ACTIONABLE ADVICE FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORS: Newsletters and Commentaries Focused on Investment Strategy

Follow us on
 Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  RSS Feed

    Last 14 days

Most Popular Articles


Most Popular Commentaries

    Last 12 Months

Most Popular Articles


Most Popular Commentaries



More by the Same Author

Economic Insights
   Employment
   Expansion
   Fiscal Policy
   Monetary Policy
Economics
   Economics
Equities
   Growth
   International
   Value
Global Markets
   Europe
Investments
   Investments
Specialty Investments
   Currencies
The New Challenges to Reinhart and Rogoff
By Robert Huebscher
April 23, 2013


Go to page 2, 3, 4, Next     Bookmark and Share  Email Article   Display as PDF   Remind Me Later

Advocates for debt reduction and austerity have had no more authoritative sources than Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff. But last week, these two professors had to defend claims that errors in their research – ranging from a typo in a spreadsheet to the failure to include data from New Zealand – invalidated their much-acclaimed findings.

Reinhart and Rogoff are professors at Harvard University. Their research, published in a book, This Time is Different, and several academic papers, provided the pivotal academic support for calls for cutbacks in fiscal spending, notably by Paul Ryan (R-WI) in his 2013 proposed budget. The two professors have publicly warned U.S. policymakers that further increases in the deficit would lower future GDP growth.

Last week’s challenge to Reinhart and Rogoff came from three professors at the University of Massachusetts, who published a study, Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff.

That came after another study, Crunch Time: Fiscal Crises and the Role of Monetary Policy, which supported Reinhart and Rogoff’s findings, came under scrutiny.

I wrote over a year ago (see here and here) that Reinhart and Rogoff’s results have little relevance for the U.S. These new findings expose more flaws in their underlying thesis and methodology.

No country can support an endless growth in its deficit. While these studies undermine Reinhart and Rogoff’s key results, they should not end the debate over the direction of fiscal policy. Deficit reduction must be a long-term goal for policymakers.

I will review the implications of these new findings carry. First, let’s look at the findings of the UMass and Crunch Time studies.

Those pesky New Zealanders

Reinhart and Rogoff’s key finding (published here) was that an advanced economy’s growth slows by approximately 1% annually once its public debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 90%. The U.S. recently passed this threshold, enabling Reinhart and Rogoff’s research to gain widespread prominence.

A requirement of trusted academic research is that its findings can be independently replicated and verified. That is what the three UMass professors set out to do by obtaining the data, in Excel spreadsheets, that Reinhart and Rogoff used to produce their key result.

They uncovered three errors, each of which altered Reinhart and Rogoff’s results.

Reinhart and Rogoff looked at advanced economies from 1946-2009, but they omitted data for three countries: Australia (1946-1950), New Zealand (1946-1949) and Canada (1946-1950). Of those, New Zealand was the most problematic. Its data alone reduced Reinhart and Rogoff’s 1% drag on growth to 0.7%.

Go to page 2, 3, 4, Next

Display article as PDF for printing.

Would you like to send this article to a friend?

Remember, if you have a question or comment, send it to .
Website by the Boston Web Company