Postwar Macroeconomics: the Evolution of Events and Ideas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: The American Economy in Transition Volume Author/Editor: Martin Feldstein, ed. Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-24082-7 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/feld80-1 Publication Date: 1980 Chapter Title: Postwar Macroeconomics: The Evolution of Events and Ideas Chapter Author: Robert J. Gordon, Arthur M. Okun Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11296 Chapter pages in book: (p. 101 - 182) 2 Postwar Macroeconomics: The Evolution of Events and Ideas 1. Robert J. Gordon 2. Arthur M. Okun 3. Herbert Stein 1. Robert J. Gordon Experience, some people say, is like a light on a caboose, illuminating only where we aren't going. But we scrutinize the past for its elements of prologue, and consolation. [George F. Will, 1979] 2.1 Introduction The main issues in current discussions of macroeconomic theory and policy are very different from those of the late 1940s. Most shifts in economic opinion can be traced to the impact of changing events on ideas. For example, in some cases the evolution of the economic aggre- gates helped to decide a debate between schools of thought. In other cases events occurred that could not be understood within the context of existing paradigms and required the invention of new explanations. The most useful framework for an analysis of postwar changes in macroeconomics is the familiar m/croeconomic dichotomy between de- mand and supply. Most questions in macroeconomics can be usefully divided between issues concerning (a) the determinants and control of aggregate demand and (b) those concerning aggregate supply, that is, Robert J. Gordon is professor of economics at Northwestern University. This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation and is part of the NBER's research program in economic fluctuations. I am grateful to Jon Frye for research assistance, and to Martin N. Baily, Alan Blinder, Robert Eisner, Arthur M. Okun, Edmund S. Phelps, Joan Robinson, and Robert M. Solow for their helpful suggestions. Readers should note that the extensive references to "M2" in the text refer to the old definitions, not the new, more comprehensive definitions introduced in January 1980. 101 102 Robert J. Gordon/Arthur M. Okun/Herbert Stein the factors that influence the division of changes in aggregate demand between prices and real output. In the early postwar years macroeco- nomics was almost exclusively concerned with the explanation of aggre- gate demand within a Keynesian framework that emphasized the need for an activist fiscal policy to offset the instability of private spending. By the end of the 1970s concern with demand management had been pushed aside by two central supply issues—that of explaining and con- trolling inflation and that of determining the causes and cures of the secular slowdown in the growth of aggregate labor productivity that had occurred in the past decade.1 Until 1973 the central area of macroeconomic controversy was the determination and control of aggregate demand. Two main issues were the subject of debate: the relative potency of monetary and fiscal policy and the case for the activist use of discretionary policy as contrasted with a nonactivist policy stance relying on rules. Opinions on the first question shifted almost continuously, from the heavy emphasis on fiscal policy and low regard for monetary policy common in the late 1940s, to an intermediate view that incorporated both monetary and fiscal pol- icy in discussions of the late 1950s and early 1960s, to a common ten- dency after 1968 to doubt the potency of fiscal policy and assign a strong causal role for monetary changes as initiating fluctuations in aggregate demand growth. The debate between activists and nonactivists revolved around three further issues: differing beliefs in the inherent stability of private spend- ing, differing beliefs in the potency of price flexibility as an automatic self-correcting force to offset the impact of instability in spending, and differing degrees of trust or distrust in the feasibility of stabilizing gov- ernment policy actions. The fiscal-monetary and activist-nonactivist de- bates revolved around logically separate sets of issues. It would have been possible, for instance, to believe that monetary policy was potent and fiscal policy impotent to control aggregate demand, and yet still be in favor of activist monetary policy intervention. Nevertheless, Ameri- can economists tended to coalesce around either a fiscal-activist or mon- etary-nonactivist position, with the adjective "Keynesian" often applied to the first group and "monetarist" to the second. Because they tended to believe in the potency both of money's impact on spending and of price flexibility as an automatic stabilizing mechanism, monetarists tended to put more emphasis than Keynesians on variations in monetary growth as the most important cause of variations in the inflation rate, as summarized in Milton Friedman's famous dictum that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" (1963). During most of the period before 1973 the intellectual tide shifted in a monetarist direction, both toward a belief in the potency of money and in the defects of policy activism. But since 1973 the advent of supply shocks as a major destabilizing force has caused the monetarist 103 Postwar Macroeconomics: The Evolution of Events and Ideas tide to ebb. Supply shocks not only erode the case for the monetarist "rule" that money should grow at a constant rate, but they also open up a new role for fiscal policy in the form of cost-oriented changes in taxes and subsidies to counteract the effect of supply shocks on the overall price level. One element of the monetarist credo—distrust of government actions—remained strongly intact as the decade of the 1970s drew to a close, since the major impact of tax changes had thus far been to raise costs and prices and aggravate economic instability. A review of the interaction between macroeconomic events and ideas over the 1947-79 era can be organized either by topic or by chrono- logical period. This paper begins by comparing the behavior of impor- tant aggregate variables across four subperiods of the postwar era in order to identify the major changes that call for an explanation and that have been the source of changing ideas and doctrines. Subsequently the four subperiods (1947-57, 1957-67, 1967-73, and 1973-79) are ex- amined in more detail. For each interval we identify the economic ideas about which there was a consensus at the beginning of the period, then examine major economic events and trace the impact of unexpected changes on the evolution of theory, policy, and private behavior. We regularly take advantage of historical hindsight by forming judgments on policy mistakes and the desirability of alternative policy actions. 2.2 Essential Features of the Postwar Era The most important features of the postwar era are well known. In contrast to the century before World War II, the postwar economy has been characterized by much less instability in real output and unemploy- ment together with a tendency toward chronic and persistent inflation. The growth of aggregate demand has been both faster and more stable during the postwar years, with no instance after 1949 in which annual nominal GNP growth actually declined. On the supply side, the respon- siveness of prices to fluctuations in nominal GNP growth has gradually diminished (Cagan 1975), and price movements have more and more exhibited sluggish and inertia-dominated behavior that inhibits policy- makers from ending inflation through restrictive demand-management policies. Although the willingness of Americans to accept continuing inflation might seem astonishing to a visitor from earlier eras, the domi- nance of decentralized nonsynchronized wage-setting institutions has given households and firms every incentive to protect themselves against inflation rather than take unilateral action to stop inflation. 2.2.1 The Demand Side Major features of the postwar era can be traced with the aid of table 2.1, which compares growth rates and ratios of important economic aggregates across seven subperiods spanning the interval between 1923 VO l-H «O O t""j ^ ON i—c O fj 00 00 ON ON oo i—i O i—• >O ro <S c> r^ vovoo^"!—i vo Omvo O ^^ t^vo»—i oo oo ^5 fn 0*^ t*^ ^f ^* en ^^ m m o i^ c^ o oo rj o h ON vo-^-oo rt ""JO wi m N q ON t^ VO T-H SO >-»" t>-00ON00ON rr\ O IT) O V} *"^00 >^j W N O\ vo 0s! m m c^ ^* m ON VO m m co m ^^ fo c^ ON VO ^^ co oo co co ON ^O t*^ ^^* ^^i ^^ ^^ ON *O i—' CS CN T-H fS ON i^H i-H fS {S f^ O CN i—' M t-; ON O\ ^ 00 H a T? oovdo ON t"» & «—' ^ <au g p ON ON O 00 ON 00 rn ^H ro lo a* c> -H" ^H >• ON v" 4» T-H ^J1 Q 13 | "* ON ON i-( © co CM ON ON e §^ c a 6o o i> S S I 0 8 3 C -S •Si "M"S 9 g ..>.7 ^3 ZZ« 2 "u Z, O 3 C S« h <u o o ^ s C u -*J i—^ c^ Si S > 0 Q " • *** a D a CO © CO »-J Tf ON 00 CO Vt ON ON ON *•* ro <o i-H ON VO © VC T-I t~ w rl co as rf ON ON 00 d « © © -I W N H ON Tf I*; © rl r^ oo ON © C4 ^"i-5 ^ CS tS 00 q CO q t 00 3N r- VO © co v-i ON M3 ©' r-1vo c 00 »-i r-; vq i^ © •* ON (S 00 so q ON VO o oo O\ ON r4 ts ri © ON -H cvj oq ^ r~; -H 00 00 O 4) ^) 2 o n fl 106 Robert J.