|
A Growth-Trend Conceptual Framework
For Empirical Analysis of Macroeconomic Performance
|
Contents
|
![]() |
The letter-designated aspects of this chart illustrate the following conceptual definitions.)
[A,B & C] are in "real" dollars of constant purchasing power (which exclude inflation effects), and are on a ratio scale -- where a straight line has a constant growth rate and equal vertical distances have equal percentage changes. [F,G & H] are % of CGDP. [E,R & Q] are growth rates. These are different essential ways of quantitatively analyzing and evaluating the basic GDP measure of economic performance.
[A] Capacity GDP (CGDP) -- also called Potential GDP or Full-Employment GDP. This is an estimate of the economy's optimum output with effective full employment of its labor force. See more on the conceptual definition and statistical estimation of Capacity GDP and Full Employment.
[B] Actual GDP (AGDP). This series is preferably smoothed to approximate the underlying trend.
[C] GDP Gap (CGDP - AGDP). The dollar amount of GDP lost from depression.
[D] Growth Rate Protractor. Used with a clear parallel-line overlay, this invaluable analytical tool makes it possible to measure the growth rate between any two points, or the trend growth rate during any particular period. [E] Actual Growth Rate (AGR) (right scale) -- preferably smoothed, to approximate the underlying current trend. Its two functional components are:
[G] OR Gap (100% minus OR). This corresponds to the unemployment rate -- according to the "Okun's Law" rule-of-thumb, a 1% change in unemployment rate corresponds to a 2 1/2 - 3% change in the OR Gap.
General Descriptive Terms
For Economic Performance
The growth-trend conceptual framework, as illustrated in the diagram makes it possible to give precise conceptual definitions and empirical dimensions to traditional business fluctuation terms. An diagram illustrating an analogy to a hole in a road on a hill may also prove helpful.
[H] Depression (below Capacity GDP) -- When actual GDP is depressed, and unemployment is correspondingly excessive. The severity and cost of depressions are precisely measured by the OR Gap (%) and GDP Gap ($ amount). (The traditional idea that a "depression" is a "severe recession" is too imprecise, both conceptually and empirically, for a real economic science!)
Since, in the past, the economy has sometimes gone for long
periods of more or less continuous fluctuation without ever
closely approaching Capacity GDP, it is also appropriate to think in
terms of several briefer but more severe depressions within a longer span of
sub-capacity OR -- like craters on the moon or potholes in a road -- as
illustrated in the
[J] Recession. The
Operating Rate is receding -- even if the GDP growth rate is above zero):
[K] Contraction -- as "officially"
designated by the
prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). This
refers generally to a period of absolute negative economic growth, as
distinguished from the relative decline of a growth-trend
recession. (For a discussion of other misleading analytical
implications of the "static" (absolute-based) NBER conceptual framework, see
"business cycle".
[L] Stagnation -- when there is no
significant change in the OR and the OR Gap. LH is high-level
stagnation, KL, low-level stagnation.
[M] Recovery -- an
increase in the Operating Rate (not just the growth rate).
Almost everybody today realizes that the Federal Reserve is able to, and
actually does, manage the economy's overall growth and unemployment rates with
a fair degree of precision. In that perspective, it is important to analyze
past and potential Recovery Growth Tracks [M,N,O,P], and to recognize explicitly that every
RGT has two distinct growth-rate components:
This requires a "soft-landing" (asymptotic) RGR -- initially fast,
when the economy has many unused resources, then gradually slowing as it
approaches Capacity GDP, to allow our free-market economy to make the
necessary structural readjustments and capital investments -- including labor
force (re)education and training -- that are needed to reach a full Capacity
OR. The growth-trend conceptual diagram illustrates
three types of RGR.
Past history suggests that in a typical recovery the fastest non-inflationary
RGT is produced by an RGR equal to approximately 1/2 of the OR Gap. For
example, if the OR Gap is about 12% (and the corresponding unemployment rate
about 7%), the optimum initial RGR would be about 6% and the initial
AGR about 8-9%.
However, if the recession-inducing inflation is caused by factors other than
"free-market" supply/demand relationships -- i.e., by monopolistic price
manipulations such as the OPEC cartel's 1970s "oil tax" price increases, or by
government taxes or regulations which directly impact business costs and/or
prices, the formula growth rate must also be accompanied by specific
government interventions to counteract these non-market (and "inflation
factors.
Moreover, sophisticated selection of the most appropriate specific formula
should take account of several key "environmental factors" which make it more
difficult for the Federal Reserve to quickly achieve a capacity OR without
inflation unless the Feds monetary policy is accompanied by coordinated
assistance from other government policies:
Duration of preceding depression. The longer the
preceding depression (regardless of its depth), the more damage
it will have done to the economy's basic productive capacity -
- its physical buildings and equipment, properly skilled labor
force at appropriate locations, experienced and well-organized management,
actual application of available new technology, etc. -- and the longer it will
take to achieve the necessary rebuilding and structural readjustments.
Preceding inflation experience and "inflation expectations." The two
bouts of world-wide inflation after the OPEC cartel quadrupled oil prices in
1973-74 and levied another huge "oil tax" in 1979-80 caused a severe inflation
phobia. In this environment, economically appropriate rapid growth tends to
be considered inflationary and causes central bankers to place highest policy
priority on preventing inflation, while everyone else (particularly
bondholders) try to make sure that theirincomes stay ahead of
anticipated inflation.
Political environment. In a political environment dominated by
free-market laissez-faire philosophy, where the inherent cyclical
tendencies of capitalist economy (including "boom" financial excesses
during recovery) are allowed to play out unmitigated by government
intervention, achieving a full-employment OR without inflation is very
difficult. It is easier where government accepts responsibility for managing
the economy for that objective.
For example, in 1940, after 10 years of the 1930s Great Depression, with 25%
unemployment in 1933, many economists despairing of ever again reaching
1929's 3% unemployment rate because workers had "lost their job skills and
work discipline". But after Hitler's invasion of Europe in May 1940, the
political environment became strikingly different as America began rearming
for our active participation in World War II. When the government put maximum
output ahead of ideology and systematically coordinated all available economic
policies, GDP shot up far above its long-run capacity growth-trend, and
unemployment plummeted from 15% in 1940 to below 2% in 1943. Formerly
unemployed Southern sharecroppers, housewives and even "disabled" people
suddenly became skilled workers in Detroit and California airplane factories.
All with quite limited inflation! Nowhere was the old adage more relevant:
"Where there's a will there's a way"!
Public confidence (business and consumer). The investment
decisions which are so vital to economic recovery and which usually involve
borrowing, whether by businesses for plant and equipment or by
households for houses and cars, are best made with a relatively long economic
time-horizon. Their volume will be greater and earlier when people have
confidence in their economic future.
Thus, the optimum soft-landing recovery formula at any
particular time depends very much on the degree to which the
federal government explicitly accepts responsibility for
managing the economy, has credible policy tools for doing
so, and systematically coordinates them so as to promote balanced growth and
optimum output -- including responsible use of all potentially available anti-inflation policy tools.
"Capacity GDP" and "potential GDP" are often used synonymously. But
"capacity" has the advantage that it is also used in the same sense for
individual manufacturing plants and industries, where it is the denominator of
the key analytical ratio, "capacity utilization rate," (often shortened to
"operating rate," as it is in this conceptual diagram [F]).
And just as Manufacturing plants often operate above 100% of their normal
"rated" capacity for brief periods by postponing maintenance, working extra
shifts or using high-cost "reserve" equipment, Actual GDP usually exceeds 100%
of normal capacity during wartime. Thus, it is useful to reserve the term
"potential GDP" for that higher limit.
"Full-Employment," like "Capacity GDP," can best be defined in
practical but explicit terms: an economic environment in which
everyone who needs and wants to work for pay can with reasonable effort and
minimum seek-time find a job which reasonably fits his/her education and
skills, and pays a corresponding income.
(The liberal explicit proviso of "a living wage" for even the lowest-wage
workers is probably unnecessary because a sustained economic environment of
stable full-employment growth can only be achieved by a systematically
coordinated package of economic policies which also maintains a sustainable
structural economic balance, and such a proviso is impossible
to define explicitly because in practice it depends on the number of workers
and dependents in a household and how efficiently their income is spent.)
In a dynamic, flexible economy like ours, some workers will be always be
"between jobs," even in a generally full-employment environment.
But extended involuntary unemployment is one of the greatest affronts to
individual human dignity, family values and youth welfare. In an effective
democracy, people should be not forced into long periods of unemployment or
involuntary early retirement by mismanaged economic policy. Moreover,
experience around the world continues to demonstrate that high unemployment is
a major threat to social and political stability, fiscal solvency, and social
insurance programs.
Labor market effects. The other side of the full-employment coin, of
course, is that some employers, in some locations or industries will, have
difficulty finding additional employees with the optimum experience and skills
they want at the wage or salary they would prefer to pay. Thus, there will be
continuous incentive for both employers and governments to assist workers in
obtaining the education and skills they need for optimum participation in the
economy, and to develop a more efficient "labor market" for matching workers
and jobs.
"The inflation threat." ........(incomplete)
The conceptually and morally malignant concept of a "natural" unemployment rate. After 10 years of the 1930s Great Depression, many economists
despaired of ever regaining full employment. Similarly, after 30 years of
seemingly intractable inflation (due only partly to OPEC's 1973 and 1979 "oil
tax" increases), many economists despaired of ever again achieving full
employment without inflation. They argued that there was a "natural" rate of
unemployment that is consistent with stable prices (the Phillips-Curve-based
NAIRU -- non-Accelerating-Inflation rate of Unemployment) and called the
resulting output "Full Employment GDP." But just as the depression-era
pessimism was discredited by WW II experience, the inflation-era pessimism was
discredited by the joint reduction of both unemployment and inflation during
1992-97. Neither is any more "natural" than high rates of poverty and
economic inequality, political corruption, polluted rivers and oceans,
depleted fish stocks and poorly-educated labor force; all are the results of
bad public policies which need to be changed.
For really scientific analysis of economic growth and
fluctuations, statistical estimates of Capacity GDP must
be based the economy's two basic functional components,
labor force and productivity (GDP per hour of
work).
Making a credible estimate of the long-run trend of Capacity
GDP is much more difficult during a long period of depressed
operating rates. But credible estimates both the labor force
and productivity components can be made by adjusting the actual
current values for the effects of sub-capacity operating rates.
And since the U.S. economy is nearer to real full employment in
mid-1997 than at any time since 1969, it is extremely important
that this year be used as a benchmark for making new estimates
of the long-run trend of Capacity GDP.
Erratic reported GDP growth rates which fluctuate wildly from 6% to 1% to 4
1/2% in successive quarters are analytically confusing and make it difficult
to formulate sound economic policy. There are several ways to reduce this
statistical "noise."
By better Fed monetary Policy. Part of this "noise" is due to
imprecise Fed monetary policy. In the context of more systematic coordination
of all available <> economic policy tools, the Federal Reserve could
significantly stabilize actual GDP growth by more precisely monitoring
the basic trend of the economy's <> Money Demand Ratio (M1/GDP) and
managing money growth accordingly.
But much of the apparent erratic performance is functionally unimportant
"statistical noise" which makes it difficult to determine the underlying
economic growth-trend. To provide financial markets, economic forecasters,
business planners and government policy makers with a more useful analytical
tool the Bureau of Economic Analysis should estimate and publish a "Trend
GDP" series which eliminates inventory fluctuations that don't correspond
with the basic trend of GDP growth, the effect of computerized seasonal
adjustment formulas which don't accurately reflect current "seasonal"
influences, and other such influences. This series would serve analytical
purposes similar to the Labor Department's "core" inflation series that
excludes volatile food and energy prices
Inventory fluctuations. When the growth rate of final demand falls
abruptly (often due mainly to imprecise money-growth policy), inventory in the
production and distribution "pipeline," which tends to be geared to the
previous rate of final demand, tends to back up -- particularly in terms of
closely-watched inventory/sales RATIOS. This causes business firms to cut
back production rates, which leaves pipeline inventory inadequate for the next
spurt of final demand.
Focusing on Final Sales rather than total GDP, and using an
average of GDP and final sales are sometimes useful for estimating the
underlying growth-trend. But both are inadequate because official Final Sales
data are also adversely affected by transitory factors such as automobile
price "rebates," other business "promotions" and weather factors. To the
extent that consumer purchases of cars and other major durables are basically
limited by current income and the current burden of instalment debt
repayments, the effect of special sales promotions is mainly to borrow from
future sales. So, data on consumer spending minus increase in instalment
debt increase is also highly useful analytically.
But a more sophisticated approach is to recognize that business inventory
fluctuations are strongly influenced by corresponding fluctuations in
consumer inventories, which in turn are closely related to fluctuations
in consumer instalment borrowing. The basic trend of consumer durable goods
inventory stocks can be derived from the Bureau of Economic Analysis Wealth
Data Tape and related to consumer spending, income and instalment borrowing,
as basis for adjusting GDP.
Poor seasonal adjustments. This is a major cause of
statistical noise when actual "seasonal" factors, particularly
weather, do not correspond with the historical-based averages.
With the power of modern computers it should be possible to
take specific account of the effects of "unseasonal" events
(heat and cold waves, rainfall, floods, changes in auto model
changeovers, number of days and holidays in a survey period
etc.) which have significant effect on economic activity. A
major cause of bad GDP seasonal adjustments GDP in the 1970s
was the fact that the OPEC "oil tax" caused huge changes in
economic patterns, while the BEA continued to use a historical-
based computer adjustments. Appropriate "seasonal" adjustments
should take account of all the known factors causing deviations
from the current basic trend of the data.
Although popularly called "recessions" NBER-designated "contractions" should
actually be considered severe recessions because a year of even zero
AGR tends to cause about 1% more unemployment, as well as more than 2 1/2%
loss of GDP, and over $70 billion increase in federal deficit.
Many years ago, when the NBER realized the problem caused by this popular
mis-designation, they started using the term "growth recession" for a decline
in the AGR. But since a "soft-landing" (asymptotic) decline in the AGR is
actually beneficial during an optimum recovery
the "growth recession" concept also tended to give an analytically wrong
impression and wasn't very useful.
Another misconception stemming from the NBER "static" (absolute-base)
"business cycle" conceptual framework is the purported "lead" of the so-called
"Leading Indicators", which is largely conceptual rather than economically functional. Since a growth-trend recession (negative RGR) necessarily precedes (leads) an NBER contraction
(negative AGR), and since most of the "leading" indicators are
functionally related to the AGR, the durations of their highly variable
"leads" depend mainly on the time-lag between the onset of a growth-trend
recession and an NBER contraction -- the longer this lag, the
longer the indicator "lead."
In the typical "cyclical" upturn, which tends to be relatively abrupt and
clearcut, the timing difference between the beginning of the growth-trend
recovery and the NBER-designated "expansion" is relatively
insignificant. However, since the basic concept of "business cycle" is a
myth, there have been several significant periods (1971, 1975-76, 1990-91)
when the economy had a relatively long period of continued growth-trend
recession or
The Unemployment/growth-rate/inflation relationship. For effective
empirical research on this relationship it is important to separate the RGR
from the CGR, and to focus on the interaction between the OR Gap and the RGR.
This is a far more scientific and productive approach than the crude
Phillips-Curve/NAIRU approach, which relates inflation only to the
unemployment rate (which tends to lag the OR Gap by several months), and
ignores the functionally-crucial RGR. Moreover, it is only the RGR component
which can be managed effectively by Federal Reserve monetary policy.
Achieving the fastest non-inflationary recovery
Conceptual Problems with the NBER "Business Cycle" Model
Last revised: April 30, 1998
To IEA home page
http://www.iea-macro-economics.org