Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
US needs to get back to green recovery
By Jeffrey D. Sachs |
August 24, 2009, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
IT is now almost a year since the world economy teetered on the edge of calamity.
In the span of three days, September 15-17, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the mega-insurance company AIG was taken over by the United States government, and the failing Wall Street icon Merrill Lynch was absorbed by Bank of America in a deal brokered and financed by the US government.
Panic ensued and credit stopped circulating. Non-financial companies could not get working capital, much less funding for long-term investments. A depression seemed possible.
Today, the storm has broken. Months of emergency action by the world's leading central banks prevented financial markets from crashing.
When banks stopped providing short-term liquidity to other banks and industrial companies, central banks filled the gap.
As a result, the major economies avoided a collapse of credit and production.
The sense of panic has subsided. Banks are once again lending to each other. Although the worst was avoided, much pain remains.
The crisis culminated in a collapse of asset prices at the end of 2008. Middle-class and wealthy households around the world felt poorer and therefore cut their spending sharply.
Sky-high oil and food prices added to the pain, and thus to the downturn. Enterprises could not sell their output, leading to production cuts and layoffs. Rising unemployment compounded the loss of household wealth, throwing families into deep economic peril and leading to further cutbacks in consumer spending.
The big problem now is that unemployment continues to rise in the US and Europe, because growth is too slow to create enough new jobs. Dislocations are still being felt around the world.
A huge debate has ensued around the so-called "stimulus spending" in the US, Europe and China. Stimulus spending aims to use higher government outlays or tax incentives to offset the decline in household consumption and business investment.
Controversial stimulus
In the US, roughly one-third of the US$800-billion, two-year stimulus package comprises tax cuts (to stimulate consumer spending); one-third is public outlays on roads, schools, power and other infrastructure; and one-third takes the forms of federal transfers to state and local governments for health care, unemployment insurance, school salaries and the like.
Stimulus packages are controversial, because they increase budget deficits, and thus imply the need to cut spending or raise taxes sometime in the near future.
The question is whether they successfully boost output and jobs in the short term, and, if so, whether they do enough to compensate for the inevitable budget problems down the road. The true effectiveness of these packages is not clear.
An early assessment of the stimulus packages suggests that China's program has worked well.
The sharp fall in China's exports to the US has been compensated by a sharp rise in the Chinese government's spending on infrastructure - say, on subway construction in China's biggest cities.
In the US, the verdict is less clear. The tax cut has probably been saved rather than spent. The infrastructure component has not yet been spent because of long lags in turning the US stimulus package into real construction projects.
The third part - the transfer to state and local governments - almost surely has been successful in maintaining spending on schools, health and the unemployed.
In short, the US stimulus effects on spending have probably been positive but small, and without a decisive effect on the economy.
When the crisis deepened a year ago, Barrack Obama introduced into the presidential campaign the theme of a "green recovery," based on a surge of investment in renewable energy, new electric vehicles, environmentally efficient "green" buildings, and ecologically sound agriculture.
In the heat of the battle against financial panic, policy attention turned away from that green recovery. Now the US needs to return to this important idea.
(The author is Professor of Economics at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
In the span of three days, September 15-17, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the mega-insurance company AIG was taken over by the United States government, and the failing Wall Street icon Merrill Lynch was absorbed by Bank of America in a deal brokered and financed by the US government.
Panic ensued and credit stopped circulating. Non-financial companies could not get working capital, much less funding for long-term investments. A depression seemed possible.
Today, the storm has broken. Months of emergency action by the world's leading central banks prevented financial markets from crashing.
When banks stopped providing short-term liquidity to other banks and industrial companies, central banks filled the gap.
As a result, the major economies avoided a collapse of credit and production.
The sense of panic has subsided. Banks are once again lending to each other. Although the worst was avoided, much pain remains.
The crisis culminated in a collapse of asset prices at the end of 2008. Middle-class and wealthy households around the world felt poorer and therefore cut their spending sharply.
Sky-high oil and food prices added to the pain, and thus to the downturn. Enterprises could not sell their output, leading to production cuts and layoffs. Rising unemployment compounded the loss of household wealth, throwing families into deep economic peril and leading to further cutbacks in consumer spending.
The big problem now is that unemployment continues to rise in the US and Europe, because growth is too slow to create enough new jobs. Dislocations are still being felt around the world.
A huge debate has ensued around the so-called "stimulus spending" in the US, Europe and China. Stimulus spending aims to use higher government outlays or tax incentives to offset the decline in household consumption and business investment.
Controversial stimulus
In the US, roughly one-third of the US$800-billion, two-year stimulus package comprises tax cuts (to stimulate consumer spending); one-third is public outlays on roads, schools, power and other infrastructure; and one-third takes the forms of federal transfers to state and local governments for health care, unemployment insurance, school salaries and the like.
Stimulus packages are controversial, because they increase budget deficits, and thus imply the need to cut spending or raise taxes sometime in the near future.
The question is whether they successfully boost output and jobs in the short term, and, if so, whether they do enough to compensate for the inevitable budget problems down the road. The true effectiveness of these packages is not clear.
An early assessment of the stimulus packages suggests that China's program has worked well.
The sharp fall in China's exports to the US has been compensated by a sharp rise in the Chinese government's spending on infrastructure - say, on subway construction in China's biggest cities.
In the US, the verdict is less clear. The tax cut has probably been saved rather than spent. The infrastructure component has not yet been spent because of long lags in turning the US stimulus package into real construction projects.
The third part - the transfer to state and local governments - almost surely has been successful in maintaining spending on schools, health and the unemployed.
In short, the US stimulus effects on spending have probably been positive but small, and without a decisive effect on the economy.
When the crisis deepened a year ago, Barrack Obama introduced into the presidential campaign the theme of a "green recovery," based on a surge of investment in renewable energy, new electric vehicles, environmentally efficient "green" buildings, and ecologically sound agriculture.
In the heat of the battle against financial panic, policy attention turned away from that green recovery. Now the US needs to return to this important idea.
(The author is Professor of Economics at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
