Does Austerity Work?

Does asceticism Work?Critic aloney quantify claims that ascesis is the most effective strategy to counter a recession. asceticism is one of the most controversial frugal policies, not only because thither is an ongoing debate between academics and policy rack uprs about its effectiveness and consequences, except in addition because it make the life of millions and rent caused many political and well-disposed turmoil when implemented. The encourage of this policy betokens that it is the most effective and even more than it is the solution regardless of the structure of the thrift and the cause of the stinting downturn or recession. I exit argue that this is not true, and that there ar other policy designs that proved effective and delivered obedient results with less complaisant cost in term of unemployment, social disturbances and welfare reduction. austerity measures were recommended by policy makers in advanced economies as well as international organization s such as the IMF and the Word Bank. They were prescribed as a touch on in many economics situations and contexts in the developing countries, for example Latin America sovereign debt crisis and the Asian crisis, furthermore in the aftermath of the monetary crisis of 2007 and the great rescission that followed asceticism policies were implemented or advocated in substantial economies manage UK, USA and part of the debt troubled EU countries referred to as PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) (Blyth, 2013). only it is important to first define what is meant by nonindulgence and what is the beneathlie economic theory behind it. Usually when economists or policy makers refer to austerity they superior oecumenicly mean the reduction in the structural deficit in the authorities budget regardless of its effect on the business cycle, and it is to a fault refers to the policy of reducing the size of the overt sector in general (Room, 2015). This brook be done through pull downing the government disbursement (like social and welfare benefits, consumption on infrastructure and healthcare, moveing wages, etc.). The underlying economic reasoning behind austerity policy is that heights curb aim of public debt is a burden on the future generations because any debt should be paid in the future from budget surpluses raised form valuate payers. It alike cause high level of liaison rate (due to higher demand by government) which in turn discourage secret investment. consequently austerity policy by reducing the government expenditure exit descend the public debt, consequently increase confidence in the economy, reduce interest evaluate and consequently stimulate private investment using up and the economy. A common theme in austerity policy is the cerebrate that government intervention itself through fiscal policy is the source of economic imbalances and it associate crisis with bad public finance management and reckless spending behavior (Wr en-Lewis, 2016).The advocate of austerity say that the national economy bathroomnot explicate out of debt. Some scholars argue that if the ratio of debt to gross domestic yield (GDP) is reach 90% for advanced economies, or 60% for emerging economies, the debt will decelerate down economic developing (Reinhart and Rogoff, 2010). In this situation, the economy chamberpot easily populate financial crises because the investor confidence will fall, and this will make foreign direct investment be buzz off less (Konzelmann, 2014 Reinhart and Rogoff, 2010). Another affiliated idea is that high level of debt means that the government needs to claim capital resources from the community to pay for it, and this will besides slow the evolution of the economy. The national economies with high debt indeed likely to raise interest order to encourage demand for government bonds, and this will make it more high-priced for the public to borrow money. The result of this expense is low co nsumption and issue, so the economy will steadily decline (Boccia, 2013). The high interest rates also make the currency become more valuable, which means that exports slow down because they become more expensive for international market, and this will also slow down the economy (Pa mangero et al., 2002). The advocate of austerity therefore argue that high levels of debt will cause the economy to slow down, and say that slip debt, which austerity does, is the best way to tending countries with high debt to achieve branch (Blyth, 2013).There are ample of evidence contradicting the public debate that the austerity is eer a solution to recession. An analysis of the performance and consequences of such policies suggest that austerity policy in practice led in many instances to declivity the recession and budget deficit mainly due to its blind crosscut and its tendency to ignore the different economic structure for each country, in fact it worsen the symptoms that it designed to cure (Haltom and Lubik, 2013). Lets look at the experience of Spain with austerity. Before the 2007 financial crisis Spain had enjoyed robust economy with long period of growth led by the real demesne sector, the budget was actually in surplus at around 2.5% of the GDP. When the crisis of 2007 hit Spain economic vulnerabilities mainly noncompetitive private sector and the over reliance on real estate sector and excessive borrowing by the private sector. The crisis resulted in lower demand and hence lower tax compendium and budget deficit. moreover deterioration in bank assets quality and concludency problem surfaced (Dellepiane and Hardiman, 2012).In 2010 Spain like many other troubled EU countries implemented the austerity blueprint i.e. cut spending. This solution was based on misinterpretation of the crisis cause in Spain (and southern Europe in general) that the crisis is caused by the mismanaged public finances, so not surprisingly was the result, instead of the involuti onary austerity Spain got stuck of a vicious circle of lower demand (driven by lower government spending), lower tax collection (revenues), higher unemployment and further deterioration of the financial sector health (Dellepiane and Hardiman, 2012). In fact this was the situation of all the EU countries that implemented austerities, as we merchant ship show from the economic performance of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIIGS) since 2008. For all these countries, austerity made their debt increase, not decline, and economic activity slowed down (Blyth, 2013). In Greece, the ration of debt to GDP grew from 106% to one hundred seventy% from 2007 to 2012, even though there was much austerity cuts. The same causa happened on Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain.The economist capital of Minnesota Krugman pointed out that the idea of austerity collapsed under the empirical results of the policy of austerity, and he refers to the academic and research body that back up auster ity did not stand scrutiny and turned out to be based on dubious statistical methods and some clock times outright mistakes (Krugman, 2015). In similar way, Simon Wren-Lewis (2016) observed that the austerity in Europe was unnecessary core of the fiscal contraction. In other words, the European countries could have successfully stomach a gradual fiscal consolidation accompanied with expansionary monetary policy by the ECB to offset the contractionary effect of the fiscal policy. However in slick of Europe in 2010 the interest rates was already at home in and there was no room for expansionary monetary policy (a situation also referred to as liquidity trap), so postponing fiscal consolidation would not fairish delay austerity unless now avoid it all together (Wren-Lewis, 2016).It is therefore precise clear that austerity cannot be a solution for recessions, scarcely the question is then what can be the cure. If we go back in the recent history of the economic theory and poli cy we can picture that there have been examples of an alternative economic policy to austerity that has successfully dealt with recessions and restored the economic activity to the growth path. This policy was the Keynesian economic that prevailed for a period of 30 years from the world war II till late 1970s. Keynes model of how the economy works are based on the idea that when there is economic downturn and since business expectation in the recession are low because of the uncertainty only the government has can restore confidence to the economy and the policy recommendation is to increase government spending (expansionary fiscal policy) to boost he general level of economic activity, increase demand and compensate for the lower private demand (Burton, 2016). This is the very opposite of the idea of austerity, and many economists now argue the same thing.Paul Krugman (2012) is a famous example of this argument. Krugman rejects the idea of austerity, and argues that to help the ec onomy come out of the recession it is necessary for the government to increase debt. The foundation of this argument is the nature of debt. Krugman (2012) says that the economist moldiness consider public debt and private debt as two separate things, rather than just the same. His reason for this idea is that, first, private debt needs to be recompensed, but this is not the issue with government debt. For the governments, it is just necessary to make sure that there is enough tax to cover debts. Another difference is that in private debt the money is owed to someone else, but government debt is money that the government owes to itself and to the country, such as pensions and other requirements (Krugman 2012). If these differences are considered, it becomes clear that in a situation of high personal debt, a good solution is for the government to take on higher debt to help boost the economic activity (Krugman and Eggertsson, 2012). Krugman and Eggertsson (2012) argue that fiscal expe nditure must be used to maintain employment, productivity and earnings at the time that private debt is decreased, because this will keep the tax earnings up and stomach the government to decrease its own debt when the recession is over. Beside, increased financial expansion will work better in a situation where interest rates are lower, because there will be lower displace out of private business (Krugman and Eggertsson, 2012 1490). In such situations, financial comment will therefore boost economic activity and give good growth to GDP, while decreases in public spending will have the opposite effect, slowing growth and asking GDP down (Holland and Portes, 2012).In this essay, I have shown the foundation of the idea of austerity and explained why the economists who weigh it say that it is the solution for the situation of a recession. The advocate of austerity argues that high public debt makes it more expensive to obtain a loan, and this causes the economy to slow. Furthermore , it also causes currency inflation, which causes exports to become more expensive and slows economic activity. FDI also slows down, and all these factors together mean that the economy cannot achieve any development. The solution of austerity is therefore to cut public spending to bring down the public debt. However, the empirical evidence of the effects of austerity measures show that it is not a useful policy to achieve these ends. In countries such as Greece, Spain and others where austerity has been used, austerity has caused the opposite of these results ratio of debt to GDP gets higher and higher, unemployment rises, economic growth slows, and the recession becomes worse. The reason for this fail of austerity to solve the problem is because the advocate of austerity does not differentiate between public debt and private debt, as Krugman (2012) argues. In the recession, if the government takes on more debt through implementing fiscal stimulus, it can stimulate economic activit y by allowing people to spend and take loans. This will increase the circulation of capital, which will have many positive effects in bringing about growth. Then, when the private debt level is high and the economy is more active, the government can reduce its financial stimulus to bring down its debt. In both theoretically and empirically, it is clear that austerity cannot solve the problems that cause recession, and it therefore necessary to consider the alternatives.ReferencesDauderstdt, M. ed., 2013. Alternatives to Austerity Progressive offset Strategies for Europe. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Krugman, P., 2015. The austerity delusion. The Guardian, 29.Room, G., 2015. Alternatives to Austerity. Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath. (IPR Spotlight)Haltom, R.C. and Lubik, T.A., 2013. Is Fiscal Austerity Good for the thrift?. Richmond Fed Economic Brief, (Sept), pp.1-5.http//www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ed_dialogue/actrav/documents/publication/wcms_158927.pdfWren-L ewis, S., 2016. A general theory of austerity. BSG Working Paper Series, University of Oxford.Blyth, M., 2013. Austerity The history of a insidious idea. Oxford Oxford University Press.Dellepiane Avellaneda, Sebastian and Hardiman, Niamh (2012) The New Politics of Austerity Fiscal Responses to Crisis in Ireland and Spain. Working paper. UCD Geary Institute, Dublin.Burton, M., 2016. Is Austerity Necessary?. In The Politics of Austerity (pp. 189-204). Palgrave Macmillan UK.Reinhart, Carmen and Kenneth Rogoff. 2010. Growth in a time of debt. The American Economic Review100(2) 573-578.Konzelmann, Suzanne J. 2014. The Political Economics of Austerity. Cambridge Journal of Economics38(4) 701-741.Boccia, Romina. 2013. How the get together States High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans. Backgrounder 2768 1-8.Pattillo, C.A., Poirson, H. and Ricci, L.A., 2002. External debt and growth (No. 2002-2069). International Monetary Fund.Krugman, Paul. 2012. Nobody Understands Debt. Th e New York Times The Opinion Pages. Accessed 28 October 2014. Available at http//www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1Krugman, Paul and Gauti Eggertsson. 2012, Debt, Deleveraging, and the Liquidity hole a Fisher-Minsky-Koo approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3) 1469-1518.Holland, Dawn and Jonathan Portes. 2012. Self-Defeating Austerity? National Institute Economic Review 222(222) 4-10.