BATTLEFIELDS OF TRADE

Conquest was the old way for countries to acquire resources, but trading is much cheaper.

 

Listener: 12 July, 2014.

 

Keywords: Globalisation & Trade; Political Economy & History;

 

Over the next few years, as we think back to the Great War a century ago, we will be reminded of politics and bungling, heroism and tragedy, deadlock broken by technol­ogy. But there is also an economic lesson we can learn.

 

In the run-up to 1914, the German economy had been growing rapidly. When the nation was formed in 1871, Germany’s GDP was about the same size as France’s and 30% smaller than the UK’s. By 1914 it was 50% bigger than France’s and only 10% smaller than the UK’s.

 

This is no excuse for going to war, but Germany felt economically hemmed in within Europe; precipitating the Great War could be seen as a way to resolve the claustrophobia.

 

But at what cost. Germany’s defeat meant there was no resolution. In 1919, the French exacted revenge for losing the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war. Indeed, the reparations imposed by the Allies on Germany led to World War II.

 

Although the British and US economies were of a similar size in 1871, by 1914 the US economy was about double the size of the UK’s. A war for dominance in Europe became a world war; its outcome was American hegemony. The post-World War II economic success of losers such as Germany and Japan simply reflected what was going to happen anyway.

 

Of course, the economic story is more complicated than a column can encapsulate, but what is instructive is that the great Western powers responded differently after World War II. The all-powerful US instituted the Marshall Plan aid initiative to lessen the privations of Europe’s postwar reconstruction. Two French politicians, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, were even more prescient: they proposed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in 1951.

 

They reasoned that if the steel and coal industries of France and Germany (and four other European countries), which provided “the sinews of war”, could be sufficiently integrated, the countries could never again fight each other. They have not.

 

But this was still driven by the last war, about the need to curtail military might. It did not address the economic jostling within Europe. The establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957 – with which the ECSC was to merge – began that process. It is now the European Union of 28 sovereign states, none of which has fought (militarily) another since joining. If this seems trite, it is almost 70 years since the end of World War II – the longest period of peace for that part of Europe (although outside its bor­ders there has been war).

 

In part this peace is because they have found a different way of resolving economic tensions. Once, a country acquired the resources it needed by conquest. Today, the resources can be acquired by trade. That is cheaper than conquest, and the costs of not succeeding are far less damaging.

 

Thus the world trading and investment regime has become an alternative to warfare, especially in Europe. But the regime still com­promises the sovereignty of those involved in the economic transactions, just as conquest does, although not as extensively.

 

This tension exists as long as we retain some notion of a national community. It also occurs within countries. A New Zealand region may resent a business transferring jobs to another part of the country – but probably not as much when they move offshore.

 

So should we abandon the nation state and just get on with economic intercourse with whoever is willing? Markets still need a legal and policy framework. More fundamentally, as long as we have a sense of belonging to a community, abandonment seems unlikely.

 

Three generations after the end of World War II, it doesn’t appear that individual Europeans are markedly less nationalistic than their fore­fathers. Fortunately, they are happier to express their feelings by contesting the European Cup or the Eurovision Song Contest. Less damaging, less tragic and more fun than repeating the Great War we are remembering.

BLOWING BUBBLES

If New Zealand is heading for a housing market implosion, watch what you borrow.

 

Listener: 24 June, 2014.

 

Keywords: Business & Finance; Macroeconomics & Money; Regulation & Taxation;

 

When commentator Jesse Colombo in business journal Forbes said New Zealand had a housing and credit bubble, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce shot the messenger, saying, “His view on life is that the whole world is pretty much in a bubble.” That does not mean Colombo was wrong.

 

Shortly after, the OECD pointed out that our house prices were exceptionally high relative to rental prices. It seemed to be suggesting that whereas investors could get an annual return of, say, 6% from company bonds, they would make only 3.6% as landlords.

 

However, the OECD reported house prices rose 8.2% in the year. Added to rental returns, that was a whacking 11.8% compared with bonds’ 6%. The after-tax housing return is higher still since capital gains from house price increases are not taxed. If the landlord had a mortgage, the return would be even better.

 

That was for last year, of course; strictly, the calculation is only really meaningful if the landlord sold the house, although the transaction costs of selling can be quite hefty. If the capital gain is not realised, there is only the promise it may be one day.

 

Including capital gains, property investors seem to have made a good return on their outlay. But will house-price inflation continue? The short answer can be found in Stein’s Law: if something can’t go on forever, it will stop. Indeed, when the housing bubble pops, house prices may even fall, although probably not by as much as the 40% implied by the OECD.

 

More likely they will fall a little, then stagnate. That is already true in some regions. The biggest housing bubble is in Auckland; Christchurch house prices are rising because of the earthquake, but so are its rents.

 

During the stagnation, landlords will get only 3.6%, instead of the 6% annual return on company bonds. Some will try to sell their rental properties, which will push housing prices down, making the return even more miserable for those who stay in.

 

Does this analysis apply to house owner-occupiers? Not nearly as much. If house prices fall – even dramatically – it would not affect them immediately. House outgoings would remain the same, including mortgage payments. Even if the house was worth less than the mortgage, it would only matter if the owners lost their jobs so they did not have enough income to service their debt. Unemployment usually rises when a bubble pops.

 

Those without a house might find it easier to buy one. But the people who would be most hurt by a bursting bubble – landlords and the jobless aside – would be those who needed to change houses for practical reasons such shifting location, a change in household size or retirement. There would be fewer houses for sale and fewer buyers in the market. The market might seize up, as it tends to in winter, but in a post-bubble world winter could last for years.

Economists dispute whether the Government should do anything about a housing bubble. Certainly it would be better if it went down slowly, but some doubt whether the Government can deflate it with any precision. The Reserve Bank already monitors the trading banks to ensure they are not too exposed, so when the bubble pops the payments system will not be compromised.

 

There would be agreement among economists that Government actions should not contribute to inflating the bubble. The Treasury, the Reserve Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD think good tax policy treats the return on all investment the same. They have not actually advocated a capital gains tax, however.

 

When will the housing bubble pop? Stein’s Law says only that it will – unless it deflates gently – not when. You would be wise to follow the banking system and make sure your downside is prudently protected if house prices stagnate or fall – especially if you are a landlord.

TOP MARKET INCOMES

Symposium on Inequality: Causes and Consequences June 19, 2014

Keywords:  Distributional Economics; Statistics;

Introduction

 

The purpose of this paper is to present some data on top market incomes in New Zealand. It updates an earlier paper by one year to 2011/2 and extends the estimates it back to 1936/7 .

 

The background to this paper is the international top incomes data base assembled by Facundo Alvaredo, Tony Atkinson Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. This paper provides an implicit critique of their New Zealand series without minimising their statistical achievement nor criticising Piketty’s theoretical analysis.

 

Working with data is tedious; definitions require great care. I shant talk in this paper much about methods, but I need to discuss definitions,. I do by differentiating between alternatives.

 

What Economy?

 

New Zealand. Some of the public discussion confuses what is happening in New Zealand with what is happening elsewhere (especially the US). Too often we imitate what is going on overseas instead of applying general principles to the New Zealand specifics. Towards the end of the paper, I place the New Zealand results in an international context as far as possible.

 

Who?

 

Natural persons who are adults (over 15). As far as possible the data to be presented excludes trusts and companies and other such legal artefacts.

 

Covering all adults deals with where the data base does not include all income recipients. While taxpayers were 98.2 percent of the adult population in 2012, in 1936/7 only 12.0 percent of adults where taxpayers.

 

This standardisation also allows us for the impact of women joining the paid labour force – a very important post-war phenomenon. I’ll say something more about adults with odd residential status.

 

What?

 

Wealth or Income?

 

Income. We dont not have very detailed information on top wealth.

 

Disposable or Market Incomes?

 

Ideally we would like to report market incomes. In practice the data being used is income reported for income tax purposes. Basically, it is market income but there is a little contamination from National Superannuation. Some omissions are explained below.

To be Compared With?

 

Not all market income is reported for tax purposes particularly in the past when not all individuals filed tax returns, and Inland Revenue had no other means of identifying their income. Instead we have used private market incomes as measured in the National Accounts. Unfortunately there is only a detailed series back to 1980/1. I have projected back earlier using National Accounting estimates of private income.

 

How Far Back?

 

To 1936/7. Earlier tax data does not separate out those who are not natural persons, such as companies.

 

Consistent Through Time?

 

‘Fraid not. I’ve done my best. What I particularly cant do is allow for changes in tax law.

 

One tax change which complicates the data is the treatment of corporate dividends. Until 1989 they were ‘doubled taxed’. Corporations paid tax on their profits and their dividends paid from the tax-paid profits were treated as taxable income of the shareholder. From 1989 there has been a dividend imputation system in which a shareholder receiving a dividend from a company is entitled to an ‘imputation credit’, which represents tax paid by the company and is offset against the shareholder’s income tax liability. In effect corporation tax becomes a withholding tax for shareholders’ dividends.

 

This altered the way that dividends are recorded by the IRD. For example, $100 of corporate profits which were taxed at, say, 33 percent and fully paid out were recorded as $67 before imputation but as $100 after the new regime was introduced. Thus the taxpayer’s recorded income went up, but so did their after tax income (by the same amount).

 

In order to get consistency over time I have treated the grossing up of these dividends as the substantial tax break that it was, so we are classifying the increase as belonging to an increase in disposable income . (That was in addition to the substantial lowering of the top tax rate from 1988.)

 

What Part of the Income Distribution?

 

Top incomes only. I shall report the income shares of the top 10 percent, 1 percent and 0.1 percent of adults. Also the Pareto coefficient which I explain shortly.

 

Given these Limitations, Why Bother?

 

Because it is there, I suppose. The reason it is prioritised is that Piketty’s book considers what is happening to top market incomes. What has been happening in New Zealand?

 

I am reporting is the best data I have. Robert Solow famously justified some statistical work he was doing by citing the addicted gambler who knew ‘the casino wheel is crooked but it is the only one in town’. At least he knew what he was doing.

 

Benchmarks

 

The following 2012 tax year benchmarks may be useful:

 

There were about 3.5 million adults over the age of 15. So the top 10 percent of income recipients amounted to 350,000, the top 1 percent were 35,000 and the top 0.1 percent were 3,500.

 

10 percent of adults had an income above about $72,500 and a 37.4 percent share of all income.

1 percent of adults had an income above about $165,000 and a 9.7 percent share of all income

0.1 percent of adults had an income above about $500,000 and a 2.7 percent share of all income..

 

The annualised average wage was around $45,000 while the average adult income was $36.000.

 

The Pareto Coefficient

 

Vilfredo Pareto famously proposed that upper incomes followed a power probability law characterised by a single parameter, the ‘Pareto coefficient’. They indicate how compressed the top tail of a distribution is. The lower the coefficient the more unequal is it is – the more stretched out

 

Pareto coefficients are in excess of 1, but typically near 2. If the coefficient is 2 and there are 1000 above income $X, then there will be 250 above $2X. But if the coefficient is 3 there will be only 125 above that income, the smaller number indicating the distribution is more equal.

 

The strength of the Pareto coefficient is that it represents well the top of a distribution, while the rest of the distribution need not be known. Its weakness is the converse.

 

The figure shows the Pareto coefficient for top incomes between 1936/7 and 2011/2. Initially it starts low at around 2.0. The average of 17 OECD countries in 2005 came to 2.1; on this measure New Zealand was about as unequal at the top before the Second World War as is typical for an OECD country today.

 

The coefficient then steadily rises to about 3 by 1960. Over the entire period it averages about 2.9; high compared to many other countries, which implies a lower top inequality. It then runs at this three-ish level from the early 1960s to the end of the 1980s, after which it perhaps begins to rise.

 

I explain the reasons for this pattern after I have looked at income shares.

 

Top Income Shares

 

The pattern for the top 10 percent of adults is the converse of the story of the Pareto distribution. They have a high share of around 35 percent of all market income from just before the War. A 35 percent share means that the decile had an average income 3.5 times the national adult average. A 25 percent share is 2.5 times the national average.

 

The 35 percent level continues to about 1959/60, and then falls to 25 percent in about 1980. The top decile’s share then stagnates through the 1990s since when it has been increasing slightly.

 

The patterns for the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent are broadly the same as for the top decile, except that there is no evidence of their share increasing in the last two decades.

 

Observe that there is little evidence in the data of a a business cycle – perhaps surprisingly. There is probably not a lot to be gained from a year-to-year analysis because of sampling variability. However some changes need to be dealt with, before we look at the trends.

 

The 2000 Blip

 

There is a definite blip in the income shares in the 1999/2000 year indicating an increase in inequality. The top income tax rate was increased from 33 to 39 percent for the 2000/2001 year. Many taxpayers arranged their income flows to move income from the high tax year back to the lower tax year, temporarily raising income in 1999/2000 and lowering it in the following year.

 

Why Did Inequality Measure at the Top Decline in the First Part of the Post-War Era?

 

There was a secular decline of the share of top Incomes in the first 40 years after the Second World War.

 

Its causes were probably more related to the remaining 90 percent of adults and cannot be tracked from this data basis. However other work I have done suggests that the most important driver was the impact of full employment in the period. It operated through the following four channels.

– Male labour force participation rose, essentially out of unemployment.

– Female (paid) labour force participation rose dramatically as changing household circumstances and domestic technologies made it easier to (also) work outside the home.

– Maori migration from the countryside into the urban centres, which increased their market incomes.

– There seems to have been compression in remuneration margins within the labour force.

 

What Happened After 1990?

 

Since the 1980s the early post-war drivers towards less inequality were no longer there. Full employment, as we understood it in the early post-war era, no longer exists. Probably our ‘normal’ level of unemployment will be now similar to other rich market economies. The post-war migration of woman into the paid labour force and Maori into cities is largely over. The institutional mechanisms which enabled wage compression have been largely abandoned. I shall have more to say about this. So the increasing inequality which characteris4ed the first four decades of the Post-War era came to an end. The market (tax assessed) income inequality largely stabilised.

 

However the share of the top 10 percent seems to have marginally increased (although it is volatile) suggesting some increases in overall inequality. Yet the Pareto coefficient also incrementally increases, which is in the opposite direction suggesting a reduction in inequality among top incomes.

 

The two results can be reconciled if the strong increase in shares is accruing to those in the second to tenth percentiles – the top 10 percent less the top 1 percent (The 2 to 10 top percentiles.) . That would compress the top of the income distribution as indicated by the mildly rising Pareto coefficient.

 

Since the very top is far more influenced by rewards to capital, while below them there is a greater impact from the remuneration to top managers and professionals it would seem that in the last few decades the rewards to ordinary labour. Piketty observes this effect too.

 

One local factor may have been the 1988 State Sector Act which abandoned the rigid relativities that existed in the public service, enabling higher relative remuneration to the top civil servants, while most civil servants were experiencing restricted real increases (or declines). The same thing was happening in the private sector; a consequence of the globalisation of the market for management and higher professionals.

 

Unfortunately we cannot estimate the magnitude of the margin increasing in order to assess to what degree that explains the rest of the upshift.

 

If this hypothesis is correct then the driver of the recent increasing inequality is from widening labour earnings rather than increases in the return and quantity of wealth.

 

What About the Piketty Thesis?

 

First notice is that New Zealand’s high income recipients have low incomes compared to those overseas. Our top 0.1 percent are about 3,500 individuals who report annual taxable incomes of $500,000 or more in 2011/2. Around 700 would report incomes in excess of $1,000,000.

 

New Zealand does not seem to follow the Piketty thesis of rising inequality in top incomes. But this would be to adopt the Piketty thesis crudely.

 

New Zealand has no sophisticated financial sector. That means no mega-remunerations. (There is no general agreement within the economics profession as to why this is happening.)

 

But the Piketty effect is even more explained by patterns of wealth accumulation and returns. We dont have the New Zealand data to explore this directly. Before tackling the issue I need to explore some other possibilities.

 

There are, of course, measurement problems. The data series since 1981/2 are of higher quality. However there are omissions.

 

The data series does not cover trusts. Apparently trusts have become more common since the ending of inheritance tax in 1992.

 

Nor does it cover capital gains. There is often confusion about the effect of omitting capital gains. Unquestionably including them would increase the level of income inequality. On the basis of the handful of countries for which there are estimates, the inclusion of capital gains might add about 1 percentage point to the share of the top 1 percent’s income – say increasing their share from 5 to 6 percent of private income.

 

However, while the omission of capital gains reduces the measured inequality, it does not automatically follow that it disguises increasing inequality. It is not impossible that capital gains were smaller after the Global Financial Crisis than before it. In which case inequality of top incomes may hardly been have changing at all. We just dont know.

 

My suspicion is the big issue which makes the data difficult to interpret though is what may be called ‘partial New Zealand residents’.

 

Partial New Zealand Residents

 

Under New Zealand tax laws, those with high incomes can avoid declaring offshore income for taxable purposes by avoiding being New Zealand tax residents. The criteria for being a New Zealand tax resident are

– living in New Zealand for more than 183 days in any 12-month period, or

– having an ‘enduring relationship’ with New Zealand, or

– being away from New Zealand in the service of the New Zealand government.’

 

People who are not New Zealand tax residents are liable for New Zealand tax only on their New Zealand-sourced income. Thus they may appear in the IRD data base but only part of their income is reported.

 

New Zealand is such a small economy that those with very large fortunes are likely to hold wealth portfolios diversified by jurisdiction. It is not implausible that as little as a third of their income comes from New Zealand sources; only that part is reported in the tax statistics.

 

Given increasing international mobility it seems likely that an increasing proportion of those at the very top of the income distribution are not tax residents. If so, any Piketty effect of a growing elite of the rich is likely to be missed in the New Zealand tax data.

 

Earlier I argued for a New Zealand social science, and not an imitative colonial one. But New Zealand analysis needs always to be in the context of a globalised world.

 

Politics and Market Incomes

 

Disraeli summarise privilege as ‘pay, patronage and power’. Recently there have been increasing public concern about the extent that those on top incomes are influencing the political process.

 

Underlying this concern is the ideal of democracy being about ‘one person one vote’, whereas market activity is about ‘one dollar one vote’. In practice the two areas of public life cannot be so easily separated, so one can infringe excessively upon the other. For instance, it it is now generally accepted that before the mid-1980s, politics was too involved in market decisions. But can the opposite happen? This is an evident political concern in the US; does it apply in New Zealand? This is a wider issue than this paper can cover; here are few pointers.

 

It is an interesting feature of New Zealand’s electoral system that we now have three minor parties openly backed by millionaires. Each is dependent upon the threshold effect which our MMP system allows. Many think it is an anomaly; perhaps it becomes even more anomalous if it enables millionaires to buy seats in parliament.

 

Perhaps political donations are more in the spirit of democracy if they are transparent. It is not obvious they are sufficiently transparent in New Zealand.

 

The rich have also the ability to buy acolytes to promote their political views. Again transparency of funding sources may be vital, but as one who is unwilling to curtail open speech it seems to me that it would be better to develop institutions with an alternative view rather than have the lopsided funding of lobbying which currently dominates New Zealand.

 

It also appears that some of those who are not tax residents play a significant role in New Zealand political life as donors, as political advocates and as lobbyists (and as voters). Given that taxation is the price of citizenship is this appropriate? Perhaps such political activities amount to having an enduring relationship with New Zealand.

 

Conclusions

 

The share of those with top incomes fell up to the end of the 1980s, while top incomes became increasingly compressed. Shortly after, there were increases in inequality arising from increases in remuneration margins for management and professionals and the introduction of a dividend imputation system. There have been small or no increases in inequality since.

 

Calibration difficulties make international comparisons difficult, so we must be cautious about ranking New Zealand’s top income inequality with economies elsewhere.

 

However there is no evidence of a major surge in inequality in the New Zealand data in the first decade of the twenty first century, as has occurred in the UK and the US, probably because New Zealand does not have as sophisticated financial sectors as they have and because New Zealand’s wealthy may function – for some purposes – outside the country.

IS NEW ZEALAND A BUBBLE ECONOMY?

Wellington branch, NZ Shareholders Association, 10 June 2014

Keywords: Business & Finance; Macroeconomics & Money;

My topic tonight is New Zealand as a bubble economy. But I need to start with a listener warning. I am an economist, not a financial adviser – registered or unregistered. Economic theory tells us something about the context of investment decisions, but it is not designed to give specific investment advice. Tonight I am going to talk about that context in terms of the contemporary challenges the New Zealand economy faces. Just to make sure that you dont think I am giving you any advice, I am going to illustrate the issue with the housing market.

 

What do we mean by a financial bubble? The physical analogue is a fragile physical entity which inflates, pops and deflates – usually with a smattering all around. Financial bubbles are much the same. Fragile, inflating, inclined to go pop and leave a mess behind.

 

The use of the term ‘bubble’ to characterise such events is about three hundred years old – London’s South Sea Bubble burst in 1720, but there were comparable crashes about this time in Paris and Amsterdam. Asset price inflation followed by collapse has repeated itself many times since, so economists have thought a lot about the phenomenon.

 

I shant have time to go through the entire history of economists’ analysis – nobody has that time – but I must mention the great Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who argued that booms and busts were an integral part of capitalism and the process of economic growth. If he is right, we face future bubbles until capitalism itself fades away.

 

From this point of view public policy does not want to stop bubbles as a matter of principle, although it may want to reduce the impact of the pop. Hence the measures taken throughout the world to make banks more robust so that the payments system continues to function following a financial crisis

 

An important consequence is that in a capitalist economy investors will always to be at risk of losing all or some of their funds. The higher the return the investor aims for, the greater that risk, that is the greater the likelihood the investor will lose the invested funds. However investors should have a reasonable expectation that those they are investing with exhibit ethical behaviour in accordance with the law. Without those preconditions the transaction costs of running a market economy would become too onerous for it to work effectively.

 

Recently, a Forbes commentator, Jesse Colombo, said New Zealand had a housing and credit bubble. the Minister of Economic Development, Steven Joyce, responded with Colombo’s ‘view on life is that the whole world is pretty much in a bubble and there’s no place he doesnt pick on’. Both were right. You’d expect there to be bubbles in most prospering economies. The issue is the size of the bubble, the significance of the sectors in which the bubble occurs, how soon it pops and the magnitude of the disaster it brings down on itself.

 

There was a view that we had finally conquered financially caused business cycles. Yes, there were business cycles but they were caused by external shocks. The notion of the end of the business cycle became very fashionable a couple of decades ago; some of you will have been taught real cycle theory at university as though it was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In which case your teachers would not have pointed out that at the time there were financial crashes occurring all over the world. Apparently the economy did not take as much notice of real business cycle theory as some economists did.

 

I dont know if they still teach only real cycle theory – some of our university economists have terrible trouble catching up with reality – but some economists continued to work outside the fashion. The most notable was Hyman Minsky. Dying in 1996, he did not live to see his theories being used to understand the Global Financial Crisis. Nor did he see his name enshrined in the ‘Minsky moment’, the point in the cycle when sufficient investors realise collapse is inevitable and the downward plunge begins.

 

At the heart of Minsky’s analysis is that there are speculative bubbles which the financial system exaggerates because investors can purchase assets with debt. Leveraging is necessary there at the boom. It is a terrific way to make a profit during the speculative phase, but during the bust the debt is a terrible burden, which can be personally very destructive.

 

If the investor thinks that the asset is under-priced – that the return will be higher than the market thinks – they can borrow and get an even higher return. There will always be some investors more optimistic than the market average Some optimists will prove right; others will lose their shirts; they are perfectly normal investment outcomes.

 

However if there are enough optimists, the price of the assets they purchase rises. The capital gain may be justified – perhaps the optimists had picked up a trend in productivity which would boost the future income from the asset. Whatever, others see the capital gain and buy into the asset too. The asset price goes up again. More capital appreciation, more people bet on the asset, using borrowed money. Without the borrowing the spiral would soon come to an end.

 

Now of course it must come to an end one day. Herbert Stein, an advisor to Richard Nixon, coined what today is known as ‘Stein’s law’: If something cant go on forever, it will stop.

 

Why dont those involved in speculative bubble realise this? Some do and sell out, but some investors stay in long after the asset prices become unrealistic relative to the true return.

 

Isaac Newton, who was involved in the South Sea Bubble, famously said ‘I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men’. Three hundred years later we have made only a little progress.

 

The most helpful insight comes from a research program we associate with Daniel Kahneman, who despite being a psychologist was awarded the so-called Nobel prize in economics in 2002. One of its empirical insights is that we seem to have two modes of decision-making which Kahneman labelled ‘thinking fast; thinking slow’.

 

Thinking fast uses short cuts and heuristics with a short time horizon, a consequence of which time-inconsistent decision-making. Thinking slow involves more careful reflection, a longer perspective and consistent decisions through time. However, greater reflection requires more energy, so we tend to rely on the think fast mode – it is a sort of ‘think lazy’.

 

So we go into many investment decisions without a careful evaluation using prices as proxies for the underlying economics – forgetting that they may be poor indicators. Frequently we forget Stein’s law until the Minsky moment.

 

Many of you will be broadly familiar with this analysis, and will know particular stories which illustrate the theory ranging from tulip to share market bubbles. I’ve gone over some of the theory in order to talk about the particularities of the current state of the New Zealand housing market.

 

Of course a house can be more than a piece of paper in the way a share or a bond only is. It may provide direct benefits to its owner’s family as shelter and a home. That may be why we flinch from thinking about housing rigorously.

 

A particular house may also also confer status on its owner – it is a form of conspicuous consumption. It probably leads to houses larger than are necessary for shelter and so there is a kind of inefficiency from this source in the housing stock.

 

The other function of housing is that it is an investment, although we need to be careful with the notion. Certainly housing is a good place to put one’s savings by paying off the mortgage. Socially ownership housing seems to be a good investment insofar as owners look after their properties better than tenants; you fix it up yourself, rather than getting a builder, which lowers transaction costs.

 

However let’s focus on the capital appreciation side of the investment. Most home owners expect their price of their house to rise faster than the rate of consumer inflation. Is that a capital gain for the owner?

 

Compared to consumer prices the answer is ‘yes’ but, as a rule, home owners dont convert the cash they obtain from selling their house into consumption goods. Rather they buy another home. If they make a capital gain on selling their house, they make a capital loss on their next house purchase. That is why it is common not to tax the capital gain on the houses one lives in.

 

I’ll come back to second houses but before doing so I need to give a few examples where this analysis does not quite work. One is that if the owner dies, they will not be purchasing another house and so, arguably, their estate has made a capital gain. And what if they migrate, buying their next house overseas?

 

There is an argument that one should tax capital gains from expensive houses, say over a million dollars. However this is really arguing for a tax on conspicuous consumption; that is outside today’s topic.

 

The tricky issue is illustrated by supposing at retirement you sell down using the savings from the cheaper house to enhance your retirement spending. Yes, in that case you do get a capital gain (when house prices rise faster than consumer prices). On the other hand, suppose you move up in the market purchasing a bigger house. In effect you then make a capital loss. It would be a terribly complicated capital gains tax system to deal with such situations. My guess is that it would generate little revenue because the capital gains of moving up in the market and moving down would approximately net out. Given the administrative complications, let’s leave the possibility to a theoretical exercise.

 

What about those who dont own houses but want to become home owners? They have been making capital losses insofar as the return on their savings has not kept up with rising house prices. That is a problem which may need public policy attention which I shant deal with it here.

 

Rather, I want to analyse investment housing, typically involving someone buying a second house to rent out for the purpose of making a return on their savings. Usually it is a leveraged purchase and under the current tax regime any capital gains from the investment are hardly taxed. Given rapid increase in house prices and a lot of leveraging, the return can be quite high – exactly the circumstances required to generate a speculative bubble.

 

Only a month ago the OECD looked at relative housing prices across 16 economies. Compared to rents – and indeed also in comparison to wages – New Zealand house prices were the highest among the 16 rich countries – with Belgium, Canada and Norway closely behind.

 

Some have argued that means rents should rise, but economists tend to assume that rents are set by supply and demand, so that they may well be near equilibrium levels and difficult to jack up. The implication is that house prices are too high.

 

At face value the OECD relativity suggests that while investors could obtain an annual return of, say, 6 percent from company bonds they would be getting only 3.6 percent from property of which they were landlords. However, the OECD reported that house prices rose over 8.2 percent in the year. With that added in the return was a whacking 11.8 percent compared to the 6 percent on bonds. (If the landlord partly financed the purchase by a mortgage, the return would be even better.) The difference in after tax return is even better. Suppose the tax rate is a quarter then the annual return is 10.9 percent to the landlord, 4.5 percent to the bond holder.

 

Apparently landlords are calculating their return not just on what they are getting in rents but also from the capital appreciation. Is this a good thing? To forewarn you of my conclusion, I would not be too fussed except that some investments are taxed and some are not distorts investment decisions and probably leads to wasted investment and – as I shall argue in the case of housing – presents a potential threat to the stability of the economy.

 

But first, I want to illustrate how the housing market works by a few scenarios to illustrate the complexities of the housing market.

 

Number one scenario is to assume that the government sets a maximum price for each house. (How exactly, need not detain us.) Suppose, following the OECD, it set the maximum price at a 40 percent discount on the current price, so that today’s million dollar house would be valued at $600,000. Everyone would wake up the following morning, grumble about the damned government’s intervention, but hardly be affected. Even a person with a $800,000 mortgage would have exactly the same outgoings as the previous day. While their balance sheet would look different their income and expenditure would be exactly the same.

 

A price cap on housing might stop house buying and selling for speculative gain, but people would still need to change houses for practical reasons. Consider a person living in a million dollar house who had to change – perhaps go to another city. Faced with a price cap, they would sell their house for $600,000 and buy essentially the same house for $600,000, so they would be square. But what if they had a $800,000 mortgage? They would be expected to pay it off but of course they would be recovering only $600,000 from their house so they would be $200,000 adrift. Moreover the banks would advance them only $480,000, say, on their new house. A price reduction – or even just price stagnation – really stuffs up the housing market.

 

Without elaborating the scenario further I make but two simple points. The first is that it is not so much the price of housing that matters, but the debt on the house – Minsky would smile at this insight. Second, the price path matters a lot when people want to buy and sell houses.

 

The second scenario illustrates more facets of the housing market. Suppose the government were to announce that the Reserve Bank would target house prices so that they would not rise more in a year than 3 percent on average. That would certainly take the speculative heat out of the housing market, and people would stop purchasing for speculative purposes.

 

But they would still need to buy and sell for practical reasons – household size changes, job changes, changes in the household life cycle. They could still do that, but here’s the rub: there would be a dramatic drop in the number of house purchases as investors for capital gain withdrew from the market. The market would become much thinner and house owners would find it much harder to move when they needed to.

 

This illustrates one of the acknowledged roles of speculation in financial markets. More participants deepen the market adding to its liquidity, so ordinary participants find it easier to get in and out of the market when they need to.

 

An ordinary financial market is far more liquid than a housing market; its products are more uniform and the transaction costs for buying and selling much lower. One guesses that a reduction in liquidity in the housing market would be even more damaging.

 

Moreover, investors supply housing for tenants. Suppose their investment becomes less profitable. It seems likely that there would be a reduction in the supply of additional rental housing. Would it be necessary to make an alternative supply?

 

My third scenario involves an external shock. Suppose, for illustration, that the Chinese financial system implodes. It seems likely some of the house purchases in Auckland (and Sydney and Vancouver) are financed directly or indirectly from the offshore financial system. In the stress some of the investors would want to reduce their exposure in New Zealand and would start selling houses. That would certainly put a dampener on rising house prices – especially in Auckland. The bubble would pop. Distressed selling, would cause prices to fall a bit (and then stagnate) so we would be back to a version first scenario.

 

I would not expect a dramatic drop in house prices, say of 40 percent similar to the collapse when a share market bubble pops. Typically New Zealand house prices do not fall sharply because people hold on as long as they can, rather than sell down. (It is different in America because of the different way their mortgages are organised.) House prices may fall a little but generally they stagnate, their real value being deflated by inflation. That could mean, as some regions are already experiencing, a long period of stagnation – literarily years or even a decade or more.

 

My fourth scenario, about which I shall be more elaborate, is the imposition of a capital gains tax. I shall assume a mild version, not too unlike the Labour proposal of 15 percent on second houses only and prospective, so it would only be on capital gains after the tax was implemented – say from April 1, 2015.

 

The Minister of Revenue, Todd McLay, has said that New Zealand already has a capital gains tax on property speculators. He said

‘When people say New Zealand doesn’t have a capital gains tax on property it’s not true – we do have a capital gains tax, and it applies to speculators.… if their intention is to make a gain from the capital, their normal income tax rules apply …’

 

If the OECD is right and most landlords are relying on capital appreciation to justify their investments in rental housing, then if the government enforces the law as set out by the minister, virtually every landlord should be taxed on the increment of the value of their rental properties when they sell it. Such a capital gains tax would be retrospective. My illustration will stick to the milder Labour proposal.

 

Under it we can expect there to be less investment interest in property and so house prices would not rise as quickly – all house prices, not just rental properties. The slower rise in housing prices may also discourage households from buying and selling their homes. So there will be a reduction in activity in the housing market generally. We are now very close to the outcome of my second scenario in which the Reserve Bank is charged with targeting house prices. There will be a reduction in liquidity of the housing market and fewer transactions, although the relatively lower house prices might encourage first home owners to enter the market.

 

What happens when the numbers of houses bought and sold are reduced? I shall get to the obvious, but do so slowly by putting in the steps of the analysis.

 

It is generally accepted that our bubbling is partly caused by overseas borrowing. It is not immediately obvious why. Suppose I buy a house for a million dollars, borrowing it (on the margin) from overseas via a bank. The vendor will bank the million, which will be used to pay off overseas debt so New Zealand is quits.

 

But whatever happens to the mortgage debt story, there are also considerable transactions costs in house selling and purchase. It is not just the real estate agent’s fees, lawyer’s fees, valuer’s fees, bank fees and building inspector’s fees plus removal costs. The purchaser may upgrade some of the furnishings and durables and make some alterations to the new house or do some maintenance preparing the old house for sale. Friends of mine doing this have spent over $35,000 all up.

 

That would, in effect, be borrowed overseas as a consequence of either running down the bank balance or taking out an increased mortgage. Since we trade about 80,000 already built houses a year, this amounts to borrowing about $2.5 billion annually to cover, say, an  average transaction costs of $30,000. That amounts to about 1 percent of GDP.

 

Suppose that amount would halve following the discouragement of property purchase for capital appreciation. That is over a $1 billion less offshore borrowing. It is also a $I billion odd less spent on transaction costs. The economics gets a bit complicated here, but to simplify, the exchange rate would fall while exports would increase. In principle the real estate agents and all who become unemployed would switch into working in the tradeable sector.

 

That production changes would take time is one of the reasons I think it wise to squeeze property speculation based on capital gains rather than slam down on it or wait for the bubble to pop.

 

The government might argue that it is doing something about the unstable housing market by making it easier to build new houses. Supply measures often have a role in managing a market, but the feasible additions to the stock of housing are small compared to overall demand. It is a bit like trying to cool soup by marginal increases in the size of the pot, while the flame of demand blazes merrily away.

 

Focussing on the supply side and ignoring the demand side comes from the same intellectual stable as the now discredited real business cycle theory. It is like going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back. You are bound to lose.

 

So what should we do about the demand side? I join our Treasury, our Reserve Bank, the IMF and the OECD who think that it is good economic policy to treat the return on all investment the same for tax purposes, thereby avoiding the distortions which discriminatory tax regimes engender. Not all of these have actually advocated a capital gains tax, but it is a way of implementing their policy principle.

 

I’d go for Labour proposal of starting afresh rather than the National (McLay) proposal of broadening the tax base to cover virtually all landlords retrospectively.

 

Of course, many would argue that this is all a counsel of perfection which can be delayed indefinitely. But if we do not try to squeeze a bubble caused by tax distortions, then it will pop with far more serious consequences. That was the point of my third scenario – to show how it could happen. There are many other ways it could.

 

And it will happen. Stein’s law is fundamental – irrefutable. The issue before us is whether we think fast and do nothing until the bubble pops followed by considerable pain, or whether we think slow and take action to ameliorate the pop – as soon as we can.

LOLLY SCRAMBLE, ANYONE?

It’s election year – should the government surplus be used to a) cut taxes, b) help the poor or c) repay debt?

 

Listener: 5 June, 2014

 

Keywords: Macroeconomics & Money;

 

Just before the Budget there seemed to be a public disagreement on economic policy between Prime Minister John Key and Finance Minister Bill English. Key took the view that some of any fiscal surpluses should be given back in tax cuts; English said he wanted to repay debt first. What’s the big economic picture behind their contretemps?

 

The question is not whether the surplus should be used for income tax cuts on middle incomes, as the PM was proposing, or whether extra money should be targeted at the poor or on increased government spending, as others are advocating.

 

The issue is whether the Government should be running a fiscal surplus at all, as is forecast in the 2014/15 year. We may not only be counting the chickens before they hatch but also be spending the proceeds from eggs yet to be laid.

 

Key’s public stance that some of the surplus should be given back arises from an ideological, but politically seductive, view of government. It’s “our” money it raises in taxes, so as soon as it can, it should return it.

 

English’s public stance is that this may be so in the long run, but a government, like a family or business, needs reserves for unfortunate events. Unlike Greece, say, during the global financial crisis in 2008, New Zealand was able to borrow reasonably easily because it was not carrying a lot of public debt. So we did not have to implement overly harsh measures to trim the economy. English and Key may chuckle and say, “That is why we are still in Government.”

 

But there could always be another financial crisis – we can’t rule one out in the next five years. And there are other risks to the economy such as foot and mouth disease, the collapse of key export prices, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and who knows what else. The Government needs a prudent debt level to be able to deal with such uncertainties.

 

There may be a more subtle analysis underpinning English’s view and reflecting those of some macro-economists. When we think of the economy as a whole, especially the monetary, fiscal and exchange rate system, we should be looking not merely at public debt and public saving – the surplus – but at the private sector ledger as well. Although the Government’s books look good, many households are running up debt. That is the driver for our high external deficit – why we are not paying our way in the world. In turn, the external deficit drives up the exchange rate, weakening the economy.

 

There was once an argument that what the private sector did was no concern of public policy. If people borrowed too much, that was their problem and that of those foolish enough to lend to them.

 

The theory looked pretty tatty as the financial crisis unfolded and the entire New Zealand financial system was compromised by our heavy private borrowing. Our low public debt enabled the Government to adjust more easily than some other countries, offsetting the excessive borrowing by the private sector. But it had to run up public debt to do so.

 

As long as there is private profligacy, we may need to do it again; that means getting back to a low debt level.

 

Most people think that when families are productive, they should build up their assets for emergencies and retirement. The Government doesn’t retire, but shouldn’t it follow the same saving strategy? Most people think a sound business should not pay out all its profits in dividends. Doesn’t the same apply to government surpluses?

 

English will be quite familiar with such issues. Reducing government debt is easier to argue; in the short run, it has the same outcome as the macroeconomic imperatives. My guess is that Key understands them well too. But it is election year, so it is seductive to promise the possibility of tax cuts. No doubt after the election Key will once again support English.

HAS STACEY A CHANCE?

 

nequality, poverty, and prospects for a better life

 

A Spirited Conversation: 28 May, 2014, Nelson

 

Keywords: Distributional Economics; Regulation & Taxation; Social Policy;

 

I want to begin by talking about Stacey who was a 14 year old Aucklander I met a couple of years ago when I was working on a standard of living case. She was living in a state house with only her beneficiary mother Meg. To protect her and her mother’s privacy I have simplified some detail and changed their names. I don’t think any changes I have made weaken what I am about to say; some things I have left out would strengthen it. Perhaps I should mention that the two are Pakeha – it is too common to think the poor are primarily Maori and Pasifika; there are actually more Pakeha who are poor (because there are more Pakeha). You might also need to know that Meg has a chronic health condition which rules out paid employment; she has tried though.

 

I was shown a financial statement prepared by a budget advisory service for Meg and Stacey. The budget recorded the family’s 2012 weekly income as $484 and set out a spending program for food, housing, household energy, medical and educational expenditure, transport and phone.

 

All up, the recommended spending on these items came to $465 which left just $19 a week for everything else including clothing and footwear, entertainment, recreation, OTC medicines and personal care, household cleaners and the like, dental care, consumer durables, insurance and a variety of things you probably think of as normal – haircuts, presents, school trips and pets. Certainly there was no provision for alcohol or tobacco, or even buying a lotto ticket.

 

How did Meg and Stacey cope with this limited existence? There were some small gifts from various sources but they were not enough. I got the impression that they skipped some of their medical needs, but the big saving was on food. Meg said she usually spent $40 to $80 a week – well below the recommended level of $130 a week the two would need for a simple but nutritious diet. It was recommended by the University of Otago Department of Human Nutrition.

 

Meg admitted they depended on chips, even though she knew they were not healthy. Chips are the cheapest way to fill one’s belly; they put off hunger, leaving some cash for other necessities. But Meg and Stacey knew they were not eating nutritiously. They had no option.

 

Their subsidised state house was not too healthy either. The house was not warm – the household energy budget was highish; it was badly located, adding to their transport costs; it was not in good shape – sewerage flowed outside when it rained.

 

That is the financials. What does it say about the prospects of 14-year-old Stacey? She was badly fed, lived in unhealthy housing, skipped some health care and was socially excluded by being unable to spend much time with her school friends. For example, they wanted to go a musical event together, but she could not find the $20 for the entrance fee. Poor nutrition, poor health and social exclusion compromised her education.

 

Let’s skip forward twenty years into the future. Stacey will probably still have poor health, which means she will not be as effective a member of the workforce. If she is in it, for she is more likely to be unemployed or a beneficiary. We shall not be surprised if she fails to be educated to her full capabilities, again reducing her workforce productivity. We can be reasonably sure, too, that Stacey is likely to be a bigger user of state assistance: higher public health costs, more use of benefits and – although I hope this does not happen to this young (and not unattractive) woman – more likely to be involved in criminal activities or to be incarcerated. We talk of New Zealand being a land of opportunity. Not for Stacey.

 

It is difficult to blame Stacey for her gloomy prospects. They are shaped by her impoverished family circumstances. I leave you to blame her parents or the state welfare system (or both); Stacey has little influence over them.

 

This is all in the future. Let’s ask about Stacey’s mother a couple of decades ago. Perhaps not exactly her, but twenty or so years ago the benefit income of a family in the same circumstances would be the same as today after allowing for inflation. We guess that the 14 year old then was similarly poorly fed, in poor quality housing, missing adequate health care, and socially excluded.

 

So all the things I said about the prospects of Stacey have already applied to many in her mother’s generation: undeveloped potential, poor workforce productivity, low employment, high demands on social services and the possibility of criminality (not Meg though).

 

So part of the problem with our poor economic performance is that we failed to spend enough on last generation’s children. Children are one of our most important – perhaps the most important – social investments.

 

There has been increasing research based on international comparisons suggesting that high inequality is related to poor economic growth,. This will surprise those who insist that the higher tax rates needed to reduce inequality reduce output. We can see in Stacey’s prospects how inequality can lead to lower economic growth; that effect probably overwhelms the impact of higher taxes.

 

If we under-invest in children we compromise future economic productivity and wider national prosperity while adding to the future costs of healthcare, welfare and justice. Depending on the choice of poverty line, there are about 200,000 children in poor New Zealand families. They – and Stacey – deserve better.

 

What do we mean by better? It is evident from what I have just said that Stacey needs more spent on her. I was commissioned to estimate how much extra. I wont go through how I calculated it – the data and explanation are in a paper on my website under ‘How much does a family need?’ (http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2012/08/4660/) I used a number of different methods, which gave much the same answer and averaged at about $75 a week more than the family was currently getting.

 

That seems about right. I did the calculations – they are pretty mechanical – before I saw Meg and Stacey’s budget. The budget is telling us that they are cutting back on a nutritious food budget by about the amount I estimated they needed.

 

Mine is not a generous budget though. It is designed to be the absolute minimum for participation in society. There are some caveats for unusual circumstances which could mean additional income is required. For instance, Meg and Stacey had special health problems and their clothing and durables were run down by years of poverty so they actually needed more cash to rebuild them. Similarly they needed a bit extra to pay off debts incurred as a part of their poverty. I implicitly assumed good quality housing; I understand the house they were living in may have been condemned shortly after I visited them. So my figure is on the conservative side.

 

There is an uninformed view that all these people really need is financial advice. Meg got it from the budget advisory service. It told her that she did not need financial advice, she needed finance. Do-gooders frequently have a list of recommendations on how to reduce poverty but to be effective they require that the family starts off with sufficient income.

 

Similarly there is a lot of research tracing out the consequences of poverty and suggesting policy responses. But they are only bandages to poor families if the financial deficit is not addressed; ambulances at the bottom of a cliff which has a weak income fence at the top.

 

The conclusion from my budget studies is that poor families have insufficient income to lead a decent life. There are other things we may need to do, but unless we start off by ensuring families have decent incomes, all the other policies are not going to be effective. So how much should we increase their income by?

 

What my study suggests is that in the case of Meg and Stacey a very conservative estimate to give them the beginnings of a decent standard of living is they needed a boost to their income of about an eighth – for every eight dollars they currently spend they need to spend a ninth. (That’s in addition to any spending for their special circumstances.) Perhaps a more detailed study would suggest a different income boost – I am inclined to guess the figure may be higher. But let’s settle for an increased income of an eighth for this family, and for want of evidence, let’s assume that applies to all beneficiaries.

 

There is a problem of integrating benefits and other incomes – it’s a bit of a pig’s breakfast at the moment. In particular we should not increase benefits without thinking of the impact on families who depend on wages. I don’t have the data bases to do that with any sophistication.

 

So to give you a feel of what is possible, I am going to do a very simple redistributional exercise. First, I am going to give everyone – rich and poor – the same weekly boost to their incomes from what is called a ‘demogrant’. How to deliver it is a logistic problem which need not detain us. Beneficiaries might get higher benefits, children a universal family benefit, others a negative income tax. We can do all sorts of fine tuning – I support a universal family benefit but I think it should be income-taxed so it is more valuable in absolute terms to a poor family than a rich one.

 

How to pay for the demogrant? Again I am going to do a bit of hand-waving about the details, but, to simplify, I am going to assume that everyone pays additional tax in proportion to their income.

 

You might think that because I am proposing a proportional tax I am abandoning the notion of progressivity in the redistribution system. A demogrant which goes equally to everybody together with a proportional income tax hits the rich relatively harder than the poor. You can have a more progressive redistribution of course – you might also want tilt the tax against those with higher incomes, raising top tax rates – but this package is simple and easy to calculate.

 

How does the redistribution impact on Stacey and Meg? They would together receive a demogrant of $100 dollars a week, just like everyone else in their situation, but $25 of that would be clawed back in income tax, so theirs would be a net increase of $75 a week. They would not be aware of the clawback, simply getting an extra $75 a week net. That should get them off the chips.

 

Those with more income would not get as much. Consider a family of mother and daughter but spending $1000 a week, roughly twice what Meg and Stacey did. They would also get the demogrant of $100 a week, but their clawback would be $55 a week. So their net position would be an extra $45 a week, less that Meg and Stacey’s $75. Further up the scale the clawback would be greater; a family of two spending over $1700 a week would be paying more tax than the demogrant.

 

What about the household (disposable) income distribution as a whole? It is going to become more equal following this redistribution package, but by how much?

 

Those in the bottom household decile get a 12.5 percent boost and those in the top decile have a cut in their income of about 3.5 percent. It was not planned this way but about two out of three people would be better off under this demogrant and tax proposal – the poorer and middle ends of the distribution of course.

 

I compared the revised distribution with past ones. It turns out to be rather similar to the income distribution in 1990, before the Ruthanasia/Jennicide slashed benefit levels in early 1991. The 1990 level is more unequal than it was in the early 1980s before Rogernomics began cutting top tax rates and hiking them on middle incomes. But implementing the changes would leave a less unequal distribution than we have today.

 

Back in the early 1980s our household income distribution was definitely in the bottom half of the OECD – we were probably around about 20th out of 34 countries. Today we are more like 9th out of the 34 jumping up in income inequality past 11 other countries. I was astonished to learn that we are currently actually more unequal that Britain after adjusting for country size and level of incomes. Implementing the package I’ve just described would move us from the top half of inequality among rich countries into just below the middle. Not back to where we once were, but closer.

 

Once we were proud that New Zealand was an egalitarian country in which we acknowledged differences but thought they were not great or did not matter that much in terms of wellbeing and life prospects. Admittedly we tended to overlook the fact that we treated neither women nor Maori well, but it was a world in which, broadly, everyone had some opportunity to prosper. We thought we lived in a land where you got a fair go.

 

Actually we did not know how we compared with the rest of the world, because we did not have the data. Our claim to exceptional egalitarianism was aspirational rather than factual. Now we have finally got the data, it turns out that we were once at the egalitarian end of the world in terms of the distribution of income, but we are no longer. I’m proud that it was once possible to grow up in a solo parent family in a state house and become prime minister. Have we abandoned that aspiration?

 

You may have found these figures I’ve been presenting a little stressful to follow. But they illustrate two fundamental things. First, we are not doing well in terms of any aspiration for economic equality.

 

And second, the objective of giving the poor an adequate standard of living is not an unreasonable goal, although it is relatively expensive especially compared to the ineffective nostrums that are often offered. The cost is the reason we flinch from properly addressing the problem, turning away from the income deficit issue and proposing marginal changes which do not attack the central problem of the poor’s lack of resources.

 

Stacey’s problem has been around for a quarter of a century. We have an adult generation who has suffered from deprivation in their childhood in the same way that Stacey suffers today. Not only do they suffer from their childhood deprivation; so do many of their children.

 

To only slightly misquote Exodus, the deprivation of mothers is passed onto to their children, and to their children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Yet it is not the children’s fault they are deprived, that they suffer personally. It is little consolation that because children are a social investment, everyone else suffers when they become adults.

 

That means we have two major tasks before us – one is expensive, the other is difficult and expensive. The expensive task is to remedy the existing deprivation. It is costly because if we are to boost the inadequate income of the deprived, those who are not deprived are going to have to make income sacrifices. [2]

 

The second, more difficult, task is how to ameliorate the consequences of deprivation which has already occurred. We know quite a bit about those consequences but it is harder to address them. For almost a quarter of a century we have been under-investing in our children – by a huge amount. The order of magnitude of the under-investment may be a bit like not having built any roads for thirty years, and having been a bit skimpy on the maintenance too. No wonder the social trip is bumpy.

 

This backlog – the size of the task before us – is so huge the nation may quail. Faced with it I am reminded of a story about President John Kennedy who walking through the White House grounds late one afternoon found that the gardeners had downed tools for the day, having dug a hole for a tree but not yet planted it. Querying, he was told that it would take years for the tree to grow. He replied, ‘That is why the tree should have been planted yesterday’.

 

So has Stacey a chance? I am told the family has moved to a healthier house, but it was probably still badly located. There has been no increase in their real income, so probably she is still undernourished and is still not getting necessary health care. It likely that her education and training will not make full use of her potential. I dont know about social exclusion, but the likelihood is that if she has a valued social network it is socially narrower than her school offered her. Many in it will be struggling with problems similar to her own.

 

Of course Stacey has a chance. But she has less chance than if she had grown up in a middle-income or upper-income family with adequate resources and a more favourable environment. And she has less chance than someone born fifty years ago who lived in similar family and housing circumstances to the ones she lives in today. Yes she has a chance, but I don’t think she will ever be prime minister.

 

Notes

[1] The decile figures are as follows.

Percent of Total Household Income*

Decile

Current (2011)**

Proposed***

1990

1984

Top

24.6

23.7

23.1

19.9

2

15.3

15

15

15

3

12.4

12.2

12.4

12.8

4

10.4

10.4

10.4

11.1

5

  9

9

  9.2

  9.8

6

  7.7

7.9

  7.9

  8.5

7

 6.9

7.1

  6.9

  7.4

8

  5.8

6.1

  6

  6.4

9

  4.8

5.1

  5.2

  5.5

10

  3.2

3.6

  3.8

  3.4

Gini coefficient

0.311

0.293

0.286

0.26

* If the shown proportion is divided by 10, the result is the average income of the decile compared to overall average incomes.

* Adjusted for. http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2014/03/been-counters/ double counting

** With demogrant paid for by proportional rise income tax.

[2] I am not arguing that we should do exactly the redistributive package I used to illustrate possibilities. I’d like to see a proper team of experts given the task. Don’t expect quick effective answers – too often quick ones are quack ones. However quality experts could probably recommend a few introductory measures to reduce deprivation which could be put into practice quite quickly.

RISING TOP INCOMES

<>This was not published: 22 May, 2014.

 

Keywords: Distributional Economics; Political Economy & History;

 

Thomas Picketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century ‘has transformed our economic discourse; we’ll never talk about wealth and inequality the same way we used to’. So said Paul Krugman explicitly and ever so many other eminent economists implicitly by the attention they have given the book.

 

It has come at the right time. There has been increasing concern about the rising income shares of those at the top. It is true even in New Zealand.

 

I wrote ‘even in New Zealand’ because one might expect the growth of top incomes to be slower in a small economy where it is easier for investors to go offshore. Not surprisingly, the growth of top incomes in America has been much greater. Their upper income inequality is about double our level. Since America’s wealthy set the ideological framework for the whole world, the ideological discourse may be revolutionised by the inequality issue. It is not at all obvious that the coalition between the American rich and the conservative and populist Tea Party will hold.

 

Picketty presents income evidence from many countries, often going back more than a century, together with long-term estimates of wealth shares (but not New Zealand’s, which don’t exist). He concludes that the rich world was highly unequal up to the Great War, after which inequality fell sharply, staying low until recently. Now it is rising again – back to pre-1914 levels.

 

The French economist’s theoretical model says that while some of the rich world’s economic inequality comes from exceptional inventions or from very great ability, the majority of the enormous inequality at the top arises from high after-tax returns on wealth, transmitted through the generations by inheritance; the rich get richer and pass it on to their children. The conventional assumption that extreme inequality converges to moderate levels is not happening. Picketty says it wont without significant taxing on capital (wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, progressive income taxes).

 

He uses his model and empirical findings to project into the future, concluding we may return to a society with vast differences between a small wealthy and powerful elite and the rest of us. It is not just that they will consume more than everyone else, but that they will have considerable influence over the direction of society; a direction which will reflect their interests rather than those of the population as a whole.

 

It is even possible that the middle classes will find their real incomes squeezed; it’s happening already in the US. Perhaps we shall return to the social turbulence from which many of our ancestors fled 150 years ago. Piketty calls today the ‘New Belle Epoque’; Krugman the ‘New Gilded Age’, terms that mean little to New Zealanders because at the end of the nineteenth century the country was not dominated by the fabulously wealthy.

 

Piketty’s is an extraordinary vision underpinned by solid analysis. I am yet to find a thoughtful response which is critical of it except in detail, although some have been uneasy about his policy conclusions of an international regime of higher taxes on the rich.

 

The importance of his work is that it has put an unfashionable topic back into the centre of economic analysis. As one who has tended the lonely garden of the analysis of economic inequality for over four decades, it is heartening to see so many economists beginning to take an interest. Whatever the future will hold, inequality is now unavoidably on the political agenda.

 

IS JOHN KEY FLAKY?

<>Keywords: Macroeconomics & Money; Political Economy & History;

 

In the Saturday 17 May 2014 issue of “The Dominion Post Weekend” Vernon small wrote an article. “English emerges smiling from global meltdown: Finance minister one of a string of highly competent money men, New Zealand has been ‘lucky to have’.” In it he quoted me. Here is what he wrote.  

 

The final judgments aren’t yet in on Bill English’s sixth Budget, but he is already eyeing another three – and will start planning his seventh in a few weeks.

 

….

 

Wellington economist Brian Easton, who like Curtin has observed decades of Budgets, also stressed how lucky New Zealand had been with recent finance ministers. But while he described English as “perfectly competent”, he is also strongly critical of some aspects of his stewardship.

 

In particular, the 2009 personal tax cuts were put in place under pressure from within National and were too big. English had been trying to pull the accounts back into balance for the following five years, Easton said.

 

Easton also believed the squeeze on the public sector and deregulation had created stresses that would only emerge when something went wrong – “and goes wrong big”.

 

He pointed to past examples such as the Cave Creek platform collapse, safety failures at the Pike River Mine, leaky homes, design faults with the CTV building, recent deaths in the forestry sector and the collapse of finance companies.

 

Easton said a close relationship between the prime minister and the finance minister was crucial at the heart of a good government.

 

Helen Clark and Cullen, and Jim Bolger and Birch worked very well together. Sir Robert Muldoon, who was prime minister and finance minister, “worked shoulder to shoulder with himself”‘.

 

But problems blew up when splits opened up between David Lange and Douglas, and Bolger and Richardson.

 

English was probably getting the same advice as Cullen did from officials to run a big surplus, Easton said, and Key seemed to wrongfoot him by talking about a tax cut ahead of the Budget.

 

To Easton’s mind, Key is “one of the flakier prime ministers” and “is not quite as solidly behind Bill English”.

 

I wanted to make it clear is that while Vernon Small quotes me correctly, I was calling Key ‘flaky’ only in reference to his attitude to the government surplus. I do not have any particular competence to judge him publically on other political matters.

SPENT FORCES

If minority interests are to be met, how are they to be funded?

 

Listener: 15 May, 2014

 

Keywords: Literature and Culture; Macroeconomics & Money;

 

Except for talkback, one thinks of radio as an audience-passive medium. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) was reminded that this is not necessarily the case at an April meeting in a packed Wellington church hall. The audience, fiercely passionate about “their” station, also saw it as an integral part of civic society. Suppose it is; an economist must ponder on how to fund it.

RNZ gets almost all its revenue from New Zealand on Air (NZOA), a government agency funded by the taxpayer. But should it? Doesn’t taxpayer funding open it up to political pressures (although to my knowledge, the pressures are not especially strong, and in any case, other media are subject to probably stronger pressures from their owners and advertisers)? What is the alternative?

 

Market provision may not always be ideal, but we often have to settle for second best. Newspapers might be better without advertising but their contribution is not a bad compromise. Advertising or subscriptions would not work for RNZ National and so we are stuck with taxpayer funding.

 

Politicians decide how much NZOA, and ultimately RNZ, gets. It is easy to cripple taxpayer-funded, civic society institutions by cutting back on the funding. In my judgment, key public programmes are suffering from excessive spending cuts (and from lousy appointments to their governing boards).

 

So how much should be handed over? The question would easier to answer if there were only a few institutions deserving taxpayer funding. However the market is not always a good provider. The list of where it fails includes most, or big chunks, of culture and heritage, education, environmental management, healthcare and recreation. Other spending areas such as infrastructure and social transfers involve different principles but add to the spending pressures.

 

Our diversified society with our different preferences complicates the pressures. That Wellington meeting would have given a big yes to spending more on RNZ but probably would have voted no to spending on the Rugby World Cup (RWC). Down at the local stadium, the responses would have been reversed. It is easy to say “both”, but the costs of all our demands are extravagant.

 

A central role of the Government’s Budget this month is to co-ordinate the demands, limiting them to what can be afforded. The complicated exercise is rarely explained; instead commentators highlight the spectacular and the ephemeral. At the Budget’s centre is a judgment of a limit on government spending. An important one is how much should be charged to future generations. We could fund RNZ – or whatever – by borrowing, asking future generations to pay for it. That is what the fiscal deficit is about. Another judgment is how much should be left to private decisions, how much to public decisions. That is what taxation is about.

 

Faced with the limit, the Cabinet has to prioritise. Usually there is a little bit more available each year so, to simplify, the Cabinet has to allocate the billion-odd dollars between the demands for new programmes, one of which might be – in effect – more reporters for RNZ. Competition between Cabinet ministers is fierce, which means their composition and competence are important; a major reason that each election is so critical.

 

So some ministers have been bidding strongly for more funding for NZOA, others for more on recreation and so on. Somehow a compromise is reached.

 

Their compromises reflect the public’s issues. Those who want more spending on RNZ may be contesting with those for the RWC, but they may also be allies for public provision of goods and services against those who want lower taxes (and so less overall government spending).

 

How often do we hear demands for more spending on this or that but no mention of how it should be funded? Cutting something else (which?) or higher taxation (on whom?). The Cabinet does not have the privilege of such laziness. It makes real decisions in the Budget. Unlike the public it cannot opt out. Next September you choose the Cabinet to make the decisions for you.

THE PURPOSE OF ECONOMIC POLICY

Published as a briefing paper: 13 May, 2014 (A service being provided by AUT)

http://briefingpapers.co.nz/

 

Keywords: History of Ideas, Methodology & Philosophy;

 

The annual May budget is a public spectacle. The Minister of Finance is photographed holding aloft a copy of his speech while those from political parties and sectors dominate media discussions debating the significance of economic growth targets, the level of inflation, and the fiscal deficit – there will even be the occasional mention of unemployment. Some will predictably claim that these economic manoeuvers will lead us to a brighter future; others to disaster. In the cacophony it is helpful to distinguish between rhetoric and reality.

 

For while the rhetoric will be about accelerating economic growth, there is surprisingly little evidence that any New Zealand government has been able to do so. The New Zealand market economy has grown at much the same rate throughout its history, except for five longish periods of economic stagnation. Four were caused by events outside New Zealand, but the fifth – the Rogernomics Recession from 1986 to 1994 – was the result of poor economic policy. Despite world economic prosperity the stagnation was caused by the neoliberal macroeconomic policies of the era; Rogernomes promised to accelerate the growth rate and utterly failed. There was not even a long-term growth-rate dividend. Business cycles aside, that growth rate has been much the same as throughout New Zealand’s market economic history.

 

Yet the macho chest-beating politicians will continue to declare that ‘mine is bigger than yours’. We will see it repeatedly during the budget round, right through to election day and after.

 

If economic management does not have much impact on the growth rate, why bother? Recent research indicates that in rich countries individuals’ material standard of living has little impact on their wellbeing, and economic growth has even less (except on those who are the poorest). Many of the most important wellbeing factors – like one’s family relationship – are barely relevant to economic considerations. However economic policy can influence:

 

The Quality of the Output: The market poorly delivers many valued goods and services including the arts, culture and heritage, education in the broadest sense, the environment, healthcare, recreational facilities and public safety and security as well as infrastructure – such as in transport and law – which underpins economic activity.

 

The Level of Economic Inequality: There is nothing in economics that says markets generate fair outcomes. Unfair outcomes are both a threat to social coherence, whilst adding to public costs (as argued in The Spirit Level) and undermining human development. Social investment is as important as physical investment.

 

Employment: A meaningful job in a safe work environment with a good social atmosphere is a boost to one’s quality of life.

 

So the public rhetoric makes a fetish of economic growth which the research evidence concludes economic policy has little influence over (poor quality management aside – as the Rogernomic era demonstrates) and that, in any case, the material standard of living does little for individuals’ wellbeing. Ironically to pursue that goal demands that measures which actually address wellbeing should be cut back.

 

That is why the debate on the budget will stress the need to restrain expenditure and pay little attention to a host of quality-of-output activities being reduced. The examples are too numerous to list but it is well to remember that the consequences may not become immediately apparent.

 

The deaths of 29 miners at Pike River for want of mine inspectors is an extreme example, but there are many other examples of inadequate industrial supervision which gives us one of the highest accident rates in the rich world (even if we exclude the Pike river miners).

* Ordinary New Zealanders lost hard won savings when finance companies collapsed in part because of inadequate public financial supervision.

* We once thought there was a leaky building crisis that was the result of poor building inspection. It is now clear that the problem of poor quality building is much more widespread – 115 people lost their lives when the CTV building collapsed – with huge remedial costs.

Perhaps these doors are closed now the horses have bolted. But where else are there open doors that compromise our future because of underfunding and ideological distaste for government action?

* One is among the poor. By underfunding them – especially children – we compromise their education, their health, their future, their wellbeing. Too frequently discussions on poverty ignore that children in impoverished circumstances will have their future life chances severely limited and that they will be a future drag upon publicly provided services such as health care and justice. It seems likely that the damage far exceeds the previous examples great though there costs are. A child has little influence over whether they are in a poor or well-off family, yet we treat poor children as responsible for their situation rather than its victims.

 

We are told we cannot address inequality in New Zealand because that would compromise accelerating economic growth, even though the policies don’t work. Yet if anything, countries with low social and economic inequality tend to have higher economic growth.

 

What is the purpose of the growth rhetoric? Why do we frame discussions about the budget in this way instead of aiming to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders? Why the obsession with the policies that go with the rhetoric, when as long ago as 1997 a World Bank report admitted its previous obsession with market fundamentalism had gone too far and went on to stress the importance of the role of government in enhancing wellbeing?

 

Of course it was not saying that markets and the associated activities of private production and consumption are unimportant; rather it was saying that the wellbeing of people requires good government and good governance as well. This hardly seems a deep insight but following a period of neoliberal economics and its obsession with limiting the scale of government, it is a reminder of just how imbalanced policy discussions became – and remain so in New Zealand.

 

In fact the constitutional purpose of the annual budget is as part of a system of the Crown reporting to parliament, representing the people, of how well it is governing in the public interest, thereby asking for the funds to continue. Sadly governing in the public interest has been corrupted into pursuing narrow neoliberal policies in the name of accelerating economic growth.

 

Any close analysis shows that the advocates have a couple of agenda items. One is selfish. They are asking for preferential treatment for their private interests even though it may not be particularly in the public interest and will certainly be at the expense of others. Second, they frequently have an ideological vision of society which they are pursuing in the name of economic growth. We all have ideological visions, but these advocates claim a privileged position using it to suppress dissent and to drown the notion of the public interest and wellbeing.

 

The dominance of such narrow advocates with their unattainable public interest and their all too attainable private ones cannot be the purpose of economic policy in a democracy. Surely that is to advance the economic and social wellbeing of all New Zealanders while ensuring the policies of today are also protecting future generations.

HIT ‘EM WHERE IT HURTS

The answer to cutting carbon emissions is to wallop shoppers in the wallet.

 

Listener: 24 April, 2014

 

Keywords: Environment & Resources;  Regulation & Taxation;

 

Who pays beer tax? Technically, it is paid to the Government by the brewers. But they pass it on, so ultimately the tax is paid by beer drinkers.

 

Were we to tax one brewer but not the others, things would be different. Competition would prevent the taxed brewer from passing it on to consumers, so the producer would pay. This is obvious, maybe, yet such elementary analysis has not been applied to our carbon emissions policy.

 

A few preliminaries first. Although I am a trained scientist, anthropogenic global warming – rising temperatures caused by human activity – is outside my expertise. I accept the analysis of climate experts on this issue and disregard that of people with minimal expertise whose conclusions suit their ideologies and self-interests. There was global warming and cooling before humans, but this is faster. Sea levels are rising at about 100 times the rate of the past. If levels rose only at the historical pace, human society could easily cope.

 

Second, New Zealand’s contribution to the world’s global warming is tiny. So, yes, we could coast along, telling the rest of the world to fix it. We address the issue for reasons of international solidarity and in line with the precept “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.

 

In any case, an economist’s task, along with that of other scientists, is to give the best technical advice. If New Zealand decides it wants to cut its carbon emissions, what is the best way to do it?

 

Third, to simplify, I assume here we control emissions with a tax. There are other ways, such as permits, but their analysis is clumsier, although the policy conclusions are similar.

Suppose that to reduce our carbon emissions we impose a tax at point of origin. The emitters pass the tax on to consumers, who ultimately pay it.

 

That encourages consumers to seek goods produced with fewer carbon emissions and pushes producers to switch to cleaner technologies. The tax thereby makes a contribution to reducing global warming.

 

However, this applies only if the producers can pass the tax on to consumers. Astonishingly, our regime “taxes” producers who can’t. The largest potential group is the farm sector, because it competes for overseas consumers against offshore producers who are not always subject to the same discipline.

 

There is a ready solution – rebate the carbon emissions tax on exports. If other countries want to tax all their agricultural consumption by the carbon its production emits, that’s their business; our farmers would not be competitively worse off. At the same time we would impose a tax on imports according to the carbon emitted in their production, so our domestic producers would not be disadvantaged.

 

And if other countries want to rebate their carbon taxes on exports, so be it. We get the tax revenue instead. A properly designed system would not infringe international trading agreements. After all, we excise imported beer and rebate excises on the beer we export.

Such a regime would shift the penalty from producers who emit carbon to the buyers of their goods and services, encouraging consumers to shun carbon-intensive products and production methods.

 

We willingly blame the ills of the world on producers, failing to recognise that they take their signals from us – consumers. We would rather fault someone else than admit it is our appetites that are stoking global warming. This extends beyond alcohol and carbon emissions to other “bads” for which consumers should be targeted, albeit indirectly.

 

Because the world has not understood this, it has mucked around for a couple of decades with ineffective carbon-emission regimes. Global temperatures are rising and, of particular concern for us, sea levels are, too. We seem to be moving into a new phase: what to do as the sea begins to inundate our living spaces. If only the world had tried harder to slow that rise down.

Chips with Everything

Chips with Everything

It is a fallacy to claim the poor just need financial advice to improve their lot.

 

Listener: 10 April, 2014.

 

Keywords: Distributional Economics; Social Policy;

 

I was working on a standard-of-living case and was shown figures prepared by an approved budget advisory service for Meg and her daughter Stacey (I have simplified some detail and changed their names). Meg’s chronic health condition ruled out paid employment, so she was on a benefit.

 

The budget recorded the family’s 2012 weekly income as $484 and proposed the following spending:

• Food: $130 for simple but nutritious meals recommended by the University of Otago Department of Human Nutrition.

• Housing: $119 for a state house at a subsidised rate.

• Household energy: $40 – the house was neither warm nor in a good shape; it may have been condemned shortly after – sewage flowed outside when it rained.

• Medical and educational costs: $53, despite our providing “free” health care and schooling.

• Transport: $97 – high because the house was badly located and they needed to travel for health care.

• Phone: $26.

 

These amounts total $465, leaving just $19 a week for everything else, including clothing and footwear, entertainment, recreation, dental care, consumer durables, insurance and a variety of things that could be considered normal, such as haircuts, presents, school trips and pets. There’s no allowance for alcohol or tobacco, you’ll note.

 

There is an uninformed view that all such people really need is financial advice. Meg got it. Few do-gooders’ ideas for reducing poverty are relevant. The conclusion from the budget is that poor families have insufficient income to lead a decent life.

 

How did Meg and Stacey cope with this limited existence? There were some small gifts from various sources but they were not enough. I got the impression that they skipped some of their medical needs, but the big saving was on food. Meg said she usually spent $40 to $80 a week – well below the recommended level.

 

Meg admitted they depended on chips, even though she knew they were not healthy. It turns out chips are the cheapest way to fill one’s belly. They put off hunger, leaving some cash for other necessities. But Meg and Stacey were not eating nutritiously.

 

What of the prospects for 14-year-old Stacey? She is badly fed, lives in unhealthy housing, skips some health care and is socially excluded by being able to spend much less than her school friends. These compromise her education, as does the lack of funds for the ongoing charges schools place on today’s kids.

 

Let’s skip 20 years into the future. Stacey will probably have poor health, which will limit her work effectiveness – if she is in the workforce, for she is more likely to be unemployed or a beneficiary.

 

We should not be surprised if she fails to be educated to her full capabilities, again reducing her workforce productivity. We can be reasonably sure, too, that Stacey will be a bigger user of state assistance: higher public health costs, more use of benefits and – I hope this does not happen to this young woman – more likely to be involved in criminal activities or be incarcerated. We talk of New Zealand being a land of opportunity. Not for Stacey.

 

It is difficult to blame Stacey for her gloomy prospects. They are shaped by her impoverished family circumstances. I leave you to blame her parents or the state welfare system (or both); Stacey has little influence over either.

 

There has been increasing research based on international comparisons suggesting that high inequality is related to poor economic growth. This will surprise those who insist that the higher tax rates needed to reduce inequality reduce output. We can see in Stacey’s prospects how inequality can lead to lower economic growth. That effect probably overwhelms the impact of higher taxes.

 

Children are a social investment. If we underinvest in them we compromise future economic productivity and wider national prosperity, while adding to the future costs of welfare and justice. Depending on where the line is drawn, there are about 200,000 New Zealand children living in poverty. They – and Stacey – deserve better.

Launch of “But Is it Fair?”

<>But is it Fair? Faith Communities and Social Justice edited by Neil Darragh and published by Accent Publications (Launched at Connolly Hall, 6.00 4 April, 2014).

 

Keywords: Political Economy & History;  Social Policy;

 

I am not sure an economist should be launching this book. While economists are often treated as today’s secular theologians to be consulted by the public, there is a very important difference between economists and conventional theologians. Economists get absolutely no training in ethics. Indeed the profession prides itself on being value free. What actually happens is that the economists’ advice is usually based on their personal values which they may not even be aware of and which do not always align with the values of the general public.

 

What economists ought to be doing is listening carefully to people to try to assess their values and goals; and to respond by setting out the options available – including the downsides. They should be listening counsellors rather than pontificating theologians.

 

It is in this spirit I am to launch this book of essays by 36 people, setting out their beliefs about how fair New Zealand society is. The writers are from the faith communities. Their diversity is admirable; there is a wide variety of Christians and contributions from a Jew and Moslem. They come from a variety of backgrounds ranging from ministers of religion to those who are directly supporting the underprivileged or who are teaching. Yet their vocations are essentially religious; I could not help noticing a number were retired priests, who were still pursuing the vocation of their working life. (There are not many economists who do.)

 

Their basic conclusion is to answer But is it Fair? with a ‘probably not’ or ‘certainly not’ when referring to society as a whole. To find their precise reasons, you will have to read the individual essays yourself. Some set standards of social justice from their faith, others talk about their experiences, although in every essay each perspective informs the other.

 

I suggest, however, you don’t read them all at one sitting. It might be best to read one a day and ponder on it, like some people do with sacred texts. And don’t give up – there are some strong contributions towards the end of the book. You would not want to miss them.

 

As an economist I am acutely aware that many of the prescriptions for improving fairness have little to do with conventional economics. Others do. For instance the market economy is based on competition. Perhaps that undermines some of the values advocated in the book, like cooperation, trust and decency. There is a sort of Gresham’s law (that’s an economist’s principle) in which quality values are driven out by competition.

 

Why do we encourage market competition? The economic justification is that it maximises material output. Less aggression probably means a lower material standard of living but it also probably means less stress in life. I notice some of the talented contributors to the book have given up higher paid jobs to pursue their vocation (although I doubt there has been much reduction in stress). Ultimately we need a society in which everyone does that, aiming for a lower standard of living. .

 

In fact most New Zealanders have a sufficient material standard of living but does it increase their welfare – their happiness? Their aim is to have a higher income than others in order to be higher in the social pecking order. The economy is driven not so much by the deadly sin of greed; but by the equally deadly sin of envy.

 

Yet, as many of the authors argue, there is a group in society who have insufficient. Not everyone should restrain their demands for higher material consumption. Perhaps some of us should give up a bit more to enable others to have a more realistic standard of living.

 

An economist can help articulate the policies which would better meet such goals, but note that I have slipped in the assumption that to make some people better off in material terms others have to be worse off. (That may not be true in spiritual terms.)

 

Material tradeoffs are at the heart of economics. They are actually consequences of the laws of thermodynamics; you don’t get anything in this material world for nothing. It’s too easy to propose policies making some people better off while ignoring that others will be worse off. Almost certainly everybody in this room will have to take a material hit if we want to address honestly the needs of the poorest.

 

 

But I am drifting away from the logic of the book , nicely summarised by the eleven principles enunciated by the New Zealand Catholic Bishops conference. However they are universal enough for Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever, although each may wish to articulate them slightly differently.

 

The eleven principles are:

Human Dignity;

Human Equality;

Respect of Life;

Association;

Participation;

The Common Good;

Solidarity;

Preferential Protection for the Poor and Vulnerable;

Stewardship;

Universal Destination of Goods;

Subsidiarity.

 

I suggest you write out the list, change the terminology if you like, put one copy on your fridge and use the other as a bookmark. You will find they illuminate almost every page.

 

Oh, make a third copy to give to your friendly economist or politician. Tell her or him that is how society should be organised and ask them to think about how to do it better.

 

So let me conclude by congratulating Neil Darragh, his co-authors and those who produced the book and urge you to purchase a copy. Don’t just leave it on a shelf. Read it, discuss it with friends, share it, try to follow the lessons it advocates, keep reading it until it falls to pieces. Then buy another copy.

Business of Office

It’s much easier to be environmentally pure in opposition than in government.

 

Listener: 27 March, 2014

 

Keywords: Environment & Resources; Political Economy & History;

 

Last year, a blogger argued that the Green Party did not need to engage with business interests while in opposition since whatever it did, it would win no votes from that sector. Perhaps, but if the Greens were to win seats at the Cabinet table, they would face a very different situation. Elections are about winning office; governing is about exercising power after you have office.

This was well illustrated in the middle of 2000 when the just-elected Labour-led coalition faced a winter of discontent from business groups. (One Cabinet minister described it as “a strike of capital”.) It arose because businesses thought the new Government was almost totally ignoring their concerns.

 

You may think politics is about “we won, you lost, take that”. Had not the previous pro-business National Government (although not as pro-business as this one) lost office? Should not it and its friends have to live with the voters’ decision?

 

But a New Zealand government does not have unlimited power. What it can do is constrained by overseas factors, by the law and by interest groups, business among them. The caveat is that it is often unwise to treat business as monolithic.

 

That governments – even dictatorships – do not have unbridled power is not unique to New Zealand; popular uprisings can topple tyrants.

 

Any Labour-Greens coalition government will have to work with businesses. That will not be easy, because there is not a lot of business expertise in their caucuses. (The National caucus lacks expertise in other areas.) Part of an opposition’s preparation for office is finding lasting connections that enable it to use its power more effectively.

 

This is not a matter of siding with a few micro-industries. The Greens are inclined to cosy up to environment-promoting industries. These may need a boost, but they are only a minor part of the commercial world.

 

On the other hand, there are some parts of business that an environmentally friendly government may want to distance itself from. I am not opposed in principle to fracking to extract shale oil. But I am uneasy about the newness of the technology and think New Zealand should stop fracking until the problems have been resolved elsewhere.

 

I am not as opposed to offshore drilling, which has been done longer, providing it is subject to best international practice. (So, yes, I am prepared to risk the low possibility of pollution – economics is about trade-offs.)

 

“Dirty dairying” is a disgrace, but the way for a serious government to handle it is to go to the dairy industry, explain that clean water is a priority and discuss how they can work together for that goal.

 

A nice illustration is one that followed the winter of discontent: the Labour-led Government set up a consultative process with business. Neither side got all it wanted, but they identified where they could work together. One area was transport; its infrastructure was getting increasingly inadequate as the economy thrived.

 

The present road-building programme came out of that agreement. It takes time to get serious policies under way. But it was also accepted that railways had a role, as did public transport. The business community wants to get commuters off the roads to free them up for trucks.

The broadband rollout is a later such initiative.

 

Business has an important role in promoting the welfare of New Zealanders. But to repeat an old saw, business success is not the ultimate end of the economy, although social success depends on business success.

 

I am not sure this Government has the right balance. But it would be of no advantage to New Zealanders for the next government to be as unbalanced in the opposite direction.

Been Counters

Statistical errors aren’t unusual – so it’s important to measure their effects.

 

Listener: 13th March, 2014

 

Keywords: Distributional Economics; Statistics;

 

There was a bit of flapdoodle recently when the Treasury and Statistics New Zealand owned up to having made an error in some household income statistics, which had a knock-on effect on the Ministry of Social Development’s estimates of the household income distribution. Journalists superficially explained the mistake; their chosen commentators ponderously said it was “significant”; politicians squabbled their predictable political points.

 

You might not have realised that the ministry alone released 27 densely packed pages of corrections and commentary; or if you did, you may have marvelled at how journalists and commentators had mastered them so quickly. They hadn’t of course, merely grabbing one statistic and focusing on it.

 

You’ve probably forgotten it all by now, but there are lessons so it’s worth the recall. First, why did the mistake happen? There is a technical answer involving double counting, but there is also a general one. The error was not large enough to be noticed. When professional statisticians are working with data, they are constantly looking for such mistakes. A large one and we rework the data – or are on the phone to sort it out.

 

Moser’s law is uppermost in our minds: “If a statistic looks interesting, it’s probably wrong.” If it proves to be right, then – hallelujah! – we have a story, but usually it is only a correction. Unfortunately, this error was too small – hardly significant – to be picked up in this way.

 

Apparently it was found in the process of routine checking. It’s worth making the point that this was happening and the officials published their correction. To err is human, but owning up has an element of divinity. You can trust that if it happens again – it will, but not too often, one hopes – you can expect the same integrity.

 

Since it was not a “significant” error, I was not surprised when the Treasury said the change in the data had not changed their policy advice. On the other hand, there were journalists and commentators who said the revision meant there were 20,000 more poor in New Zealand. Nonsense. This was a revision to the statistical estimate of reality, not the reality itself. The poor remain poor however we measure them.

 

For my part, the correction hardly altered my understanding, because the change was within the margins of error. When I – like any professional statistician – am working with data, I am constantly aware that the estimates are not precise and I take that imprecision into consideration. It is why my writing is sometimes a little fuzzy compared with the inexpert who treat any statistic as exact. Sure, a figure may have increased by 0.1%, but there may be no change or it may even have gone down. How often do we see a headline shouting that a small change is important, when the number is later revised as better data come in? Professionals are likely to say “not much change”.

 

So while the revision does not change my views, it confirms that New Zealand is in the top half of the OECD for inequality, whereas three decades ago we were in the bottom half. It also puts our degree of inequality closer to – but still a fraction less – than Australia’s (although they may be more unequal because of their greater population).

 

I was disappointed the revision did not add a lot to my understanding of the way the global financial crisis affected income inequality. It is not obvious how it should impact; many people automatically assume that it will be “worse”. But a careful analysis has both rising unemployment adding to inequality and falling profits reducing it. Analysis is complicated by having only a few observations and contamination from the Canterbury earthquakes. My guess is that the effect of the crisis on the income distribution has not been great.

 

But the basic statistical conclusions remain: income inequality is markedly higher today than it was three decades ago. There is a serious poverty problem that, because it involves children, compromises New Zealand’s long-term development. What to do – if anything – is a political issue.

The State of Not in Narrow Seas (March 2014)

<>The following is extracted from a funding application. It says about where the book was in early March 2014.

 

Keywords: Political Economy & History;

 

Not in Narrow Seas, as its title, suggests is an ambitious history of New Zealand . It is written from an economic perspective.

 

As such it covers many issues which are often neglected by most general histories. These include:

– the interactions between the environment and the economy (and society generally); the book starts 600 million years ago at the geological foundation of New Zealand;

– the offshore origins of New Zealand’s peoples and the baggage they brought with them;

– there are seven chapters on the Maori plus further material in numerous other chapters;

– there is a whole chapter on the development of the  Pacific Islands (after the proto-Maori left)  in preparation for the account of the Pasifika coming to New Zealand;

– there are specific chapters on the non-market (household) economy in preparation for an account of mothers entering the earning labour force (one of the radical changes in the 1970s);

– there are five chapters on the evolution of the welfare state;

– the book pays attention to external events and globalisation;

– it could be argued this is the first ‘MMP history’ of New Zealand because it looks at how people voted as well as electoral seats won. (If this seems odd, it is rarely mentioned that when Coates lost power to Ward in 1928 his party won far more votes but fewer seats);

– this is not yet another history of the ‘long pink cloud’. It takes a critical view of the more extreme versions from this perspective, in part because it puts a lot more weight on the farm sector as a progressive force (albeit with its own kind of progressiveness);

– it synthesises the rise of Rogernomics with the events before, showing both the continuities and the disruptions;

– while not a cultural history, it integrates culture and intellectual activity into the narrative.

 

Inevitably the book traverses disciplines outside the writer’s expertise such as biology, archaeology and anthropology in the opening chapters . Where that has been necessary the writer has followed closely the conventional wisdom in the discipline and the text has been checked by experts. (In fact all the chapters – including the more economic ones – have been checked by experts.)  Often though, economic issues are drawn out of the narrative in these areas which extend the perspective of the conventional wisdom.

 

As, indeed, does the entire book. The economics approach is more similar to the nineteenth century perspective of ‘political economy’, which does not accept rigid boundaries between economics, political studies and sociology. So the book traverses virtually all the social sciences, insofar as they shed light on the development of New Zealand.

 

The current state of the book (to the end of February 2014) is summarised in at the end of this section. The work program is as follows:

 

The first 44 chapters (from 600m BP to 1984) are ‘bus’ ready; that is, if the author fell under a bus they could be published with very little extra work. Even so, there is a need to revise the chapters. A main reason for doing so is new material. For instance, Apirana Ngata has a central role in Chapter 29 on Maori development in the first half of the twentieth century. Oliver Sutherland’s since published biography, Paikea, of his father, Ivan, who was a close friend and colleague of Ngata gives further insights into the central issues of the chapter and may involve significant revision. This is but one example of scholarly work published since the chapters were written (including my own work on the Great War economy) which needs to be incorporated (buses willing). There may also be some opportunities for reducing the length and also some restructuring may be necessary.

 

I currently plan 18 chapters (plus an epilogue) for the events after 1984 taking the narrative up to the present. Three chapters of this section are in early draft. There is a continuity between the chapters before and after Chapter 45 with the central thesis that tardiness over post-war modernisation before 1984 led to the accelerated change in the subsequent decade. The last eight chapters (covering the period from the mid-1990s) will explore to what extent there are continuities and discontinuities with past; suppose the pre-1984 modernisation had been more vigorous and the post-1984 modernisation more moderate.

 

These two tasks will take at least two full-time years. With such a commitment the book would be published at the end of 2016 or early 2017. The Michael King Writers’ Fellowship would enable the author to achieve this timetable.

 

(It is proposed to publish the appendices separately on the web. This will be after the final version of the book is submitted to the publisher. It is thought that funding can be seperately arranged for the electronic-publication expenses from alternative sources.)

 

CONTENTS  numbers represent words of written chapters.

 

I. BEGINNINGS

1          The Economy Before Mankind                                  5650

2          The Polynesian Economy Before Commerce 4400

3          The First Settlers                                                         4850

4          Maori Before the Market                                            6000

5          The Maori Meets the Market                                      5100

6          The International Context                                           4800

7          The Early Quarry                                                        4100

 

II. SETTLEMENT

8          Governing Begins                                                       4700

9          The First Towns                                                          4200

10        The War Economy                                                      4500

11        The Gold Economy                                                     4200

12        The Wool Economy                                                    5000

13        Maori After the Wars                                                  5000

14        The Vogel boom of the 1870s                                    5200

15        The Long Depression                                                  6350

16        Auckland at the End of the Nineteenth Century       5650

 

III. THE PASTORAL ECONOMY

17        The Take-off                                                               5900

18        Industry and Labour                                                   6100

19        Why come to New Zealand?                                      4300

20        The Rise of the Dairy Industry                                   4350

21        War, War, War                                                            6450

22        Interwar Transformation                                             5450

23        The Economics of the Great Depression                    5950

24        The Social Impact of the Great Depression                5450

25        The Rise of Labour                                                     6100

26        Development of Social Security to 1972                    7050

27        Development of Health, Education and Housing to 1972  8000

28        The Household Sector                                                4550

29        The Maori Revival: 1900-1950                                   6400

30        The Second World War                                              7050

 

IV POSTWAR PROSPERITY

31        Post-War New Zealand                                              4550

32        The New Politics                                                         5200

33        The National Boom                                                     6750

34        The End of the Golden Wether                                  4950

35        The Kirk Years                                                            5700

 

V POSTWAR CHANGE

36        Second Great Maori Migration                                   4950

37        The Development of Polynesia                                   5950

38        Diversity and Choice                                                  5350

39        The Rise of the Earning Mother                                 5650

40        The Transfer State                                                       7100

 

VI THE MULDOON ERA

41        The Politics of Muldoon                                             4600

42        Economic Management Fails                                      5500

43        Diversification                                                            5900

44        The End of an Era                                                       4500

 

VII: THE RISE OF ROGERNOMICS

45        The Rise of Rogernomics                                            5200

46        More Market                                                               5750

47        Commercialising Trading Enterprises            4750

48        Redisorganising Government

49        Populace Democracy

50        Inequality Rises

51        The Attack on the Welfare State

52        Education, Culture and Intellectual Activity

53        The Share Market Collapses

54        The End of Rogernomics

VIII: CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES

55        Globalisation

56        Business Settles In

57        Maori Corporations and the Other

58        The Fifth Labour Government

59        Business Rules; OKey.

60        Regionalisation and Centralism

61        Quarrying and Sustainability

62        Where in the World?

 

APPENDICES

I. The Course of Population                            3850

II. The Course of Prices                                  4200

III. Measuring Economic Activity                  2100

IV. The Course of Output: 1860-1939           3250

V. The Course of Output: 1932-1955 2700

VI. The Course of Output: 1955-                   3400

VII. The Structure of the Economy                4050

VIII. The Course of Productivity                   1450

IX. Patterns of Government Spending           4850

X. Transfers                                                    5650

XI. Debt and Deficits                                     3300

 

Asked to explain why it was innovative, I wrote:

 

The book will challenge much of the standard account of the historical development in a constructive way by introducing new insights, new ways to look at the past. Listing them all would amount to writing the book itself. The following are a few highlights.

 

Perhaps most important the book will offer an economic framework for historians and other social scientists and a historical framework for economists and other social scientists. For instance, almost all histories have no sense of the variations in prosperity such as the existence of the Long Depression in the nineteenth century followed by the Liberal Boom (nor when the boom finished).Yet the different periods evidently impacted on political and social outcomes.

 

Another key theme of the book is the impact of the environment. Standard histories are unaware of the loss of soil fertility (until the heavy application of fertilizer from the mid-1920s). Few would be aware that nineteenth-century development was greatly influenced by the impact of the Taupo volcanic explosion in about 220 CE.

 

There is no detailed history of Maori economic (and therefore social) development from the time of arrival (and before, if the Pacific Island phase can be treated as a part of it) through to modern times, with the urbanisation of Maori, treaty settlements, and the rise of the modern Maori economy. When completed, the total material on Maori will come to about 40,000 words, a small book in its own right.

 

Another innovation is attention to the history of the non-market household economy (and hence of unpaid work of women). This is vital to an understanding the rise of women’s employment in the 1970s and the way which the welfare state works.

 

A final example of how innovative the book is its approach to the ‘Rogernomics Revolution’ of the 1980s. Ralf Dahrendorf identified

… two quite different versions of dramatic change. One is deep change, the transformation of core structures of a society which in the nature of the case takes time; the other is quick change, notably the circulation of those at the top within days or months by highly visible, often violent action. The first might be called social revolution, the second political revolution. The Industrial Revolution was in this sense social, the French Revolution was political.

While public commentary tends to treat the 1980s as a political revolution in fact it came on top of – indeed was a response to – a social revolution.

 

I am confident that the publication of the book will give general historians the confidence to incorporate the economy into their studies in a way which has been notably lacking in the past.

Culture Vulture

<>Can economics make the case for propping up loss-making arts ventures?

 

Listener: 27 February, 2014.

 

Keywords: Literature and Culture;

 

I indulge in the Metropolitan Opera of New York’s Live in HD, cinema releases of live productions for large-screen high-definition viewing. I’m not really an opera fan, but given their quality, I am a regular. If I can get Live in HD a dozen times a year, why bother going to other productions? I have friends who are totally committed to opera – they would go to a Ring Cycle in the Chatham Islands – but they are a minority. What about the rest of us?

 

There is an electricity in a live performance, be it of opera, theatre, dance or music. (I gave up films of orchestral concerts; their cameras suffer from attention deficit syndrome.) As it happens I saw Aida live in New York as well as on film and, price aside, I cannot choose between them; the splendour of a live production is offset by the camera getting in close in the more intimate scenes that are lost on the large stage. (Television screens really are too small.)

 

Given the globalising technologies, could we end up with only one professional opera house in the whole world? Well, Met Opera needs others’ productions. Some of its shows are co-productions but it also needs training grounds for its stars. For all I know, the other productions in the great opera houses of Europe are just as brilliant, but I don’t see them.

 

I do go to local ones, both New Zealand Opera and local performances (Wellington is blessed with “Opera at Days Bay”). Aside from a night’s entertainment, I am not sure why I go, although I take pleasure at seeing young New Zealanders develop. I even go to amateur musical productions to encourage local activity – the amateurs usually pay a substantial subscription to enable them to perform, bless them.

 

So far the column has not had a lot of economic content. My professional interest is in opera – like most performance in the “higher arts” – being subsidised rather than being provided solely through the market. Rarely do audience contributions cover even half the costs.

 

MetOpera survives on the generosity of private donations; more commonly, as in Europe and here, enormous subsidies come from the public purse. How can I justify the taxpayer generously subsidising my attendance at otherwise loss-making ventures?

 

Unfortunately, standard economic analysis is very badly placed to provide an answer. It is centred on decisions with stable preferences. But the point of the arts, like education, is to evolve our preferences. A couple of years ago, I hardly went to operas; Live in HD has changed my preferences. Value theory simply does not work.

 

Moreover, economists treat all consumption of equal value. Yet as John Stuart Mill pointed out, there are different qualities of pleasure. But which are “merit” goods? Is there something about the arts that does not apply to, say, rugby or yachting, which we also subsidise?

 

Sitting behind this is the danger that we try to justify the arts through its contribution to the economy. It’s the reverse; the surplus the economy generates makes it possible to enjoy merit goods (even if economists don’t know what they are).

 

Yes, there are economic arguments for certain sorts of public spending on the arts – for example, on infrastructure (the platforms of performance), such as when your council provides a hall. But as for genuine education, the economist is as muddled as the rest of us on the wider issue.

 

In the end, there is no coherent economic argument for public spending on cultural activities such as domestic opera. It is politicians and their appointees who decide how much to spend. A Treasury economist is reduced to trying to make the subsidy as effective as possible, while reminding ministers that the funds could be spent on tax cuts, reducing child poverty or whatever.

 

Of course, economists go to see such publicly funded productions. I am going to a number of events at Wellington’s International Festival of the Arts. I bet they’re subsidised.

The Impact of the Great War on the New Zealand Economy

<>Paper to the Asia Pacific Economic and Business History Conference: 13-15 February, 2014.An earlier version is at http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2013/11/the-economy-of-the-great-war-and-after/

 

Keywords: Political Economy & History;

 

Introduction and Reflection

 

Economic history sits in an uneasy position in the academy. It is, of course, a discipline in its own right but it is also an adjunct to economics as a source of the testing and generating theories. Its relationship with history is more perplexing. As a general rule, today’s historians ignore the relevance of the economy in the histories they write.

 

I was struck by this in a recent review of the causes of the Great War in which with one minor exception – a mention of Dreadnaughts – there is no reference to the economic contest between Britain and Germany. [1] In 1870 German GDP was about the same size as the French GDP (in common prices) and 30 percent smaller that Britain’s. By 1914 it’s was a half bigger than France’s, and only 10 percent smaller than Britain’s. Unnoticed also was that while the British and US economies were of similar size in 1870, by 1914 the US was about double in size of Britain’s – a war for dominance in Europe became a world war with the outcome of American hegemony. [2]

 

Whether this fundamental change in the economic balance of the world deserves only passing reference in the causes  of the Great War is a matter I leave to others. But there are lessons relevant to today for we are again experiencing a fundamental change in the world’s economic balance – especially with the rise of the Chinese economy. One hopes it does not require a war to settle the new world order.

 

This paper has a different – if equally pedagogical – purpose. Over the next four years there will be much recalling of the individual events that made up the Great War – the hand-to-hand fighting. But there is likely to be less attention to their long run impact, especially on the economy (technological innovations aside). In contrast, it is my contention that the war experience fundamentally affected the way we governed New Zealand. [3] I shant be surprised if economic historians from other countries come to similar conclusions about their economies.

 

There is insufficient space for presentation to detail the track of the aggregate economy, not least because the data base is so problematic. The best estimates I have been able to synthesize suggest the economy grew quite quickly in the Liberal Boom to 1908, after which it entered a long period of stagnation in per capita GDP terms which ended 27 years later as the economy came out of the Great Depression (it had, of course, dipped sharply then) and went into the Labour Boom. There is little evidence of a boom in production during the Great War (in contrast to the boom of the Second World War) probably because of the withdrawal from the labour force of overseas service personnel. Given that there was not a drop in production (as far as we can tell) productivity must have risen.

 

Diverting Resources for War

 

At the heart of a war economy is a substantial portion of the production available to the economy has to be diverted to the war effort. However the modern economic historian thinking about the Great War is handicapped by the lack of a comprehensive data base. Unlike today, unlike that which Jack Baker had available when he wrote his history of the New Zealand economy during the Second World War, there is not the standard statistical framework to analyse the extent to which resources were diverted. So what can be discussed is a bit sketchy.

 

How much diversion of resources? We dont know with any precision. During the war the troops overseas at any time, plus those in domestic training – amounting to at least 65,000 and even 100,000 men, over a fifth of the labour force – were not available for civilian production, but they were still consuming. Similarly there were workers diverted to producing war goods. There are no annual labour force figures at this time, so we don’t know the precise impact of having so many workers unavailable for domestic production. Some of the labour deficit would have been made up by running down the unemployed (although that was not a huge reserve), by drawing women into the labour force (although we dont know how many) and by working longer hours.

 

That fifth of the labour force in uniform is less than the aggregate resource diversion in the Second World War which according to Jack Baker exceeded 30 percent of GDP between 1939 and 1944. But it is a similar order of magnitude if we add in production diverted to war purposes. While the economists and politicians of the day did not have the detailed statistics they knew there was a challenge to pay for the war from the public purse. The essence of their economic problem was a general cut back in domestic spending.

 

Suppose then, the diversion to war spending was a third of aggregate output, about the same proportion as in the Second World War. In effect the goods and services available for peace time pursuits was reduced by a third although consumption by those in uniform and war work meant the consumption cut back was not that drastic.

 

The Fiscal Impact

 

Where to cut back? Government domestic (current) expenditure was restrained (but apparently only a little) and probably private investment declined (we dont know because the data does not exist). So cut backs in private consumption were necessary and the government raised taxes with its tax revenue trebling between 1914 and including what must have seemed swingeing increases in income tax; the top rate was increased a third from 6.7 percent to 10 percent and there was a super-tax of a further third; land tax went up too. A nice illustration of the broadening of the base was that the number of (income) taxpayers trebled from 14,000 in 1913/4 to 44,000 in 1919/20 (although still a small proportion of the 430,000 adult males).

 

One of the most radical changes in our tax system occurred over the six years to 1919/20. Income tax made up just 9 percent of total tax receipts in 1913/14, behind customs duties (58%), land tax (13%) and death duties (10%). Six years later income tax was the single largest source of tax revenue at 39%, with the other three behind: customs 30%, land tax 9% and death duties 6%. [4]

 

Despite the tax increases there was a deficit in the government accounts which was covered by borrowing. In those days the public debt was allocated into categories, including an unproductive ‘war and defence’. It amounted to £6.4m in March 1914; by March 1920 it was £86.2m, a £80 million increase in the six years (when annual GDP was around about £125m).

 

Inflation

 

In the nineteenth century New Zealand had largely borrowed non-New Zealanders’ savings through the London market. From the time of the Liberals, the government began to tap into domestic savings with less recourse to London, partly because of John Ballance’s principle of self-sufficiency, partly because London was not as generous with its advances. Access to London’s funds would become acute during a major war since Britain was also struggling to divert resources into its war effort. From 1916 New Zealand agreed to raise at home all funds for war expenditure(apart from the costs of maintaining troops in the field).

 

The ideal is that the government’s borrowing soaks up domestic spending power thereby offsetting war expenditure. The reality is that there was accompanying by inflation. Consumer prices rose 67 percent between 1914 and 1920, faster than at any time in recorded history before the Great Inflation of the second half of the 1970s.

 

The policy response was price controls. It was not entirely a new one, but certainly at a far greater intensity than what had gone before – an intensity which was repeated even more vigorously during the Second World War and during the great inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s. An economist would say, wearily, that the purpose of the inflation – it was an international phenomenon of the times – was to reduce people’s real wealth. As the price controls did not address this, they would ultimately fail.

 

It seems likely that the vigorous price controls of the 1940s reflected those of the Great War. They were trying to avoid a repeat of that inflation and were reasonably successful at the time, for prices in the Second World War rose at only one-third of the rate of those in the first. However, as the history I am writing explains, after the Second World War the suppressed inflation broke out, reducing the value of savings accumulated during the war. Those savings had been used to fight the war, There was no matching investment. So they had to be written off – inflated away.

 

After the Great War

 

There was also a loss of manpower in the inter-war period due to the deaths of the 18,500 odd service men. They amounted to over 5 percent of the male labour force while the incapacitated added to the loss. There was no corresponding reduction in those who were not directly contributing to market production – the young, the old, and women working in the non-market sector, so average market incomes across the entire population could have been reduced by between 3 and 5 percent.

 

There were other changes not least in fiscal policy. Although there were reductions in income tax revenue in the mid-1920s, in aggregate they were not returned to their pre-war levels. [4] Debt servicing aside, the additional revenue was used for public works and social transfers, among other things. Public works in the 1920s are associated with Gordon Coates whose natural political abilities and energy were displayed by spending big on his portfolio, no doubt contributing to his future election as prime minister.

 

We do not usually think of rehabilitation (repeated after the Second World War) of returned service personnel as a part of the transfer state for it differs from conventional transfer policies because grants tended to be one-off – setting the returned personnel up in business or in a home – and not ongoing (although veteran’s pensions are). The rehabilitation schemes after the Great War are usually thought of as a failure but while some of the farm settlements were not successful, the grants for home purchase were a major success.

 

It is a frequent feature of policy development. There is rarely a single event which initiates what proves to be a major policy, although there can be steps which accelerate its development. The rehab policies after the Great War might be thought of as starting the practice of widespread home ownership. Similarly the war’s broadening of the role of income tax was on the way to today’s dominant role of income tax in the revenue system. It seems likely that the administration of veterans’ pensions was part of the basis for the social security one set up in 1939.

 

Each of these policies are remembered as First Labour government policies but their early nurturing was by the government of Bill Massey which Michael Bassett sniffily describes as ‘dirigiste’ – the central government actively directing the entire economy. It was; with the exception of the government in which Bassett was cabinet minister and the one which immediately followed, all New Zealand’s governments have been dirigiste. Wars – the Anglo Native ones of the nineteenth century and the world wars of the twentieth – contributed to the dirigiste stance.

 

The Development of Producer Boards

 

Any account of the New Zealand economy which does not pay considerable attention to New Zealand’s external economic relations is defective. So not only were there profound changes domestically, but external trade relations changed.

 

New Zealand had been a significant supplier of pastoral products – dairy, meat and wool to Britain – for years before the Great War. One of the few practical reasons New Zealand had an interest in the European wars – colonial filiality aside – was that its shipping routes were compromised.

 

In addition to the insecurity of its shipping routes the war cut off Britain from some of its external suppliers. Britain and New Zealand negotiated a bulk purchase agreement at agreed prices with the British government accepting responsibility for freight (including any losses from enemy action) and storage.

 

While at first the exporting was carried out by private agents and the private and cooperative factories, shipping shortages required the coordination of transportation and hence marketing of dairy products, meat and wool. (It was said one ship took 90 days – more than the time to sail to Britain – going from coastal port to port, waiting about for product to be loaded.)

 

The Imperial Commandeer – as it was called; ‘commandeer’ refers to taking possession or control of something for military purposes – developed in the usual tortuous way of trial and error but by 1917 New Zealand had an agreement with the British Government that all the supplies available for exports would be requisitioned for the British market.

 

At the end of the war there was a considerable quantity of meat and wool in store. As shipping became available it, plus the normal annual production, was unloaded on the British market, as were South American supplies. Prices collapsed. Private enterprise seemed to have fail again, and the farmers turned to the public sector. In February 1922 the government, with dirigiste (‘Farmer Bill’) Massey at the forefront, passed legislation which established the Meat Producers Board with very wide powers. Although interrupted by the 1922 election, the Dairy Board was created almost as quickly. [5]

 

We may ponder whether these producer boards would have been established as early – or at all – had there been no commandeer, had there been no Great War.

 

Towards Muldoonism

 

New Zealand’s response to the problems which the economy faced during the Second World War was based upon lessons learned from the First, less than twenty-five years earlier. Sometimes the actions were a replication of the earlier war – the commandeer was reintroduced; sometimes they were lessons learned – Peter Fraser, jailed for dissent in 1917, insisted that capital as well as labour would be conscripted this time. In order to avoid the high inflation of the Great War; price controls were more comprehensive.

 

I have had to revise my understanding of the origins of post-Second World War economic management. I had long assumed that it had been shaped by the economic policies which the First Labour Government had been elected on in 1935 which were a response to the Great Depression. Certainly they were there – there are always continuities and evolutions – but I now think that the highly centralised economic management that was necessary during the Second World War had a major influence for the first forty years after it. I am not sure that New Zealand was particularly more centralised than many other of the war economies but undoubtedly New Zealand was slower to unwind its interventions.

 

This was most evident in the draconian wage and price freeze which the government of Robert Muldoon introduced in May 1982. The earlier war administrations would have been admiring. Of course, in ways that Muldoon never fully appreciated, New Zealand had moved on. The unwinding of centralised economic control that the successor government – the Rogernomes – undertook might be said to represent the end of the centralised Second World War approach to economic management of forty years earlier, itself a response to the Great War approach to economic management a further twenty-five years back.

 

Counterfactual history is always difficult especially when the alternative is that there was no Great War, or perhaps New Zealand did not join in. But it is possible to imagine alternative scenarios which could well have led to a very different New Zealand economic management from that we had for the following half century and more, something we might ponder on as we live through historical accounts of the narratives of events then, which ignore the way the Great War shaped our society for years to come.

 


Endnotes

[1] R. J. W. Evans (2014) ‘The Greatest Catastrophe the World Has Seen’, NYRB, 6 February, 2014.

[2] Maddison data base.

[3] Among the texts referred to in the preparation of this paper are

Baker, J. V. T. (1965) War Economy.

Bassett, M. (1998) The State in New Zealand 1840-1984

Condliffe, J. B. (1930) The Making of New Zealand

Easton, B. H (1996) In Stormy Seas

Easton, B. H. (Forthcoming) Not in Narrow Seas; A Political Economy of New Zealand. Chapters 20, 21, 30.

Hawke, G. R. (1985 ) The Making of New Zealand: An Economic History.

Lloyd Prichard, M. F. (1970) An Economic History of New Zealand

Goldsmith, P. (2008) We Won, You Lost. Eat That!

McKinnon, M. (2003) Treasury: The New Zealand Treasury 1840-2000.

New Zealand Official Year Book, various years.

Taxation Review Committee (1967) Taxation in New Zealand.

[4] Income Tax Revenue as a Proportion of

Year

GDP

Tax Revenue

1914/15

0.55%

  9%

1919/20

4.2%

39%

1924/25

2.1%

21%

[5] The Wool Board was established in 1944. Earlier wool had been involved in the imperial commandeer and in 1921 there was the Board of Trade (Wool Industry) Regulations.

The Elephant in the Room

Free trade is a fine ideal but comes at the cost of compromised sovereignty.

 

Listener: 13 February, 2014.

 

Keywords: Globalisation & Trade;

 

Once free trade agreements (FTAs) were about reducing tariffs on imports. But it wasn’t long before it became necessary to deal with other means of favouring domestic production: import controls, technical regulations, procurement policies …

 

The variety of ways to effect backdoor protection seems unlimited. Too few customs officers can mean a consignment spending days at the border (and then being rejected because its documentation is not quite right).

 

What about investment, which is a kind of importing and exporting with time lags? And if goods are to be included, how about services? What about intellectual property? How about people, especially as trade and investment requires travel? Value-chain exporting raises fresh complications.

 

Step by step the scope of FTAs has been extended. Are they being taken too far? I cannot see how limiting Pharmac, our drug-buying agency, is anything to do with the notion of free trade. Yet that is being demanded in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations between New Zealand, the US and 10 other countries.

 

Big Pharma seems to be using the FTA to pursue political objectives, today’s equivalent of gunboat diplomacy. (Perhaps the worst example was the peace agreement after the 19th-century Opium Wars that required the losing Chinese to abandon restrictions on the use of British opium so they could be sold the narcotics.)

 

Leaving aside bullying, there are practical problems. What about the imposition of labour and environmental standards, which can be used to protect domestic industry? How do you pursue such social objectives neutrally? The Canadians and French – and Maori – are particularly concerned about protecting their culture.

 

Another complaint in regard to the TPP is that the negotiations are secret. Is that not the way of most negotiations? I am told, however, that some countries in the TPP talks disclose more about what is going on than New Zealand does. We should be up with the most open.

 

The New Zealand Parliament has a procedure by which any treaty (not just an FTA) is scrutinised before being ratified by the Government. That may not be true elsewhere.

One of the difficulties of negotiating with the US is that Congress can go through the TPP agreement and delete anything it doesn’t like. The US President is trying to circumvent that with a “trade promotion authority”, which would allow Congress to accept or reject the agreement but prevent it from making amendments. No one is optimistic that Barack Obama will obtain that authority soon.

 

Whether our parliamentary procedures are robust enough may be disputed, but at least we should recognise they exist. (This Government may not be sure it has the votes to ratify any TPP deal; neither may the next Government. You can see why bipartisanship is so important to the negotiations.)

 

The deeper issue is that FTAs (and treaties generally) compromise domestic sovereignty – the power of a nation to do what it likes within its own borders. Compromise is not so much an FTA consequence as the price of international trade itself. In the course of trading with another country (or your neighbour, for that matter), you lose part of your ability to live an independent life. Yet there are benefits from the specialisation that trading facilitates, so some compromise is inevitable.

 

It is a bit like a marriage, but without the romance. The ideal is that each partner gives up some independence for a net result that leaves each better off.

 

International trade has been crucial in New Zealand’s development since Europeans arrived. It has always compromised our sovereignty, but generally, New Zealand has benefited from trade. Where would we be had Britain not given open access to our pastoral exports in the 19th century? Where would we be today without the China FTA?

 

The sovereignty issue is the elephant in the room. Although compromising sovereignty drives FTA critics and leaves the rest of us uneasy, we do not discuss it. Without addressing the issue, the public debate does not sound entirely rational – but that is not unusual in New Zealand politics.

Child Poverty

<>Listener:  8 February, 2014.

 

Keywords: Distributional Economics; Social Policy;

 

I hope Brian Easton (Economy, January 25) is right that child poverty is at last accepted by the conventional wisdom. He made an early contribution to the debate.

 

However, I fundamentally disagree with him that there has been a lack of quality research. Economists (with a small significant exceptions) may have shown little interest, but contrary to what he argues, social scientists – across a range of disciplines and in both government and universities – have over a number of years clearly identified both causes and solutions.

 

The fundamental issue is not the lack of sound, research-based knowledge but government neglect and denial of that evidence, both in its decision-making and in the work of advisory groups such as the Welfare Working Group. Policy is about choices and this Government has chosen not to act effectively to reduce child poverty.

 

Translating knowledge into policy requires testing assumptions and prejudices against the available knowledge, something the minister, the Government and its advisers have consistently failed to do. It is a failure of policy, not of social science. Meanwhile, children are the victims while the interests of the affluent are prioritised. We can and must do better – we have the knowledge to do so.

 

Mike O’Brien

Management committee, Child Poverty Action Group; associate professor, School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work, University of Auckland

 

I replied to Mike as follows:

 

Dear Mike,

 

The Listener passes onto me letters and I reply to the more interesting ones personally. I should explain I have no influence on their choice of published letters.

 

You state you ‘fundamentally disagree with him [me] that there has been a lack of quality research’. I am not sure I said that. I did say

“Both reports accept the existence of poverty and tell of some of the short-term effects on health, although we know very little about the long-term effects of poverty on health, crime, education and social distress. However, neither analyses why poverty occurs, not in the way that an economist thinks about it or in the way the earlier research investigated.”

 

I guess we may be disputing ‘some’ in my view with the ‘a lack’ in yours. (Perhaps you are disputing my remarks about our knowledge of long term effects, I can think of one or two studies, but perhaps I have overlooked others; I agree we do not lack conjectures about the long term effects.)

 

Now I’d go a step further. Much (perhaps most) of the research you refer to shows correlation not causation. Moreover it shows correlates with the consequences of poverty, not the cause of poverty. (see the final sentence in the quoted paragraph). That means that most of the policy proposals do not address the fundamental problem which makes it very easy to fob them off. (Politicians love those sort policies, of course. They are cheap.)

 

Incidentally, what we need is a decent – hard headed – survey of poverty research. I’ve just finished one on the income distribution. It was a bloody hard slog, set back my main research program a couple  of months and only touches on poverty. It should be out in the NZJS this month.

 

Finally, might I say I regret that your letter ignores the main message of the column; that we have known about the child poverty problem for at least 40 years and still are not doing much. It behoves us (me included) to ask why we have been so damned ineffectual rather than just hoping next week we will be.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Brian.