Upload
shannon-skelding
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Some reflections on the Scandinavian countries during the crisis
a Post-Keynesian case study
Jesper Jespersen
Roskilde University
2
Structure of the paper:
1. Why post-Keynesian economics?
Because ‘uncertainty’ and ‘social and institutional changes’ prevent us from having any determinate knowledge of the future
General Equilibrium models seem not to apply to the uncertain understanding of the changing real world economics.
3
2. Post-Keynesian analytical features:
• Like it or not – GDP in money terms and (un)employment are focus points within PKE
The Principle of effective demand rules the roost – but, watch out, effective demand is not what (some of) you might think it is! It is a multi-facetted analytical concept
Context dependent
4
My preferred quote from Keynes’s on Methodology:
• Economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world.
• It is compelled to be this, because, unlike the typical natural science, the material to which it is applied is, in too many respects, not homogeneous through time (CWK, XIV: 296)
• It seems to me … that you [Roy Harrod, jj] do not repel sufficiently firmly attempts ... to turn [economics] into a pseudo-Natural-science.....’
5
clock-work
Market System Power, structures, institutions
agents actors
data
Jesper’s methodological ’iceberg’
reflexive organism
Prediction of marketsystem
Understand reality
Inspiration: Martin Hollis
World 1:
World 2:
World 3:
Two cultures
6
The business sector as a whole is at the focal point of Effective Demand:
• As I now think, the volume of employment is fixed by the entrepreneur under the motive of seeking to maximise his present and prospective profits; (Keynes, 1936: 77)
7
Principle of effective demand (I)
• What factors make the entrepreneurs decide on production (and employment)?
Here, one cannot meaningfully separate between short run and long run, because:
if the entrepreneur does not balance his books in the short run (liquidity) and in the medium run (profitability), he/she will be out of business in the longer run
but, if he/she disregard the longer run implications of investment, competition and technology, he/she will be out of business in any case
8
Principle of Effective Demand(II)
Short run: Expectations, profit and finance
• Expected aggregate demand (domestic policies and global demand)
• Profitability & international competitiveness
• Availability of money and finance/credit
9
Longer run: Institutions and politics
• Welfare institutions: supply & quality of labour
• Technology and new products: productivity & falling rate of profit
• Environmental issues: work place, products, externalities & sustainability
10
Figure 1: Outlines for the macroeconomic principle of effective demand
Effective Demand
Expected proceeds from aggregate demand
Expected Aggregate profitability:competition
Aggregate credit facilitates: the working of the banking and financial system
Expected availability of supply factors: labour, capital, technology environmental conditions
The business sector ‘acts’ within a frame of agreed institutions: labour market, welfare system, tax structures, financial and political concerns
11
Overall picture in rich countries– what is it all about?
• Happiness and sustainability
• Of course, I know that Ministers of Finance always talk about growth to fill their coffers
• But growth alone cannot make them re-elected
• Hence, we will talk about social ontology before economic growth
12
Because:
Life satisfaction - only up to a certain point corresponds with
GDP/capita
2003/04
13
14
Income distribution, 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Slove
nia
Slova
kia
Sweden
Czech
Rep
ublic
Denm
ark
Hunga
ry
Austri
a
Finlan
d
Mal
ta
Belgiu
m
Nethe
rland
s
Luxe
mbo
urg
(Gra
nd,,,
Cypru
s
Franc
e
Euro
area
(16
cou,
,,
Irelan
d
Ger
man
y (in
cludin
,,,
Eston
ia
Italy
Spain
Polan
d
Gre
ece
Lith
uani
a
Unite
d Kin
gdom
Portu
gal
Bulga
ria
Roman
ia
Latv
ia
Source: Eurostat
Gin
i co
effi
cien
t
15
Total government income, percent of GDP
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Source: OECD, EConomic OUtlook, 2010
Per
cen
t o
f G
DP
Sweden
Denmark
OECD-area
The welfare state, does it impede employment and growth?
16
Government total receipts
40
45
50
55
60
65
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
per
cen
t o
f G
DP
Sweden
Denmark
Euro15
17
Employment rate, Denmark, Sweden & Euro15
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Eurostat, 2010
Per
cen
t o
f p
op
ula
tio
n (
18-6
4)
Euro area (15 countries) Denmark Sw eden
Euro15
Denmark
Sweden
Employment rates
18
Employment rate
• Euro15 grew the fastest – 5965 percent of population, age 18-64
• Denmark grew from 74 to 76 percent of population, age 18-64
• Sweden hardly increased employment (74
percent
Why? ‘We don’t know’
19
Real Growth in GDP
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, Juni 2010
pen
cen
t, y
earl
y
Serie1 Serie2 Serie3
Denmark
Sweden
Euro-zone
1992-2009 Denmark Germany Sweden
Germany 0,865748 1
Sweden 0,821969 0,785827 1
Euro13 0,886006 0,944485 0,916189
1995-2009 Denmark Germany Sweden
Germ. 0,878061 1
Swed. 0,92538 0,849294 1
EU15 0,93808 0,954362 0,943638
Growth are very alike
20
GDP in fixed prices
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
!992
= 1
00
Sweden
Denmark
Euro15
One percent point a year adds up to 20 points
21
GDP/capita, PPP-measurement
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Eurostat
Eu
27=1
00Denmark
Sweden
Euro15
- 7
-5
-15
22
Unemployment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
per
cen
t
Sweden
Denmark
Euro13Starting point
23
Why did they have different (un)employment paths?
• Sweden higest growth – moderate fall in unemployment – unchanged employment
• Denmark (relative) low growth, lowest unemployment – middle increase employment
• Euro15 (relative) low growth, high (nearly unchanged) unemployment, but the highest growth in employment!
• That is puzzling!
24
Labour market & Welfare
Scandinavian countries deviate on:
• Higher labour market/women participation rates (welfare state institutions)
• Flexicurity – meaning flexible, but structured hiring and firing and welfare security system (unemployment benefit, and free/subsidized welfare institutions – you don’t loose your social rights, when you get fired)
25
Public Sector Budget
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, June 2010
Per
cen
t o
f G
DP
Sweden
Denmark
26
Unemployment & Budget, Denmark
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
perc
en
t
1973-2010 actual budget unempl publ. Empl. part. Rate
actual budget 1
Unemploynt -0,71008 1
public empl. -0,12252 0,424201 1
part.rate 0,109415 0,26439 0,525417 1
private empl. 0,770684 -0,7939 0,036539 0,266508
27
Unemployment & Public Budget, Sweden
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
Per
cen
tag
e
Correlation:
1971-2010: -0,46
1990-2010: -0,58
EU13:
1991-2010: -0,49
Denmark:
1990-2010: -0,83
28
Public Sector Budget
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, June 2010
per
cen
t o
f G
DP
Euro-Zone
Sweden
Denmark
Sweden
29
Inflation?
• You have to separate between
• Consumer price inflation
• Wage cost inflation
• Scandinavia is more like Southern Europe, than like Germany
30
Consumer price inflation
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook
per
cen
t p
.a. Sweden
Germany
Denmark
Consumer price harmonization might give a misleading signal due to the single market effect
31
Unit labour cost, total economy
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: OECD, economic outlook, 2010
1998
=100
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Because, no one can beat the Germans in unit labour cost!
32
Unit Labour Cost, effective exchange rate
0,9
1
1,1
1,2
1,3
1,4
1,5
1,6
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
1998
= 1
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Unless, you have a flexible exchange rate!
33
Balance-of-payments, current account
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
Per
cen
t o
f G
DP
Denmark
Sweden
No wonder Sweden is doing well: export led growthDenmark is doing less well; oil & gaz does the trick
Balance-of-payments, current account
34
Rate of Interest
• Depends on the Balance-of-payments
• Especially, if you have your own currency
• If the competitive position is weak, profits are squeezed and effective demand is weakened Unemployment
Spain is the arch example, but Scandinavian back in the 1970s & 1980s
35
Long term rate of interest
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Source: OECD, economic outlook, 2010
per
cen
t p
.a.
Denmark
Sweden
36
Long Term rate of Interest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: OECD, Economic Outlook, 2010
Per
cen
t p
.a.
Sweden
Denmark
Germany
37
What have we learned?
• Economics is not a blind machinery• Different institutions (Banks) and politics
(exchange rate) matters a lot – e.g. the actual situation
• Compared to the 1930s, the western world has become much richer, closer integrated and, I think, more supportive
• Hence, priorities may change from growth to sustainability
Really, this is a Post-Keynesian story!