Friday 5 July 2013

Transparency and Progress – No Easy Way Out

Olivér Kovács, Research Fellow, ICEG European Center  |

In economics, and maybe in all aspects of life, longer term tendencies can offer much more realistic picture about how phenomena happen than any short term and fresh data. Another equally important thumb rule is that building on easily observable, measurable and interpretable phenomena during any kind of analysis can result much precise knowledge. This is because we simply cannot always understand the ‘big picture’ comprehensively and precisely due to its complexity. We tend therefore to understand reality by investigating the microsphere and then approaching the macrosphere upon our obtained knowledge. As in physics, investigating elementary particles then drawing conclusions to the macro, (e.g. to the universe) is treated as an instructive direction of understanding the laws of nature that are not displayed in any code books like the code of Hammurabi or the Civil Codes in modern democracies. This holds in case of economic and societal ‘laws’ as well.

Again, this is mainly because of our limited rationality to understand the whole in its entirety by overcoming the world’s complexity and its nuances, especially that of today when the highly globalised world created an intensively integrated world interspersed with interconnectedness and mutual interdependence by making the system ever more complex to be reckoned with. This is why we often put our focus on certain smaller scale dimensions that can be relatively better articulated, understood and controlled based upon our knowledge unravelled from the microsphere and thus we can set objectives upon them to be pursued. For instance, the issue of increasing transparency is more or less something like this.

When it comes to development economics, there is no gainsaying the fact that studies are likely to regard transparency as one of the conditioning factors of development and sustained growth. There is a predilection to view transparency and fiscal transparency in particular as crucial element in this regard (i.e. Fiscal transparency is often defined as the comprehensiveness, clarity, reliability, timeliness, and relevance of public reporting on the past, present, and future state of public finances – which is vital to effective fiscal policymaking, See: IMF 2013).

Let us add immediately that after a certain level of transparency in the developed world, its importance is likely to become not so obvious. A more intriguing question will be that which countries’ economic policy engineering can keep abreast with time and thus can be more conducive to sustainable growth and development via proper actions. As in sports, we cannot claim with reasonable certainty that a 165 cm tall guy will be a salient basketball player compared to a 185 cm guy; however, after a certain level, we can stress that there is no empirical backing in favouring the suggestion that a guy who is 205 cm tall would be by all means better than his 198 cm tall co-player, Michael Jordan who can be seen as a touche-à-tout, i.e. who has other outstanding skills as well. After a certain level, other aspects become crucial in determining the performance let it be real GDP growth, economic development or increasing well-being in a wider sense, or basketball scores etc.).

Similarly, behavioural and psychological tests convey us the message that a surpassing level of intelligence quotient (IQ) is not coupled with success in life in each cases. What is more, it seems that higher IQ does not guarantee success unless the given person has a good deal of creativity as well on which her/his performance is riding a lot (i.e. creativity is about imagination on what and how to do certain things in tackling challenges and achieving our goals).

Now, let us assume that fiscal policy has reached a good level of transparency in the developed world. We simply cannot ignore the fact that the achieved credibility relies heavily on whether the government can creatively carry out policies (i.e. to emit right signals in the right measures, in the right place and at the right time) that require fiscal backing geared towards sustainable growth and development in a more dedicated way. As a corollary, increasing transparency cannot be seen as a panacea; rather it can be viewed as a technique towards better opportunities to be utilised through policies that often require fiscal support. But it also requires some sort of professionalism, a holistic thinking over the spillover effects of any discretionary intervention which, in turn, cannot be accurately estimated ex ante because of the complexity of our system in which the nonlinearity of effects is the norm, rather than the exception.

After a certain level of transparency, economic development seems to become more dependent on other factors like good formal and informal institutions, the quality of governance in general, the pro-active and due participation of civic society, the ability and willingness of governmental fiscal policies to act adequately in time of shocks by governing the boat of the given economy towards much calmer waves. But, voters and policymakers should always remember that economic success and competitiveness cannot be handled in isolation any more, rather the success depends on the development and governmental activities of other countries being interconnected with the given one. It also requires the government to understand longer term trajectories and trends and to act accordingly which is extremely difficult in an era being pervaded by wicked problems (like climate change, air pollution, and sovereign debt crisis etc. that does not know national boundaries).

In sum, increasing transparency is a necessary, but not a sufficient ingredient of sustained economic and social development. We can claim that social-economic learning still remains one of the most pivotal driving forces of progress. As Leonardo Da Vinci once said, knowledge is not enough, we must apply. It therefore implies that there is no easy way out, we should pursue a public sector being able to learn and put the lessons learned into practice continuously.

This post features the author's personal view and does not represent the view of ICEG European Center. 

Tuesday 2 July 2013

Austerity vs. Stimulus – The Debate Continues

Olivér Kovács, Research Fellow, ICEG European Center

In one of his last columns, Lord Skidelsky argued that fiscal stimulus is in order given the current status of affairs of the global economy, especially the United States (Skidelsky, 2013).

Why Lord Skidelsky does recommend stepping aside our threats from deficits and accumulating public debt and trying to re-invigorate the states development function through fiscal stimulus? At first blush, the question of “why” has two aspects semantically:  First, for what purpose? And second, for what reason?

According to Skidelsky, the classical Keynesian renaissance would be of key importance in coping with the daunting challenge of income inequality, which can be seen as one of the most fundamental causes of the recent economic „perfect storm”. The purpose should be to diminish the gaping gap between the rich and the poor in terms of income inequality.

This argument assumes that the recent crisis can be rooted in the dispiriting income inequality that led to excessive borrowing coupled with affluent liquidity and banks that were able and willing to lend. However, this type of reasoning does not show convincingly that income inequality would be the cause (the good reason); what is more, it can also be argued that income inequality is just a symptom of deeper structural phenomena in the developed world.

Income inequality may be the result of a series of highly interrelated and mutually reinforcing phenomena being part and parcel of our new techno-economic paradigm (ICT-based, service sector dominated knowledge or learning economy). This paradigm has some specific features that have been directing towards lower productivity through labour-saving technologies (i.e. automation, standardisation by means of ICT etc.) which entailed downward trends in labour shares as, for instance, Karabarbounis and Neiman (2013) pointed out. There is a secular feature of problems behind the scene rather that one could ascertain that mitigating income inequality via economic policy engineering can result a sustainable ameliorating trend, accordingly. 

In our recent paper (Kovács, 2013) we addressed the daunting challenge of current economic recovery by contributing to the better understanding of its secular feature. In so doing we devote special attention to the secular decline in innovativeness by raising three interlinked and interrelated explanatory phenomena: (i) lowering productivity in the new techno-economic paradigm; (ii) the effect of the different degree of employment protection; and (iii) the issue of pent up disruptive innovations. We argued that these phenomena are not black swans; however, they have been developing in commonly unnoticed increments by manifesting the so-called ‘creeping normalcy’ and being endogenous to the market system. The paper drew lessons to be learned for the Central and Eastern European Member States by emphasising the need for a systemic approach which is of paramount importance when it comes to fiscal consolidation.

Our earlier consideration still holds, namely that, for sure, sovereign debt crisis triggered by recent crisis and the crisis management itself will not evaporate in the short term, decreasing public debts will easily become a decade-long task, however, consolidating to the numerical levels in the European Union (stipulated by the Maastricht Treaty and the Fiscal Pact) without considering the demand conditions (which is affected heavily by income inequality, tighter liquidity constraints etc.) would be a Hayekian fatal conceit in terms of growth consequences. Policymakers should therefore follow a more cautious way of stabilisation if they are to avoid stabilisation that is more like destabilisation. The big question is whether Europe can find the new growth model pursuing for instance the sustainable global golden age tailored towards green global economy promoted by Carlota Perez (Perez, 2010).

References

Karabarbounis, L. – Neiman, B. (2013): TheGlobal Decline of the Labor Share. NBER Working Paper No. 19136

Kovács, O. (2013): Black Swans or Creeping Normalcy? – An Attempt to a Holistic Crisis Analysis. Eastern Journal of European Studies, Vol. 4. No. 1. pp. 127-143

Perez, C. (2010): The Advance of Technology and Major Bubbles Collapses: Historical Regularities and Lessons for Today. Available: http://www.carlotaperez.org/download/PEREZTechnologyandbubblesforEngelsbergseminar.pdf Accessed on: 1.07.2013

Skidelsky, R. (2013): The Incompatibility of Austerity and Economic Reform. Economic Rebalancing Acts. Project-Syndicate. Available: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-incompatibility-of-austerity-and-economic-reform-by-robert-skidelsky Accessed on: 1.07.2013

This post features the author's personal view and does not represent the view of ICEG European Center.