MacroScope

New ethics standards for economists

It seems sensible for most professions but in economics it’s nothing short of a revolution: The 17,000-strong American Economics Association has adopted a stringent new code for disclosures meant to prevent or at least highlight possible conflicts of interest.

The unexpected move is the result of pressure on the profession about dubious ethical practices and a pay-to-play culture, including  a Reuters story that dug into conflicts relating to testimony on financial reform – and found that about one in three who addressed Congress on the subject of Dodd-Frank failed to come clean on some type of relevant financial interest. The issue of conflicts among academic economists was first brought to light by the movie Inside Job, in which former Fed governor Frederic Mishkin is questioned sharply about having been paid over $100,000 to write a glowing review of Iceland’s financial system not long before it imploded.

Here is what the new AEA code will require academics to do:

1) Every submitted article should state the sources of financial support for the particular research it describes. If none, that fact should be stated.

(2) Each author of a submitted article should identify each interested party from whom he or she has received significant financial support, summing to at least $10,000 in the past three years, in the form of consultant fees, retainers, grants and the like. The disclosure requirement also includes in-kind support, such as providing access to data. If the support in question comes with a non-disclosure obligation, that fact should be stated, along with as much information as the obligation permits. If there are no such sources of funds, that fact should be stated explicitly.  An “interested” party is any individual, group, or organization that has a financial, ideological, or political stake related to the article.

(3) Each author should disclose any paid or unpaid positions as officer, director, or board member of relevant non-profit advocacy organizations or profit-making entities. A “relevant” organization is one whose policy positions, goals, or financial interests relate to the article.

Economics, astrology and 2012 predictions

As the usual end-of-year predictions roll in, perhaps the safest bet was captured this tweet from Bajaji Sridharan:

Since everyone is making predictions for 2012, here’s my prediction — 90%+ of all the 2012 predictions will be wrong.

It was another way of expressing a sentiment eloquently phrased by the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith – and frequently quoted by Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher – on the commonalities between economics and the stars. Galbraith wrote:

Channeling Milton Friedman

Ask not what your monetary policy can do for you, but what you can do for your monetary policy. That’s the jist of a 1968 paper by Milton Friedman, the poster-child for monetarist economics, entitled “The Role of Monetary Policy,” whose key questions remain hotly debated more than four decades on. Friedman’s answer is simple (some might argue too simple), and all too familiar to those who read the speeches of present-day Federal Reserve hawks – focus on the only thing monetary policy can truly control, which in Frideman’s view is price stability.

By setting itself a steady course and keeping to it, the monetary authority could make a major contribution to promoting economic stability. By making that course one of steady but moderate growth in the quantity of money, it would make a major contribution to avoidance of either inflation or deflation of prices. […] That is the most that we can ask from monetary policy at our present stage of knowledge.

Friedman’s writing suggests he was not a big fan of the Fed’s own dual-mandate, introduced in 1978. Any effort to goose employment through a persistent period of low very low interest rates, Friedman argues, would likely lead to overshooting and inflation.

from Global Investing:

Can Eastern Europe “sweat” it?

Interesting to see that Poland wants to squeeze out more income from its state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector in the face of slowing economic growth and financing pressures.

Warsaw wants to double next year's dividends from stakes in firms ranging from copper mines to utility providers to banks.

Fellow euro zone aspirant Lithuania has also embarked on reforms aimed at increasing dividends sixfold from what UBS has dubbed "the forgotten side of the government balance sheet". It wants to emulate countries such as Sweden and Singapore where such companies are managed at arm's length from the state and run along strict corporate standards to consistently grow profits.

from Ian Bremmer:

The secret to China’s boom: state capitalism

By Ian Bremmer
The views expressed are his own.

One of the biggest changes we’ve seen in the world since the 2008 financial crisis can be summed up in one sentence: Security is no longer the primary driver of geopolitical developments; economics is. Think about this in terms of the United States and its shifting place as the superpower of the world. Since World War II, the U.S.’s highly developed Department of Defense has ensured the security of the country and indeed, much of the free world. The private sector was, well, the private sector. In a free market economy, companies manage their own affairs, perhaps with government regulation, but not with government direction. More than sixty years on, perhaps that’s why our military is the most technologically advanced in the world while our domestic economy fails to create enough jobs and opportunities for the U.S. population.

Contrast the U.S. and its free market economy with China’s system.  For years now, that country has experienced double digit growth. Many observers would say that China’s embrace of capitalism since 1978, and especially since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, has been responsible for its boom. They would be mostly wrong. In fact, a new study prepared for the U.S. government says it’s not capitalism that’s powering China, but state capitalism -- China’s massive, centrally directed industrial policy, where the government positions huge amounts of capital and labor in economic sectors it intends to nurture. The study, prepared by consultants Capital Trade for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, reads in part:

In a world in which central planning has been so utterly discredited, it would be natural to conclude that the Chinese government and, by extension, the Chinese Communist Party have been abandoning the institutions associated with the communist economic system, such as reliance on state‐owned enterprises (SOEs), as fast as possible. Such conclusion would be wrong.

Why this blog really is worthwhile

This blog may actually be worth the web page it is electronically printed on. A paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (not Dean Baker’s shop but the other CEPR, in London) discussed here at VoxEU by University of Bologna economist Paolo Manasse, finds that, at least for American economic thinkers, blogging yields high returns — even from an economists’ strictly utilitarian, efficiency-maximizing perspective.

In the U.S. the blogs of individual economists, often academics, significantly increase the visibility of scientific papers, the reputation of the authors, and affect the readers’ opinions – three good reasons to ‘waste’ time blogging.

Why then, Manasse wonders, have Italian economists not taken the lead of their American counterparts and started their own blogs? He thinks it has something to do with lower economic literacy and a less individualistic culture. Yet the urgency of economic matters in Italy and a strong presence of Italian journalists and economic pundits on Twitter suggests there is room for the emergence of more Italian economics blogs.

Fed’s 2013 low-rates window no cause for alarm: paper

When the Federal Reserve announced back in August that it expected to keep interest rates at very low levels until at least mid-2013, three top policymakers voted against the decision —  and a number of non-voting officials grumbled as well. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard is one prominent critic of the policy, arguing in a speech last month it ties the central bank down unnecessarily and potentially threatens its credibility if conditions require a course correction:

It is time for the Committee to discard one-time policy changes with fixed end dates. The Committee in the past never contemplated announcing several hundred basis point moves to be completed at a date certain. Yet that is how the Committee behaves today. Research indicates quite clearly that optimal monetary policy should continuously respond to ever-changing economic conditions.

Not to worry, argue two young economists in a paper on VoxEU. Olivier Coibion at William and Mary and Yuriy Gorodnichenko of Berkeley say the move toward using specific time horizons for the purpose of policy guidance is a perfectly consistent next step in the Fed’s gradual push toward greater transparency. They conclude opponents of the policy are misinterpreting its intention:

Will Fed policy go the Swedish route?

The Federal Reserve’s long-quiet doves are becoming increasingly louder about championing more aggressive forms of monetary easing, including possibly setting employment and inflation targets and/or engaging in another round of bond purchases. Most prominent among these have been Charles Evans, the Chicago Fed president who openly favors more transparent policy guidance and Eric Rosengren, who told CNBC on Wednesday a third round of monetary easing could be in store:

If the economy were to be weaker than most people are forecasting, that would certainly be cause for doing additional monetary policy.

Rosengren also said he favors more explicit policy targets, which could take a rather controversial form known as price-level targeting. Under this arrangement, the Fed would temporarily shoot for higher inflation to make up for the almost deflationary readings seen late last year, in an effort to boost investment, spending and hiring.

Being poor is no fun: study

Poor people have shorter life spans and more health problems than the wealthy. Surprising? For growth-obsessed economists, yes actually. A new study from The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development represents a worthy attempt to move economics away from its traditional tendency to equate growth with well being. Its rankings suggest factors other than the rate of gross domestic product expansion are important in determining quality of life.

But as often happen when economists look for a human angle in their research, they end up stating the glaringly obvious. Take this statement:

Some groups of the population, particularly less educated and low-income people, tend to fare systematically worse in all dimensions of well-being considered in this report. For instance they live shorter lives and report greater health problems; their children obtain worse school results; they participate less in political activities; they can rely on lower social networks in case of needs; they are more exposed to crime and pollution; they tend to be less satisfied with their life as a whole than more educated and higher-income people.

Macroeconomics deserves a prize?

Europe on the brink. United States risks double-dip recession. Financial turmoil threatens world economy. Not the sort of headlines you would associate with a Nobel-prize-winning contribution to the progress of humanity. To their credit, recipients Christopher Sims of Princeton and Thomas Sargent of New York University did develop methods and models that are wisely used by economists around the world, including central banks. But it’s unclear what practical applications their findings have for the world’s current economic predicament.

Alfred Nobel himself was not shy about hiding his disdain for the dismal science, which was not part of the original set of awards given in his name. The Nobel prize in economics came into existence in 1968, when Sweden’s central bank decided to create it in the dynamite tycoon’s honor. As German journalist Karen Ilse Horn writes (Thanks to @RecklessMonkeys for bringing the quote to our attention):

Economics was nothing Alfred Nobel appreciated as such, even though he was himself a pretty successful businessman. Rather to the contrary: ‘I have no training in economics myself and also hate it from the bottom of my heart,’ he wrote.