States of Depression
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts — remember “green shoots”? — it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it’s still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.

There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn’t: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy.

In fact, if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the “Morning in America” recovery during the Reagan era.

Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level. These state and local cuts have led to a sharp fall in both government employment and government spending on goods and services, exerting a powerful drag on the economy as a whole.

One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.

Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.

Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.

And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.

Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.

Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts. The fiscal straits of lower-level governments could and should have been alleviated by aid from Washington, which remains able to borrow at incredibly low interest rates. But this aid was never provided on a remotely adequate scale.

This policy malpractice is doing double damage to America. On one side, it’s helping lose the future — because that’s what happens when you neglect education and public investment. At the same time, it’s hurting us right now, by helping keep growth low and unemployment high.

We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.

And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.

One implication of this comparison is that conservatives who love to compare Reagan’s record with Mr. Obama’s should think twice. Aside from the fact that recoveries from financial crises are almost always slower than ordinary recoveries, in reality Reagan was much more Keynesian than Mr. Obama, faced with an obstructionist G.O.P., has ever managed to be.

More important, however, there is now an easy answer to anyone asking how we can accelerate our economic recovery. By all means, let’s talk about visionary ideas; but we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold.

毀滅性撙節重創美國就業

最近的消息顯示美國經濟好轉，但如果認為情勢一片大好，實屬愚不可及。從歷史的標準來看，這是一次非常緩慢的復甦。

復甦緩慢有多項原因，最重要的是家庭負債糾結難解，這是住宅市場泡沫破滅的餘毒。但經濟持續疲軟的重要原因之一，就是美國各級政府做了不該做的事：在經濟低迷時還削減支出。

事實上，如果不是採取這種毀滅性的撙節措施，我們現在的失業率幾可確定將比雷根時代「美國之春」的類似階段還低。注意，我說的是美國各級政府，而非聯邦政府。

要了解政府撙節支出措施對復甦造成多嚴重的影響，可以拿2009年6月「歐巴馬經濟擴張時代」開始之後的公共部門就業與政府支出數字，來和1982年11開始的「雷根擴張時代」相比較。

先看公共部門就業 (主要是州及地方政府層級，其中約一半的職缺與教育有關)。在雷根復甦的階段，公共就業增加3.1%；但現在反而下降2.7%。

其次，再看政府對產品及服務的採購 (此與政府對個人的移轉性給付，例如失業救濟金等，有所不同)。調整通膨後，雷根復甦期間政府採購的金額增加11.6%，而這次卻減少2.6%。

即使把移轉性給付也算進去，差距依然存在。經過通膨調整後，雷根復甦開始後的10個季度內，支出增加10.2%，而歐巴馬時代則僅增加2.6%。

為何以「小政府」為號召的雷根時期，政府支出能增加如此之多？一部分是由於「武器競賽」，但主要是因為州及地方政府為所當為：為新增的孩童提供教育，為促進經濟成長而進行基礎建設投資。

然而在歐巴馬當政下，各州及地方政府的財政十分困窘，因而被迫削減支出。低階政府發生財政吃緊，聯邦政府有能力、也應給予協助，因為聯邦政府仍能以低利率借錢。但這項協助始終是杯水車薪。

這種政策錯誤正對美國造成雙重傷害。一方面將使美國更沒有未來，因為政府忽視教育及公共投資。另一方面也傷害了現在，因為將使眼前的成長更低、失業更高。

如果歐巴馬主政時期的公共就業增加與雷根時代相當，則美國的公教人員會比現在多出130萬人。

如果把公共支出對民間就業的促進效果也計算進去，粗略估計失業率將比目前低約1.5個百分點，即不到7%，遠優於雷根時代相同階段。

做這項比較是為了提醒那些喜歡拿雷根政績來與歐巴馬相比的保守派人士，金融性危機之後的經濟復甦，原本就比一般復甦慢，還有，雷根還比歐巴馬還更傾向「凱因斯學派」。

然而更重要的是如何讓美國經濟加速復甦？有一個簡單的答案。我們只需要利用聯邦政府的低舉債成本，借錢援助各州及地方政府，讓他們把裁掉的教師及警察重新聘僱回來，並讓被刪除或延後的基礎建設重新開工，就能夠朝充分就業再邁出一大步。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html

2012-03-06/經濟日報/A6版/國際財經編譯任中原