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

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.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}