>

Reinhart. Rogoff. Wrong.

by Dirk Ehnts, Econoblog101

This is a major scandal of economists finding a result which does not hold under closer scrutiny. Back in 2010, which is just the year that European austerity policies were put into place, the authors published a paper at the National Bureau of Economic Research named Growth in a Time of Debt. Here is the abstract (my highlighting):

We study economic growth and inflation at different levels of government and external debt. Our analysis is based on new data on forty-four countries spanning about two hundred years. The data-set incorporates over 3,700 annual observations covering a wide range of political systems, institutions, exchange rate arrangements, and historic circumstances. Our main findings are: First, the relationship between government debt and real GDP growth is weak for debt/GDP ratios below a threshold of 90 percent of GDP. Above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by one percent, and average growth falls considerably more. We find that the threshold for public debt is similar in advanced and emerging economies. Second, emerging markets face lower thresholds for external debt (public and private) — which is usually denominated in a foreign currency. When external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, annual growth declines by about two percent; for higher levels, growth rates are roughly cut in half. Third, there is no apparent contemporaneous link between inflation and public debt levels for the advanced countries as a group (some countries, such as the United States, have experienced higher inflation when debt/GDP is high.) The story is entirely different for emerging markets, where inflation rises sharply as debt increases.

So, if you increase your government debt above the magical 90% it would make the median (not average!) economy grow slower/shrink by a percentage point. The result drew criticism back then from Paul Krugman and others. Now, a new study was published that looks into the data (again, my highlighting):

Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogo ff

Thomas Herndon | Michael Ash | Robert Pollin | 4/15/2013

Abstract:
Herndon, Ash and Pollin replicate Reinhart and Rogoff and find that coding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary statistics lead to serious errors that inaccurately represent the relationship between public debt and GDP growth among 20 advanced economies in the post-war period. They find that when properly calculated, the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0:1 percent as published in Reinhart and Rogo ff. That is, contrary to RR, average GDP growth at public debt/GDP ratios over 90 percent is not dramatically different than when debt/GDP ratios are lower.

The authors also show how the relationship between public debt and GDP growth varies significantly by time period and country. Overall, the evidence we review contradicts Reinhart and Rogoff ’s claim to have identified an important stylized fact, that public debt loads greater than 90 percent of GDP consistently reduce GDP growth.

Apparently, the exclusion of data from New Zealand helped to produce the original findings of Reinhart and Rogoff, as CEPR reports:

In fairness, there has been other research that makes similar claims, including more recent work by Reinhardt and Rogoff. But it was the initial R&R papers that created the framework for most of the subsequent policy debate. And HAP has shown that the key finding that debt slows growth was driven overwhelmingly by the exclusion of 4 years of data from New Zealand.

And this is once more proof that the economics discipline has a big, a very big problem. Since everybody knows that the papers and books of economists are influencing policy debates, politicians and other groups will try to influence economists. Of course, one article does not lead to policies being enacted, but it can be a very good excuse to hide behind. The fall of Reinhart-Rogoff should lead to two things: first, a debate about why again we are using austerity policies if they are disastrous in reality and now even the empirical data says they would, and secondly, a new debate about the role of the economists and the way the are chosen. After all, they all seem to have read Reinhart-Rogoff and fell for it. Actually, where Reinhart-Rogoff speak of relationship, the following economists think a causality exists from high debt loads to more severe debt problems. So, have a look at this question given to economists:

Countries that let their debt loads get high risk losing control of their own fiscal sustainability, through an adverse feedback loop in which doubts by lenders lead to higher government bond rates, which in turn make debt problems more severe.

87% of economists asked said agree or strong agree, some with 10/10 confidence. So, if you think that economists should be humble AND/OR know stuff about the economy I suggest you ignore those economists who were wrong AND gave 10/10 confidence. Their names are:

  • Daron Acemoglu
  • Darrell Duffie
  • Aaron Edlin
  • Maurice Obstfeld
  • Nancy Stokey

By the way: I have attacked Rogoff’s “interest rate puzzle” earlier this months in this post. He did not strike me as a knowledgable economist. Apparently, he did not read a single line of Keynes ever. Not that you cannot become an excellent economist without. But you should have developed some concept which at least resembles the Keynesian liquidity trap idea.

Share this Econintersect Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Wikio
  • email
  • RSS
This entry was posted in Government, macroeconomics, money and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.





3 Responses to Reinhart. Rogoff. Wrong.

  1. robcartervn says:

    Good for you saying it out loud too much of these theory economists’ theories are lacking practicl experience in treasury of real business and/or Government. Push and pull factors are confused by short usually 20-60 years Post WW II statistics and not enough Professor Kondratiev longer post Industrial Revolution 236 year statistical fact.
    “ Our analysis is based on new  data on forty-four countries spanning about two hundred years.” that is more like realism.
     
    Furthermore I totally agree many theorists are in the financial or rhetorical influence of the REPUBLICAN CTROOKS AND 1% WHO CONTRIBUTE CASH TO THEIR RESEARCH, UNIVERSITIES, even consulting direct contracts to the crooks. I see Krugman of the type in the pockets of the right spreading disinformation in the left by pretended left sympathies in areas of little importance.
     
    Recently there was a serious claim supporting a derivatives sale, by a very reputable Economist who under the rigors of sworn legal study admitted he had a vested interest and had at times a $5,000 consulting contract with the crooks (I forget the exact monthly retainer) and we already know the likes of Carl Rove will corrupt anyone they choose.

  2. robcartervn says:

    Real practitioner economists, accountants, treasurers and economic Theorists with useless accolade waving are a World apart. Stats of recent times and influences lack credence of cause effect lag duration. Many theories applied today may take 60 years or more to wash when the days of reckoning, repayment and other effects tyo hit and tell the true story of the errors. War spending on funds borrowed as a special approval totally off the budget and in Capital accounts without true amortization into the revenue accounts and political budgets offered.

  3. Inquisitive says:

    R & R took most of their examples from countries that were not sovereign issuers of freely convertible fiat currencies that borrow only in their own currency. The analysis might be valid for European countries which are not sovereign in the currency they use but it is not valid for countries like US, UK etc unless governments impose austerity. Absent inflation or extreme currency movements there is no reason to impose austerity. Pragcap.com has a good series on understanding how credit is created and how modern monetary systems work.
     
    The thing which brings about the slow growth on average is not the debt level per se but the response to it, the imposition of austerity.