Delay cuts, says leading economists

Sixty-seven economists have today entered the debate over the pace of deficit reduction. Left Foot Forward has reproduced the two letters to the FT in full.

Sixty-seven economists have today entered the debate over the pace of deficit reduction. Their letter is in response to a separate call in last weekend’s Sunday Times, where a group of 20 economists said “there is a compelling case, all else being equal, for the first measures beginning to take effect in the 2010-11 fiscal year.”

The letters are reproduced below in full.

Letter 1:

From Lord Skidelsky and 57 others.

Sir, In their letter to The Sunday Times of February 14, Professor Tim Besley and 19 co-signatories called for an accelerated programme of fiscal consolidation. We believe they are wrong.

They argue that the UK entered the recession with a large structural deficit and that “as a result the UK’s deficit is now the largest in our peacetime history”. What they fail to point out is that the current deficit reflects the deepest and longest global recession since the war, with extraordinary public sector fiscal and financial support needed to prevent the UK economy falling off a cliff. They omit to say that the contraction in UK output since September 2008 has been more than 6 per cent, that unemployment has risen by almost 2 percentage points and that the economy is not yet on a secure recovery path.

There is no disagreement that fiscal consolidation will be necessary to put UK public finances back on a sustainable basis. But the timing of the measures should depend on the strength of the recovery. The Treasury has committed itself to more than halving the budget deficit by 2013-14, with most of the consolidation taking place when recovery is firmly established. In urging a faster pace of deficit reduction to reassure the financial markets, the signatories of the Sunday Times letter implicitly accept as binding the views of the same financial markets whose mistakes precipitated the crisis in the first place!

They seek to frighten us with the present level of the deficit but mention neither the automatic reduction that will be achieved as and when growth is resumed nor the effects of growth on investor confidence. How do the letter’s signatories imagine foreign creditors will react if implementing fierce spending cuts tips the economy back into recession? To ask – as they do – for independent appraisal of fiscal policy forecasts is sensible. But for the good of the British people – and for fiscal sustainability – the first priority must be to restore robust economic growth. The wealth of the nation lies in what its citizens can produce.

Letter 2:

From Prof Lord Layard and eight others.

Sir, Last Sunday 20 fellow economists wrote to The Sunday Times advocating a more rapid reduction of Britain’s budget deficit than is currently planned in the Pre-Budget Report. “There is a compelling case”, they said “for the first measures beginning to take effect in the 2010-11 fiscal year.”

We disagree.

First, while unemployment is still high, it would be dangerous to reduce the government’s contribution to aggregate demand beyond the cuts already planned for 2010-11 (which amount to 1 per cent of gross domestic product). Further immediate cuts – even supposing they are practicable – would not produce an offsetting increase in private sector aggregate demand, and could easily reduce it. History is littered with examples of premature withdrawal of the government stimulus, from the US in 1937 to Japan in 1997. With people’s livelihoods at stake, a responsible government should avoid reckless actions.

Second, Britain’s level of government debt is not out of control. The net debt relative to GDP is lower than the Group of Seven average, and on present government plans it will peak at 78 per cent of annual GDP in 2014-15, and then fall. Even at its peak, the debt ratio will be lower than in the majority of peacetime years since 1815. Moreover British debt has a longer maturity than most other countries, and current interest rates on government debt at 4 per cent are also low by recent standards.

Third, since the crisis began, private households and businesses have had to increase their saving in order to reduce their debts. It is this saving that finances the government deficit. If the government did not take up the slack, there would be a deeper recession. But fortunately, wise counsel has prevailed so far, and public spending has been maintained as an offset to reduced spending by the private sector.

Of course there needs to be a clear plan for reducing the government deficit. But the existing one for next year appears sensible. What is needed then is much more detail for the following years, and a radical plan for the medium term. That is what the debate should be about.

A sharp shock now would not remove the need for a sustained medium-term programme of deficit reduction. But it would be positively dangerous. If next year the government spent less and saved more than it currently plans, this would not “make a sustainable recovery more likely”. The weight of evidence points in the opposite direction.

UPDATE 9:45

This is how today’s FT editorial concludes:

“Friday’s letters are an embarrassment for the Tories, above all, who sought to capitalise on the first letter. They must learn – soon – that their desire for simple political messages is no excuse for nuance-free policy positions.”

UPDATE 1:15

38 Degrees have set up a petition calling urging the parties not to “risk the recovery” by “cutting public spending too soon”.

It says:

“Dear Alistair Darling and George Osborne,

“Please don’t jeopardise our recovery from recession by making premature cuts to public spending.

“Please listen to the economic experts and pledge to make jobs and financial stability your priority to avoid a disastrous “double-dip” recession.”

• Sign it here

21 Responses to “Delay cuts, says leading economists”

  1. Mark

    I think it was President Truman who wanted a one-handed economist on his staff, because all his economics advisors began by saying “on the one hand, on the other hand”.

    As someone with two hands, all the letter writers are correct. On the one hand nobody wants a sharp shock to the public finances and on the other hand nobody wants a debt/sterling crisis.

    We have a phoney war here since Labour and Conservative policy is near identical, it’s like arguing over whether Persil or Ariel washes whiter. For all the talk of Tory cuts, Labour are equally guilty with their law to cut the deficit in half no matter what. Surely we deserve a more sophisticated level of debate?

  2. Politics Summary: Friday, February 19th | Left Foot Forward

    […] the economists’ warning over “dangerous” spending cuts. Left Foot Forward has published the letters in […]

  3. Richard Garside

    RT @leftfootfwd: Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full

  4. Billy Blofeld

    Neither 60 leading economists or even a 1’000 leading economists will ever be able to overcome the damage of an indecisive, chaotic Prime Minister who nobody respects and whose only strategy is to try and damage his political opponents.

    Will no one rid us of this turbulent Prime Minister?

  5. Grahame Morris

    Leading economists warn that Tory plans to cut public spending would be dangerous //bit.ly/aAtPAB #SameOldTories

  6. Bex Bailey

    RT @grahamemorris: Leading economists warn that Tory plans to cut public spending would be dangerous //bit.ly/aAtPAB #SameOldTories

  7. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by leftfootfwd: Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full…

  8. MyDavidCameron

    RT @leftfootfwd Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full

  9. Clifford Singer

    RT @leftfootfwd Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full

  10. Andrew Lomas

    RT @OtherTPA: RT @leftfootfwd Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full

  11. bee hive

    RT @mydavidcameron: RT @leftfootfwd Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full

  12. David Cameron

    What drivel: //is.gd/8I2HY We in the modern Conservative Party have a full gamut of economic policies, from A to B!

  13. Tank the Tories

    RT grahamemorris: Leading economists warn that Tory plans to cut public spending would be dangerous //bit.ly/aAtPAB #ivenevervotedtory

  14. Brown: Tories will betray middle classes | Left Foot Forward

    […] the morning that 67 economists wrote to the FT supporting his economic stratregy, Brown criticised the Tories’ approach to recovery: […]

  15. Elisabeth Whitebread

    RT @leftfootfwd: Delay cuts, says leading economists: //is.gd/8I2HY – the Financial Times letters in full

  16. Tyler

    Let’s get something straight – the Tories have already effectively won the argument. A few months ago Labour types were talking about “growing our way out” of the deficit. That has been blown out of the water, so now they’ve changed the line to delaying cuts till the country is growing again.

    All sides know that massive cuts are coming, which is probably a good thing. There are numerous examples of countries where large cuts caused a short fall in GDP and then put growth back on track more rapidly (Canada, New Zealand are good examples) and also good examples where consistent significant deficit spending has caused long periods of sub-par growth (Japan) or worse (Greece).

    There are very very few examples were sustained deficit spending has ever led to sustainable growth. The payback is unavoidable.

    When it comes down to it, the left simply don’t want to cut spending. Does it really matter if spending is reduction starts now or in 9 months time? In terms of growth, probably not really.

    I’ll ask those in the “cut later/Labour” camp this (rhetorical) question. What happens if spending is maintained at current levels (no cuts till 2011) yet we see little or no growth?

    By Labour’s logic, we should not cut, and maintain the huge budget deficit. Problem is, the market won’t let you do that. You will see Gilt yields rise, debt servicing costs rise wiping out a lot of the benefits of growth, and if it gets too large a run on the currency. In the worst case you get a situation like Greece and investor confidence totally fails. Even now corporates are pulling out of the UK because of the uncertainty caused by the deficit.

    So, faced with all that, is continuing to spend money to prop up a client state and Labour’s chances at election really in the best interests of the country?

    I think we all, deep down, know the answer to that one.

  17. Look Left – The Week in Fast Forward | Left Foot Forward

    […] much to cut the deficit by. In the red corner, 67 of the world’s finest minds wrote to the Financial Times today backing the chancellor’s decision to delay spending cuts, warning that the priority […]

  18. reginald sims

    67 of the world’s finest minds why now why bid they not do something two years ago then we would not be in this terrible mess.most normal people could see this coming we always get einsteins after the event

  19. What's the answer, George? | Left Foot Forward

    […] the end of the week, 67 economists had written to the Financial Times setting out that “the timing of the measures should depend on the strength of the […]

  20. Get used to high inflation! « Whit's End

    […] Delay cuts, says leading economists (leftfootforward.org) […]

  21. Osborne's hypocrisy on financial regulation | Left Foot Forward

    […] op ed in the Financial Times with Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs. After a series of letters last month from senior economists on the case for slower fiscal consolidation, the article attempts […]

Leave a Reply