Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • Latest Stories
  • Markets Map
  • Trends and Sentiments
  • Leading Topics
  • News Search
  • Comments and Analysis

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • About Us
  • UK government bumps up debt raising plans
  • Markets Live: Tuesday, 24th April, 2018
  • WorldQuant to launch fund open to outside investors
  • It's True - Uranus Really Does Stink
  • Mark Hulbert: What’s sabotaging gold’s attempts to rally
  • American Airlines passenger tased 10 times after...
  • Barrick Gold Q1 Report: So Far So Good
  • A body-positive activist says fitness tips from Instagram...
  • WorldQuant to launch its first fund open to outside...
  • Ford Changed Leaders, Looking for a Lift. It’s Still...

    Demand or productivity?

    Wed, 04/04/2012 - 09:55 EDT - Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Comments

    Duncan worries that economists might be “misdiagnosing a serious demand problem as a productivity problem.” It could be, he says - endorsing Bill Martin's view (pdf) - that productivity growth has been weak recently not because of a supply-side problem but because weak aggregate demand has caused firms to hoard labour.
    This is not merely an abstruse technical argument. It matters politically. The view that we have a supply-side problem has two implications:
    - it implies that the output gap is small, which in turn implies that a large part of government borrowing is structural rather than cyclical. The case for fiscal tightening is thus stronger.
    - if our problem is on the supply-side, then the policy remedies are less likely to involve fiscal expansion and more likely to entail supply-side reforms which - given the dominant neoliberal ideology - mean incentivizing bosses and bashing workers.
    But are Duncan’s worries correct? Two things make me sympathize with him. One is that I‘m an old git who’s been here before. I remember in the early 80s worrying that the then-mass unemployment would lower future growth through hysteresis effects. And I remember the better times of the late 80s and late 90s leading people to revise up their estimates of trend growth. History tells me that estimates of potential growth are pro-cyclical. Labprod
    I’d add another reason why this might be so. It could be that the banking crisis, allied to the cyclical element of firms’ reluctance to invest, has slowed down the entry (and exit) of new establishments which is a major cause (pdf) of productivity growth.
    On the other hand, however, three things make me doubt this:
    1. Productivity growth was slowing down before the recession. In the five years to December 2007 it grew by less than 2.3% a year. That’s below the post-1990 average, despite what should have been a boost from a cyclical upswing.
    2. Inflation has consistently been quite high since the recession began. This is consistent with the possibility that the output gap is indeed small - though as Simon says, there might be other reasons for this.
    3. Even insofar as low productivity is a result of the recession, it doesn’t necessarily follow that fiscal stimulus alone will raise it. If low productivity growth is due to the failure of the banking system to promote the start-up and expansion of new and (potentially) high-productivity business units, then a fiscal expansion that is unaccompanied by banking reform might not greatly raise productivity.
    Rather than take a Keynesian or neoliberal supply-side view here, can I suggest an alternative? It’s that, insofar as the slowdown in productivity growth is not cyclical, it reflects not the problems traditionally identified by neoliberals, but others, such as:
    - the dearth of monetizable investment opportunities has lead to slower capital formation which inevitably means slower productivity growth.
    - there are limits to the extent to which top-down managerialist organizational structures can identify productivity improvements and motivate workers, and we are bumping up against these limits.
    - the UK banking system has always been poor at facilitating productivity-enhancing activity, and it is especially so now.
    Insofar as these factors lie behind the productivity slowdown, the solution is neither Keynesianism nor orthodox supply-side reforms, but something else.

    • Original article
    • Login to post comments
     

    Related

    • Wages & productivity

      Would higher wages boost economic growth? They might, if the marginal propensity to spend out of wages is higher than that out of profits.

    • The productivity puzzle

      Labour productivity is falling. Today's figures show that total hours worked have risen 1.6% in the last year, whilst the NIESR estimates that GDP fell 0.2% in the time. GDP per hour is now 4.5% below 2007Q4's level. Had productivity continued to grow at its 1977-2007 rate, it would be 10.8% higher.

    • Who needs productivity?

      "Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything." If Paul Krugman's famous saying is right, the UK economy is in trouble because today's figures show that total hours worked rose by 1.1% in the last three months, which implies that output per hour is falling, and is well below its pre-recession peak.

    • The irrelevant structural deficit

      Is our current economic weakness merely cyclical or structural? The OBR is, to say the least, not clear: see pars 1.16 to 1.18 here (pdf). It says (par 1.3) that most of its downward revisions to GDP forecasts are "assumed to be cyclical" [emphasis added].

    • Structural deficit doubts

      The OBR’s new forecasts remind me why I hate the concept of a structural budget deficit.

    • Neoliberalism & productivity

      Chris Edwards says the privatizations started by Thatcher “transformed the British economy” and boosted productivity. This raises an under-appreciated paradox.

    • America's Potential Growth Rate Is Barely Half What It Was 20 Years Ago — Here's How To Raise It

      BACK in the mid-1990s, America's economic prospects suddenly brightened. Productivity soared. Immigrants and foreign capital flocked to take advantage of what was quickly dubbed the "New Economy".

    • Productivity slumps

      Today’s labour market figures are worrying in one important respect - they suggest that productivity growth has collapsed.

    • In defence of the structural deficit

      Tim Worstall points to the  estimate* that the UK ran a cyclically adjusted government deficit of 5.2% of GDP in 2007 and says:

    • What structural deficit?

      Ralph Musgrave asks a good question: is the structural budget deficit a useful concept? I agree with him that it’s not.

    Latest

    Swedish Activist: "Everyone's Afraid To Be Branded A Racist"
    Swedish Activist: "Everyone's Afraid To...
    Iran's Rouhani warns Trump he'll 'face severe consequences' if he exits the Iran deal
    Iran's Rouhani warns Trump he'll '...

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 2579.37 0.16% FTSE: 7487.96 -0.07% Nikk.: 22420.08 1.82% DAX: 13465.51 1.75% HSI: 28594.06 1.22% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1401 USD/EUR: 1.1618 JPY/USD: 114.1510 Commodities: Gold: 1276.1000

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • About Us