European Central Bank Research Shows that Government Spending Undermines Economic Performance by Dan Mitchell 12 Dec 2011 post a comment Share This: Europe is in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by too much government spending, yet many of the continent's politicians want the European Central Bank to purchase the dodgy debt of reckless welfare states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in order to prop up these big government policies. So it's especially noteworthy that economists at the European Central Bank have just produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings. ...we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size... Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. ...Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries). There are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. Unfortunately, too many supposedly conservative policy makers fail to grasp this key distinction and mistakenly focus on the symptom (deficits) rather than the underlying disease (big government). The second key takeaway is that Europe's corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell's Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this case, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending, and they're now using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary monetary policy by the European Central Bank. The ECB study, by contrast, shows that the only good answer is to reduce the burden of the public sector. Moreover, the research also has a discussion of the growth-maximizing size of government. ... economic progress is limited when government is zero percent of the economy (absence of rule of law, property rights, etc.), but also when it is closer to 100 percent (the law of diminishing returns operates in addition to, e.g., increased taxation required to finance the government’s growing burden – which has adverse effects on human economic behaviour, namely on consumption decisions). This may sound familiar, because it's a description of the Rahn Curve, which is sort of the spending version of the Laffer Curve. This video explains. [youtube uj6lRFXC5rA] The key lesson in the video is that government is far too big in the United States and other industrialized nations, which is precisely what the scholars found in the European Central Bank study. Another interesting finding in the study is that the quality and structure of government matters. Growth in government size has negative effects on economic growth, but the negative effects are three times as great in non-democratic systems as in democratic systems. ...the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and ii) the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size. The simple way of thinking about these results is that government spending doesn't do as much damage in a nation such as Sweden as it does in a failed state such as Mexico. Last but not least, the ECB study analyzes various budget process reforms. There's a bit of jargon in this excerpt, but it basically shows that spending limits (presumably policies similar to Senator Corker's CAP Act or Congressman Brady's MAP Act) are far better than balanced budget rules. ...we use three indices constructed by the European Commission (overall rule index, expenditure rule index, and budget balance and debt rule index). ...The former incorporates each index individually whereas the latter includes interacted terms between fiscal rules and government size proxies. Particularly under the total government expenditure and government spending specifications...we find statistically significant positive coefficients on the overall rule index and the expenditure rule index, meaning that having these fiscal numerical rules improves GDP growth for these set of EU countries. This research is important because it shows that rules focusing on deficits and debt (such as requirements to balance the budget) are not as effective because politicians can use them as an excuse to raise taxes. At the risk of citing myself again, the number one message from this new ECB research is that lawmakers - at the very least - need to follow Mitchell's Golden Rule and make sure government spending grows slower than the private sector. Fortunately, that can happen, as shown in this video. [youtube Xnhb0JwS_7A] But my Golden Rule is just a minimum requirement. If politicians really want to do the right thing, they should copy the Baltic nations and implement genuine spending cuts rather than just reductions in the rate of growth in the burden of government.