HICKS: Post-recession policies matter more than theory

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

There’s a wonderful fight brewing between some of the world’s best-known economists. The headline pugilists—Paul Krugman and Robert Lucas—are Nobel laureates. It is the kind of purely intellectual debate of which there is too little.

The fight measures up something like this. There are two dominant explanations and one peripheral one for why recessions happen. The first two share the same intellectual origins, crafted carefully over the past century. The peripheral explanation depends heavily on rules of thumb about how financial markets behave.

The dominant theories account for recessions in two ways: a real shock to the economy like a rapid rise in gas prices, or the inability of businesses to smoothly adjust prices to the right level. Both of these approaches more than partially explain the last recession. The gas-price increase everyone remembers all too well, but it was the helplessness of homeowners to cut the price of their homes to a point they would sell that was central to the housing crisis.

One of these explanations (which Lucas favors) does not admit significant frictions between people and businesses in the conduct of trade. The other (favored by Krugman) bases its conclusions on small frictions between people and business that prevent markets from operating smoothly. Both treat individuals and businesses as fairly similar beasts (rational within the narrow scope of gaining profits, yet imperfectly knowledgeable about the world).

Both of these models are effective at explaining other characteristics of the world’s economy, and they share similar (but not identical) policy prescriptions. For the record, my doctoral dissertation and some later research focused on measuring these small frictions. That puts me squarely in the Krugman camp.

The peripheral explanation argues that many recessions develop from the bursting of financial bubbles, which leave firms thirsting for access to their lifeblood of capital. The result is, in the quaint wording of J.M. Keynes, a “liquidity preference” for holding cash that places a stranglehold on commerce. This explanation has an all-too-familiar ring to it. Krugman has become recently fond of some of these arguments and wants them incorporated into the dominant theories.

Having hastily summarized 75 years of significant writing into 300-odd words, I probably need to offer an apology. But, in the end, it is not the theory, but rather the policies they spawn, that matter.

The types of fiscal stimulus Congress passed earlier this year fell from favor not because of economic theory, but rather because such plans rarely work well. The role of the Federal Reserve became ascendant not because of crafty economic models, but because it was exceedingly successful.

Two years hence, the Fed will be working its magic and economists will be arguing over the effect of the stimulus. I don’t know how the debate will end, but one thing is for sure: We’ll still be paying for it when the argument is over.•


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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.