Home
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON WERNER D'INKA, BERTHOLD KOHLER, GÜNTHER NONNENMACHER, FRANK SCHIRRMACHER, HOLGER STELTZNER
Weitersagen Kommentieren (5)
 

Should governments cut their spending? Alberto Alesina’s Answer

27.12.2011, 16:50 Uhr  ·  Can austerity programs make economies grow? A fierce debate is going on, starting with a study by Alberto Alesina. Now, he replies to his critics. To me, Alesina sounds softer. He attacks Paul Krugman, but he admits that spending cuts might reduce growth in the short run if they are badly executed - while still stressing that they were the only way to get government debt down. By Patrick Bernau

Von

Can austerity programs make economies grow? A fierce debate is going on, starting with a study by Alberto Alesina. Now, he replies to his critics. To me, Alesina sounds softer. He attacks Paul Krugman, but he admits that spending cuts might reduce growth in the short run if they are badly executed – while still stressing that they were the only way to get government debt down.

By Patrick Bernau

“Fazit” is the economics and finance blog of the German national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Occasionally, we publish blog posts in English. You can find our English posts at http://www.fazitblog.de/english. An RSS feed is available at www.fazitblog.de/english/rss. And please follow our English Twitter account @Fazit_Blog.

Should debt-stricken governments cut their spending? Should they raise taxes? Or will such measures kill growth and make everything worse? There is a fierce debate going on. The current discussion started with an influential paper by Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna. Their study was taken for evidence by many journalists and politicians that countries grow faster if governments cut their spending. Spending cuts became a standard proposal for the debt-stricken countries in Europe.

Alberto ALesina - Photo courtesy of Alberto AlesinaSoon, three IMF researchers called this into question. Put simply, they said: Alesina/Ardagna’s selection of countries had a bias that made growth seem larger than it actually is. Christina and David Romer have a different way of dealing with the data (unguarded access here). Paul Krugman called the paper “deeply flawed”, the examples “bad”. Not too long ago, Christina Romer again attacked Alberto Alesina. In Germany, our F.A.Z. Sunday paper and Zeit’s blog “Herdentrieb” joined the debate (both links are in German). Alesina himself took up some technical issues on his website. Bocconi economist Roberto Perotti also stroke back and criticized the IMF method.

So I asked Alberto Alesina about his views in a short telephone interview. He is angry at Krugman. “Paul Krugman is the perfect example of somebody who creates a strawman of a paper to attack it and thereby make a point he wants to make, which is every country should increase spending, no matter what, including Greece”, Alesina says. “My paper has never claimed that every fiscal adjustment is expansionary. It just claimed that there have been examples in which some well-designed policy packages, based on spending cuts and other measures, have been associated with a positive impact on the economy.” He points to Finland and Sweden in the mid-90s as well as Canada. “The question is when you take an average of all the fiscal adjustments that ever occurred, whether the average is expansionary or recessionary.”

Today, Alesina sounds softer to me than he did when the paper had just been published. In a VoxEU post by Alesina et al., the authors wrote: “More often than not spending cuts boost growth even in the very short run.” Today, Alesina says that “a well executed package of spending cuts can be done without going into a recession. This is what I believe the evidence about historical experience says”. The paper itself, however, contains neither of these claims, if read carefully. Alesina and Ardagna do not explicitly stress that they only deal with some examples. But they do not explicitly conclude that spending cuts are expansionary either. In fact, they deal with a different question. They ask: “Is raising taxes or cutting spending more likely to result in a stable fiscal outlook?” And their answer is: “Our results suggest that tax cuts are more expansionary than spending increases in the cases of a fiscal stimulus”. This is only a relative comparison and tells nothing about expansionary effects of spending cuts in general.

In our phone interview, Alesina did not regard his paper as a policy guide for heavily indebted countries such as the US and the Eurozone countries. “Some people have read the paper and said: Therefore fiscal adjustment today is expansionary. They may be right or wrong, I don’t know, the paper makes absolutely no claim about this”, he says. Alesina sees several factors which make fiscal adjustments harder:

* After banking crises, recovery is very slow even before fiscal adjustment starts.
* There are many countries which have to do fiscal adjustments at once.
* Within the Euro zone, countries cannot devaluate their currency.

But he also sees factors which make fiscal adjustments easier:

* Labor market reforms, which achieve wage moderation, are still possible in most countries.
* Monetary policy can help: “I am afraid that the ECB will have to continue to be very dovish, because that is the only way out.”

What remains for current policy? Alesina thinks there is only little debate about two points: “The only way to really achieve a stabilization of the debt to GDP ratio is to stop the growth of spending. If you don’t stop the growth of certain automatic spending like pensions and health, you won’t reduce deficit in the long run”, he says. And: “In OECD countries, where the tax rate is already very high and government spending is close to 50 percent of GDP, spending cuts are less recessionary than raising taxes.” These are the points about which Alesina sees a consensus.

But I don’t think that the debate will be finished now. So who’s next?

 

Please do post your comments in English.

____________________________________________________________________

English blog posts can be found at http://www.fazitblog.de/english, an RSS feed is available at http://www.fazitblog.de/english/rss. Social Media:
Fazit-Blog English Twitter account  Fazit-Blog at Facebook
Fazit-Blog at Google Plus

The author’s Social Media profiles:
Patrick Bernau at Twitter  Patrick Bernau at Facebook
Patrick Bernau at Google Plus

 
  Weitersagen Kommentieren Empfehlen Drucken
 

Richtlinien für Lesermeinungen

Die FAZ.NET-Redaktion bietet allen registrierten und eingeloggten Nutzern die Möglichkeit, sich mit den aktuellen Beiträgen auf FAZ.NET konstruktiv und kritisch auseinanderzusetzen und eigene Lesermeinungen zu veröffentlichen. Für jede Meinungsäußerung stehen 6000 Zeichen zur Verfügung. Voraussetzung für eine Veröffentlichung ist, dass die Verfasser und Verfasserinnen ihren wirklichen Namen nennen, d.h. in ihrer FAZ.NET-Registrierung den korrekten Vor- und Nachnamen eingetragen haben. Im Falle der Veröffentlichung der Lesermeinung weisen wir am Beitrag den Klarnamen des Lesers aus. Unter Pseudonym oder anonym verfasste Texte können nicht berücksichtigt werden.

Veröffentlicht werden nur Beiträge, die auf den jeweiligen Artikel und sein Thema seriös und sachbezogen eingehen. Links- und rechtsradikale, pornographische, rassistische, beleidigende, verleumderische sowie ruf- und geschäftsschädigende Inhalte können nicht berücksichtigt werden, ebenso wenig sachlich falsche oder in angemessener Zeit nicht nachprüfbare Behauptungen. Links sind in den Lesermeinungen von FAZ.NET nicht gestattet. Die Redaktion behält sich vor Lesermeinungen zu kürzen oder zu modifizieren. Jeder verfasste Beitrag wird von der Redaktion geprüft und schnellstmöglich veröffentlicht, sofern er diesen Richtlinien für Lesermeinungen nicht zuwiderläuft. Nutzern, die wiederholt versuchen, den Richtlinien nicht entsprechende Beiträge zu veröffentlichen, kann die Registrierung entzogen werden.

Für veröffentlichte Meinungsbeiträge gewähren Sie uns das unentgeltliche, zeitlich und örtlich unbegrenzte und nicht ausschließliche Recht, diese Aussagen ganz oder teilweise zu nutzen, zu vervielfältigen, zu modifizieren, anzupassen, zu veröffentlichen, zu übersetzen, zu bearbeiten, zu verbreiten, aufzuführen und darzustellen, Dritten einfache Nutzungsrechte an diesen Aussagen einzuräumen sowie die Aussagen in andere Werke und/oder Medien zu übernehmen.

Weitere Artikel

Datenschutzerklärung

Allgemeine Nutzungsbedingungen von FAZ.NET und seinen Teilbereichen

Wir möchten Sie ausdrücklich darauf hinweisen, dass der gesamte Auftritt von FAZ.NET von verschiedenen Suchmaschinen intensiv ausgewertet wird und die Inhalte dort auch gelistet werden. Das schließt die Lesermeinungen automatisch ein, so dass diese auch über FAZ.NET hinaus im Internet jederzeit recherchierbar sind.

Schließen

Dieser Beitrag kann nicht mehr kommentiert werden
Lesermeinungen zu diesem Artikel (5)
Sortieren nach

[...] Alesina, in turn, replied Krugman...

[...] Alesina, in turn, replied Krugman saying “My paper has never claimed that every fiscal adjustment is expansionary. It just claimed that the... [...]

0 faz-bern 30.12.2011, 16:35 Uhr

In my view, the discussion is...

In my view, the discussion is not irrelevant at all - even the discussion about his paper. The paper itself, however, has been rendered at least less relevant by Alesina's comment. One should not completely dismiss it, but be careful when applying it to the current situation - what do you think, hgebhardt?

0 hgebhardt 30.12.2011, 12:27 Uhr

"In our phone interview,...

"In our phone interview, Alesina did not regard his paper as a policy guide for heavily indebted countries such as the US and the Eurozone countries." So it is not relevant at the moment?

0 FAZ-gb 28.12.2011, 11:09 Uhr

For an overview of the...

For an overview of the problems linked to case studies the discussion of Perottis paper by Harald Uhlig is highly recommended: http://www.bis.org/publ/work362.pdf (pages 60 ff.) Gerald Braunberger

0 tricky1 27.12.2011, 21:42 Uhr

All diese Diskussionen von...

All diese Diskussionen von Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern sind doch ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart, weil die allerbeste Analyse der Vergangenheit keinerlei Gewähr bietet in der Gegenwart oder gar Zukunft zuverlässige Voraussagen zu ermöglichen. . Dagegen war es immer schon klar, dass es schwierig und schmerzhaft ist, eine zu hohe Verschuldung wieder abzubauen, auf welchem Weg auch immer. . Aus diesem Grund war und ist es verantwortungslos, wenn die Regierungen mehrerer Länder nur durch immer höhere Verschuldung überleben können. Sowas nimmt immer ein böses Ende!

Jahrgang 1981, verantwortlicher Redakteur für Wirtschaft Online.