Jewish World Review Dec. 15, 2004 / 3 Teves, 5765
Finally a maverick Nobel Prize winner for economics?
A big fuss has been made locally, and rightfully so, over the Nobel Prize
for economics going to an ASU professor, Edward C. Prescott. But little
attention has been paid to the insights for which Prescott has been
Prescott's lecture upon receiving the award last week offers an opportunity
to partially remedy that.
I say partially because when economists gather, particularly when they are
putting on the dog, they tend to talk mathematics, not English.
As best I can figure it out, Prescott was honored for advancing two
important understandings about political economy.
The first raises questions about the extent to which government should be
in the business of attempting to fine-tune the economy.
Prior to Prescott, the economic consensus was that government should use
monetary and fiscal policy to modulate growth rates and business cycles,
alternately stepping on the gas or putting on the brakes as circumstances
Many had pointed out that the governmental tools available were rather
blunt for the task, and that it was difficult to time the intervention
right by the time government got around to stepping on the gas or
putting on the brakes, the economy had often already moved on.
The unique insight of Prescott and his collaborator Finn Kydland was that,
even if done right, attempts to fine-tune the economy could be
That's because the prescribed fix necessarily changes over time. In his
lecture, Prescott referred to "the inconsistency of optimal plans."
Inconsistency in monetary and fiscal policy, however, introduces
uncertainty for those in the private sector who have to take the actions
that actually bring about the results sought.
Uncertainty creates inefficiency and attempts to respond not only to what
policy currently is, but what it might be when it changes.
The result may very well be a worse economy than if the government hadn't
attempt to modulate it.
The better approach would be for government to establish monetary and
fiscal policies conducive to productive economic behavior and stick to
them. As Prescott put it in his lecture: "Rules rather than discretion."
The second insight has to do with the nature of business cycles themselves.
The conventional wisdom had been that business cycles were driven in large
part by consumer demand. Prescott and Kydland, however, demonstrated that
supply side changes had as much, if not more, influence on them.
In his lecture, Prescott showed a chart illustrating that, since 1960,
consumer consumption has held pretty steady while business investment has
There's some inherent common sense to this. Household income does fluctuate
as business cycles ebb and flow, but, except for rare severe contractions,
not wildly. And consumers have ways of mitigating the effect of income
fluctuations through savings and debt.
Businesses, however, seek not merely to serve current consumer preferences,
but to change them. So, investment fluctuates more widely as opportunities
are perceived and previous bets either pay off or fail.
One of the insights Prescott has stressed recently is the extent to which
economic performance is tied to the willingness to provide labor and the
effect of taxes on that willingness.
In his lecture, Prescott demonstrated how closely changes in U.S. Gross
Domestic Product are tied to changes in aggregate hours worked. And he has
argued that the difference in hours worked between Europeans and Americans
is mostly attributable to differences in the after-tax return for such
work, rather than a greater preference by Europeans for leisure.
While the economic world has embraced Prescott's insights, the public
discussion of political economy lags considerably behind.
The last recession was pretty clearly a classic business cycle churn, as
business overinvested toward the end of the 1990s, retrenched, and then
re-engaged. And a relatively mild one at that.
Yet the focus of the public discussion was on governmental policies and the
need to goose consumer spending, which in fact had remained rather healthy.
The budget rules of Congress under which 60 votes are required in the
Senate for permanent changes have led to inconsistent fiscal policy by
design, as various tax cuts fade in and out.
Undoubtedly inconsistent good policy is preferable to consistent bad
policy, which is the practical choice the political alignment in Congress
and current budget rules allow. But perhaps Prescott could next study how
to accelerate the time lag between the discovery of economic sense and its
application by policymakers.
JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.
12/10/04: The challenge four more years of the Bush administration presents to conservatism's fundamental beliefs
12/02/04: Sportsmanship? What's that?
11/22/04: Tax reform limited by, uh ... tax reform
11/14/04: Empowerment agenda reality check
10/13/04: And what tax rate should Americans making over $200,000 a year pay? Some pre-debate advice for the President
09/24/04: Too many of the wrong people have too much ability to influence public opinion too quickly?
09/20/04: Kerry asks good question about security costs
09/07/04: Right city, right message
08/30/04: Bush's key task: His reinvention as a true uniter
08/20/04: Bush's burdening the Middle Class
08/13/04: For prez to win, he must change his campaigning style
08/03/04: Missing in Beantown was a sense of the art of the possible
07/26/04: Kerry inflated agenda reveals he's failed to truly make the transition from legislator to presidential candidate
07/12/04: Edwards punctuates Kerry fantasies
07/06/04: Kerry ups the ante in bid for Latino vote
06/30/04: High Court gave administration limits
06/25/04: Parallel (political) universes
06/21/04: Al-Qaida-Iraq interaction strengthens case for war
06/02/04: Gas whiners don't believe in or trust markets
05/10/04: Border reforms fail on black-market issue
05/07/04: It wasn't Bush's recession nor Bush's recovery
04/28/04: Arizona to become test market on immigration as a political issue
04/23/04: Accusations that the Bush administration has been shredding civil liberties are hyperbolic
04/16/04: Learning the limits
04/14/04: Aug. 6 memo is not even a water pistol, much less a smoking gun
04/11/04: Once 9/11 Commission's political theater ends, we must debate real security issues
04/09/04: Fact checking Kerry's federal budget plans
04/08/04: Should the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq be delayed beyond the current deadline?
04/02/04: Kerry's tax epiphany makes some cents
03/31/04: What could have prevented 9/11
03/26/04: Knock off the high-stakes blame game
03/23/04: McCain a straight talker? Who is he kidding?
03/17/04: Bin Laden makes distinctions?
03/12/04: In the dangerous neighborhoods, cause for hope, if not yet optimism
03/01/04: Greenspan view scary, but Dems in denial
02/27/04: How not to achieve a mandate
© 2004, The Arizona Republic