(Version in Español)
The austerity vs. growth debate has raged in recent months, pitting those who argue that fiscal policy should be tightened more aggressively now to bring down high levels of debt, even though economic growth remains weak, against those who want to postpone the adjustment to better times. This is a critical issue for policymakers, perhaps the most important one in the short run.
This is bad for two reasons:
- The debate is driven, to some degree, by ideology and is therefore more focused on the relatively limited areas of disagreement than on the far broader areas of agreement. Most economists would agree that fiscal consolidation is needed in advanced economies, and that the average annual pace of adjustment during 2011-12―about 1 percentage point―is neither too aggressive nor excessively slow. Most economists would also agree that countries under pressure from markets have to adjust at a faster pace, while those that do not face such constraints have more time. Of course, there is disagreement on some aspects of the fiscal strategy, but it relates to specific country cases.
- The debate is detracting attention from policy issues that may seem less urgent, but which are nevertheless critical in the medium term. I am referring to what I would call the institutional gaps in fiscal policymaking that still exist in most advanced and emerging economies. These gaps have contributed to a bias in the conduct of fiscal policy in favor of deficits that is behind many of the current problems.
Filed under: Advanced Economies, Economic Crisis, Economic outlook, Economic research, Emerging Markets, Employment, Europe, Finance, Fiscal policy, Globalization, growth, Inequality, International Monetary Fund, Investment, Politics, Public debt | Tagged: aging, Bretton Woods system, budgets, Carlo Cottarelli, data, Eric Leeper, fiscal, GDP, governance, Greece, health, Iceland, iMFdirect blog, information, Ireland, Italy, Japan, pensions, Portugal, public debt, Second World War, Spain, statistics, Stockholm, Sweden, transparency, United Kingdom | 18 Comments »