ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ON THE TRICKY TOPIC OF PRODUCTIVITY

Talk to VCTA Teachers Day, Melbourne, Monday, August 11, 2014

Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.

                                                                     Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminishing Expectations (1994)

There are few economic topics more important than productivity improvement, or more often in the news. The economic managers frequently express concern about our seemingly poor performance in recent years and about the slower rate of growth in income per person we are likely to experience following in the deterioration in our terms of trade, and the decline in labour force participation caused by population ageing, unless we greatly improve our productivity performance.

And yet productivity is a tricky topic. A lot of people who use the term don’t actually understand what it means. Some people think it’s just a fancy word for production, or that when economists say we need higher productivity they mean we should be working harder. A lot of business people think productivity and profitability are pretty much the same thing. And also that productivity improvement is something governments do for businesses by making changes that make business life easier, rather than something that emerges from the efforts of their own business to survive and prosper. And even a lot of economists view productivity through the prism of their economic model, advocating certain ways of improving it, but not others. So much of what businesspeople say about productivity is rent-seeking and much of what economists say is propaganda.

Productivity is tricky in another respect: like a lot of basic concepts in economics - such as the NAIRU or the cyclically-adjusted budget balance - it’s conceptually simple but very hard to measure in practice. And once you’ve arrived at a measure you have to be very careful how you interpret it. There are circumstances where an improvement in productivity can have bad causes and a deterioration can have good causes. There are other times when a deterioration may be illusory or nothing to worry about. And, because of limitations in both measurement and our understanding of the phenomenon, it’s common for us never to be sure exactly why it’s improved or deteriorated.

I want to make sure you’re up to speed on all the ins and outs of productivity. I’ll go into the topic more deeply than you would need to with your students, but it’s never a bad thing for you to know more about the topic than they do.

Definition

Productivity is the ratio of output produced to inputs used, or output per unit in input. Colloquially, it’s what you get out compared with what you put in, or it’s bang for your buck. It’s a measure of productive (or technical) efficiency, necessary but not sufficient to achieve allocative (economic) efficiency.

The simplest, most commonly used - and probably least inaccurately measured - measure is the productivity of labour. You take the quantity of goods and services produce during a period (real GDP) and divide it by the number of hours of labour required to achieve that production. But you can improve the productivity of labour simply by giving workers more machines to work with. And this tells us nothing about the efficiency with which the economy’s physical capital is being used. So in recent years it has become fashionable to focus on a more sophisticated measure called ‘multi-factor productivity’.

MFP (sometimes called total-factor productivity) is the growth in real GDP (output) that can’t be explained by any increase in inputs of both labour and physical capital. So, in principle, multi-factor productivity should arise primarily from ‘technological progress’ - the invention of better physical technology and the discovery of better ways to organise the production of goods and services. It’s technological advance that does most to raise material living standards.

But though MFP is often regarded as a proxy for technological advance, in truth it measures much more than this. In this era of the knowledge economy, it will also reflect increases in human capital (the skill, education and training of the workforce), which could be significant. As well, it will reflect economies of scale and scope, gains from specialisation, changes in capacity utilisation, changes in the composition of industry (if, for example, low-productivity industries are growing faster than high-productivity industries), and even weather events and water availability.

Importance

If you accept the prevalent view among economists that we need as much economic growth as we can get to achieve an ever-increasing material standard of living - as simply measured by real income per person - then, as Paul Krugman has said in his famous quote, in the long run, productivity is almost everything. It’s productivity improvement that does most to cause real income to grow faster than the population. (For both social and environmental reasons, I don’t share this prevalent view. For me, quality of life is a more important objective than standard of living.)

Over the past four decades, growth in the productivity of labour accounted for about 80 pc of the growth in Australians’ real income per person. The main way this was achieved was by giving workers more machines (physical capital) to work with. But 36 percentage points of the 80 came from MFP improvement.

Measurement

The first problem with measuring productivity is that it’s cyclical, varying with the economy’s degree of capacity utilisation. Productivity is likely to rise strongly as the economy recovers from a recession, but then slow as the economy reaches full employment. In the downswing, productivity is likely to worsen as firms lose sales but hang on to their workforce and use their capital equipment to produce fewer products. Then, when the economy begins to recover, and sales and production increase without any more labour and capital being used, productivity shoots up again.

Combine this cyclicality with the fact that the national accounts are so heavily revised and you see that little significance should be attached to quarter-to-quarter changes in productivity. Even annual changes should not be taken too literally. This explains why the Bureau of Statistics prefers to measure productivity as the average over a ‘productivity cycle’ between years when the degree of capacity utilisation is similar. The length of these cycles differ, but have averaged about five years. Because it take so long before another cycle is completed, the econocrats just rely on using averages over the past few years.

The second problem with measuring productivity is that when an industry’s output isn’t sold in a market it’s not possible to measure its productivity. When the activities of governments and government-dominated sectors are included in GDP the value of their output is assumed to be equal to the cost of their inputs. That is, their productivity never changes. For this reason the bureau also calculates productivity in the ‘market sector’ which is 16 of the 19 industry categories, excluding education, health and public administration. This market sector accounts for about 83 pc of GDP. The bureau also calculates figures for a 12-industry market sector - accounting for two-thirds of GDP - and this narrower definition is the one used by the Productivity Commission.

While GDP and total hours worked can be measured with reasonable accuracy, thus making labour productivity figures reasonably reliable, the same can’t be said for MFP. Measuring the volume of capital inputs - ‘units of capital services’ - is particularly difficult. In truth, it is based on a lot of assumptions, which may or may not hold, making the figures pretty ropey. The other major problem with MFP is that it’s measured as a residual, so can be distorted by mismeasurement of any or all of the other factors. One important cause of mismeasurement is changes in the quality of either inputs or outputs. Combine this measurement problem with all the many possible components of MFP and it’s hard to draw many confident conclusions from its ups and downs.

Scorecard

According to figures calculated by the Reserve Bank in a speech by Glenn Stevens in July 2014, the productivity of labour for the whole economy improved at the trend rate of 2.1 pc a year over the 14 years to 2004, but slowed to 0.9 pc a year in the six years to 2010, before accelerating to 2.0 pc a year over the three and a quarter years to March 2014. This implies that, whatever the problem was in the second half of the noughties, it seems to have gone away.

But the figures for MFP in the 12-industry market sector presented in the Productivity Commission’s latest annual productivity update show a much less reassuring picture. The long-term rate of MFP improvement between 1973-74 and 2012-13 has averaged 0.7 pc a year. Between 2003-04 and 2007-08, however, the improvement deteriorated to minus 0.1 pc a year, essentially, four years of zero improvement. And over the five years to 2012-13 MFP actually worsened by 0.6 pc a year.

This is a very different story to that told by the labour productivity figures, and the Productivity Commission regards it as very concerning. But it’s also very puzzling. It’s highly unusual for labour productivity to be improving while MFP deteriorates, and for this to continue for a decade. With something so dramatic, you’d expect the problem to be glaringly apparent. But nothing sticks out. The formerly common claim that the problem was the alleged ‘reregulation’ of the labour market under Labor’s Fair Work, simply doesn’t fit. The rot began years before the Fair Work changes took effect from the beginning of 2010, which was about when labour productivity started performing normally. In any case, you’d hardly expect a supposed worsening in industrial relations to fit with an improvement in labour productivity but a worsening in MFP. About the only factor big enough to be a suspect in explaining this strange behaviour is the resources boom.

Explaining the deterioration in MFP

The Productivity Commission has analysed the figures by industry and identified three industry sectors as doing most to explain the deterioration: mining, utilities (electricity, gas and water) and manufacturing. It has closely examined each of these industries and identified many factors that, between them, do much to explain the apparent deterioration. But almost all of them fall under the headings of temporary factors that will right themselves in due course, factors that have worsened productivity without themselves being bad, factors beyond our control, or the productivity cost of pursuing other desirable policy goals.

The primary reason for mining’s poor productivity performance, which does much to explain the poor performance overall, is well known: the industry has poured a lot of inputs into building new mines and natural gas facilities which have yet to come on line and start contributing to output. When they do, the industry’s performance will improve markedly. However, the high prices for coal and iron ore made it profitable for miners to begin mining lower-grade or hard-to-reach deposits that were formerly sub-economic. The mining of these marginal deposits will permanently lower the industry’s level of productivity (because more inputs are need to win a given quantity of output), but it is good, not bad, that higher prices have allowed us to exploit more of our natural endowment.

In the utilities sector, the productivity of water has been hit by drought (reduced capacity utilisation), by the decision to build and then mothball desalination plants in every state capital, and by the lasting effect of water-use efficiency measures in reducing demand for water (eg piping to prevent evaporation in irrigation; better shower heads). The productivity of electricity has been reduced by greatly increased investment in the natural monopoly distribution network (‘poles and wires’) to meet peak levels of demand and excessively levels of reliability, at a time when demand for electricity has been falling for various, mainly good reasons.

The three industries within manufacturing that do most to explain its poor productivity performance are petroleum and chemicals, food and beverages, and metal products. Petroleum and chemicals’ poor performance is explained mainly by increased investment by petroleum refineries to meet new environmental standards - ie an unmeasured quality improvement.  Metal products’ poor performance is explained partly by an expansion in alumina refining capacity which has yet to come on line. Food and beverages’ poor performance is partly explained by a change in consumers’ preferences in favour of products made in smaller-scale, more labour-intensive bakeries. Both petroleum and chemicals and metal products are suffering from reduced capacity utilisation rising from their loss of competitiveness caused by the high dollar.

The point of all this is that the startling MFP figures seem to have been produce by multitude of factors, many of which will correct themselves or are no cause for concern and some of which are beyond our control. That is, the commission’s analysis could identify ‘no overarching systemic reason for the decline’ and thus no problem or problems the government should be fixing, bar one: it’s clear defective price regulation in electricity is encouraging excessive investment in the distribution network.

In the light of all this, and remembering how prone MFP is to mismeasurement, I’m not persuaded we need to hit panic stations.

Bad productivity improvements and good productivity declines

Productivity is just a means to an end - the end of greater economic wellbeing - so it’s important not to treat it as an infallible indicator. Increases aren’t always good and decreases aren’t always bad; you need to examine the reasons for them. At the margin, labour and capital are substitutes in the production process. If wage rates get too high, firms may decide to invest in more labour-saving equipment. For the particular firm involved, this means fewer workers but the same or more output, leading to higher labour productivity. But is this a good thing if it has been caused by excessive wage rates? It’s the position that obtained during the Whitlam and Fraser years. After the Hawke government came to power in 1983 it used its accord with the ACTU to achieve a significant fall in real wages. The result was strong growth in employment and rapidly falling unemployment. But this also meant much weaker labour productivity improvement. Was this a bad thing?

Similarly, labour productivity is likely to deteriorate as an economy approaches full employment because employers are obliged to hire the remaining, less-qualified, less-productive workers. Does that make full employment a bad thing? And, as we’ve already seen, rising commodity prices encourage miners to exploit less attractive, harder-to-win mineral deposits. Is this bad?

Productivity, profits and wages

It’s important to remember that productivity is a ‘real’ concept. That is, it compares quantities, not prices or values - the quantity of output with the quantity of inputs. This is why productivity and profitability are quite different concepts. Because of this, it’s likely most firms don’t collect the data that would allow them to calculate changes in their productivity. And it’s arguable they don’t need to bother: their role is to pursue profits; what effect this has on the nation’s productivity is of no direct concern to them. All we know is that over the more than 200 years since the industrial revolution, firms’ pursuit of profits has led to almost continuous productivity improvement.

It’s less common these days, but you still hear employers arguing that wage rises can only be justified by the equivalent improvement in labour productivity. Wages settlements in excess of productivity growth will be inflationary. This is why it’s important to remember productivity is a ‘real’ concept. The employers are conveniently forgetting this. It’s only necessary for a rise in real wages to be justified by an equivalent increase in productivity. And only if real wages grow faster than productivity with this be inflationary.

This explains why the Reserve Bank’s unspoken ‘line in the sand’ for annual nominal wage growth is 4 pc: an inflation rate of 2.5 pc (mid-point of the inflation target) plus 1.5 pc for trend labour productivity growth. Only when nominal wage growth exceeds 4 pc is it likely to worsen inflation.

A point to note is that these are macro economy-wide figures. It’s neither necessary nor desirable that the real wage increases granted at each individual workplace be matched by productivity improvement at that workplace. This is the notion of ‘productivity bargaining’ which for a period of the Accord proved a useful device for encouraging unions to give up impractical demarcations and restrictive work practices, but provides no sound basis for continual bargaining at the enterprise level. This is because there are some firms with much scope for the removal of inefficiencies, but others with very little. Is it seriously suggested that workers at already-efficient firms receive no real wage rises? As well, there are high-productivity industries (usually those that are capital-intensive) and others than are low-productivity (often in the services sector). Should a clerk working in a high-productivity industry end up being paid a lot more than one in a low-productivity industry?

Fortunately, neither wage bargaining nor the labour market work like that. There are differences between the wages of workers with similar skills working in different industries, but they aren’t great - particularly when you remember than truck drivers in the Pilbara are being paid a special premium for working long hours at a remote and unpleasant location. In other words, workers in particular occupations are reasonably mobile between industries and so tend to be paid similar rates. Because workers’ wages don’t differ much according to the productivity of their industry, this operates as a mechanism by which improvements in national productivity are spread reasonably proportionately between labour and capital and reasonably proportionately between workers generally.

Productivity and employment

Especially when viewed from the perspective of particular industries or firms, efforts to improve productivity by automation and other labour-saving investments can be seen as job-destroying. This may seem true from a short-term, micro perspective, but it can’t be true economy-wide. It can’t be true because industries have been replacing men with machines for more than 200 years and the unemployment rate is only up to 6 pc, not 94 pc.

The explanation is simple: replacing workers with machines leads to increased productivity and increased productivity increases real income. The community is better off because outputs have increased relative to inputs. This increase in real income will be reflect in some combination of: higher profits for the owners of the business, higher wages for the remaining employees of the business or, if competitive pressures are strong, lower real prices for the products of the business. To the extent that real prices fall, customers are able to choose between using the increase in the purchasing power of their income to buy more of the business’s products or to buy more of other firms’ products.

The point is: improved productivity leads to increased real income; when that higher income is spent, jobs are created somewhere in the economy. This is why more than 200 years of investment in labour-saving equipment have not led to mass-unemployment. It’s also why, though non-economists speak of new technology ‘destroying’ jobs, economists prefer to say the jobs have been ‘displaced’ - moved from one industry to other industries.

If you look back at the history of our economy over the past century, you see technological advance making first agriculture and mining more capital-intensive, so that they are able to increase their output while accounting for an ever-falling share of the workforce, and since, the 1960s, a similar process occurring in manufacturing. All the employment growth has been in the services sector, with most of it in the more highly skilled occupations.

Productivity and immigration

The commitment of business people, politicians and even most economists to growth means almost all of them are believers in a high rate of population growth through high levels of immigration. It’s understandable for business people and politicians to believe in growth for growth’s sake - the bigger our economy the better. From a business perspective, the bigger the economy, the bigger their domestic market and so the easier it should be for them to increase their sales and profits.

But it’s not rational for economists to believe in growth for growth’s sake. They believe in faster economic growth only because it’s expected to lead to a higher material standard of living. But a higher standard of living requires higher income per person - that is, GDP has to grow faster than the population. If it doesn’t, nothing is gained. And if population were to grow faster than GDP, average living standards would fall.

Empirical research by the Productivity Commission and others over the years has concluded that immigration - even skilled immigration - does little or nothing to raise income per person. Why not? Because of the problem of productivity. An increased population requires increased provision of housing and public infrastructure: roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, police stations and all the rest. If this increased infrastructure investment fails to occur, the productivity of our infrastructure falls. This will be manifest in housing overcrowding, greater traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting times and so forth. Similarly, an increase in the workforce that’s not matched by an increase in the equipment workers are given to work with will lead to a decline in the average productivity of labour. In other words, and increase in the population requires a greater increase in capital investment - public and private - if it’s to lead to higher income per person.

This raises the old distinction between capital deepening and capital widening. Capital deepening involves the provision of greater capital equipment per worker - an increase in ‘capital intensity’ or the ratio of capital to labour - which will raise the productivity of labour. Capital widening involves increased investment to prevent an increase in the workforce causing a decline in capital equipment per worker - a decline in capital intensity - and a fall in the productivity of labour. Immigration does little to increase income per person because it requires a lot of investment just to stop average labour productivity falling.

Productivity and other advanced economies

It is well known to the economic managers, but not widely reported, that Australia is not alone in suffering slower productivity improvement since the turn of the century. Dr Philip Lowe, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, observed in a speech in March 2014 that ‘productivity growth in many advanced economies has trended lower for some time now’. Labour productivity in the OECD economies averaged 1.9 pc over the 14 years to 2000, but 1.1 pc over the 13 years to 2013. Australia’s figures were virtually the same as this average, except that whereas the OECD average for the three years to 2013 fell further to 0.8 pc a year, Australia’s average recovered to 1.5 pc.

This common experience around the advanced economies suggests the underlying problem may be a worldwide slowdown in technological advance, but this is only conjecture.

Productivity and recessions

In my experience, the measures businesses take to lift their productivity - particularly by trying something new, reducing waste and abandoning unsuccessful projects and products - aren’t evenly distributed across the business cycle, but tend to come in a bunch, like busses. In the upswing of the cycle when profits are strong an optimism abounds, firms tend to expand, experimenting with new products and processes, and generally allowing staffing levels to creep up.

When the cycle turns and sales and profits slow down or fall, however, times get tougher and pessimism sets in. Firms seek to minimise the decline in profits by looking for ways to cut costs and reduce staff numbers. Unsuccessful processes, products and divisions, which should have been abandoned much earlier, are finally brought to an end. The least profitable firms in an industry may collapse or exit. Following Schumpeter, economists often refer to this as a process of “creative destruction”. What this means is that economic downturns often lead to surges in productivity.

When you remember that Australia hasn’t experienced a serious recession since the early 1990s, it make makes you wonder if a price of our good fortune isn’t a slow build-up of inefficient practices in the absence of a great reckoning that would have made our productivity figures look better. Along similar lines, however, it may well be that the pressure imposed on our tradables sector - particularly manufacturing and tourism - by the years of a high exchange rate has obliged those firms that have weathered the storm to become a lot more efficient than they were. The productivity debate has been led by people who imagine greater productivity to be a warm and cuddly thing. In reality, it’s often the product of adversity - firms forced to lift their game if they want to survive.

Productivity and microeconomic reform

It has become fashionable among economists to see a strong link between our productivity performance and microeconomic reform. Most economists attribute the surge in labour productivity and MFP in the second half of the 1990s to the effects of the Hawke-Keating government’s extensive micro reforms. But there’s no way they can prove this is the case. Examining productivity performance by industry doesn’t show much correlation with the major reform initiatives. And since the main reforms occurred in the second half of the 1980s, we’re being asked to believe the benefits of those reforms took about a decade to show up.

When the reform push was in full swing it was hoped the reforms would, by making the functioning of various industries more efficient and flexible, bring about a lasting increase in the rate of productivity improvement and economic growth. As we now know, however, the best the proponents of micro reform can claim is just a few years of above-average improvement, bringing about a once-only lift in the level of our productivity.

I find this a bit disillusioning. If micro reform to remove impediments to growth can’t lead to a lasting increase in the rate of growth, the benefits of micro reform are less than we initially imagined them to be. If the only way we can achieve even a temporary increase in economic growth is to come up with another dose of micro reforms, we’ll soon run out of reforms and willingness to pay the political and social price of reform. If repeated doses of reform are the only way we can maintain a reasonable rate of productivity improvement, there must be something badly amiss in our economy that no amount of reform is fixing.

My belief is that the peculiarities and limitations of the economists’ conventional model have warped their attitude towards productivity improvement. They know well that national productivity is a function of what goes on in each of the many firms that make up the economy, yet it is no part of the economists’ approach to study what happens within the individual firm or to imagine there is anything they or governments should say or do to affect what happens inside firms directly. Anything done may affect firm behaviour only indirectly via the monetary incentives firms face. Because the model assumes business always responds rationally to the incentives it faces, if there’s something lacking in the economy’s productivity performance the only available possibility is that something government is doing must be distorting the incentives facing private firms, causing them to operate less efficiently than they otherwise would. So governments should examine and reform their interventions in markets, reducing them in ways that encourage greater competition. So, problem with productivity = more micro reform.

But the model’s largely unnoticed effect on economists’ thinking about productivity doesn’t end there. Because the standard model’s unit of analysis is the individual - whether individual consumer or individual firm - it contains an inbuilt bias against collective action, including actions by governments. The model leads economists to the conclusion that, since the role of government is suspect, the desire for improvement in the economy’s functioning invariably leads in the direction of less government rather than more. Government intervention in particular markets may be reducing their efficiency, or the high tax rates needed to pay for a big public sector may be reducing incentives to work, save and invest.

By contrast, we know that with a knowledge economy, much productivity improvement should be coming from investment in human capital. The rise of the knowledge economy is prompting more of us to crowd into big cities where we can learn from face-to-face contact with each other. But this increases congestion and other infrastructure problems. So adequate - and effective - spending on infrastructure is an important part of maintaining productivity improvement.

This suggests there are two rival approaches to government efforts to improve productivity: measures that involve making government smaller, and measures that make it bigger. Guess which approach economists tend to focus on?

Read more >>

Econocrats advise false economy

Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott shouldn't take all the blame for the low quality of the measures in the budget. I suspect they're victims of poor advice from the econocrats of Treasury and Finance.

Gary Banks, former boss of the Productivity Commission, says the public service's role is to inform policy choices. If so, it did an unimpressive job of informing an inexperienced government on the best way to exploit the unique political opportunity offered by the Coalition's very first budget.

We can never know exactly what advice passed between the bureaucrats and their masters, but it would be an unusual budget whose measures didn't arise from options provided by the presumed experts.

And a comment by Laura Tingle of The Australian Financial Review offers a clue: "Former Labor ministers were genuinely surprised after the May 13 budget that the new government had simply picked up the same raw policy proposals the public service had been serving up for years and included them in the budget ... It seemed no one in the new government ... recognised these as policy chestnuts from the bureaucracy's bottom drawer."

If that's right, it's an indictment of the bureaucrats' intellectual laziness and lack of expertise. It's the 21st century, but these people have sat for decades learning nothing but "here's where you could cut, minister".

A huge proportion of the spending on two of the nation's biggest and fastest-growing industries, education and health - industries whose performance has major implications for productivity and social wellbeing - passes through the federal budget, but all the budget bureaucrats have to offer is a list of things you could chop.

Since the budget measures focused almost exclusively on the spending side, and since those measures had the smell of the bookkeeper rather than the economist (economists are trained to think about subsequent, not just immediate, effects), I suspect it's Finance more than Treasury that's responsible for such a dismal performance.

What we needed were sophisticated initiatives aimed at raising the efficiency with which public services are delivered to the public.

What does the empirical literature and the experience of other governments tell us about what works and what doesn't? If Finance and Treasury aren't expert on this, why aren't they?

What we got instead were crude spending cuts - or, more often, cost-shifting. A high proportion of the savings will come merely from shunting more of the cost of education and health onto graduates, patients and the states. How much thought went into cooking that up?

The right answer to the growing cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, for instance, is to drive harder bargains on generics with the big foreign drug companies (which pose as Medicines Australia) and the chemists, and to force harder choices on the medicos who advise on which new drugs should be listed by giving them an annual spending cap.

So what did we get? A $5-a-pop increase in the already high general patient co-payment which, in any case, is indexed, with a smaller rise for pensioners. Could laying it on so thick discourage people from filling their prescriptions, thus worsening their health and eventually adding to public spending on healthcare?

Who knows? Who cares? No one in the budget bureaucracy, it seems. If the measure makes things worse rather than better, worry about that in a later budget. "I know, minister, let's whack up patient co-payments again. Tell 'em health costs are unsustainable."

It's a similar story with Medicare. Health economists have devised various ways of achieving greater efficiency, particularly in hospitals, but who's bothered about that? Why tax your brains when you could just chop spending on preventive health programs, slash grants to the states and introduce a $7 co-payment for GP visits and tests?

The co-payment will shift costs to the states and add to ill health and costs down the track, but who's worried? It will be costly to administer, but less so when we advise ministers to whack it up again in a few years' time because health costs are still rising "unsustainably".

But the most mindless false economy is surely the now 2.5 per cent annual "efficiency dividend" cut imposed on the budgets of government departments. Treasury complains it's had to cut staff numbers by one-third just since 2011. Finance must be suffering, too.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the budget bureaucrats were among the chief victims of their failure to give the pollies better advice on spending control? By now, of course, this would be their chief excuse for continuing bad advice. "We don't have the resources, minister."

Read more >>

Teenagers suffering most from slow growth

I hate to say it, but the spectacular events that hit the headlines aren't necessarily the things most worth worrying about. The big news on the economy this week was the spectacular jump in the unemployment rate from 6 per cent to 6.4 per just during July. Not a big worry.

Question is, what does it prove? That the economy fell into a hole around the middle of the year? Doubt it. There's little other evidence that it did and a lot that it didn't.

That the slow upward creep in unemployment we've been seeing for about two years may have accelerated? Doubt that, too. Again, the other economic indicators aren't pointing that way.

(Indeed, some economists have been wondering if unemployment was close to peaking. So far this year employment has grown by an average of 15,600 jobs a month, compared with just 5100 a month last year.)

That the unemployment figures are volatile from month to month and this is an unexplained statistical blip that should be corrected next month? Seems a bit too big for that.

Truth is it's hard to know what the problem is. Easier to be sure when we've seen another month or two's figures.

But my guess is it's a once-only upward step in the measured rate of unemployment, caused by a seemingly small change in the questions that people in the Bureau of Statistics' monthly survey are asked so as to ascertain whether they've been "actively" seeking a job if they don't have one.

The change - made partly because of the switch to searching for jobs on the internet rather than at Centrelink - seems to have led to more people being classed as unemployed and fewer as "not in the labour force".

If this guess proves right, it's not so worrying. It doesn't change reality, just the way we measure it. In any case, we've long known that the official measure of unemployment is very narrow and understates the extent of the problem.

That's why the bureau publishes every quarter a broader measure of unemployment, which takes the official unemployment rate and adds the under-employed - people with jobs who aren't working as many hours a week as they'd like to - to give the "labour force underutilisation rate".

The figures for May show narrowly measured unemployment of 6 per cent, and an underemployment rate of 7.5 per cent, to give a broader measure of 13.5 per cent.

Less spectacular than this month's jump in the official rate but, to me, more worthy of worry is news that hasn't hit the headlines: the rapid worsening in teenage unemployment.

Whereas so far this year the trend rate of overall unemployment has risen by 0.2 percentage points, the trend rate for people aged 15 to 19 has risen by 2.8 percentage points to 19.3 per cent.

Note, this doesn't mean almost one youth in five is unemployed. Most people that age are in full-time education, so aren't in the calculation. Turns out about one in 20 of all 15 to 19 year-olds is unemployed and looking for a full-time job.

Many people have it in their heads that unemployment rises because people lose their jobs and employment falls. That's true only in recessions. It's rare for employment to fall - it fell only briefly even during the global financial crisis.

No, the main reason unemployment rises outside of recessions is that the economy isn't growing fast enough to employ all the extra people joining the labour force from education, as immigrants or as mothers rejoining.

That's what's been happening over the past two years. And young people - particularly those who leave school or training too early - have borne most of the burden of insufficient job creation. We should be doing much better by them than Work for the Dole and denying them benefits for six months to keep them hungry.

But there's nothing spectacular about this quiet suffering, so it doesn't hit the headlines. Much better to scandalise over factory closures, which surely signal the end of the world. So let's look at the facts on retrenchment, courtesy of a Bureau of Statistics study.

About 2 million people left their jobs over the year to February 2013 (the latest period for which figures are available). About 60 per cent of these left voluntarily and 21 per cent left because of their illness or injury, leaving 19 per cent - 380,000 - who left because they were retrenched.

That's a rate of retrenchment of 3.1 per cent. The rate hit 4 per cent in 2000, but then fell to a low of 2 per cent in 2008, just before the global financial crisis, then increased sharply to 3.1 per cent in 2010, where it has pretty much stayed since.

Over the year to 2013, all industries experienced retrenchments, but the most were in construction, 65,000; retailing, 40,000; and manufacturing, just under 40,000.

But the number of people employed in particular industries differs a lot so, judged by rate of retrenchment, utilities and construction come equal first with 6.4 per cent, then mining with 6 per cent, pushing manufacturing into fourth place with 4.5 per cent.

The rate of retrenchment is consistently higher for men because men tend to dominate those industries where retrenchment rates are higher, whereas retrenchment rates tend to be lower in industries dominated by women workers, such as education and health.

The likelihood of being retrenched falls as your level of educational attainment rises. We're more conscious of older workers being laid off but, in fact, retrenchment is greatest among workers aged 25 to 44.

And what happens to people who're laid off? For those retrenched over the year to February 2013, half were back in jobs by the end of the year, leaving 29 per cent unemployed and 21 per cent not in the labour force.

Read more >>

Modellers bamboozle over cost of renewable energy

There's a lot of public support for the renewable energy target, which requires electricity retailers to get 20 per cent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. But now the country's being run by climate change "sceptics", let's get with the program. Forget the threat of climate change, stop worrying about your grandchildren and focus on what matters most: what this do-gooder scheme is doing to your cost of living.

Although before the election Tony Abbott professed support for the target, since the election he has instituted an expert review of it, headed by businessman Dick Warburton, former chairman of Caltex and prominent "sceptic".

The review commissioned a leading firm of economic consultants, ACIL Allen, to undertake modelling on the future effects of the target.

The preliminary report found that, between 2015 and 2020, the target would increase the average household electricity bill by $54 a year - a tad over $1 a week. This five-year average, however, conceals the estimation that the cost of the scheme will fall as each year passes.

So by 2020 itself, the increase will have reduced to just $7 a year. By the end of another 10 years, in 2030, the scheme is estimated to be actually reducing average household electricity bills by $91 a year, or $1.75 a week.

It's common sense that requiring electricity retailers to buy a certain proportion of their power from more expensive renewable sources - mainly wind power, but also solar - would add to the cost of their power, with the extra cost being passed on to consumers.

So why has ACIL Allen's modelling concluded the target will add to the price of electricity initially, but eventually subtract from it? The short answer is because electricity pricing is a complicated business.

It turns out that adding to the supply of renewable energy available reduces the wholesale price of electricity. This is because the price being paid for energy being put into the national electricity grid by particular generators varies minute by minute according to the balance of supply and demand.

In the middle of the night, when little power is being used, the wholesale price is very low. But on a cold evening - or, more likely these days, a very hot afternoon - the wholesale price can be stratospheric.

The trick to renewable energy is that it tends to be available when the demand for electricity is high. Experience around the world confirms the Australian experience that renewable energy does a great job of reducing spikes in wholesale prices on very hot and very cold days.

Another part of it is that though it costs a lot to build wind and solar generators, once they're built there are few "variable" costs. Wind and sun are free; coal and gas aren't. So the renewable generators offer to supply power to the grid at very low prices and this lowers the prices the coal and gas generators are able to ask for.

But none of this changes the fact that the electricity retailers have to pay for the "renewable energy certificates" that the target scheme requires them to buy. These certificates reduce the capital cost of setting up the wind and solar generators whose operations then reduce the wholesale cost of power.

So it turns out the renewable energy target scheme has the effect of reducing the wholesale cost of electricity while also adding to the costs of the electricity retailers. ACIL Allen's modelling suggests that, for the next five years, the extra retail cost will exceed the saving in wholesale costs, but after that the saving will exceed the extra cost.

See what this means? The case for saying we must get rid of the renewable energy scheme because it's adding too much to the living costs of struggling families has collapsed.

But there's where the story takes a twist. Modelling of the future cost of the renewable energy target, published by an equally prominent firm of economic consultants, Deloitte, comes to opposite conclusions.

Deloitte's modelling accepts that the renewable energy scheme is reducing wholesale costs, and roughly confirms ACIL Allen's finding about the higher cost to household customers until 2020. But whereas ACIL Allen expects the scheme to start reducing household costs after that, Deloitte expects the cost to stay positive until 2030, causing household bills to be between $47 and $65 a year higher than if the scheme was scrapped.

Why have two leading economic consultants reached such opposing conclusions? Perhaps because Deloitte's modelling was commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council and the Minerals Council.

Deloitte doesn't conceal that its modelling is in reply to ACIL Allen's. Would it surprise you if the fossil fuel industry wanted to see the renewable energy target abolished and was alarmed to know that modelling commissioned by the review had demolished the argument that continuing the target would add to people's electricity bills? Now the review will be able to pick whichever modelling results it prefers.

How did Deloitte reach such different results? By feeding different assumptions into its model. It seems to have assumed the cost of wind farms won't fall over time (which it probably will), whereas the price of gas for gas-fired generators won't rise much (which it already has).

Regrettably, economic modelling has degenerated into a device for bamboozling the public.

Read more >>

Why no one is backing the budget

A big reason Joe Hockey isn't getting much support from independent observers like me in his battle to get the budget through the Senate is that so few of his contentious measures are worth fighting for.

If he were facing opposition from vested interests struggling to protect their privilege, or even just unthinking populism from the punters, it would be a different matter.

For a bit I thought I'd be in the trenches with him defending a plan to impose a temporary deficit levy on individuals with incomes above $80,000 a year but, as we now know, his boss insisted on lifting the threshold to a far-less-contentious $180,000 a year.

What would have made the lower threshold defensible is the inconvenient truth that so much of our present distance from budget surplus is explained by the folly of eight tax cuts in a row, the savings from which were skewed in favour of higher income-earners. This would have clawed back a bit of it.

It's remarkable anyone could put together a budget at once so unpopular and so lacking in Paul Keating's "quality cuts". Who did Hockey imagine would join him at the barricades apart from the mindlessly partisan commentators? (Even they haven't been particularly vociferous - although the government hasn't raised much of a banner to rally behind.)

In my initial assessment I said "I give Joe Hockey's first budgetary exam a distinction on management of the macro economy, a credit on micro-economic reform and a fail on fairness".

Nothing wrong with the F, and the D on macro management has stood up well. The decision to announce a lot of measures that didn't take much effect until the last year of the forward estimates, 2017-18, was a clever combination of macro-economic good sense - nothing to gain by hitting demand while it was expected to be weak - and political necessity.

By delaying the start of so many measures until after the next election Hockey was able to claim the budget didn't really break all the election promises Tony Abbott made when pushing his contention that a "budget emergency" could be fixed without pain.

It's not part of my religion to insist politicians keep irresponsible promises they should never have made. But that's not to say such blatant promise-breaking carries no political price. After all the fuss Abbott made about "Ju-liar" Gillard and his pretence about restoring trust in politicians, my guess is the price his government is paying is high. The pity is he could have won comfortably without such dishonesty.

On closer inspection, my C for micro reform was badly astray. Should have been an M for missed opportunity. There was a lot of cost shifting, but precious little that could be claimed to increase the efficiency with which the government delivers its many high-cost services or to reduce rent-seeking by private industries.

The greatest disappointment was that, after making a good start in eliminating handouts to the car makers and refusing to bail out fruit canners, Hockey dropped the ball on business welfare, thus leaving all his talk of ending "the age of entitlement" looking like nothing more than a shameful attack on the poor and disadvantaged.

One honourable exception was the decision to remove the always-indefensible subsidy to locally produced ethanol. Another was the plan to resume indexing the fuel excise.

Removing the carbon price involved allowing fossil-fuel industries to continue imposing external costs on the rest of the community and the intention to abolish the mining tax involves allowing much receipt of economic rent by foreigners to go grossly under-taxed. That's efficient?

Add to that the failure to remove the fuel excise credit, which constitutes a favour to miners and farmers but no one else, and you have to ask what hold the big three mining companies have over this government.

Similarly, take the cutting back on the age pension while doing nothing whatsoever to curb the excesses of the concessional tax treatment of superannuation, combine it with watering down the Future of Financial Advice Act despite the presence of gross information asymmetry, and you have to ask what hold the big four banks have over this government.

On its face, you could have expected the "deregulation" of university fees to bring significant gains in efficiency - but only if your understanding of economics had progressed no further than 101. To take a relatively small number of government-owned and still highly regulated agencies with a monopoly over credential-granting, allow them to set their own fees and then imagine an adequately competitive "market" would emerge isn't economics, it's magical thinking.

Read more >>

Chinese economy overtaking US and getting more like it

It isn't so many years since I used to berate the denizens of the financial markets for their lack of interest in the economy that had so much influence on ours: China. How things have changed. So has China.

After averaging growth of 10 per cent a year for 30 years, China's economy is now struggling to achieve its reduced target of 7.5 per cent. The financial market participants' role has been to watch on with concern.

And this week comes news that, though the International Monetary Fund sees China coming close to target this year, it expects it to slow to 7.1 per cent growth in 2015 and slow further in following years.

More surprisingly, the fund says that China should slow down to give it a chance to work on its big problems, rapidly growing debt and a rapidly contracting real estate market. Fumble those and growth could be even lower.

But while so many of us have been so focused on China's difficulty maintaining its rate of growth, we've lost sight of how big it is and how fast it's still growing compared with the rest of us.

Compared, say, with the world's biggest economy, the United States. Except that, according to the calculations of Euromonitor International, China will overtake the US this year. That's when you compare the two economies using "purchasing-power parity", which makes allowance for the fact that one US dollar buys a lot more in China than it does in the land of the free.

With China biggest and the US second, then come India, Japan, Germany, Russia and Brazil. We come in at 17th, not far behind Indonesia. The world certainly is changing.

Of course, the Chinese and American economies remain very different. China is big because of its much bigger population - 1.4 billion versus 300 million. Its income per person remains a fraction of America's. A not unrelated fact is that the US's productivity (measured as gross domestic product per worker) is more than nine times higher than China's.

And the two countries' industry structure is also very different. Agriculture contributes 10 per cent to GDP in China but just 1 per cent in the US. But get this: it accounts for almost a third of the workforce, compared with just 1.4 per cent in the US.

Manufacturing makes up 30 per cent of China's GDP, but only 13 per cent of America's. That tells us a lot about why China's rise, and the growth in its exports of manufactures, has affected so many other countries as well as maintaining downward pressure on world prices.

But the biggest difference between the two economies is their relative emphases on consumption and investment. Euromonitor International estimates that this year private consumption will account for 68 per cent of GDP in the US, compared with 37 per cent in China.

Here, however, we get to the really important news: the Chinese authorities have embarked on a process of "rebalancing" the economy, increasing consumer spending and domestic demand and reducing the roles of exports and investment in heavy industry.

The Economist notes that consumer spending has already begun its expansion, with its share of GDP rising from less than 35 per cent in 2010 to more than 36 per cent last year. And this year it has accounted for more than half the growth in GDP.

A big reason for stronger consumer spending is rapid growth in wages. Get this one: over the five years to 2013, real wages in manufacturing rose by about 2 per cent in the US, but by 45 per cent in China. As always happens, the benefits of economic development do flow eventually to ordinary workers.

This strong growth in consumption involves faster growth in the services sector, with manufacturing's share of GDP having peaked at almost a third in 2007.

This structural change means people following the ups and downs of the Chinese economy ought to be following a different set of indicators, as Peter Cai of China Spectator noted last week with help from Guan Qingyou, an economist at Minsheng Securities.

Cai says the main reason Chinese policymakers care so much about the rate of growth in GDP is their belief that the economy needs to grow by at least 7.2 per cent to absorb 10 million new entrants to the labour market each year.

But this correlation has been breaking down since 2010. Slower growth in GDP has not led to weaker job creation. Gaun suggests this is because the expanding services sector has a greater capacity to absorb new job seekers.


More fundamentally, China seems to be approaching its "Lewis turning-point", where a developing country runs out of its supply of surplus rural labour. This would also help explain the rising real wages.

Financial market participants focus on the growth in "industrial production" (manufacturing, mining and utilities) as a predictor of GDP growth, and on the manufacturing PMI (purchasing managers' index) as a predictor of industrial production.

But Cai says the strong correlation between industrial production and GDP is breaking down because the services sector is growing a lot faster than the industrial sector. Last year, for instance, the services sector contributed 47 per cent of the annual growth in GDP, whereas the industrial sector contributed less than 40 per cent. So, it's better to focus on the services sector PMI.

A big problem for China-watchers is that you don't know how much faith to put in official statistics. Earlier in his career, Premier Li Keqiang let it be known that he, too, had his doubts. So he focused on railway freight volumes, electricity consumption and bank lending as offering a better guide.

Now others have developed a "Li Keqiang index". But here, too, Guan argues that its reliability has declined, because of changes in the structure of industrial electricity use and changes in financing. China is changing.

Read more >>

Social and economic case for helping women work

Surely the most momentous social change of our times began sometime in the 1960s or '70s when parents decided their daughters were just as entitled to an education as their sons. Girls embraced this opportunity with such diligence that today they leave schools and universities better educated than boys.

Fine. But this has required much change to social and economic institutions, which we've found quite painful and is far from complete. It's changed the way marriages and families operate - changed even the demands made on grandparents - greatly increased public and private spending on education, led to the rise of new classes of education and childcare, changed professions and changed the workplace.

It has led to greater "assortative mating", where people are more likely to marry those not just of similar social background, but of a similar level of education.

For centuries the labour market was built around the needs of men. Changing it to accommodate the needs of the child-bearing sex has met much resistance, and we have a lot further to go. This is evident from last week's report of the Human Rights Commission, which found much evidence to show "discrimination towards pregnant employees and working parents remains a widespread and systemic issue which inhibits the full and equal participation of working parents, and in particular, women, in the labour force".

You can see this from a largely social perspective - accommodating the rising aspirations of women and ensuring they get equal treatment - or, as is the custom in this more materialist age, you can see it from an economic perspective.

By now we - the taxpayer, parents and the young women themselves - have made a hugely expensive investment in the education of women. It accounts for a little over half our annual investment in education.

If we fail to make it reasonably easy for women to use their education in the paid workforce, we'll waste a lot of that money. Our neglect will cause us to be a lot less prosperous than we could be.

Of late, economists are worried our material standard of living will rise more slowly than we're used to, partly because mineral export prices have fallen but also because, with the ageing of the baby boomers, a smaller proportion of the population will be working.

They see increased female participation in the labour force - more women with paid work, more working women with full-time jobs - as a big part of the answer to this looming catastrophe (not).

But how? One way would be to impose more requirements on employers, but in an era where the interests of business are paramount, politicians are reluctant to do that. Make employers provide childcare or paid parental leave? Unthinkable.

So, for the most part, taxpayers have picked up the tab. Government funding of childcare has reached about $7 billion a year, covering almost two-thirds of the total cost. The cost of government-provided paid parental leave is on top of that.

Governments' goals in childcare have evolved over time. In the '70s and '80s, the focus was on increasing the number of places provided. In the '90s, the focus shifted to improving the affordability of care, with the introduction of, first, the means-tested childcare benefit, and then the unmeans-tested childcare rebate. Under the Howard government, the rebate covered 30 per cent of net cost, but Labor increased it to 50 per cent.

More recently, increased evidence of the impact of the early years of a child's life on their future wellbeing has shifted governments' objectives towards child development and higher-quality, more educationally informed, childcare. This includes getting all children to attend pre-school. Linked with this has been a push to raise the pay of childcare workers.

The federal government asked the Productivity Commission to inquire into childcare and early childhood learning. Last week it produced a draft report. I suspect the pollies were hoping the commission would find a way to reduce regulation of what they kept calling the childcare "market"; thus improving workforce participation and "flexibility" while achieving "fiscal sustainability".

If so, they wouldn't have been pleased with the results. The main proposal was that the childcare benefit and rebate be combined into one, means-tested subsidy payment paid direct to childcare providers.

This would involve low-income families getting more help while high-income families get less. There would be a small additional cost to the government, but this could be covered by diverting money from Tony Abbott's proposed changes to paid parental leave. It was "unclear" his changes would bring significant additional benefits to the community.

The commission wasn't able to claim its proposals would do much to raise participation in the labour force, mainly because our system of means-testing benefits - which works well in keeping taxes low, something that seems to be this government's overriding goal - means women face almost prohibitively high effective tax rates as their incomes rise, particularly moving from part-time to full-time jobs.

Like the Henry tax review before it, the commission just threw up its hands at this problem. And even the commission couldn't bring itself to propose major reductions in the quality of education and care. Sorry, no easy answers on childcare.

Read more >>

A more balanced budget might get through Senate

Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are perfectly right in saying we need to get the budget back into surplus, we need to make a start now and that this will inevitably involve unpopular measures.

But this makes it all the more puzzling that, lacking a majority in the Senate and being unable to claim a "mandate" for breaking many election promises, they should adopt such a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.

In a three-part essay on John Menadue's blog last week, Dr Michael Keating, former senior econocrat, argues that as a nation we're "unlikely to succeed in charting a viable way forward to fiscal sustainability until governments are prepared to subject their views to a proper conversation based on a clear appreciation of the pros and cons of the different alternatives.

"Only in that way can the public support be built that is required to achieve future fiscal sustainability. In present circumstances it is hardly surprising that this necessary support is not forthcoming, when less than 12 months ago the government promised in the election to both spend more and tax less and now seeks to impose a most unfair budget on the community with no prior warning nor any such mandate."

If we are to chart a way forward and establish the necessary public understanding and consensus, he says, we particularly need to drop the ideology surrounding the merits of taxation versus expenditure and consider the claims of each tax and expenditure proposal on its merits.

Just so. There are many ways to skin the budget cat - some fairer or more sensible than others - and it's absurd for the government and its barrackers to pretend, Maggie Thatcher-like, that the measures proposed in the budget are the only alternative to irresponsible populism.

Anyone who knows anything about successful "fiscal consolidation" knows it invariably involves a combination of spending cuts and tax increases (including reductions in tax concessions - "tax expenditures").

And anyone who knows much about economics knows there's little empirical evidence to support the ideology that economies with high levels of government spending and taxation don't perform as well as those with low levels.

Yet Hockey and Abbott thought it sensible to propose a 10-year budget plan that relied almost exclusively on cuts in government spending - apart from the temporary deficit levy and much unacknowledged bracket creep.

Keating points out that, combining all levels of government as a percentage of gross domestic product, Australia already has the lowest budget deficit and public debt compared with Canada, Japan, Britain, the US and the OECD average.

At 26.5 per cent, our level of total taxation seems higher than the Americans' 24 per cent, until you remember their budget deficit is 5 percentage points higher than ours. So the claim that we have a bloated, "unsustainable" level of government spending is itself unsustainable.

To restore some balance to proposed budget savings, to share the burden of budget repair more fairly and in answer to the challenge, well, what would you do? Keating suggests savings on the revenue side that would raise about $42 billion a year in 2017-18, the year most of Hockey's savings would cut in.

One objectionable feature of the budget was the way it laid into spending on the age pension while not merely ignoring the equally expensive superannuation tax concessions but actually reversing some of Labor's timid attempt to make aged-income support fairer. Keating estimates a more balanced approach to tax concessions could save $15.5 billion a year.

To extend the "end of entitlement" beyond welfare recipients to business welfare, he suggests ending the fuel excise rebate for miners and farmers, saving $7.5 billion a year. There's no economic justification for subsidising just one input among many of just two industries among many.

Abolishing the subsidy for private health insurance would save more than $7 billion a year. Many evaluations have shown this money would treat a greater number of patients if spent in public hospitals. Removing the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax would save $5 billion a year, as well as making the taxation of various sources of income a lot fairer.

About $5.5 billion a year could be saved by restoring the carbon price mechanism and the minerals resource rent tax. That leaves $1.5 billion to be saved by restoring anti-avoidance measures implemented by Labor, Keating says.

We could get the budget back in the black without any loss of economic efficiency and do it in a way much fairer to ordinary voters - remember them? - and less partial to the Coalition's big business backers.

Read more >>

Why we're still not free of the GFC

Almost six years since the global financial crisis reached its height, it's easy to forget just how close to the brink the world economy came. To someone like Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens, however, those events are burnt on his brain.

Which explains why he thought them worth recalling in a speech this week. And also why, so many years later, the major developed economies of the North Atlantic are still so weak and showing little sign of returning to normal growth any time soon.

When those key decision-makers who lived through 2008 and 2009 say that there was the potential for an outcome every bit as disastrous as the Great Depression of the 1930s, "I don't think that is an exaggeration", he says.

"Any account of the events of September and October 2008 reminds one of what an extraordinary couple of months they were. Virtually every day would bring news of major financial institutions in distress, markets gyrating wildly or closing altogether, rapid international spillovers and public interventions on an unprecedented scale in an attempt to stabilise the situation.

"It was a global panic. The accounts of some of the key decision-makers that have been published give even more sense of how desperately close to the edge they thought the system came and how difficult the task was of stopping it going over."

But, despite the inevitable "mistakes and misjudgments", the authorities did stop it going over. Stevens attributes this to their having learnt the lessons of the monumental mistakes and misjudgments that that turned the Great (sharemarket) Crash of 1929 into the Great Depression.

Economic historians (including one Ben Bernanke) spent decades studying the Depression and, in Stevens' summation, they came up with five key lessons: be prepared to add liquidity – if necessary, a lot of it – to financial systems that are under stress; don't let bank failures and a massive credit crunch reinforce a contraction in economic activity that is already occurring – try to break that feedback loop; be prepared to use macro-economic policy aggressively.

So far as possible, maintain dialogue and co-operation between countries and keep markets open, meaning don't resort to trade protectionism or "beggar-thy-neighbour" exchange rate policies. And act in ways that promote confidence – have a plan.

There was a lot of action and a lot of international co-operation, and it worked. As a result, we talk about the Great Recession, not the Great Depression Mark II.

"We may not like the politics or the optics of it all – all the 'bailouts', the sense that some people who behaved irresponsibly got away with it, the recriminations, the second-guessing after the event and so on," he says. "But the alternative was worse."

With collapse averted, the next step was to fix the broken banks. Their bad debts had to be written off and their share capital replenished, either by them raising capital from the markets or accepting it from the government.

Fixing the banks' balance sheets was necessary for recovery, but not sufficient. A sound financial system isn't the initiating force for growth, so stimulatory macro-economic policies were needed to get things moving.

On top of all the government spending to recapitalise the banks came a huge amount fiscal (budgetary) stimulus spending. Stevens says a financial crisis and a deep recession can easily add 20 or 30 percentage points to the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product.

Then you've got the weak economic growth leading to far weaker than normal levels of tax collections. Add to all that the various North Atlantic economies that had been running annual budget deficits for years before the crisis happened.

"So fiscal policy has not had as much scope to continue supporting recovery as might have been hoped," Stevens says. "Policymakers in some instances have felt they had little choice but to move into consolidation mode [spending cuts and tax increases] early in the recovery."

He doesn't say, but I will: this crazy, counterproductive policy of "austerity" has helped to prolong the agony.

With fiscal policy judged to have used up its scope for stimulus, that leaves monetary policy. Central banks cut short-term interest rates hard, but were prevented from doing more because they soon hit the "zero lower bound" (you can't go lower than 0 per cent).

But long-term interest rates were still well above zero and, in the US and the euro area, long-term rates play a more central role in the economy than they do in Oz. Hence the resort to "quantitative easing".

Under QE, the central bank buys long-term government bonds or even private bonds and pays for them merely by crediting the accounts of the banks it bought from. Adding to the demand for bonds forces their price up and yield (interest rate) down. And reducing long-term rates is intended to stimulate borrowing and spending.

Has it worked? It's intended to encourage risk-taking, but are these risks taken by genuine entrepreneurs producing in the real economy, or are they financial risk-taking through such devices as increased leverage?

Stevens' judgment is that it always takes time for an economy to heal after a financial crisis [because it takes so long for banks, businesses and households to get their balance sheets back in order - they've borrowed heavily to buy assets now worth much less than they paid] so it's too soon to draw strong conclusions.

For Stevens, the lesson is that there are limits to how much monetary policy can do to get economies back to healthy growth after financial crises. "If people simply don't wish to take on new business risks, monetary policy can't make them," he says.

Perhaps the answer is simply subdued "animal spirits" – low levels of confidence, he thinks. But, at some stage, sharemarket analysts and the investor community will ask fewer questions about risk reduction and more about the company's growth strategy.

Read more >>

Putting people back in the rent or buy decision

So, the Reserve Bank has done the numbers and killed the Great Australian Dream: owning your home is no more lucrative than a lifetime of renting. Somehow, I doubt that will be the end of the matter - and nor should it be.

The strongest conclusion we should draw from the Reserve’s figuring is that, when you view home ownership purely as a financial investment, buying rather than renting isn’t the deadset winner most people assume.

It can be a close run thing, mainly because people take insufficient account of the costs of home ownership - not just all the interest they pay but the stamp duty and conveyancing costs, insurance, repairs and maintenance and the rates and other payments not borne by renters.

But our deeply ingrained belief that home ownership is a great investment is only one of our motives for wanting to own rather than rent. The other big one is security of tenure.

It’s nice to own your own place and make your own decisions about alterations and improvements, minor and major, about painting it or not painting, building up the garden or not bothering.

 It’s also nice to know you’re unlikely to have to leave it unless it’s your choice. Renters generally have a lot less say over how long the rental lasts, rent rises and changes of landlord.

The Reserve’s calculations take no account of these non-monetary considerations, which could easily be sufficient to bring ownership in as a clear winner in many people’s minds (starting with me).

And though those calculations are as careful and impartial as you would expect of the central bank, that doesn’t stop them being based on assumptions and averages like all such calculations, meaning they may or may not be a good fit with your own circumstances and preferences.

For instance, what’s true for average home prices across Australia, may not be true for Sydney. And what’s true for the whole of Sydney may not be equally true for inner ring, middle ring and outer ring homes.

We know the authorities expect huge growth in Sydney’s population over the next 20 or 30 years. And unless they greatly improve their performance on congestion, my guess is we will see inner-ring property prices grow a lot faster than Sydney prices generally.

The Reserve’s calculations roll together home owners and renters of all ages and stages. But switching rental accommodation is not the problem for young adults that it can be for families with school-age children.

The calculations assume home owners change homes every 10 years. If you have already, or intend to, stay put a lot longer than that then your investment is already performing, or is likely to perform, better than the figures suggest.

Of course, no calculations based on what’s happened to home prices and rents over the past 60 years is a foolproof guide to what they’ll do over the coming 60.

And remember, the low level at which the age pension is set tacitly assumes people own their homes outright. The value of your home isn’t included in the means test, but other investments are.

Read more >>