Robert J. Samuelson: Do Democrats do economy better? Nope

2014-08-26T00:00:00Z 2014-08-26T17:27:06Z Robert J. Samuelson: Do Democrats do economy better? NopeROBERT J. SAMUELSON The Billings Gazette
August 26, 2014 12:00 am  • 

WASHINGTON — It’s a Democratic campaign consultant’s dream: a study from two respected academic economists concluding that, since the late 1940s, the economy has consistently performed better under Democratic presidents than Republican. The gap is huge. From 1949 to 2013, a period when the White House was roughly split between parties — the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.33 percent, but growth under Democratic presidents averaged 4.35 percent and under Republicans, 2.54 percent. Jobs, stocks and living standards all advanced faster under Democrats.

Not surprisingly, one of the report’s authors is a well-known Democratic economist, Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve now at Princeton; the other author, Mark Watson, also at Princeton, is a highly regarded scholar of economic statistics who describes himself as non-partisan. More interesting, Blinder and Watson don’t credit the Democratic advantage to superior policies.

“Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic-Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim,” they write. Most economists, they note, doubt presidents can control the economy.

So if presidents didn’t do it, who or what did? Blinder and Watson march through economic studies. Their conclusion: About half of the Democrats’ advantage reflected “good luck” — favorable outside events or trends. Three dominate.

Global “oil shocks” — steep increases in prices, which depressed economic growth — were the largest, because they hurt Republicans more than Democrats. They occurred in 1973 (Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford), 1979 (Jimmy Carter but affecting Ronald Reagan’s first term) and 2008 (George W. Bush). Statistically, they explain slightly more than a quarter of the Democratic-Republican gap.

Productivity (efficiency) was the next largest contributor. But presidents can’t magically raise productivity; it reflects too many forces: research, improved schools, better management, entrepreneurs. Productivity gains occurred disproportionately under Democratic presidents and accounted for nearly a fifth of the gap, report Blinder and Watson.

Reaping war dividend

War was the final factor. Military buildups for the Korean War and the War in Vietnam boosted growth in the Truman and Johnson presidencies. Since the late 1940s, inflation-adjusted defense spending rose 5.9 percent annually under Democrats and only 0.8 percent under Republicans. The buildups accounted for about an eighth of the Democratic advantage.

As for the rest of the gap, Blinder and Watson say it’s a “mystery.” Actually, the explanation is staring them in the face.

The parties have philosophical differences that affect the economy. To simplify slightly: Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).

The best examples include the 1960s Kennedy-Johnson boom, which lowered unemployment to 3.5 percent in 1969 and raised inflation (virtually nonexistent in 1960) to almost 6 percent. This was followed by two recessions in the Nixon-Ford years.

Under Carter, the economy revived, but inflation spurted to 13 percent in 1980. Carter’s inflation bred the devastating 1981-82 recession under Reagan. It pushed unemployment to 10.8 percent in late 1982 but ended double-digit inflation.

Saddled with recessions

If Republican presidents were saddled with most recessions, their growth and job creation records would naturally be worse. And that’s what the Blinder-Watson study shows. Since the late 1940s, the economy has spent about 12 years in recession. But 10 of those 12 years occurred under Republican presidents; only two occurred under Democrats. On average, the economy spent slightly more than a year in recession for each Republican term and only three months for each Democratic term.

The Federal Reserve, influencing interest rates and credit conditions, was the main agent driving this cycle. The Fed may be “independent,” but it doesn’t ignore the prevailing political and intellectual climate. Its policies have been more permissive under Democratic presidents than Republican.

There’s a larger lesson here. The Blinder-Watson study implies that the economy’s performance during a president’s term is a good test of the soundness of policies. Not so. There’s often a long lag between the adoption of policies and their true effects.

Economic policies pleasurable in the present can be disastrous for the future. Similarly, the policies that fed the economic booms of the 1990s and the early 2000s spawned overconfidence that fostered the financial crisis.

The reverse also applies: Policies painful in the present can reap long-term dividends. The hurtful suppression of double-digit inflation in the 1980s is an obvious case.

The harder task is finding policies acceptable in the present and beneficial for the future.

Copyright 2015 The Billings Gazette. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

More from the Gazette

Robert J. Samuelson: U.S. privatizes huge chunk of welfare benefits

November 26, 2014 12:00 amLoading…

Robert J. Samuelson: Women workers join America's top 1%

October 16, 2014 12:00 amLoading…

Robert J. Samuelson: Do Democrats do economy better? Nope

August 26, 2014 12:00 amLoading…

Robert J. Samuelson: The Fed's great 'slack' debate

August 12, 2014 12:00 amLoading…

Robert J. Samuelson: Less thinking ahead for think tanks

August 01, 2014 12:00 amLoading…

Robert Samuelson: A part-timer boom -- or blip?

July 23, 2014 12:00 amLoading…

Follow The Billings Gazette

Popular Stories

Get weekly ads via e-mail

Deals & Offers

Featured Businesses