Why the global recovery is so slow

By Edward Hadas
August 6, 2014

By Edward Hadas

The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The International Monetary Fund recently engaged in what has become an annual ritual. For the fourth year in a row, it reduced its forecast for world GDP growth. The 0.7 percentage point average decline from the earlier estimate to the new 3.4 percent growth projection is not huge, but the persistent disappointments make many economists uneasy.

Larry Summers has an explanation for the problem in rich countries, which he calls secular stagnation. The former U.S. treasury secretary’s argument has several strands, but his main thesis is that investment has been too low for almost two decades because prevailing interest rates have been too high and because politicians have not permitted sufficiently large government deficits. Controversially, he suggests that growth has been painfully slow whenever financial bubbles are lacking, as in the years since the 2008 crisis.

Summers’ complaints about monetary and fiscal policy seem excessive. Before the crisis, central banks were widely praised for generating steady, non-inflationary growth around the world. That does not make them sound too tough. And the fiscal deficits since the crisis in many developed countries have been the largest ever in peacetime as a share of GDP. That hardly sounds inadequate.

A more plausible financial explanation for the disappointing global recovery starts with balance sheets that have been distorted by more than two decades of increasing borrowing. Many households, companies and governments have been left under financial pressure. Their spending is likely to be restrained without a massive reduction in debt – whether through write-offs, repayments using newly created money, or inflationary erosion.

In any case, whether or not Summers is right about monetary and fiscal policy, the debate can overshadow the main source of the post-crisis GDP growth slowdown: the durable decline of good jobs.

The loss is not captured fully in measured unemployment rates, although those rose dramatically after the financial collapse, for example from 6.8 percent to 10.9 percent in the euro zone. There are also too many people who left the labour market unwillingly or who are unhappily stuck in part-time or low-paid jobs. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics counts 5.9 percent of the working-age population as “marginally attached to the labour force” and “employed part-time for economic reasons”. The real number of discouraged workers is probably much higher.

These trends hold down incomes and GDP. For the whole economy, which includes labour as well as production, the degradation of workers’ skills and dignity does more damage than the meagreness of the GDP recovery.

The secular stagnation theory’s explanation of inadequate job creation by inadequate investment looks backwards. It is more likely that the inadequate spending power of underemployed workers leads to caution on capital investment, whatever the interest rate.

Indeed, the biggest problem with labour markets has little to do with finance and much with the asymmetry of job creation and destruction. It is easy to destroy or devalue jobs, through new technology and efficiency drives. It is hard to create good new jobs, especially in bureaucratic developed economies which already meet so many needs and desires.

This asymmetry has been a threat in many places for generations, but governments and business leaders used to fight hard to mitigate it, through the creation of what Germans eventually called the social market model.

The model had a simple goal – to make the economy work for society. To achieve that, wages were generally kept fair and time spent in the workforce declined as industrial productivity increased. Government job-creating programmes helped keep unemployment under control. And laws and the social consensus supported the development of such labour-intensive industries as tourism and healthcare.

Unfortunately, the system became calcified by the 1980s, especially in Europe. Jobs became so safe and so expensive to employers that hiring became a major gamble, while workforce reductions became highly profitable. In addition, politicians and business leaders started to pay less attention to the social challenges of unemployment and underemployment.

The financial crisis showed the painful results of the combination of excessively restrictive laws and official neglect. In both the United States and Europe, companies and governments were quick to lay off workers and to use part-time work and outsourcing to cut pay. However, employers were, and remain, reluctant to hire.

While unemployment rates are now falling, much more can be done. A term like secular stagnation gives the wrong impression. Slowing population growth is a secular trend. Excessive unemployment is largely the result of poor policy choices.

The social market model could work again. The mostly successful German labour reforms of the last decade provide some hints of how to proceed. The list of helpful changes includes reduced taxes on labour, increased government subsidies for hiring, big infrastructure programmes and financial restructuring to take away the inhibitions created by excessive debts.

Such efforts would lead to faster GDP growth, but that should not be the prime goal. The fight against labour asymmetry should be at the centre of economic policy simply because the loss of good jobs does more harm than the loss of a few percentage points of GDP. And right now, governments are losing that fight.

3 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

The problem is that for the past few decades we have not been investing in the future. For example, we have not been investing in our infrastructure, which is in desperate need of upgrading, repairing and expanding. Our R&D has been focused on the short term and not on making discoveries in basic science. Instead of investing in new businesses we have been taking equity out of our houses and buying playthings. Instead of having our best and brightest working in our R&D facilities, in our medical centers and on our manufacturing floors, they have become wall street lawyers and MBA’s working on how to divide the pie in favor of them and their clients instead of making the pie larger.

Posted by Leftcoastrocky | Report as abusive

According to OppenheimerFunds, the U.S. deficit is rapidly shrinking and our debt is stabilizing.

Posted by Leftcoastrocky | Report as abusive

fangruida : the technological revolution, the information revolution, the gene revolution, the revolution of the universe, is the most important development in world history, after the world economic crisis of the global financial crisis later, is slowly recovering. According to UN statistics, the global economic recovery after the hair has a tendency, particularly important is the investment incentives, infrastructure, trillions of dollars. Whether developed or BRIC countries, strong global investment. 4% -5% of the world, Europe 2-3% estimate may fluctuate. Around China and other 7%, investment incentives is very important, essential, but not too much reliance on its pull push. The key technological revolution, economic restructuring and innovation, otherwise, the side effects will gradually expand. I read about the UN’s statistical reporting figures, in 2050 the world’s population urbanization rate will pick up 5-6 million, which is very remarkable data. Therefore, the technological revolution, the information revolution, the gene revolution is particularly important. Europe, the United States and Russia, many countries have to develop a medium to develop space technology, aerospace technology, the Moon, Mars landing expedition program planning, etc., worthy of attention. Regardless of economic or strategic competition, pre-empted thing. The key technology is a competitive economy and millions of technical talent and technology experts. Post-World War II atomic bomb the United States and the Soviet-German missile technology competition for talent is an example. The modern era, after World War II, and a station is very different, there is no strong technical support is difficult to meet all kinds of competition and challenges. (fangruida talk)

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive