• 7 minutes Get First Access To The Oilprice App!
  • 11 minutes Japanese Refiners Load First Iran Oil Cargo Since U.S. Sanctions
  • 13 minutes Oil prices forecast
  • 17 minutes Renewables in US Set for Fast Growth
  • 8 hours Chinese FDI in U.S. Drops 90%: America's Clueless Tech Entrepreneurs
  • 5 hours Socialists want to exorcise the O&G demon by 2030
  • 44 mins Russian Message: Oil Price War With U.S. Would Be Too Costly
  • 10 hours Good Marriage And Bad Divorce: Germany's Merkel Wants Britain and EU To Divorce On Good Terms
  • 23 hours Cheermongering about O&G in 2019
  • 28 mins Oil CEOs See Market Rebalancing as Outlook Blurred by China Risk
  • 2 days Is Natural Gas Renewable? I say yes it is.
  • 1 day Duterte's New Madness: Philippine Senators Oppose President's Push To Lower Criminal Age To 9
  • 2 days North Sea Rocks Could Store Months Of Renewable Energy
  • 15 hours *Happy Dance* ... U.S. Shale Oil Slowdown
  • 2 days Making Fun of EV Owners: ICE-ing Trend?
  • 2 days Emissions from wear of brakes and tyres likely to be higher in supposedly clean vehicles, experts warn
  • 5 hours WSJ: Gun Ownership on Rise in Europe After Terror Attacks, Sexual Assaults

Temporary vs. Permanent Increases in Government Spending

Not long ago Paul Krugman wrote:

To a first approximation, in other words, the effect of current fiscal policy — whether stimulus or austerity — an [on?] the actions of future governments is zero.

He makes further points at the link, although there is not a citation to the literature. I thought we should look at the evidence a little more closely. Some of it contradicts Krugman as read literally, though it is not all bad news for his larger point.

Here is an abstract from Brian Goff:

In spite of Peacock and Wiseman’s 1961 NBER study demonstrating the “displacement effect”, simplistic theoretical and empirical distinctions between temporary and permanent spending are common. In this paper, impulse response functions from ARMA models as well as Cochrane’s non-parametric method support Peacock and Wiseman’s conclusion by showing 1) government spending in the aggregate displays strong persistence to temporary shocks, 2) simple decomposition methods intended to yield a “temporary” spending series have a weak statistical foundation, and 3) persistence in spending has increased during this century. Also, as a basic “fact” of government spending behavior, the displacement effect lends support to interest group and bureaucracy models of government spending growth.

There is persistence to spending, although this study does not create a category for stimulus spending per se, however that concept might be defined.

Click here to read the full article



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News