Debt for Development Makes Sense say 21 Prominent Australian Economists

The statement below appeared in the AFR today, and I’ve been travelling all day so hadn’t had a chance to put it up. 

In Paul Krugmans words, right now, knowledge is our only defence against catastrophe. A natural reaction would be to retreat into timidity. But that would repeat mistakes that exacerbated the Great Depression by giving in to our fears and phobias. IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard has a similarly blunt message. Above all, adopt clear policies and act decisively. Do too much rather than too little.

Of course other things being equal its better for governments to be debt free. But as any homebuyer knows, debt can help us build assets now that we couldnt otherwise afford, and repay the costs when the assets bear fruit. Australia entered this crisis relatively well placed to weather the storm. In addition to the recent mineral boom, for twenty five years Australian governments have consistently stressed fiscal responsibility and taken large political risks doing what they thought right for Australia, for instance with tax reform and fiscal austerity during the mid 1980s and again in the mid to late 1990s.

Many developed countries were already running cash deficits and had substantial public debt before the financial crisis. However all of them have accepted one lesson of the Great Depression that during a downturn we should let the automatic stabilisers work by loosening budgets temporarily as revenue falls and outlays on welfare relief increase.

Given Australias relatively stronger balance sheet, its been in a better position to engineer additional discretionary fiscal stimulus than most comparable countries. Cash handouts of nearly two percent of GDP are being paid to middle and lower income Australians. There is no more effective way to stimulate the economy quickly. The success of this measure can be seen in the relative strength of Australian retail sales compared with almost any of our peers. In addition the Government plans to spend many billions more on infrastructure.

All this has converted a sizable expected cash surplus next financial year into a deficit of nearly 5 percent of GDP. This compares with the average of our peers of nearly 9 percent. On current Treasury projections, which seem as plausible as any (though like all such forecasts, they are only best guesses), net debt will stay below 14 percent of GDP compared with an average of over five times this in comparable countries which nevertheless retain their creditworthiness in capital markets. Ultimately if other countries run weaker balance sheets than us, thats no reason to relax our own standards. But the comparison does provide some context. It illustrates that even after the stimulus, we remain within a very healthy margin of safety in our Governments reputation for economic prudence.

None of this is to suggest that Australia should rest on its laurels. Theres a fair chance (but no more than that) that our economy will recover strongly within two years. But just as we dont know today how far or fast interest rates should be increased then, we dont know today precisely how fast we should be returning towards budget surplus then. So these debates need to go on and there will come a time when we need to change direction, from supporting economic growth to restraining it, perhaps with great vigour. But that time is certainly not now.

Further, as Australias population and infrastructure needs grow, Australians must decide whether they prefer a balance sheet more suited to genteel decline or one that supports investment, dynamism and growth. In addition to building genuinely valuable assets in R&D and carbon abatement, our education, health and transport systems and housing stock, the stimulus will, in Treasurys words keep up to 210,000 Australians in work who would otherwise be out of jobs. Major infrastructure projects should also pass independent and transparent benefit/cost assessment.

Deploying our strong balance sheet to use otherwise idle resources or to put it more compellingly, deserted factories and unemployed workers to build assets that improve our lives and our economy in the future, seems much more appealing; much more commonsensical than retreating into phobias.

Fred Argy, Former Head of EPAC.
Paul Binsted, Company Director and Economist
Tony Cole, Former Secretary to the Treasury
Max Corden, Emeritus Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Owen Covick, Associate Professor, Flinders University
Steve Dowrick, Professor of Economics, ANU
Saul Eslake, Chief Economist, ANZ Bank
John Foster, Professor of Economics, University of Queensland
Bernie Fraser, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and Secretary to the Treasury
John Freebairn, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne
Joshua Gans, Professor of Economics, Melbourne University
Paul J. Gollan, Associate Professor, Macquarie University
Roy Green, Professor, Dean, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney
Stephen Grenville, Former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of Australia
Nicholas Gruen, CEO, Lateral Economics
Tony Harris, Former Auditor General of NSW
Stephen Koukoulas, Global Strategist, TD Securities
Andrew Leigh, Professor of Economics, ANU
John Quiggin, Professor and ARC Federation Fellow, University of Qld
Mike Waller, Former Chief Economist, BHP Billiton
Glenn Withers, Adjunct Professor, Australian National University

4 thoughts on “Debt for Development Makes Sense say 21 Prominent Australian Economists

  1. Peter Martin in Today’s Age says that we said that net debt would stay below 14 percent of GDP. We didn’t. We said “On current Treasury projections, which seem as plausible as any (though like all such forecasts, they are only best guesses), net debt will stay below 14 percent of GDP.” In other words, we think Treasury forecasts are bona fide and as good as anything going.

  2. Pingback: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » More weak conflict of interest claims

  3. Question:

    1. Australia has the lowest public debt ratio in the OECD.
    2. Australian politics has a ‘debt phobia’.

    Why is the first one considered separately from the second? It seems to me that they are directly related and cannot be disentangled in the world of realpolitik.

  4. Seemed related to the topic:

    So, despite trillions in public spending, we are short millions of jobs, are rapidly sliding further into debt, are losing our capacity to borrow at a manageable cost, and are producing fewer of the goods that will generate real wealth.

    The remarkable payments to the financial services sector and the auto industrya quarter-trillion-dollar investment in AIG and GM alonehave produced no structural change at all. We are rebuilding the same edificefragile as before.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2219599/ (Eliot Spitzer)

    I think he is overstating the gloominess but his basic point remains sound. Then again, maybe the Obama factor will turn things around in a year or so (there’s maybe a chance of that happening).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.