Macroeconomic Policy and Public Choice
Springer
1999
Study Edition
ISBN 3-540-64872-0
Macroeconomic
policy and public choice are linked. Macroeconomic stabilization is generally
practiced as an explicit public policy. This book focuses on positive questions
relating to stabilization. We are most interested in how governments affect the
economy. Democratic countries give their governments the responsibility of
reducing the severity of the business cycle; and elections are decided at least
in part by voter perceptions about the ability of the candidates to manage the
economy. An insight of the public choice approach is the realization that
presidents and voters can have different objectives. For example, we take a
particular interest in the political business cycle hypothesis, the use of
stabilization policy to manipulate the economy for electoral advantage.
The democratically managed economy
arose after the Second World War. We begin with a macroeconomic history of the
past century that stresses the Keynesian revolution and government’s changing
role. Chapters 2 through 4 develop a theoretical background from
microfoundations. Chapter 2 outlines the microeconomics of general equilibrium
with particular reference to categories of behavior relevant to macroeconomic
analysis. Chapter 3 provides a theoretical foundation for public choice
beginning with a positive note, May’s theorem, followed by a negative one,
Arrow’s theorem. The general impossibility of guaranteeing an acceptable social
decision rule suggests more restricted models of democracy; the median voter
model is such a theory. In its usual deterministic form, the median voter model
is remarkably unstable, requiring rather implausible conditions for a political
equilibrium. But in its probabilistic form it provides a more realistic
theoretical foundation. The probabilistic model has a unique and stable
political equilibrium under more general conditions, providing a basis for a
positive theory of political economy.
Macroeconomic theory is the subject of
the fourth chapter. In recent decades the once well-established Keynesian
consensus has been surprised by unexpected events, and shaken by the rise of
alternative doctrines. There is even a popular book titled The Seven Schools of Macroeconomics. We do not attempt to extend
these debates with new twists of theory, nor do we settle arguments about
theoretical coherence. We do present the main conceptual differences of the
competing models within a microeconomic framework. Our discussion emphasizes
the Keynesian approach because it is the one most closely identified with
activist stabilization. Its insights are essential to applications involving
the democratic appointment of discretionary policymakers.
Chapters 5 and 6 provide a
statistical background on the relevant variables organized around the Phillips
curve and the stabilization tools (the deficit and the money stock). We devote
considerable space to the statistical measurement of macroeconomic concepts to
insure the robustness of our econometric inferences. Although the Phillips
curve began as the inverse relation between wage inflation and the unemployment
rate, economists often substitute the level of output for the unemployment rate
without changing the curve’s meaning. This substitution is legitimate when the
output concept is the deviation from the macroequilibrium. Several decades ago
the Phillips model was augmented to account for the effects of inflationary
expectations. This development leads to the controversial concept of rational
expectations, a hypothesis that has attracted considerable interest for its
relevance to political macroeconomics.
Theorists have spun complex theories
about the business cycle, but their empirical support remains uncertain. For
example, the Phillips curve is a fairly weak tendency in the postwar data, and,
as we show, estimates of its slope are rather inaccurate. The empirical
definitions of the main stabilization tools also are uncertain, and their
hypothesized impact on output or inflation is not well verified by Granger
causality tests. In the face of this meager statistical support, the relevance
of our macroeconomic models may be questioned. Of course, we might equally
question many other books on macroeconomics. We persevere in the hope that the
process will lead to better explanations.
Chapters 7 through 12 are the core
of the book. Chapter 7 compares the hypothesis that the swings of the business
cycle are inherent in the market economy against the alternative hypothesis
that booms and busts are merely the manifestations of external shocks. Here we
address the underlying nature of business cycles, a topic that logically
precedes any discussion of intervention. We develop a nonlinear Keynesian cycle
model that is theoretically general enough to include convergence or perpetual
cycling as special cases. Our results, both theoretical and empirical, verify
the Keynesian conclusion that without intervention recessions can be
long-lasting.
Chapter 8 uses the Gallup Poll to
study the nature of voter preferences for economic policy. Our tests support
the assumption that inflation and output are high priorities for US voters and
that the quadratic form we assume for their objective function is plausible.
Such preferences are used in Chapter 9 to investigate the possibility that
voters prefer conservative presidents due to their roles as economic managers.
In a model where the president practices short run stabilization policy to
dampen the impact of exogenous shocks we find that voters can often gain by
electing a conservative president.
It
seems obvious that the four-year cycle of elections influences economic policy.
Chapters 10 and 11 explore this issue. We begin with an examination of a plot
of US inflation versus output in search of cycles synchronized with national
elections. Unfortunately, existing theories do a poor job of explaining the
postwar history of employment and inflation. Recent research reports new
evidence that election effects exist, and offers a new explanation based on the
rational expectations hypothesis. Our contribution is a negative evaluation of
the rational explanation due to its inconsistency with postwar US history.
Because there have been only a few US observations (11 elections), we turn to a
larger sample of 173 elections in 18 democracies for verification. For both
data sets, our analysis suggests a return to an older theory in which
expectations are less sophisticated.
We conclude with the most talked
about economic issue of the day, the long-lasting public deficit. We survey the
relevant views on this issue. On one side are the Ricardians who feel that the
public debt is of no concern since farsighted consumers have already adjusted
their savings and bequests to help their children pay off the debt they did not
get to vote on. On the other is the view that persistent deficits have crowded
out investment and will eventually reduce productivity by a significant amount.
We use an overlapping approach to explain these views and compare their
predictions. Model predictions vary drastically when assumptions are changed.
The organizing idea of this book is
the existence of a political economic equilibrium in an activist democracy.
Given the election cycle and the fact that agents make forecasts of
stabilization policy, this equilibrium may be a cycle rather than a point. We
pay special attention to the relevant data and to possibilities for hypothesis
testing, finding relatively weak evidence in favor of Keynesian assumptions.