Tax and spending cuts help economies more than Keynesian “stimulus”

The fight between Keynesians and free-marketers over the best way to handle the economy in a recession is decades old. Keynesians say that government spending will drive demand, thus stimulating the economy while also creating large deficits.

Alberto Alesina, an economics professor at Harvard, writes at the Wall Street Journal that the empirical evidence shows that cuts in government spending and tax rates are what boosts an economy (not Keynesian economics) by analyzing 200 fiscal adjustments in 21 countries over the last 40 years:

Politicians argue for increased stimulus spending, as opposed to spending cuts, on the grounds that it would speed up economic recovery. This argument might have it exactly backward. Indeed, history shows that cutting spending in order to reduce deficits may be the key to promoting economic recovery.

In Europe today, the risk of a renewed recession comes not from the spending cuts that some governments have enacted, but from a sovereign debt overhang and multiple bank failures. July’s stress tests were not reassuring because they didn’t test the exposure of European banks to sovereign debt; had they done so, many banks would have failed. Those banks remain a threat to the European economy.

In the U.S., meanwhile, recent stimulus packages have proven that the “multiplier”—the effect on GDP per one dollar of increased government spending—is small. Stimulus spending also means that tax increases are coming in the future; such increases will further threaten economic growth.

Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary.

My colleague Silvia Ardagna and I recently co-authored a paper examining this pattern, as have many studies over the past 20 years. Our paper looks at the 107 large fiscal adjustments—defined as a cyclically adjusted deficit reduction of at least 1.5% in one year—that took place in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007.
[…]
Our results were striking: Over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax increases. And these results would have been even stronger had our definition of an expansionary period been more lenient (extending, for example, to the top 50% of the OECD). In addition, adjustments based on spending cuts were accompanied by longer-lasting reductions in ratios of debt to GDP.

n the same paper we also examined years of large fiscal expansions, defined as increases in the cyclically adjusted deficit by at least 1.5% of GDP. Over 91 such cases, we found that tax cuts were much more expansionary than spending increases.

How can spending cuts be expansionary? First, they signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people’s behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time.

On the other hand, fiscal adjustments based on tax increases reduce consumers’ disposable income and reduce incentives for productivity.

In the same paper we also examined years of large fiscal expansions, defined as increases in the cyclically adjusted deficit by at least 1.5% of GDP. Over 91 such cases, we found that tax cuts were much more expansionary than spending increases.

How can spending cuts be expansionary? First, they signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people’s behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time.

On the other hand, fiscal adjustments based on tax increases reduce consumers’ disposable income and reduce incentives for productivity.

As I’ve pointed out before, the tax cut angle is one that Christina Romer wrote about, saying that tax cuts “have very large and persistent positive output effects.” For all of the arguments about spending to get us out of a recession, the Summer of Recovery, preceded by the last 18 months or so, has proven the Keynesians wrong.

Failing to cuts taxes and spending in the midst of tough economic times is just going to make Americans struggle more and continue to hammer that home.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.