The Mayekawa Lecture:
Some Alternative Perspectives
on Macroeconomic Theory
and Some Policy Implications
by William R. White
The macroeconomic theories and models favored by academics, as wellas those used more commonly by policymakers, effectively rule out by assumption economic and financial crises of the sort we are living through.
(In particular, the longer-run dangers posed by the rapid expansion of
credit and resulting private-sector balance-sheet developments are almost wholly ignored.) As a result, the current crisis was neither anticipated nor prepared for, and the crisis was also less well managed thanit might have been. At the level of macroeconomic theory and modeling,
this experience suggests that basic Keynesian insights need to be complemented by some insights from the Austrian school as well as thoseof Minsky. (Demand factors are important, but so too are supply-side
and financial considerations.) Such a synthesis provides a reasonable
explanation of the crisis and points to some of the difficulties likely to
be faced in emerging from it. As for the policy implications in current
circumstances, it needs to be better recognized that policies with positive
short-run effects can have negative effects over a longer time period. If,
as a result, fiscal expansion and monetary expansion have now reachedtheir limits in some countries, supply-side policies must be given greater
emphasis. (These would include measures to encourage investment, bothprivate and public, as well as other structural measures to raise the potential growth rate of the economy.) Such measures, along with more decisiveefforts to reduce the “headwinds” of over-indebtedness, should with time
provide the foundations for a sustainable economic recovery.
Keywords: Macroeconomics; Bubble; Financial crisis
JEL Classification: E32, E34
Chairman of the Economic Development and Review Committee of the OECD (E-mail:white.william@sunrise.ch)
An initial version of this paper was presented at a meeting of the Euro 50 group in Parison November 20, 2009. It subsequently benefited from comments by David Laidler and Axel
Leijonhufvud, neither of whom necessarily agree with all of its contents. A much-altered version
was presented on May 27, 2010 as the Mayekawa Lecture at the 2010 International Conferenceof the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies.
MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010
DO NOT REPRINT OR REPRODUCE WITHOUT PERMISSION

35

I. Introduction
Everyone is painfully aware that we have just gone through a major economic andfinancial crisis that touched all parts of the global economy. Output levels fell sharply,
and unemployment and poverty rose commensurately. Many financial markets became
dysfunctional, and important financial institutions had to be merged or recapitalized bygovernments. Nor is it at all clear that the current “green shoots” of recovery will not be
followed by yet another serious downturn. And the fact that an unprecedented easingof monetary and fiscal stimulus had less than expected effects on growth in some countries raises questions about the effectiveness of macroeconomic policies going forward.
Against this background, one piece of good news is that the crisis has prompted some
economists to rethink what they believe about how the economy works. Hopefully, such
reflections will eventually lead to improvements in both macroeconomic analysis andpolicy prescriptions.
In the midst of the crisis, while visiting the London School of Economics, Queen
Elizabeth II asked why the economics profession had failed to see it coming. In fact,
most economists did not forecast the coming turbulence. This set includes virtually allacademic economists, those presenting the official views of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), and those representing most national governments. For the record, however,a few did give advance warnings. They told “stories” about what they felt was goingwrong, based on insights mostly drawn from pre-World War II economists. The moreinteresting question is why no one, including policymakers, was inclined to take thesewarnings seriously.
Perhaps the most fundamental reason was that, in the runup to the crisis, many
people in the private sector (particularly those in the financial markets) were making
huge sums of money. They were more inclined to attribute this to cleverness than to
sharp increases in risk taking. In the public sector, and particularly in central banking
circles, there was a widespread conviction that, with inflation under control, nothing could go seriously wrong in the global economy. Underlying both sets of beliefs
seemed to be something in human nature that says, “Never look a gift horse in themouth.” Another, albeit less important, reason was the repeated assertion that we hadentered permanently a “new era” of “Great Moderation.” This gave further support to
the inherent optimism.
But a third reason, the subject of this lecture, is that the prevailing macroeconomic
frameworks simply allowed no room for crises of the sort we are currently experiencing.
As Keynes once pointed out, this framework question is fundamental: “The ideas of
economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are
wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruledby little else.”1
Absent an analytical framework that included the possibility of crises and deep
economic slumps, it is not surprising that the crisis was not commonly anticipated. Nor
is it surprising that no policy efforts were made to prevent the crisis from happening.
1. Keynes (1936, p. 383).

36 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

Moreover, absent any fears of crisis, few ex ante preparations were made to help improve crisis management (e.g., adequate deposit insurance, special legislation for theinsolvency of financial institutions, and so on). Further, ex post crisis management wasalso inadequate in that each stage of the downturn was treated as the last, and recovery
was constantly said to be imminent. By way of example, problems in the banking sector
were initially treated as having to do with liquidity rather than solvency, and it was
generally assumed that traditional Keynesian policy responses would suffice to restore
full employment.
Finally with respect to recent crisis management, there has been inadequate appreciation to date of the extent to which our policies have created a form of “moral
hazard.” All of the policies implemented over the last few years, however desirable
in the near term, have significant downsides over a longer-term horizon. Not only dothey make future problems both more likely and more serious, but also they reduce
the effectiveness of similar policies that might become required in the future. In fact,
recent policy measures only extend further an almost continuous expansion of the public safety net over the last two decades at least.2 Evidently, the concept of a series of“bubbles,” reflecting in part the actions of policymakers themselves, is not easy to modelin any formal fashion. Perhaps as a result, such concepts are not part of mainstream
thinking about policy issues.
Evidently, simply improving our analytical frameworks will not be sufficient toavoid future crises. Nevertheless, such a reevaluation is necessary. There are many deadends from which to escape, but there are also many promising strands of thought yet tobe pursued.
It will be contended in this paper that the two workhorses of post-World War II
macroeconomics have serious practical deficiencies. These workhorses are referred tohere as modern macroeconomics (made up of the New Classical and New Keynesianmodels favored by academics) and applied Keynesian models (generally empiricallyestimated IS/LM models of the type still favored by policymakers and other applied
economists). The former models rule out crises and deep slumps by assumption. The
latter set of models underestimates the contributions made to deep slumps by developments occurring in the upswing. Thus, they overestimate the capacity of Keynesianpolicies to moderate deep slumps when they do occur.3 In effect, they also rule out deep
slumps, but on the basis of the assumption that policy will always work effectively tomoderate them. Taken together, these points also imply a greater need to lean against
the upswings of credit cycles rather than to simply try to clean up afterward.4
To remedy these deficiencies, it will be argued here that a new analytical synthesis
is required. The building blocks of such a synthesis would be an increased focus on
credit, stocks rather than flows (balance sheets), the possibility of stock “imbalances”(in particular excessive levels of debt), and the process of transition into crisis. In effect,
the work of Keynes needs to be complemented by additional insights from the Austrian
School of Economics, and still others from the work of Hyman Minsky. An increased
2. White (2004).
3. As a corollary, it also implies an overestimation of the importance of policy error (ex post) in explaining deep
slumps like the Great Depression or the Japanese Great Recession of the 1990s.
4. On this specific issue, see White (2009).

37

emphasis on credit and the evolving balance sheets of both corporations and households
would embellish our understanding of the demand side of the economy, both in the
upswing and the downswing. Certain Austrian insights (recognizing in particular theimportance of stocks of physical capital) would do the same for the supply side. The
writings of Minsky are also important in that they draw attention to the implicationsof a complex financial system (experiencing both credit risk and liquidity risk) for thefunctioning of the economy as a whole.
As described, this synthesis might seem little more than a call for an improved
understanding of each of the IS, AS, and LM functions in standard Keynesian models.
However, what is also required is a greater understanding of the dynamics of economies
that eventually culminate in their being seriously out of equilibrium.5 The current
crisis, as well as many others in history,6 indicates that economies can be far fromself-equilibrating, both on the upside and the downside. Of particular importance today, forces can arise that reinforce the disequilibrium, resulting in high rates of unemployment that last for many years. If this is the case, the obvious next question iswhat public policies might best contribute to restoring equilibrium on a sustainable
rather than just a temporary basis? The insights drawn from the analysis of stocks,
the Austrians, and Minsky indicate that simple demand-side stimulus might not provide
a lasting solution to such problems.

II. Two “Workhorses” and Their Shortcomings
In modern academic thinking, New Classical and New Keynesian models of the macroeconomy became dominant and competing paradigms. However, in recent years, a kindof synthesis has been forged that has led to the popularity of dynamic stochastic generalequilibrium models of the economy, even among researchers at leading central banks.
All of these models (generically referred to here as modern macroeconomics) haveas their primary assumption that the economy has self-equilibrating properties in theface of shocks. A second basic assumption is that all economic actors have rational
expectations that coordinate actions intertemporally. This assumption also ensures thatprice expectations will be anchored in the policy objectives asserted by central banks.
The purest form of such models is found in the New Classical (or real businesscycle) tradition. Here there are no frictions in the economy. All prices adjust instantaneously to clear all markets, ensuring in particular that there can be no involuntary
unemployment. New Keynesian models reintroduce the idea (a classical notion but one
often attributed to Keynes) that wage and price rigidities (and possibly other “frictions”)
can cause unemployment to rise in the face of economic shocks, but this is purely
a temporary phenomenon. The synthesis of these views, now referred to as the New
Neoclassical Synthesis, effectively involved the New Keynesians adopting the modelingmethodologies of the New Classical school, and the New Classical School accepting
certain “frictions” as realities.

5. This might be thought the principal theme of Leijonhufvud (1968).
6. For recent historical surveys, see Reinhart and Rogoff (2008) and Schularick and Taylor (2009).

38 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

Needless to say, the recent crisis has not been highly supportive of New Classicalmodels based on the assumption that rapidly adjusting prices will quickly reestablish
equality between demand and supply, particularly of labor. This assumption seems
increasingly inconsistent with observed increases in unemployment7 and the sharp
slump in output that affected almost all of the global economy. Moreover, even prior
to the recent downturn, these models were already under attack on both theoretical andempirical grounds.8 As for New Keynesian attempts to date to introduce “frictions”
into the economy, their influence also seems inadequate to explain the dramatic eventsstill unfolding. Indeed, in addition to sticky wages, there are a whole host of otherprices (e.g., many exchange rates, interest rates both short and long, and the priceof energy) that are not in fact free to adjust to market pressures. Rather, they havebeen significantly influenced by governments pursuing a variety of distributional andother objectives. This interference may, in turn, have inclined the global economy more
toward instability than stability.9
Nor has the crisis been kind to the assumption of rational expectations that underlies both sets of models. Already under attack on philosophical grounds10 (what exactly
does it mean to be rational?) the preceding rapid rise and subsequent collapse of awide range of asset prices hardly seemed consistent with a rational pricing process
related to underlying values. Rather, it appears as if expectations in many markets
were based largely on the extrapolation of past developments. This led to price levels
that eventually proved “unsustainable” as the fundamentals eventually reasserted themselves. Moreover, if it can be contended that momentum rather than rationality drove
asset prices, this also raises the possibility that a similar process might be driving inflationary expectations. There is in fact not a very great deal of empirical support for theassertion that low inflationary expectations have been anchored in the stated objectivesof central bankers (credibility) rather than the experience of low inflation (good luck)in recent years.11
Finally, it needs to be noted that, in models of this sort, there is continuous coordination between individual economic agents (both at a moment in time and acrosstime) through the assumed existence of representative agents and rational expectations.
But such assumptions have evident practical shortcomings. First, there is no need for
either money or a financial system. To quote Charles Bean (2009), against the backdropof our continuing problems in the financial sector, “the fact that financial intermediation
plays a negligible role in Mike Woodford’s magisterial state of the art opus, Interest andPrices, speaks volumes.”
Further, such assumptions imply that exchange obligations are always honored,
whether at a moment in time, or across time. In fact, what characterizes the real world incrisis is a systematic failure to honor such obligations. In the private sector, bankruptcies
7. A number of years ago, Michael Mussa applied the logic of the New Classical School to the “Great Depression”
and renamed it the “Great Vacation.”
8. For a particularly convincing critique, see Rudd and Whelan (2005).
9. Consider, for example, the effort to peg the renmimbi to the U.S. dollar, even though the United States has theworld’s largest external deficit and China has the world’s largest external surplus.
10. See Foley (2004).
11. For a particular examination of the role of globalization in explaining low inflation, see White (2008). For an
examination of what seems to determine inflationary expectations, see Rudd and Whelan (2005).

39and workouts are common in both the financial and nonfinancial sectors. In extremis,
the public sector agrees to meet these obligations in nominal terms but often fails tomeet them in real terms as it turns to inflation to erode values.12
In short, this crisis (as well as earlier crises) provides evidence that the simplifying
assumptions on which much of modern macroeconomics is based are not very usefulin explaining real world developments. While progress in resolving practical problems
can be made by proceeding down this path, it seems likely to take a very long time.
It would be tempting to say that it was the use of these kinds of models by policymakers that led them astray and contributed to our current difficulties. Unfortunately,
there is very little evidence that these modern academic theories had much impact on
the way that most central bankers have used their policy instruments. Alan Blinder,
both a highly respected central banker and academic, has written convincingly on this.13
Rather, most senior policymakers continued to rely on applied Keynesian models. However, since these models also failed to provide advance warning of building problems,
the specific nature of their shortcomings must also be considered.
One of the great accomplishments of Keynes’s General Theory was that it provided
a general equilibrium model capable of explaining the simultaneous determination of
aggregate output, interest rates, and (later) prices and inflation. In contrast to classicaltheory, increases in saving would not (via lower interest rates) ensure that investment
rose commensurately to maintain full employment. Rather, aggregate demand (driving
income and production) might well fall significantly in the process of ensuring equality between saving and investment. Moreover, if there was one thing that preoccupied
Keynes, at least in the “General Theory,” it was the reality of, and the need for a policy
response to, deep and lasting slumps that demonstrated the fundamental inadequacyof the self-equilibrating tendencies in the economy. In this regard, Keynes borrowed
from Wicksell the idea that a monetary economy was fundamentally different from abarter economy, and that certain processes (the “paradox of saving” and “accelerator”
effects, for example) amplified deviations from full employment equilibrium rather
than moderating them.
Shortly after the publication of the General Theory, Keynes’s view of the world(which was always hard to interpret) was given a much more concrete form in the
IS/LM model suggested by Sir John Hicks. Unfortunately, this mathematically tractablemodel had to ignore issues that were thought by some to be the essence of Keynes’s
thought.14 Nevertheless, this simplified model proved extremely popular and manylarge empirically estimated macroeconomic models were subsequently built upon thisframework. Indeed, a more recent development (made possible by advances in technology) was the imposition on such models of such medium-term properties as areturn to full employment from whatever starting position. Evidently, this implied asignificant deviation from the original Keynesian concern about deep slumps requiring
government interventions.

12. With fiscal deficits rising sharply in most advanced market economies, and with banking systems perhaps
requiring further state support, this potential problem is already of great concern to many.
13. See Blinder (1995, 1997).
14. See, in particular, Leijonhufvud (1968).

40 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

It is important to note that applied Keynesian models have never been any goodat forecasting turning points in the economy, and they were particularly caught out
by the current downturn. This is indeed a fundamental shortcoming, since we hardly
need expensive models to assert that the future will be pretty much like the past.
Apparently Keynes himself15 was profoundly skeptical about the usefulness of suchmodels, which would not be surprising if he felt that their construction ignored someof his most important insights. Expectations, in particular, were thought by Keynes
to influence fundamentally all forms of economic behavior. Moreover, given the complexity of the economy, Keynes felt the future was essentially uncertain. Evidently,
such a viewpoint has nothing in common with rational expectations. Faced with such
uncertainty, economic behavior tends to be guided in large part by heuristic devices
and raw emotion (“animal spirits”), which can produce highly nonlinear outcomes,
including deep slumps.
Put another way, Keynes might have agreed that the IS/LM model captured his
views in terms of functional forms, but he likely also felt that it could not be estimated.
If there was one thing that would characterize the future, it would not be the averageof past observations. And to this early criticism of applied Keynesian models must be
added the later “Lucas critique,” as well as the reality of ongoing and massive structuralchange in the economy that violates the common working assumption of parametricstability in such models.16
Finally, it is worth noting that applied Keynesian models rarely have well-developed
financial sectors. While the money supply can have an influence on spending, it isgenerally only to the degree that increases in the money supply reduce interest rates, andthese affect spending in turn through a variety of channels.17 Indeed, in most of theseapplied models, money and credit have disappeared entirely. They have been replacedby the policy rate, under the influence of the central bank, which is typically guided
by something like a Taylor rule. Evidently, without significant detail in the financial
sector, the richness of the two-way interactions between the health of the real economy
and that of the financial system must be almost entirely missing.
To summarize, all of the formal models in common use seem to have significant
shortcomings. Modern macroeconomic models are based on many simplifying assumptions, limiting their usefulness to policymakers. Applied Keynesian models also have
deficiencies, contributing to their incapacity to forecast crises and to accurately gauge
the effectiveness of the policy response. One reason could be that some excluded aspectsof Keynes’s thought are in fact important for understanding how the economy really
15. Don Patinkin has documented an exchange of letters between Keynes and Hicks, as well as Keynes’s views on
the seminal econometric work of Tinbergen.
16. The Lucas critique essentially says that structural relationships depend on policy regimes, and that changes
in regime will change structure. The determination of a growing number of central banks to maintain stableprices would be an example of such a regime shift. As for other forms of structural change, think of the effectof globalization, particularly on the demand and supply of goods and services. As well, within the financial
sector, it is well known that the pace of change in recent years has been enormous. Two decades ago, similarchanges led to marked instability in estimated demand for money functions and the subsequent abandonmentof “monetarism.” Since then, the pace of financial change has accelerated even further. It is hard to reconcile
these massive changes in the real, monetary and financial sectors with the assumption of parametric stability.
17. The formulation of the “broad credit” channel, through which monetary policy affects asset values and thus
the collateral available to support loans (affecting the risk premium charged to borrowers), was an important
advance. See Bernanke and Gertler (1995).

41

works. Another possible reason is that all of the above models pay inadequate attention
to credit, to stocks and balance sheets (particularly of the corporate and household
sectors), and to the possibility of “imbalances” that both lead to crises and subsequently
impede recovery.

III. Credit, Stocks, “Imbalances,” and Crises
All of the models considered above pay limited or no attention to credit aggregates.
Moreover, they focus on the determinants of the flow of expenditures (i.e., aggregate
demand) in an economy during a given time period, and allow for demand being either
excessive18 or deficient. However, being essentially one-period flow models, stocks thatbuild up over time have only a peripheral and gradual influence on people’s behavior.
Put another way, balance-sheet considerations play virtually no role either in explainingcrises or shaping the nature of the recovery.
In contrast to this one period framework, Austrian theory focuses on the creationof money and credit by the financial system, and how this leads to cumulative “malinvestments” over many periods.19 In short, the Austrian approach has more to do withstocks than flows, and focuses more on the processes leading to crises than how torecover from them. For Austrians, “malinvestments” ultimately come down to investments in real capital that will not in the end be profitable, and contracts that will not behonored. Such credit-driven processes were expected to implode eventually in the formof an economic crisis of some sort. On the one hand, the crisis might result in a sharp
fall in output and outright deflation. On the other hand, if monetary measures were usedvigorously enough in response, the end result might be inflation or even hyperinflation.
Recall that much of this theorizing was being done against the background of WorldWar I German debt reparations and the postwar hyperinflation in central Europe.
If these Austrian insights provide an important starting point for further analysis,
they fall well short of a fully articulated description of how balance-sheet effects (including nonmonetary financial assets and liabilities) can have an impact on economic
behavior. Koo (2009) advances the argument one step further20 by documenting how
high corporate debt levels in Japan led to a decade-long collapse in investment ascorporations focused on debt repayment. Still another step in that direction has been
provided by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which for over a decade
has focused on the more general concept of “imbalances.”21 By this is meant observations of significant and sustained deviations of economic variables (both financial
18. This aspect of Keynes’s thinking is often ignored. On this, see Keynes (1940).
19. In this paper, the emphasis is put on particular aspects of Austrian thinking that seem useful, indeed crucial to
our understanding of current events. This should not be taken as a blanket acceptance of all things “Austrian,”since many serious scholars have pointed out both errors and internal contradictions in this way of thinking.
See Laidler (1999).
20. Koo’s framework is Austrian in that it focuses on the behavior of corporate borrowers. However, Koo does
not refer to an excess of capital formation leading to an eventual decline in profits. Rather, he notes that credit
received from banks was used to buy financial assets that subsequently fell in value. While effectively rendered
insolvent, corporations were nevertheless allowed (by the forebearance of both lenders and governments) towork off their debts over time and to avoid insolvency.
21. For early references, see various annual reports of the BIS dating from the mid- to late 1990s.

42 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

and economic) from levels that seem justifiable in terms of either historical norms
or underlying changes in fundamentals. Such variables would include asset prices,
debt levels, spending patterns (saving and investment behavior in particular), tradeimbalances, and excessive investments in particular sectors that in the end threaten
profitability. All of these affect balance sheets in one form or another, and not only thebalance sheets of borrowers but also those of lenders. The underlying assumption wasthat such deviations (as in Austrian theory) were driven by credit expansion and would
eventually collapse. Moreover, their lingering effects would exert significant restraint
on the recovery path as well.
To give such thoughts a modern frame of reference, the BIS repeatedly contended
that unusually rapid monetary and credit growth over the last decade or so threatened avariety of unpleasant outcomes. On the one hand, an inflationary upsurge was thoughta probable outcome as late as the summer of 2008, when commodity prices were risingvery rapidly. On the other hand, concerns were also raised about a number of growing“imbalances.” First, the rapid rate of monetary and credit expansion was said to have
led to asset price increases that seemed to have little to do with fundamentals. Second, it
had also led to spending patterns that were well outside historical norms. For example,
the household saving rate in many English-speaking countries fell to zero or even below,
even as the ratio of investment to GDP in China rose to almost 50 percent. Third, as a
byproduct of these different domestic imbalances, there was an enormous increase inglobal trade imbalances.
The danger was always that these “imbalances” would revert respectively to morejustifiable and more normal levels. Perhaps most importantly, debt levels would reachheights judged to be unsustainable and spending would be reined back in turn. Overextended bankers would then no longer wish to lend, and debtors would no longer wish
to borrow. Starting in the fall of 2007, and accelerating through the middle of 2008
to mid-2009, we saw a financial and economic reversal having this predicted nature.
While triggered by a crisis in the financial sector, the cause was firmly rooted in theunderling “imbalances.”
Both asset prices and consumer spending in the United States, the United Kingdom,
and a number of other countries began to revert to more normal levels. As rates ofhousehold saving rose in an effort to pay down debt, spending and the economy slowed.
Investment slowed dramatically, as did investment in inventories. The fact that the stockof outstanding durable goods and houses had in many cases expanded enormously put
further downward pressure on the price of such goods, leading to further balance-sheet
deterioration. Household bankruptcies rose sharply in the United States, in particular,
and more are expected. Moreover, these reversions also inflicted enormous damage on
the financial institutions that had extended too much credit in the first place. Thesedevelopments were at the heart of the global slowdown, and they remain the sourceof concerns about “fragility” going forward, in spite of the more recent economic
recovery. From this perspective, even the unprecedented credit-fueled growth of fixed
investment in China would have to be seen more as a danger signal than a sign ofrenewed sustainable growth.

43

It is particularly important to note that the initial Austrian insight (“malinvestment”)
goes beyond the effects of credit on various components of demand. It assumes that
supply responds, raising the possibility of a fourth kind of “imbalance.” Mistaken
spending decisions result in stocks of unprofitable (for corporations) or undesired (forhouseholds) stocks of investment/durable goods that will take a significant time todepreciate. To again put this in a current perspective, many industries that have expanded sharply in response to high demand are now “too big” and must shrink. Suchindustries at the global level would include financial services, car production, wholesale distribution (particularly global supply networks), construction, and (for a time atleast) many other intermediate and primary inputs such as steel, aluminum, and cement.
Moreover, with many production facilities in Asia now geared up to sell to foreigners,
who no longer have the means to pay (nor the willingness to borrow further), a major
geographical reallocation of production facilities also seems inevitable.
During the significant time that all this restructuring will take, the structural rate ofunemployment will be higher and the level of potential will be lower. Moreover, theseeffects on potential will come on top of the more traditional effects of downturns leading
to lower investment (sometimes suppressed by tighter credit conditions) and hysteresis
in the labor market.22 This implies that all policies to expand aggregate demand could
stimulate inflationary pressures sooner than some might expect. Given that some ofthese policies (e.g., quantititative and credit easing) are themselves unprecedented, andtheir effects on demand commensurately uncertain,23 the added uncertainty generated byshifts in aggregate supply raises the likelihood of policy mistakes that might culminate
in either inflation or deflation.
If the treatment of “imbalances” in popular macroeconomic analysis needs to be
improved, so too does the treatment of the financial sector. The popular shorthandfor our current difficulties is the “global financial crisis,” which suggests that financial issues are being increasingly recognized as important.24 Admittedly, it has always
been understood that bankers create money and credit. Indeed, this was seen (by theAustrians at least) as being at the heart of the crises that emerge from time to time incapitalist societies. However, even in the literature, problems within the financial sector
and negative feedback effects from a wounded financial sector to the real economy
are hardly mentioned. Irving Fisher (1933) provided another early attempt to analyze
such interactive processes. Against the background of thousands of bank failures in the
22. See Cerra and Saxena (2008).
23. The level of demand going forward will, in any event, be extremely uncertain. In particular, it will depend on
household spending decisions subject to unprecedented levels of debt in many countries, sharp variations in asset prices, and a degree of tightening of credit conditions that will depend on the health of the financial system.
Putting all these risks together might well imply that we have entered the realm of Knightian uncertainty whenit comes to policy formulation.
24. The popular shorthand that says we are currently facing a “financial crisis” could also imply that some deficiency in the operation of the financial sector provides a full explanation of what has gone wrong. This latterextension would, in fact, constitute a serious misperception. As will be discussed further below, the crisis has
deep roots in the interactions between the real and financial sectors. It has not been caused by the financial
sector alone. This misperception is due, perhaps, to the fact that the catalyst for the crisis (rather than its cause)
was the set of difficulties that arose in the market for subprime mortgages in the United States. This perception
might also have been supported by the associated popular concern that weakness in the financial system could
feed back on the real economy through tighter credit conditions. Perhaps an even more important reason for
the focus on financial sector problems is the fact that the public always needs someone to blame in times ofcrisis. This time it has proved convenient to blame the financial sector in general, and bankers in particular.

44 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

United States in the early 1930s, he spoke of successive stages of lending with evereasier credit conditions.25 In the end, this laxity threatened the banks themselves, their
willingness to extend further credit, and the capacity of the economy to recover.
For a fuller evaluation of the dynamics of such financial processes, however, weneed to turn to Hyman Minsky, whose Financial Instability Hypothesis takes banking
seriously as a profit making activity.26 Like Fisher, Minsky spoke of stages of credit
growth, with the horizon of the credit getting shorter at each stage. The process would
culminate in what was essentially Ponzi finance, when loans at the last stage of theboom would be used to pay the interest on previous loans. Moreover, Minsky felt thatan evolution toward lower and lower lending standards was inevitable: “Over periodsof prolonged prosperity, the economy transits from financial relations that make for astable system to financial relations that make for an unstable system.”
Fundamentally, for Minsky, stability breeds instability. The process of credit creation ends at a moment impossible to predict in advance but catalyzed by some external
event, when creditors suddenly admit to their past excesses. They naturally focus firston their own exposures, but then almost instantaneously on what they assume to be
the even more imprudent behavior of others. At this “Minsky moment,” the downward
phase of the credit cycle begins, with important implications for the real economy.
Note, moreover, that while it looks like a liquidity crisis, the underlying reason for the
drying up of credit is (for Minsky) deep concerns about the insolvency of counterparties,
including other banks.
Consider the market’s reaction to the decision by Banque National Paribas in August 2007 to freeze withdrawals from three of their off-balance-sheet vehicles. Consider
also the market’s subsequent reaction to the unexpected failure of Lehman Brothers.
In effect, the interbank term market dried up completely, and almost instantaneously,
as did many other markets, including those for asset-backed commercial paper andvirtually all securitized products. There would then seem to be a lot in the work of
Minsky that could be relevant to our current problems. One important implication of thisinterpretation of events is that the crisis should ideally have been treated as a solvency(rather than just a liquidity) problem to begin with. Evidently, absent adequate legal
mechanisms, this was not possible in practice. This issue is returned to below.

IV. Some Suggestions for Macroeconomic Theory
What do the above considerations seem to imply for the future of macroeconomic
theory? The simplifying assumptions of the New Classical and New Keynesian models
do not make them obvious candidates for near-term guidance as to how best to conduct macroeconomic policies. As Mankiw (2006) describes it, theirs is the work of“scientists” and not “engineers.” The practical payoff could take decades, if ever.

25. The last of these he speaks of as aiding “speculation and outright fraud.” That this is a common observation in
the late stages of major credit booms is attested to by Kindleberger and Aliber (2005), who devote an entire
chapter to such events in past cycles. In this historical context at least, Bernard Madoff did not act alone.
26. Minsky (1992).

45

As a practical matter, we might begin by trying to improve the analytical models
currently used by policymakers. The first challenge might then be to try to reintroduce
some elements of the “economics of Keynes” that have thus far been excluded fromsuch models.27 In particular, what are the implications for the reestablishment of full
employment (after a shock) of heterogeneous economic agents having different appetites for risk, expectations and access to information, and also being subject to a varietyof constraints?28 At a minimum, an improved Keynesian approach would recognize theessential fuzziness and uncertainties implicit in the “animal spirits” that drive the mainfunctional forms of the models based on “Keynesian economics.”
This latter point implies in turn being considerably more skeptical about the forecasts thrown up by the currently used empirical models of this type. Indeed, experience of very large forecast errors at turning points, not least by the IMF, OECD,and other official bodies, has contributed to a trend evident in most forecasting shops
for many years. Conscious of the potential shortcomings of individual models, many
institutions have already begun to maintain a variety of such models. Judgments about
policy requirements are then based on an overview of them all, plus whatever intuition
experienced policymakers are prone to add in. This approach is often spoken of as adesirable blend of “art and science.” However, if all the models being considered sufferfrom essentially the same analytical flaws, the “science” component would hardly seemto deserve such a designation.
But there are other challenges to the conventional way of doing things as well. How
can we blend into this improved Keynesian framework some of the insights of Austrian
theory, in particular concerns about “imbalances” that both lead to crisis and impede recovery? Under normal circumstances, using a Keynesian framework straightforwardly
to project output gaps and inflationary tendencies might seem quite satisfactory. For
example, earlier in this decade, such a framework seemed to provide an adequate explanation for the simultaneous observation of rapid growth, falling inflation, and very
low real interest rates29 in the global economy. However, beneath this calm surface,“imbalances” were building up that eventually culminated in the current crisis.30 The
future macroeconomic research agenda must find ways to identify and react to thesecumulative pressures. Fortunately, there has already been a significant amount of work
done in the area of identification, and some promising areas for further progress havebeen suggested.31
27. Leijonhufvud (1968) in the title of his book distinguishes between “Keynesian economics and the economicsof Keynes.” The former he considers to be the popular version of Keynesianism discussed above, while thelatter is what Leijonhufvud contends Keynes actually believed.
28. Among these would be included sticky nominal wages, the zero lower bound for nominal interest rates, andfinancial contracts written in nominal terms. In the event of falling prices and squeezed profit margins, all ofthese might lead to an aggravation of the severity of downturns arising from whatever cause.
29. White (2008) used a global IS/LM model with a vertical real supply schedule to explain the unusual joint
phenomena of very rapid growth, very low inflation, and very low real interest rates earlier this decade. All
three are explained by a positive supply-side shift (due to globalization and other factors), a downward shift in
the IS function (due to a collapse in investment and higher saving rates in Asia), and a resulting downward shift
in the LM schedule (as central banks responded to the growing gap between aggregate demand and supply).
30. Leijonhufvud has written extensively on what he calls the “corridor of stability.” The basic idea is that
economies are stable and self-equilibrating only within certain limits. Pushed beyond those limits, destabilizing
tendencies predominate. See Leijonhufvud (2009).
31. For an overview of this work, see Borio and Drehmann (2009).

46 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

One tendency that must be resisted is to see this work on imbalances as being related
solely to “financial stability.” In part, this tendency is related to the misconception noted
above that our current problems have been initiated by and are limited to the financial
sector. Rather, an important dimension of the Austrian interpretation of the current set ofproblems is that excessive credit and monetary creation can lead to imbalances outside
the financial system with significant macroeconomic implications. Today, for example,
households in the United States and a number of other countries seem likely to spend
less, to save more, and to try to pay down debts. This seems likely to happen regardlessof the capacity or incapacity of the financial system to give previous borrowers still
more credit.32 How the state of household and corporate balance sheets affects the desire
to spend (as opposed to the capacity to spend) is a crucial issue for future research.
Viewing the issue as a broader macroeconomic problem, rather than the narrower
problem of “financial stability,” also has important institutional implications. It implies
that the ultimate responsibility for monitoring the buildup of these kinds of imbalances,and for directing the policy response, falls more naturally into the realm of central banks
than into the realm of financial supervisors. This currently creates a political problem,since it also appears that regulatory instruments, particularly ones that can be based on
rules rather than discretion,33 seem currently to be the preferred policy response to thebuildup of these kinds of problems.34 Further research into these questions would bevery welcome. In particular, the scope for monetary policy to “lean against the wind”
of rapid credit growth should receive significant attention.35
To say that the problem is a broad macroeconomic problem is not to deny that it
has a crucial financial component. Imbalances and excessive leverage in household andcorporate balance sheets will generally be matched by excessive leverage on the part offinancial firms. Indeed, it is the need to unwind both sets of leverage simultaneouslythat tends to make credit-driven economic downturns so severe. The effects of thenonfinancial deleveraging on the economy will be amplified by Keynes’s “paradox ofsaving,” while financial deleveraging will be impeded by what Fisher (1933) describedas the “paradox of deleveraging.” In short, if we are to follow up on the insights of
Minsky, research into the functioning of the financial system remains a high priority.
The current crisis has also led many to disavow most versions of efficient market
theory, but what is to replace it? Again, and fortunately, there already exists a bodyof finance literature on information deficiencies, network problems, flawed incentives,
and the like. The insights of behavioral finance are also being treated increasingly
seriously, as are the contributions of market practitioners with particular insights into
32. Koo (2009) contends that the length of the period of stagnation in Japan (beginning in the early 1990s) was
largely determined by the efforts of corporations to pay off debts. He further contends that the weakened stateof the Japanese banking system played only a very limited role in explaining this phenomenon.
33. Consider widespread suggestions that banks use dynamic provisioning of the kind imposed in Spain, or that
capital requirements under Basel 3 somehow be made countercyclical. See Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision (2009). The preference for rule-based regimes seems to reflect the belief that discretionary “leaning
against the wind” of credit bubbles will prove very difficult from both a technical and political perspective. See
Brunnermeier et al. (2009).
34. This is the thrust of many official studies into the future of financial regulation. See the Paulsen Treasury
report in the United States, the report of the de Larosière group in Europe, and the Turner report in the
United Kingdom.
35. On this, see White (2009).

47

the interactions among participants that can generate unwarranted market outcomes.36
Recent advances in network theory and the theory of complex systems37 could also
prove useful, particularly to the extent they might throw light on the robustness of thepayments infrastructure (the “plumbing”) supporting the whole financial system.
It is worth noting separately one example of market inefficiency that is likely tohave particular implications for macroeconomic policies and even institutional reform.
The theory of uncovered interest parity does not hold except over quite long time periods.38 This implies that interest rate differentials across countries can induce capital
flows (“carry trades”) for equally long periods, as investors tend to ignore the possibilityof an eventual depreciation of the currency of the country receiving the capital inflows.
For the domestic monetary authority, this poses a potentially severe problem. Higher
policy rates could potentially induce enough inflows, with associated implications fordomestic credit conditions and the prices of longer-term assets, to lead to an overall
easing of financial conditions rather than the desired tightening. While it is tempting
to think that this problem only applies to very small open economies, this may not infact be true. Consider that, in the United States, monetary tightening at the end of the
1990s and again after 2003 did not initially have the desired effects. As the U.S. dollar
strengthened, equity prices rose and long bond rates fell. In part, this was due to therecycling of trade receipts, and capital inflows into emerging market countries, backinto the United States. Recipient countries both intervened in foreign exchange markets(accumulating foreign exchange reserves) and eased monetary policy to prevent theirexchange rates from rising. This contributed materially to an increase in global liquidity,
which further fueled existing “imbalances.”
For smaller countries at least, this “carry trade” phenomenon raises the shorterterm issue of the need for capital controls. Longer term, it is also relevant to a broader
institutional question. If floating, in the context of free capital flows, amplifies the domestic credit cycle rather than moderating it, one of the main arguments for having
a separate currency is called into question. For larger countries, whose currencies areused to fund such capital flows, a still broader question arises. Should large countries
take into account the externalities (effects on other countries) of their domestic policies,
particularly the very low policy rates increasingly being relied upon to revive economies
in the aftermath of credit bubbles? Such reflections invite more research into the operations of the international monetary system, and how shortcomings in this area may havecontributed to the current crisis.
As with the broader macro problems, new ways of thinking about financial problems can also have important institutional implications. No question is currently more
important than the role of government safety nets. In various ways, they have been
expanding for decades, and we have just observed another massive step in that direction.39 The extent to which the growing moral hazard (flawed incentives, noted above)
36. For an example of the former, consider Akerlof and Shiller (2009), and for the latter, Soros (2009).
37. For a recent overview of this literature, see Ramsden and Kervalishvili (2008).
38. This is but one of many problems caused by what has been called “short-termism” in financial markets; namely,
behavior that focuses on short-term gain while ignoring longer-term risks. Examples of such behavior would
include the writing of longer-term options to reap the benefit of a steady inflow of (inadequate) premia, andmaking loans on the basis of collateral (subject to changes in value) rather than future cash flow.
39. See Allesandri and Haldane (2009).

48 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

associated with this trend has contributed to the growing severity of successive financial
cycles is a topic that cries out for the attention of researchers.40 Current concerns thatbanks have become too big/complex/interrelated to fail/save are certainly warranted,
but they are only one aspect of this much larger issue.

V. Some Implications for Macroeconomic Policy
What do the above considerations imply for macroeconomic policy in normal circumstances? The most important implication would be that policy should be focused much
more on avoiding future crises arising from the accumulation over time of “imbalances”
in both the real economy and the financial sector. This implies a multi-period as opposed
to a single-period policy horizon. To this end, we need to institute a new framework
for macrofinancial stability that would involve monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies
leaning more systematically against the upswing of the credit cycle. Evidently, thiswould lead to a more symmetric application of such policies over the cycle. Moreover, it would demand more overt cooperation between the various arms of domestic
governments than is currently the case, and more international cooperation among
governments as well. These issues have been dealt with at length elsewhere, and neednot be pursued further here.41
Closely related, policies directed to lowering the probability (and costs) of major
crises would likely have to be more tolerant of minor downturns than hitherto.42 In a
multi-period world, such downturns clearly have welcome therapeutic effects. If large
crises have their roots in widespread debt problems, then recessions help prevent suchbuildups. Not only do they directly reduce debt levels through bankruptcies and debt
workouts, but the threat of such an outcome leads to more prudent behavior with respect
to debt accumulation (and leverage) in the cyclical upswing. Evidently, all bankruptcies
have their downsides, but in relatively small numbers they are manageable. In contrast,widespread bankruptcies that threaten the stability of the financial system, or produce
very large costs (via bailouts) for taxpayers, are inherently much more difficult to manage. Indeed, in the limit, where even the solvency of the government is called into
question, the temptation to use the printing presses to paper over the problem could
prove irresistible. And, since only unexpected inflation has this effect, the required
increase in inflation could become very large.43
What do the above considerations imply for macroeconomic policy in current
circumstances, where many countries are still deeply affected by the recent crisis?
40. On the possibility that successive bouts of monetary easing lead to a progressive reduction in the capacity ofmonetary policy to stimulate demand, see White (2006, 2009). Soros (2009) makes a very similar point inreferring to the bursting of a “super bubble.”
41. See in particular, White (2005, 2009) and Hannoun (2010).
42. Some might contend that this would be very difficult to do politically. While likely the case, note that thepolitical authorities in many countries have already gone a long way down this road by giving “independent”
central banks a mandate for keeping inflation low. Evidently, if the central bank’s tightening to avoid inflation
is not perfectly implemented (and it almost never is) recessions are implicitly accepted as being the cost paid
to achieve price stability.
43. Reference is made here only to the economic costs of deep slumps. Recall that Keynes, Hayek, Schumpeter, andothers in the 1930s worried as well about the social and political implications, not least threats to democracy
and capitalism itself.

49

What policies would help to foster a global recovery on a sustainable rather than only
a temporary basis? The fundamental Keynesian insight, that raising aggregate demand
is a high priority, will not be challenged in this paper.44 Yet, those who worry about side
effects stretching beyond the current period would note two important implications.
First, there should be a bias toward earlier “exit” policies to reduce the medium-termcosts of these policies. Second, forms of spending that actually increase imbalances are
not sustainable and should not be relied upon.
Concerning a bias to an earlier introduction of “exit” policies, the concerns in thecase of fiscal policy are felt instinctively.45 After many decades of expansionary fiscal
policies to fight recessions, and inadequate tightening in upswings, there is concern inmany advanced market economies that high and still rising debt to GNP ratios could
cause financial markets to demand compensation for increasing risks of nonpayment.
This could exert upward pressure on longer-term interest rates46 and downward pressure
on the sovereign’s currency, leading in some cases to a stagflationary outcome.
In response to concerns about high and rising debt levels, Ireland and Hungary,among others, were among the first to use discretionary fiscal tightening to offset major
increases in deficits due to the operation of automatic stabilizers during the downturn.
Many other larger countries, like the United States and the United Kingdom, have been
urged to at least prepare and present credible plans for stabilizing the public finances
once the economy recovers. Indeed, the recent European crisis (which began in Greece)
led to a number of European countries slashing deficits further in spite of alreadylarge negative output gaps. Supporting these actions is a significant body of research
indicating that fiscal restraint, especially through expenditure reduction, leads to slower
growth initially but then faster growth subsequently.47
There is less instinctive understanding of the undesirable medium-term effects ofvery expansionary monetary policies, but it is by no means a “free lunch.” The firstworry is that such policies will prove effective only by stimulating a “bubble” in somenew market and still further increases in leverage and indebtedness. Indeed, as noted
above, there are grounds for belief that we have been on such a path for many years.48 A
second worry is that very easy monetary policy reduces growth potential in various
ways. In particular, saving rates are reduced (affecting the capital stock over time)and “zombie” companies and banks are allowed to survive and (through competition
effects) drag down the living with them.49 The subsequent effects on private-sector
44. Even Hayek was prepared to accept the usefulness of policies to stimulate aggregate demand in the case of what
he called a “secondary depression.” By this, he seemed to mean a cumulative downward process independent
from the “malinvestments” that catalyzed it.
45. For the IMF, fiscal restraint in the face of downward pressure on the currency has been a traditional recommendation even if implies an economic slowdown. The logic has been that a full-blown crisis would cause evenmore economic damage.
46. Of course, this leads to a vicious circle. Higher interest rates increase debt service requirements, which makes
the initial fears of nonpayment worse. See Cecchetti, Mohanty, and Zampolli (2010).
47. See Guichard et al. (2007) and Alesina and Ardagna (2009).
48. For a fuller discussion, see White (2005). Since such a process must also prove unsustainable, the extensive
and repeated use of such policies is not to be recommended. Unfortunately, however, the further down this patha monetary authority finds itself, the more apparent become the costs of trying to deviate from that path.
49. On “zombies” in Japan, see Ahearne and Shinada (2005) and Peek and Rosengren (2003). They document how
Japanese banks “evergreened” the loans of troubled firms, and how productivity growth suffered in industries
containing such troubled firms.

50 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

investment, and reductions in aggregate demand, are referred to below. A third worry
is that the “search for yield” will strongly encourage imprudent lending and the development of new instruments to hide risk.50 Fourth, at very low interest rates, theinterbank market will collapse, leaving the central bank as the market maker of lastresort. And finally, as noted above, there is the worry that extraordinarily easy monetary
policies (various forms of quantitative and credit easing) might inadvertently culminate
in rising inflation.
Closely related to these concerns about the negative medium-term effects of using
macroeconomic policies to support the financial sector and the real economy would
be concerns about the use of other policies for similar ends. In most countries, directgovernment intervention to support the private financial sector has increased moral
hazard, although it has not yet succeeded in clearly resolving existing problems. Moreover, mergers and acquisitions in many countries have resulted in larger banks, further
consolidation, and increased complexity. All of this has made the “too big to fail”
problem even worse,51 again implying still greater problems ahead.
As for support for the real economy, many countries (particularly in Europe but
also Japan) have introduced programs to encourage companies and workers to stay intheir jobs on a part-time basis. While this might help maintain income flows and spending, it could also (from an Austrian “malinvestment” perspective) have less desirable
effects over a longer time frame. This would be particularly so if its effect impedednecessary adjustments to production capacities. As Schumpeter once put it, “Most ofwhat would be effective in remedying a depression would be equally effective in preventing this adjustment. This is especially true of inflation which would, if pushed far
enoughlead to a collapse worse than the one it was called in to remedy.”52
To be still more concrete, “cars for clunkers” programs in countries with very low
household saving rates are not optimal. Nor are attempts to hold down exchange rates
by countries with huge external trade surpluses. Nor are wage subsidies to support
part-time work, if jobs in the industries being supported (cars, construction, banking services, etc.) will never fully recover.53 However desirable in terms of near-term
effects, adopting a multi-period perspective implies that countries should exit fromsuch policies sooner rather than later.
A second policy recommendation, suggested by a multi-period perspective, would
be to avoid encouraging forms of spending that would increase existing imbalances. It is
helpful here to look in turn at the various components of aggregate global demand in the
National Income Accounts. To start with, there would seem to be little room to increase
consumer spending and residential investment in many countries, not least the UnitedStates. Debt levels and the stocks of such goods are already uncomfortably high. As
for fixed investment, there would seem little room for this in China, where investment

50. On the “risk-taking channel,” see Borio and Zhu (2008). On new instruments, see Rajan (2005).
51. By “too big to fail” is normally meant “too big/complex/interconnected to be allowed by governments to failin a disorderly way.”
52. Schumpeter (1934, p. 16).
53. It is notable that most of the countries with short-time work programs to support jobs in the tradeable goods industries are countries with large external trade surpluses. If such surpluses are “unsustainable,” then presumably
so too are many of the current jobs in those industries.

51

is already an unprecedented 50 percent of GDP,54 and where an added concern is thatsuch investment will be directed toward the production of exports that could worsen
global imbalances. As for government contributions to aggregate demand, as just noted
above, many countries now have deficits and debt levels that are already contributing tohigher sovereign risk spreads or threaten to do so. These governments thus have little
room for maneuver. Finally, for individual countries like the United States, demand
could emanate from the external sector. However, this is of no net gain to the global
economy as a whole. Other countries, most notably China, Germany, and Japan, would
by definition have to run smaller external surpluses. In short, Keynesian solutions to thecurrent crisis must be “constrained Keynesian” solutions if they are to be sustainable.
Taken all together, the above observations might be thought to constitute a council
of despair. In fact, this need not be the case. Although adoption of a multi-period perspective suggests that there are no quick fixes for our current difficulties, it also points
toward other policies that could lead to a sustainable recovery over a rather longer
time horizon.
Perhaps the first thing to recognize is that not all global spending categories aredebt constrained. In the emerging market economies, consumption levels are low, saving rates are high, and consumer debt is not a domestic constraint. Since many of thesecountries (especially China) are running large current account surpluses, there are no
external constraints either. A number of the advanced market economies (Germany,
Japan, and Switzerland, for example) find themselves in a very similar external situation. A global (G20) initiative to encourage a sustainable recovery should emphasize
consumption spending in such countries. Structural reforms (of which more below) to
encourage the production of domestic services in such countries would also be very
welcome.55 As a corollary, if these countries were initially pressing up against production limits, it would also be imperative to allow their exchange rates to strengthen to
avoid domestic inflation.
There would also seem to be room for increases in private-sector investments inmany countries where investment levels have been low for many years. While privatesector investment should always await the identification of profitable opportunities,
such developments as demographic change and climate change would seem to offer
such opportunities almost everywhere. As well, many countries with large trade deficits
need more investment in the production of tradable goods and services to allow those
deficits to narrow to more sustainable levels.
Governments could play a big role here, for better or for worse. Perhaps mostimportantly, private-sector investment will not be stimulated by a political environmentthat is anti-business. A number of authors have suggested that the depth and magnitudeof the Great Depression in the United States owed a great deal to such negative attitudes.56 Further, a climate of uncertainty about prospective government policies would
also inhibit private investment.
54. Albeit, this is more of a “speed limit issue” having to do with rapid capital expansion leading to bad investment
decisions. There can be little doubt that China remains an emerging market economy with a capital stock thatis still relatively small compared to its population.
55. This has been a long-standing recommendation, in chapters on structural issues, in the country reviews carriedout by the Economic and Development Review Committee at the OECD. See as well Jones and Yoon (2008).
56. See Powell (2003) and Smiley (2002).

52 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

Finally, governments must allow a number of important prices that they (alongwith central banks) influence strongly to reflect market forces more faithfully. As noted
above, unnaturally low interest rates help to keep “zombie” companies and banks alive.
The competition provided by such companies could be a direct major impediment to
new private-sector investment. As well, tolerating an unhealthy banking system raises
the likelihood that it will be incapable of providing the financing needed for new investments. Small and medium-sized enterprises that traditionally create the most jobs might
be particularly hurt by such a shortfall. In this respect, there is much to learn from theJapanese experience of the 1990s and more recently.
In addition, fewer energy subsidies57 (particularly in emerging market economies)
and energy prices that better reflected externalities (carbon taxes and “cap and trade”
processes) would encourage global investment consistent with resisting climate change.
Reducing the various subsidies in China that encourage the manufacturing sector would
encourage investment prospects elsewhere. So too would allowing exchange rates tomove to reflect the buildup of global trade imbalances. Entrepreneurs in countries withtrade deficits must be confident they will have market access to countries with trade
surpluses.58 Evidently, concerns about protectionism would be a strong influence in the
opposite direction.
Public-sector investment would also seem likely to have a high rate of return inmany countries. In many emerging markets, a great deal of necessary infrastructure
for growth is missing. In many advanced market economies, depreciation has taken ahuge toll on old public-sector investments, implying the need for new programs. The
suggestion that the recession might end before these investments could be planned andexecuted does, of course, carry less weight for those who feel that the “headwinds”
of the imbalances will be blowing strongly for a long time. Of course, in the caseof countries with large existing public debts, financial markets would still have to beconvinced that the prospective government assets would yield more in terms of growth
and tax revenues than the cost of financing them. Failing this, it might also be possible
to raise tax revenues in ways that reduced private spending by less than the prospective
increases in public-sector spending.59
In addition to expanding spending where there are no debt constraints, attempts
could be made to reduce the existing constraints on spending, thus improving spending
prospects going forward. In particular, a rapid writing off of the debts themselves, andthe scrapping or reallocation of the assets purchased with borrowed money, would have
many benefits. Evidently, orderly workouts designed to maintain value would be preferable to bankruptcies, but in many cases the latter might be inevitable. Of particular importance would be reductions of consumer debt in the United States and other countries
57. Recent estimates by the OECD indicate that almost US$500 billion is spent on such subsidies each year
worldwide.
58. Higher exchange rates for surplus countries also encourage more consumption in such countries, even if lower
exchange rates have the opposite effects in deficit countries.
59. By way of example, the tax structure of the United States seems relatively inefficient. Higher property taxes,
introduction of a value-added tax (VAT) and other “sin” taxes, and the reduction of interest deductibility forcorporate and households could raise major revenues and also have other benefits. These would include morework and more saving. A reduction in the corporate tax rate and the double taxation of profits, offset by lower
interest rate deductions, would also encourage more investment and greater reliance on equity rather thancorporate debt.

53

that had similarly overspent, and reductions of corporate debt in countries with exportled growth strategies that were no longer sustainable. Evidently, such efforts would
also have important implications for private-sector investment, in that they would freeup (and make less expensive) factors of production.
In many countries, bankruptcy laws and workout procedures could be much improved, and greater effort should be put into developing the kind of practical expertise
required to fully exploit such laws and procedures. Evidently, there are other considerations that might constrain efforts in this area,60 but its importance should not be underestimated. There are many who contend that the lost decade in Japan was primarily due
to a failure to grasp this particular nettle.61
Evidently, debt restructuring will have big implications for lenders as well as borrowers. In fact, fears about such implications could well constitute the single biggest
constraint on a restructuring process. While much has been written on this, there seems
general agreement that the approach taken by the Nordic countries to their problemsof over-indebtedness in the early 1990s had much to recommend it. In particular, thestate guaranteed all the liabilities of the banks, and put the restructuring decisions in thehands of technicians completely independent of the political process. The fact that therespective Nordic governments had the full support of all the other political parties provided a guarantee of “finality” that helped the process materially. Unlike the Japanese,
the Nordic countries resumed rapid growth after only a few years of deep recession
and their stellar performance was maintained until the global crisis intervened in the
middle of 2008.
This Nordic experience shows that it is possible to resolve debt problems, eventhose large enough to threaten the whole banking system. Whether other governments
and other political systems would be capable of such resolute action remains to be
seen. The fact that the interlinkages between financial agents have become much more
complex and nontransparent in recent years is a further significant impediment to confronting this issue head on.62 So too is aggressive lobbying by financial sector interests
in favor of the status quo. At the least, their argument that more aggressive official
polices will slow economic recovery needs to be confronted with the facts of theNordic experience.

60. In the United States, there are millions of households in difficulty and even the United States does not have theinfrastructure to cope with this. Further, much mortgage debt is encumbered by “silent second” mortgages andby being wrapped up in structured products where restructuring of the underlying asset is not allowed. See Ellis(2008). In China, much investment has been carried out by state-owned enterprises and sub-national levels ofgovernment. The politics of “write-offs” in such circumstances would be an enormous impediment to action.
61. See the references above to “zombie” companies. As well, see Toyama and Sato (2007) and Nakamae (2010).
62. The so-called Volcker plan to force banks to stop proprietary trading has been criticized on the grounds thatproprietary trading was not at the heart of current problems in the financial sector. This criticism misses thepoint. Such trading is at the heart of the interlinkages and complexities that made the official sector so fearfulof either letting banks fail or nationalizing them outright.

54 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

VI. A Methodological Postscript
When it comes to macroeconomic theory, the current crisis has highlighted what appear
to be some serious shortcomings in prevailing modes of thought. At the same time,it has raised the prospect of other strands of thought with important implications forpolicy. A multi-period perspective, recognizing the procyclical interactions over time
between the real sector and the financial sector, can improve polices directed to bothcrisis prevention and crisis management. Perhaps most important, it provides some
guidance as to how policy can be used in the current crisis to prepare the way for a moresustainable global economic rebound. Whether such suggestions will prompt research
work leading to an eventual “paradigm shift” remains to be seen. But however we label
it, a change in how most economists think about macroeconomic processes would seem
highly desirable.
A corollary thought is that the complexity of the interacting influences on the economy will likely never be amenable to rigorous mathematical proof. Macroeconomics is
not a science, regardless of the number of economists who would like to believe that
it is. We must then be ready to accept other kinds of “proof,” or at least guides to policy decisions, perhaps along the lines suggested a number of years ago by McCloskey(1985). Insights from economic history and the history of economic thought could havea particularly important contribution to make to our understanding of how things work.
This is particularly so given the economic and financial liberalization of recent decades.
Deregulation and globalization has made our current world resemble much more closely
the one seen a century or more ago, albeit much faster and more complex, than the onethat prevailed in the decades following World War II.
And, as a further corollary, policymakers might be well advised to replace theircurrent “maximizing” strategies with their “minimax” equivalents. Given our current
degree of ignorance about how the macroeconomy actually works, a philosophy of “dono harm” would seem to have much to recommend it. In this sense, perhaps, economists
would do much better to emulate doctors rather than dentists.63

63. Keynes once said, “If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people
on a level with dentists, that would be splendid.” In contrast, doctors (like the ancient Greeks taking the
Hippocratic oath) pledge to “do no harm.” This would seem even more welcome, being a significantly lessambitious objective.

55

References

Ahearne, Alan G., and Naoki Shinada, “Zombie Firms and Economic Stagnation in Japan,” International Economics and Economic Policy, 2 (4), 2005, pp. 363–381.
Akerlof, George A., and Robert J. Shiller, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Alesina, Alberto F., and Silvia Ardagna, “Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes versus Spending,”
NBER Working Paper No. 15438, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009.
Alessandri, Piergiorgio, and Andrew G. Haldane, “Banking on the State,” Bank of England,
November, 2009.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, “Strengthening the Resilience of the Banking Sector,”
Basel, December, 2009.
Bean, Charles, “The Great Moderation, the Great Panic, and the Great Contraction,” Schumpeter Lecture, Annual Congress of the European Economics Association, Barcelona, August 25, 2009.
Bernanke, Ben S., and Mark Gertler, “Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy
Transmission,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (4), 1995, pp. 27–48.
Blinder, Alan, “Central Banking in Theory and Practice,” Marshall Lectures, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, May, 1995.
, “What Central Bankers Could Learn from Academics—and Vice Versa,” Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 11 (2), Spring, 1997, pp. 3–19.
Borio, Claudio, and Mathias Drehmann, “Towards an Operational Framework for Financial Stability: Fuzzy Measurement and Its Consequences,” BIS Working Paper No. 284, Bank forInternational Settlements, 2009.
, and Haibin Zhu, “Capital Regulation, Risk Taking and Monetary Policy: A Missing Linkin the Transmission Mechanism?” BIS Working Paper No. 268, Bank for International
Settlements, 2008.
Brunnermeier, Markus, Andrew Crockett, Charles A. E. Goodhart, Avinash D. Persaud, and Hyun
Shin, “The Fundamental Principles of Financial Regulation,” International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies, Geneva, May, 2009.
Cecchetti, Stephen, Madhusudan Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli, “The Future of Public Debt:
Prospects and Implications,” BIS Working Paper No. 300, Bank for International Settlements,
2010.
Cerra, Valerie, and Sweta C. Saxena, “Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery,”
American Economic Review, 98 (1), 2008, pp. 439–457.
Ellis, Luci, “The Housing Meltdown: Why Did It Happen in the United States?” BIS Working Paper
No. 259, Bank for International Settlements, 2008.
Fisher, Irving, “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,” Econometrica, 1 (4), 1933,
pp. 337–357.
Foley, Duncan, “Rationality and Ideology in Economics,” Journal of Social Research, 71 (2), 2004,
pp. 329–342.
Guichard, Stéphanie, Mike Kennedy, Eckhard Werzel, and Christophe André, “What Promotes Fiscal
Consolidation: OECD Country Experiences?” OECD Economics Department Working Paper
No. 553, OECD, 2007.
Hannoun, Hervé, “Towards a Global Financial Stability Framework,” 45th SEASEN Governors’ Conference, Cambodia, February, 2010.

56 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010

The Mayekawa Lecture: Some Alternative Perspectives on Macroeconomic Theory and Some Policy Implications

Jones, Randall S., and Taesik Yoon, “Enhancing the Productivity of the Service Sector in Japan,”
Economics Working Paper No. 651, OECD, 2008.
Keynes, John M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1936.
, How to Pay for the War, London: Macmillan and Co., 1940.
Kindleberger, Charles P., and Robert Z. Aliber, Manias, Panics, and Crashes, Fifth Edition, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005.
Koo, Richard C., The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics, Singapore: John Wiley and Sons, 2009.
Laidler, David, Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Leijonhufvud, Axel, On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1968.
, “Out of the Corridor: Keynes and the Crisis,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33, 2009,
pp. 741–757.
Mankiw, N. Gregory, “The Macroeconomist as Scientist and Engineer,” NBER Working Paper
No. 12349, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006.
McCloskey, Deirdre, The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconson
Press, 1985.
Minsky, Hyman, “The Financial Instability Hypothesis,” Jerome Levy Economics Institute, Working
Paper No. 74, 1992.
Nakamae, Tadashi, “How Japan Could Lead the Way Back to Durable Growth,” Financial Times,
March 30, 2010, p. 26.
Peek, Joe, and Eric S. Rosengren, “Perverse Incentives and the Misallocation of Credit in Japan,”
NBER Working Paper No. 9643, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003.
Powell, Jim, FDR’s Follies, New York: Random House, 2003.
Rajan, Raghuram G., “Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?” symposium sponsoredby the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 25–27, 2005.
Ramsden, Jeremy, and Paata J. Kervalishvili, “Complexity and Security,” Vol. 37, NATO Science for
Peace and Security Series, April, 2008.
Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth S. Rogoff, “This Time Is Different: A Panoramic View ofEight Centuries of Financial Crises,” NBER Working Paper No. 13882, National Bureau of
Economic Research, 2008.
Rudd, Jeremy, and Karl Whelan, “Modelling Inflation Dynamics: A Critical Survey of Recent
Research,” Prepared for the FRB/JMCB Conference on “Quantitative Evidence on Price
Determination,” Washington, D.C., September, 2005.
Schularick, Moritz, and Alan M. Taylor, “Credit Booms Gone Bust: Monetary Policy, Leverage Cycles
and Financial Crises, 1870–2008,” NBER Working Paper Series No. 15512, National Bureau
of Economic Research, 2009.
Schumpeter, Joseph A., Depressions: Can We Learn from Past Experience? in Economics of the
Recovery Program, 1934.
Smiley, Gene, Rethinking the Great Depression, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2002.
Soros, George, “Four Lectures,” Central European University, Budapest, October, 2009.
Toyama, Kazuhiko, and Setsuya Sato, “Creative Destruction and Reorganization: Overcoming the
Nash Equilibrium,” Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan, mimeo, 2007.
White, William R., “Are Changes in Financial Structure Extending Safety Nets?” BIS Working Paper
No. 250, Bank for International Settlements, 2004.

57

, “Procyclicality in the Financial System: Do We Need a New Macrofinancial Stabilisation
Framework?” Kiel Economic Policy Papers, 2, September, 2005.
, “Is Price Stability Enough?” BIS Working Paper No. 205, Bank for International Settlements,
2006.
, “Globalisation and the Determinants of Domestic Inflation,” BIS Working Paper No. 250,
Bank for International Settlements, 2008.
, “Should Monetary Policy Lean or Clean?” Globalisation and Monetary Policy InstituteWorking Paper No. 34, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2009.
Woodford, Michael, Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2003.

58 MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/NOVEMBER 2010