes.

What the Reinhart-Rogoff affair shows is the extent to which austerity has been sold on false pretences. For three years, the turn to austerity has been presented not as a choice but as a necessity. Economic research, austerity advocates insisted, showed that terrible things happen once debt exceeds 90 per cent of GDP. But "economic research" showed no such thing. Policymakers abandoned the unemployed and turned to austerity because they wanted to, not because they had to. So will toppling Reinhart-Rogoff from its pedestal change anything? I predict that the usual suspects will just find another dubious piece of economic analysis to canonise, and the depression will go on and on.

The New York Times

 

Jake van der Kamp is on holiday

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

3

This article is now closed to comments

OxfordKevin
Krugman opposed the Bush tax cuts when they were announced, he said that the money should be used to pay down debt. Krugman was also clear that Bush planned no additional revenue raising to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan war and that this would cost the US. It doesn't seem to me that Krugman has been a purely spend spend spend person.
The US gov has clearly not always been profligate. At the end of WWII US debt was over 110% of GDP and came down to approx 25% of GDP in mid seventies and remained at roughly that level until early eighties when debt climbed steadily during Reagun, Bush 1 and the first start of Clinton's presidency after which it fell. US debt started rising again during Bush 2 because of his tax cut and the cost of the wars which he did nothing to pay for.
****upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png
Apart from the cost to the US government of the 2008-2013 financial crisis most of the recent increase in debt has been a republican ideological decision to cut taxes for the rich without any other compensatory fiscal changes.
Artline500
Why harp on the UK? Krugman writes in the American press. I'm confused, since US fiscal policy has been anything but austerity frenzied for at least 100 years.
HK_eh!
Guy wins a noble prize, doesn't mean he should be listen to (blindly). Make your own judgement.
I quiote, "Austerity has come to have a rather bad name of late. The complaint is that it just doesn’t work. Which is somewhat like complaining that the roof is leaking because someone else hassn’t fixed it. If by “working” we mean that austerity is supposed to produce growth, then of course it doesn’t work. By definition, austerity means you are reducing a fiscal deficit, and doing so will reduce growth in the short term. "
Keynes argue 1) govts should spend $$ / run deficit to boost economy in slowdown AND 2) to pay down the debt when economy recovers / is good. Of course, govts and politicians and central banks only do the 1st, and never the 2nd (rarely).
Economics is more an art than science (e=mc2), everyone makes different assumptions and use different formulas. You can choose to believe or not. But you expect everyone to see where the $$ train is heading for, ie, central banks continuous $$ printing, govt debt balloons, weak economies, etc and are you surprised when the train wreck happens?
What one does see, again and again, in the history of financial crises is that when an accident is waiting to happen, it eventually does. Austerity is a consequence, not a punishment. You choose to kick it down the road to future generations, which is what has been happening many years, ultimately you have to take the medicine.
Krugman thinks there's a free lunch.
 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or