Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Christina Romer: After A Financial Crisis, Economic Disaster Is Not Inevitable

These days, according to the conventional wisdom, financial crises almost inevitably lead to severe, prolonged economic downturns. Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, economists at Harvard, have come to this conclusion in recent research, and people tend to intuitively view financial shocks this way.

But none of this may actually be inevitable; instead, bad fiscal, monetary, and financial policy may be more to blame. That's the argument Christina Romer, the UC Berkeley economist and former CEA chair, made at a talk organized by the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy yesterday. You can watch the video here.

Romer based her argument partly on new research that she and her husband David Romer, also an economist at Berkeley, are conducting. (They haven't written the paper yet, so the research is preliminary.) They examined financial crises in 24 OECD countries between 1967 and 2007, and after controlling for a number of factors, they found that the typical financial crisis hurt economic growth much less than Reinhart and Rogoff found, with its effects vanishing after about two years and reducing real GDP by roughly 3 percent, as opposed to Reinhart and Rogoff's findings of 9.3 percent.

(Update (4/10): A technical note: Here, for this particular comparison, the Romers analyzed only "moderate" financial crises, where countries reached a financial stress level of 8 out of 16, while Reinhart and Rogoff's number is an average from their entire sample.)

She said that she and David Romer tried to identify and measure financial crises more precisely than the existing literature. They used a scale from 0 to 16 of financial stress and tried not to let the findings be biased by crises that are known to have been followed by severe recessions. She also said they tried to conduct a more precise empirical analysis that would not be biased by how the economy was already doing.

She argued that when financial crises were followed by prolonged economic weakness, it often was due to contractionary fiscal and/or monetary policy (such as in the case of the Great Depression), or due to continued financial stress (as in the case of Japan) -- not because of the original financial crisis.

"I think fiscal contraction is an important part of why the recovery in this particular episode has been so slow," she said. "It's not that financial crises always lead to large and long-lasting falls in output; rather, contractionary policy dealt a second serious negative shock to many economies just as they were starting to recover."

I'd highly recommend watching the whole video. You can watch it here:

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Here's Why You Shouldn't Take Any One Study Too Seriously

Journalists often write about new studies as if they definitively prove or disprove something, when the study may not actually be all that great, and there have often been a lot of previous studies on the same topic that get little or no mention at all, and which may have conflicting results. Also, when a new paper gets posted online, it usually hasn't been vetted by very many people in the profession yet. Here is one more reason why you usually shouldn't take too much stock in any one new paper, courtesy of the 4th-year economics PhD students at the University of Michigan.

Every year, the Michigan economics department holds a skit night, and in the latest skit night two weeks ago, a 4th-year PhD student (who requested to remain anonymous) presented a supposedly typical job market paper. Mind you, this is all exaggerated and meant to be a joke. But I hope it can also serve as a reminder of how some studies aren't always the most robust, and people shouldn't be in awe of a piece of research just because it has numbers and jargon in it. There are differences in quality in academic research, just as in any other profession, and it's important not to take any one piece of research at face value.

Without further ado, here is the presentation, entitled "Every JMP [Job Market Paper] Ever":

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Paul Krugman on Writing

Here is a very good passage from Pop Internationalism (1996) by Paul Krugman, which I think is a useful guide for any economist who wants to write for a popular audience (Click on the photo to read it more clearly):

He also offers this advice in his essay "Ricardo's Difficult Idea" (You can read his full explanation in the essay itself.):

1) "Take ignorance seriously."
2) "Adopt the stance of rebel."
3) "Don't take simple things for granted."
4) "Justify modeling."

I'm taking international trade theory this semester and learning a lot already. If you're interested in international trade, here are a few readings I recommend from the course syllabus:

International Economics: Theory and Policy, by Paul Krugman, Maurice Obstfeld, and Marc Melitz

"What Do Undergrads Need To Know About Trade?" by Paul Krugman (link here) (also in Pop Internationalism)

"Ricardo's Difficult Idea," by Paul Krugman (link here)

"Where Ricardo and Mill Rebut and Confirm Arguments of Mainstream Economists Supporting Globalization," by Paul Samuelson (2004) (link here)