EUROPE VS. USA

In NY Times, Paul Krugman (link) wrote about the comparison of European and U.S economic model, concluding that in the last 10 years, the European model of social democracy led to higher standard of living and, compared to U.S in output per hour and standard of living, and relative convergence of European countries relative to the U.S respectively.

The real convergence is a complex mathematical and empirical issue, so I will rather outline the key patterns of GDP per capita gap between the U.S and Europe and the economic explanation of it. I downloaded the data from the IMF and composed a graph which shows the GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) in European countries as a percentage of the U.S GDP per capita. Switzerland is the only European country whose level of GDP per capita is more than 90 percent of the U.S level. Ireland, where the output contracted by 7.5 percent in 2009 (link), was once the poorest country in the European Union. Today, its GDP per capita reached 85 percent of the U.S level. In spite of the notorious advantages of the Nordic model, the GDP per capita level of all Nordic countries (excluding Norway), is below 80 percent of the U.S level. The UK GDP per capita is also far below the U.S level (75 percent). The levels of GDP per capita of the less developed countries in European Union (Slovenia, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic and Slovakia) are all below 62 percent of the U.S level.

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook

The basic economic question is the length of the gap between the U.S and European countries. To answer the question, we have to set certain assumptions. So, let's assume that the U.S output will increase by 2 percent in the long run. The economic theory would predict faster growth of less developed countries, since countries with lower levels of standard of living (GDP per capita) tend to follow-up the countries with higher GDP per capita. In economic literature, that is the so-called "catch-up effect". So, what would happen if the UK economy increased by 3.5 percent in the long run. A quick estimate shows that the time gap between the UK and US is 19 years. So, what happens of the US economy increases by 2 percent in each of the next year while, at the same time, the UK GDP per capita is 75 percent of the U.S level? A fairly quick estimate shows that, if the UK GDP per capita will reach the U.S level in 10 years (although an unlikely scenario), the UK GDP per capita would have to increase by 4.9 percent each year to catch-up the U.S level of GDP per capita. If France's GDP per capita reached the U.S level in 10 years (assuming 2 percent growth in U.S GDP per capita), it would have to increase the economic growth to 5.3 percent in each of the next 10 years. If the convergence objective is set at 20 years, the French economy would still have to grow at the annual rate higher than 3 percent.

The main question is why the European countries are still behind the U.S level of GDP per capita? There are, of course, many plausible explanations. As far as the GDP per capita is concerned, the difference in the level and growth of productivity is the most important figure in setting conclusions. After all, in the long run, productivity determines the standard of living across countries.

First, the European disease is mostly the result of high tax burden. High tax rates diminished the incentives to work, since each additional hour of labor reduced worker's marginal productivity. Hence, as professor Mankiw explains, the rise of European leisure (link) is mostly the result of fewer working hours. In addition, early retirement is a common phenomena across Europe. By 2030, each worker will support one retired individual in Germany. The coming of Europe's pension crisis (link) is a consequence of generous PAYG pension systems. Lower employment-to-population ratio led to higher tax rates to finance the financial liabilities for the retired. In addition, high government spending and periodic budget deficits discouraged productivity growth.

Second, another key to the explanation of the anemic growth rates in Europe is rigidity of the labor market. In many European countries, labor costs are very high (link). If the cost of labor market entry is high, people prefer longer studying and working in the shadow economy. The shares of shadow economy are relatively high in all European countries (link). The highest rates of shadow economy are in the following countries:

1. Slovenia 27%
2. Greece 26%
3. Italy 24%
4. Spain 21%
5. Belgium 20%
6. Germany 15%
7. France 13%

Source: ATKearney (2009), Friedrich Schneider (2005)

Third, Europe's relative decline compared to the U.S, is not a consequence of the lack of R&D investment. High percentage of R&D investment in the GDP is not a cure for the real cause. In fact, European universities rank far below the top universities in the world. In the field of engineering and computer sciences, the first non-US university is in the 15th rank. Europe's brain-drain is a known phenomena since many bright European minds immigrate to places such as the U.S, Canada and Australia. The outcome is deteriorating international ranking of universities and low efficiency of R&D expenditure on misguided projects such as the intention of the European Commission to build a "European MIT" (link) to boost Europe's global technology leadership.

Without higher growth of GDP, productivity and market working hours, European countries will hardly sustain the convergence towards the U.S level of GDP per capita. To boost economic growth, bold structural reforms are required to cut the rates of shadow economy, reduce tax and social security burden, decrease government spending and deregulate the labor markets.

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF EUROPE AND THE U.S

In today's edition of NY Times, Paul Krugman opened a puzzling discussion on the economic performance of Europe relative to the United States (link), suggesting that the European model of social democracy is an envy for economic success compared to the U.S economy.

ECONOMICS OF WOMEN'S PROGRESS

Gary Becker (link) and Richard Posner (link) discuss the economic perspective in the empowerment of women and the weigh costs and benefits of public policy aimed at the empowerment of women.

MONTHLY U.S BUDGET REVIEW

CBO has released the monthly budget review of recent fiscal estimates for the U.S budget (link).

BEN BERNANKE AND THE GREAT RECESSION OF 2008/2009

Writing an op-ed for NY Times, Nouriel Roubini discusses the role of Ben Bernanke in this year's recession (link).

THE MOST INFLUENTIAL GLOBAL THINKERS

Foreign Policy composed the rank of the most influential global thinkers (link).

INTERVIEW WITH JOSE PINERA

ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND THE FUTURE OF EUROZONE

Martin Feldstein offers some interesting thoughts on whether the eurozone will survive the economic recovery (link).

CHINA'S CURRENCY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Dani Rodrik wrote a nice article on the future prospects of China's currency and its industrial policy (link).

STOLPER-SAMUELSON THEOREM

Dani Rodrik offers a nice insight into one of the most remarkable theorems in international trade (link).

IN MEMORIAM: PAUL A. SAMUELSON

On Sunday, December 13th, Paul A. Samuelson has died at the age of 94 (link).


He was on the economic giants of the 20th century. His ideas reshaped the economic science and revolutionized the mode of economic thinking around the world. With the mathematical rigour and analytical mastermind, his groundbreaking approach to economic analysis transfored the economic science into a dynamic problem-solving tool. In this short essay, I will present my reflections on the life and contributions of Paul A. Samuelson to the economic science.

I first came across Paul Samuelson in the year before I entered the university. In the first year of the undergraduate class, Samuelson and Nordhaus's Economics was the assigned reading for the Introductory Macroeconomics. I read the textbook back and forth and I liked it; not because of its simplicity in introducing the analytical framework of economics but rather because of the clarity, intuition and incentives to undertake a rigorous pursuit of analytical economics at the theoretical and empirical level. In addition, Samuelson penetrated the application of linear programming to economic problem-solving.

Together with Milton Friedman, Paul A. Samuelson is the economic giant of the 20th century. Hardly any economist could take the same place in the scope of influence as an economic thinker. He conducted the Neoclassical synthesis. As an interested reader can verify in his Nobel prize lecture (link), Samuelson's synthesis combined a Keynesian macroeconomics with a rigorous Marshallian microeconomics. In microeconomics, Samuelson extended the Marshallian analysis of partial equilibrium with strong mathematical articulation of demand and supply curves, cost curves and deadweight loss. On the abstract level, together with Abram Bergson, he constructed social welfare functions based on three marginal conditions and extracted from earlier work of Kaldor-Hicks-Scitovsky analysis (link). In macroeconomics, Samuelson further affirmed the dominance of Keynesian macroeconomics with a strong emphasis on the role of fiscal policy in stimulating full-employment output. In addition, he invented the term multiplier and the acceleration, the former relating to the effect of change in exogenous macro variables on endogenous variable (notably, output) and the latter referring to the partial adjustment of aggregate investment to the capital stock. Samuelson-Hansen multiplier-accelerator principles spurred the theoretical foundations of Keynesian economic policy. He also popularized Overlapping Generations Model which later became the corner stone of innovations in the modeling of aging population. In macroeconomics, Samuelson also proposed the so-called "Samuelson-Mishi condition for the efficient provision of public goods. When the condition is satisfied, it implies that further substitution of private goods provision for public goods will result in a diminishing social utility.

Assuming Pareto efficiency, Samuelson-Mishi condition satisfied the criteria for Lindahl equlibrium. The equilibrium states that when individuals are willing to pay for the provision of public goods according to marginal benefits, it will be Pareto efficient. However, such condition is not compatible with the incentive mechanism since it requires the complete knowledge of individual demand functions for particular public good which could result in the asymmetric distribution of benefits in response to relevation-principled taxation.

As a student of international economics, I came across the influential theoretical work of Paul Samuelson. Modern international economics is a combination of mathematical economics, advanced microeconomics, game theory and international finance. One of the most interesting and penetrating areas of international economics are theorems in international trade. Under particular assumptions theorem postulate axiomatic explanations based on previous statements. Back in 1941, he proposed Stolper-Samuelson theorem together with Wolfgang Stolper. The theorem quickly became a source of academic debate. In its simplest form, the theorem states the following: assuming constant returns to scale and perfect competition, a rise in the relative price of good will lead to higher return on the factor which is used more intensively in the production of the good and to the fall in the return to the other factor. Stolper and Samuelson wrote:

"Second only in political appeal to the argument that tariffs increase employment is the popular notion that the standard of living of the American worker must be protected against the ruinous competition of cheap foreign labor… In other words, whatever will happen to wages in wage good (labor intensive) industry will happen to labor as a whole. And this answer is independent of whether the wage good will be exported or imported."

The theorem showed that the international trade between two countries could lead to the opposition of international trade since the relative price of labor-abundant good in the high-wage country will be higher than the world price of that good, reflecting the relative abundance of capital or human capital. The theorem quickly became the main theoretical weapon of opponents to free trade. Even today, Stolper-Samuelson is the best explanation of why labor unions in high-wage countries oppose free trade agreements and further economic integration with low-wage countries.

Another important contribution of professor Samuelson is the so called Ballasa-Samuelson effect which states that higher growth productivity growth rate in tradable goods relative to non-tradables will lead to the real exchange rate appreciation. Balassa-Samuelson effect also went through numerous time-series regression. The effect has been tested 60 times in 98 countries. Cross-section regression studies of Ballasa-Samuelson effect were analyzed in 142 countries. In a vast majority, the empirical evidence of Ballasa-Samuelson hypothesis was supported. The main empirical findings emphasize that productivity differential between tradeable and non-tradable sector is positively correlated with differences in relative prices. The empirical evidence also supported Samuelson's initial proposition that productivity differentials translate into higher purchasing power parity through real exchange rate appreciation.

In finance, Paul Samuelson penetrated the analytical aspects of lifetime portfolio selection. In 1972 he published The Mathematics of a Speculative Price which later became the ground of option pricing. Based on discoveries of Bachelier's pioneering work, he laid the foundations of stohastic price movements and random forecasting matches. His pioneering work in financial theory of speculation and random walk (stohastic) movements in stock prices became the underlying theoretical foundation in the emerging financial industry. In an article entitled Probability, Utility and the Independence Axiom (Econometrica, 1952), he discussed the role of probability models in measuring the overall utility. In this sense, he relied on Keynesian defence of subjective theory of probability and argued that thesubjective perception of probability does not inhibit the proper functioning of financial markets. In 1965, he published A Proof that Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly where he provided the foundation of the efficient market hypothesis that has been further developed by Eugene Fama and other scholars. For a detailed discussion of Paul Samuelson's contribution to financial economics, see Merton Miller's contribution in Britannica (link).

In addition to his theoretical and empirical work, he is the founding member of the Econometric Society and its president in 1951. In 1961, he was the president of American Economic Association. In the political sense, Paul A. Samuelson influenced the economic policy of the Kennedy Administration. In 1960, the U.S headed for the recession. President Kennedy, following Samuelson's advice, enacted tax cuts and a balanced budget. In 1964, when Kennedy tax cuts were enacted, top marginal tax rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent. The economic reasoning behind tax reductions was firmly laid in the Keynesian multiplier (1/(1+c)(1+t)). Paul Samuelson and Walter Heller (Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers during Kennedy Administration) argued that lower tax rate would stimulate consumption spending and boosted output and employment. Throughout the 1960s, the U.S economy experienced one of the longest periods of stable economic growth, favorable employment outlook and balanced federal budget. Here is how JFK, following Samuelson's advice, supported the tax reduction (link). Also, David Greenberg's article on Kennedy tax reduction is a worthy source of further information on that topic (link).

On Sunday, the economic titan passed away. He not only revolutionized the field of economic science but also spurred the interest for economics and popularized it in a manner that turned dismal science into a problem-solving science based on theoretical foundations and empirical verification of theoretical postulates. His approach to economic analysis combined Marshallian microeconomics and Keynesian macroeconomics which he joined together after the WW2 in a Neoclassical synthesis. Compared to other economic thinkers, he knew how to formulate theoretical postulates in a manner that stimulates the research interest for further investigation.

He will be missed and remembered as the giant of the economic thought and a titan of economic theory.

MACROECONOMICS READING CLUB

For those of you who study macroeconomics and finance, here are some interesting articles on macroeconomic issues:

Menzie Chinn, The Employment Situation in the Graphs, Econobrowser, December 4, 2009 (link)

Menzie Chinn, Debt and Interest Rates; Some Empirical Evidence, November 23, 2009 (link)

Olivier Blanchard, Marianna Riggi, The Price of Oil and the Macroeconomy, Vox, December 7, 2009 (link)

Roel Beetsma, Massimo Guliodori, The Macroeconomic Costs and Benefits of the Economic and Monetary Union, Vox, November 27, 2009 (link)

THE CASE FOR CARBON TAX

Ted Gayer of the Brookings Institution testified before the U.S Senate, discussing the economic benefits of carbon tax over cap-and-trade (link)

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY AND THE RECESSION

New York Times published an interesting geographic map of the recession in the U.S (link)

AUSTRALIA'S INFLATION, RECOVERY AND INTEREST RATE

Reserve Bank of Australia decided to continue the increase in benchmark interest rates by 25 basis points to 3.75 percent in the light of short-term inflationary expectations (link). Here (link) is a brief macroeconomic outlook of Australia.

DEFLATION - JAPAN'S FIRST BIG "D"

The Economist discussed the return of deflation in Japan (link). Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan has published an interesting publication of macroeconomic overview of the Japanese economy (link).

LIBERALISM vs. SOCIALISM

Today's Hardtalk on BBC World News (link) discussed the political, economic and social aspects of communism versus liberal capitalism with Slavoj Zizek ,a philosopher and professor at European Graduate School.

Mr. Zizek discussed the role of liberal capitalism in the modern age. He condemned communism as a failure of the mankind and reaffirmed the liberal capitalism as the greatest invention of the mankind. The topic discussed was the future of liberal capitalism. In arguable words of Mr. Zizek, liberal capitalism, although dynamic and powerful in delivering ends of political and economic freedom, is doomed to fail and it thus requires new politico-economic alternative, divisible at the intersection of market and the state. Despite the interactive debate, I would like to add some points to the discussion which were, in my opinion, either mismatched or misinterpretated.

The evolution of liberal capitalism throughout the course of human history has been emphasized by the expansion of economic, political and human freedom. The greatest inventions in human history were not conducted under dictatorial political regimes. But they were conducted during the age of limited government and free innovation environment. Anytime the powerful wit of government was enforced, innovation and discoveries suffered. Although Mr. Zizek recognizes the failure of totalitarian regimes to stimulate intellectual creativity, his analysis of liberal capitalism inherently neglects its role.

The ability of individuals and firms to pursue their own goals in liberal capitalism is enabled not because of the design of desirable goals but because the free-market capitalism evolved as an undesigned system of ideas under strong rule of law. If liberal capitalism, as Mr. Zizek argues, would be doomed to fail, the individuals never witnessed an unparalleled increase in prosperity and in the 20th and 21st century.

What has distinguished communist political regimes from liberal democracies are the institutions of economic freedom. There is a clear and remarkably positive empirical relationship between economic freedom and standard of living. The experience has shown that political liberty is a neccesary but not sufficient condition for prosperity. Both, the neccesary and sufficient condition for the pursuit of prosperity is economic freedom. Without economic freedom, when governments replace the rule of law with the rule of man, and heavily interfere with free-enterprise activity, these countries are doomed to stagnate. Totalitarian political ideology, claiming to create heaven on earth, has always turned towards the hell on earth.

During the interview, Mr. Zizek argued several times that liberal capitalism can eat itself and fail in a similar vain as communism did. The Soviet Union and the communist block certainly hadn't failed because of the lack of technological investment, but because communist political ideology erased the system of incentives. Even today, when several politically totalitarian countries sustained high growth rates, the superiority of liberal capitalism is even more obvious. The motion behind the economic miracle of Gulf countries, such as UAE, Bahrain and Qatar, is the institutional arrangement that promotes solid economic performance under robust system of law, market economy and incentives that allocate scarce resources into the most appropriate uses. In the interview, Mr. Zizek described Dubai's miserable labor conditions as "labor concentration camps" where workers from other countries reside. Although this view sounds very compelling to Marxist philosophers and political thinkers, no government agency forced foreign workers to go to Dubai and work there.

In fact, the economy of United Arab Emirates went through a remarkable restructuring with the creation of the robust financial and service sectors. As productivity growth and capital investment soared in recent decade, wage rates in Dubai are much higher than in other Arab countries. Still in doubt? Ask foreign workers in Dubai how many of them would leave the place and returned to work in their home countries; and why they don't do that. In addition, in Mr. Zizek's home country, labor conditions for foreign physical workers mostly from ex-Yugoslavia are not the envy of the world despite the most regulated labor market in the world.

There is also a wide array of case studies from recent economic history that show how economic freedom crucially determines the wealth of nations. In 1955, Hong Kong was a miserable place flooded with refugees from the mainland China. In 1960, Hong Kong's average income per capita was 28 percent of that in Great Britain. In 1996, it rose to 137 percent of that in Britain. Neither the dictatorial political regimes led to the economic boom in Hong Kong, nor the desire to create heaven on earth. It was a set of strong rule of law of British origin, limited government spending and free markets that propelled Hong Kong to the climb up the ladder.

Mr Zizek arguably enforced the proposition that global financial crisis led to the crisis of liberal capitalism. Although the global financial crisis led to the recession, high unemployment and deflating prices, it certainly has not put the existence of liberal capitalism into doubts.

The origins of the last year's financial crisis go back to the New Deal and presidential time of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton whose administrations, as benevolent social engineers, enforced numerous acts to boost home ownership. Back in 1996, president Clinton signed Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to allocate housing borrowings to low-income neighborhoods. In the aftermath, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securitized risky sub-prime mortgage loans to save banks from default. Meanwhile, they inflated debt-to-equity ratio to 60:1. It means that for deposit of USD, there were 60 USD behind in debt that nobody was willing to bear.

In addition, the monetary policy of the Greenspan era kept low interest rates for too long which causeed an asset bubble and led to the decrease of mortgage values It led to the federal bailout of Bear Sternes and the failure of Lehman Brothers. It also triggered innumerable quests for federal bailout of financial institutions. Thus, it would be foolish to speak about the crisis of liberal capitalism after the financial meltdown. Is liberal capitalism to blame? Of course not. It is rather the greedy political apetite for destructive policies that compromised the stability of the world economy for the sake of short-term political goals.

Mr. Zizek wisely avoided the question of the post-communist politico-economic status of Slovenia after the collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia. True, Slovenia's superior economic performance in Yugoslavia was mainly due to its export orientation and higher growth compared to the rest of Yugoslavia. At the beginning of the independence in 1991, Slovenia was, by all measures, the most developed former communist country; far ahead of countries such as Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia. Today, Czech Republic virtually caught-up Slovenia's level of standard of living. In 2008, Czech Republic's GDP per capita was 94 percent of that in Slovenia. In 1991, it was merely of 60 percent of that in Slovenia. The politicians, of the same "market socialist" politico-economic beliefs as Mr. Zizek, designed the statist economic policy based on high tax rates, state-owned enterprises, weak rule of law and rigid market structures. Today, Slovenia's economic and political system more closely resembles Russia's mafia state than a liberal society based on economic freedom, rule of law and limited government. In a great part, thanks to the political ideology of "market socialism."

NEW EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTS OF FISCAL POLICY

From Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna (link):

"We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy, both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments, those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with simple regression analysis"

FISCAL POLICY AND DEFICIT BOMB

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director, discussed the negative effects of the new fiscal policy in the U.S (link).

CHINA'S CURRENCY POLICY AND YUAN REVALUATION

The Economist published a thorough discussion (link) of China's currency policy and reasons why yuan is unlikely to revaluate any soon.