The Unassuming Economist

During times of fiscal austerity, income inequality goes up. Inequality goes up more when the austerity comes about through spending cuts than through tax hikes. The income share of the richest 1% of the population increases after fiscal austerity. Those are the main findings of a new paper by Luca Agnello and Ricardo Sousa.

The paper adds to a growing, but still scant, literature on how fiscal austerity affects different segments of the population. My paper with Larry Ball of Johns Hopkins University and my IMF colleague Daniel Leigh [available here] shows that fiscal austerity lowers incomes—hitting wage-earners more than others—and raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. These costs must be balanced against the potential longer-term benefits that consolidation can confer.

See the discussion of this work by Paul Krugman, Washington Post and Huffington Post here.

Agnello and Sousa note that their results are “close in spirit” to the evidence of Ball, Leigh and Loungani that “fiscal consolidation reduces the wage share in total income. The authors suggest that, while the fall in wage income is persistent, the fall in capital and property income is short-lived. This can be explained by the fact that fiscal austerity plans typically call for a fall in public sector wages or lead to an increase in unemployment (in particular, long-term unemployment)” (p. 10, Agnello and Sousa).

ILO says world heading for a new and deeper jobs recession, warns of more social unrest, in its annual World of Work Report.

In a seminar at the IMF, Tom Sargent said that when he was in graduate school at Harvard in the 1960s, low European unemployment rates “were viewed as a great success and envied” by Americans. John Kennedy’s May 1961 speech to the U.S. Congress, famous today for its rhetoric about the space race (“this nation should commit itself to . . . launching a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth”), was in fact concerned largely with matters much closer to home. First and foremost on the U.S. president’s mind was his country’s high unemployment: “Large-scale unemployment during a recession is bad enough, but large-scale unemployment during a period of prosperity would be intolerable.” The 1970’s and 1980’s, however, saw a reversal in fortunes as European unemployment rates shot up dramatically. Sargent’s seminar examined why this reversal in fortunes came about. Today, as fears are being expressed about America’s labor market becoming Euro-scelerotic, Sargent’s work on unemployment remains highly relevant. 

In Lost Decades, Jeffry Frieden and Menzie Chinn argue that fiscal consolidation is a necessary prerequisite for long term recovery; however, “fiscal consolidation too soon can derail the recovery, and plunge us further into debt. In contrast, some commentators have asserted that fiscal consolidation can be accomplished painlessly, or even with immediate benefits (e.g., JEC-Republicans, Rep. Paul Ryan/Heritage Foundation). Recent empirical work which carefully identifies the relevant episodes concludes that such instances of expansionary fiscal contraction are rare, and usually conducted near full employment.” Ball, Leigh and Loungani review the effects of fiscal contraction in “Painful Medicine“.

Read the rest of the story on Econbrowser.

The ultimate measure of economic success is not whether the stock or bond markets go up … but rather whether a society can provide decent jobs for its citizens, writes Jack Ewing in the NYT (the global edition of the New York Times).

He concludes: Mr. Loungani worries about the corrosive effects of unemployment on people and societies. “I know from my own experience the loss of confidence in your own skills that comes with the 200th job rejection letter,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important to get people back soon. You risk making a cyclical problem into a structural problem.”

Read the full article here.