HICKS: So far, federal stimulus plan isn't stimulating

Mike Hicks
January 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

It has been roughly a year since the passage of the economic stimulus, formally the more harmonious American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This stimulus is a textbook example of what we economists call counter-cyclical fiscal policy. The idea is that government will increase spending today, when we need more people working, and cut back in later years when the economy has recovered.

This idea dates back to the English economist John Maynard Keynes. Franklin Roosevelt adopted the policies, many of which became the New Deal. Since the Great Depression, this type of broad stimulus fell out of disfavor, with virtually all economists preferring monetary policy—primarily interest rate changes—to stabilize the bust-and-boom cycle.

The reasons are practical: The fiscal tools of tax cuts and spending are slow, costly and, for some reason, Congress always forgets to cut spending during the recovery.

This recession called for more than monetary policy because of the banking crisis. The argument (to which I subscribed) went that, as long as banks won’t lend, cutting interest rates won’t help. Some sort of stimulus was called for (I said $220 billion would be all states could spend). The problem is that a stimulus four times this amount isn’t working very well.

Last year, the economists in the Obama administration predicted the unemployment rate with the stimulus would be under 8 percent. This wasn’t political; it was just an error. The types of economic models most economists use would say the same thing. The problem is, without some sort of what I’d call “moral imagination,” deriving policy from economic models is dangerous. You have to try to imagine how people and institutions will react to a policy. Consider the recent stimulus package as a prime example.

When it comes to a good stimulus package, two things have changed since the Great Depression. The first is that workers are no longer homogenous agricultural and factory workers. The second is that public works projects involve far more complex regulatory constraints than ever before. This makes it impossible to accelerate road, sewer or water projects. These factors aren’t easily included in a model, but they clobbered the stimulus. Here’s how.

First, because few good jobs can be learned in a matter of months, there was little movement of workers. Manufacturing workers won’t flee Elkhart for road construction jobs in Florida. Second, the focus on “shovel ready” projects meant the only viable projects were those already planned by state and local governments. The stimulus simply replaced spending that would have otherwise already taken place. This did little to put more folks to work.

Somehow, the administration missed the moral imagination requirement. As a result, the impact of the stimulus languishes. We’ll feel the full effect of it, perhaps in a year or three—when it is not needed. Until then, we need to resist the siren song of more federal stimulus that we cannot spend in time.•


Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So, Pence wants the federal government to ignore the 2008 law that allows children from these countries to argue for asylum in front of a judge. How did this guy become governor? And how is that we'll soon be subjected to repeatedly seeing him on TV being taken seriously as a presidential candidate? Am I in Bizzaro-U.S.A.?

  2. "And the most rigorous studies of one-year preschool programs have shown short-term benefits that fade out in a few years or no benefits at all." So we are going down a path that seems to have proven not to work very well. Right intention, wrong approach?

  3. Well for Dunkin Donuts it might say that even a highly popular outlet can't make a poorly sited location work. That little strip has seen near constant churn for years.

  4. Years ago, the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device companies shifted their research investment away from Medical Institutions to focus more on private research centers, primarily because of medical institution inefficiencies in initiating clinical studies and their inability/commitment to enroll the needed number of patients in these studies. The protracted timelines of the medical institutions were prompting significant delays in the availability of new drug and medical device entities for patients and relatedly, higher R and D expenditures to the commercial industry because of these delays. While the above stated IU Health "ratio is about $2.50 in federal funding for every $1 in industry funding", the available funding is REVERSED as commercial R and D (primarily Phase I-IV clinical work)runs $2.50 to $1 for available federal funding ($76.8B to $30.9B in 2011). The above article significatly understated the available R and D funding from industry......see the Pharma and Medical Device industry websites. Clearly, if medical institutions like IU Health wish to attract more commercial studies, they will need to become more competitive with private clinical sites in their ability to be more efficient and in their commitment to meet study enrollment goals on time. Lastly, to the reference to the above Washington Post article headlined “As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias", lacks some credibility as both FDA and Institutional Institutional Review Boards must approve the high proportion of these studies before studies are started. This means that both study safety and science must be approved by both entities.

  5. ChIeF and all the other critics – better is better no matter what. Get over it; they are doing better despite you ?