On the rebound?

Over at Slate, Matt asks if the "manufacturing rebound" actually happening. He shows a graph of manufacturing employment, reproduced here:

(click the pic for an even more Perk-esque image).

However if we look at output instead of employment, the picture is quite different:

(clic the pic for an even more Chamberlin-ian image)

The amount of stuff we manufacture has recovered in a V like pattern, without adding very many employees. Since the end of the recession, it looks like around a 17% increase in output but only around a 4% increase in employment. Notice that in the last downturn both series fell substantially (17% fall in employment, 19% fall in output) so it's probably not a labor hoarding story that explains the jobless recovery in manufacturing).

So what is manufacturing? The products or the jobs?

Plosser!

Great speech by Charles Plosser. It starts with a nice concise history of the evolution of mainstream macro  which leads into a set of suggestions for research on monetary policy.

Well worth reading in its entirety, but here is the money quote:


Fourth, and related, macroeconomists need to consider how to integrate the institutional design of central banks into our macroeconomic models. Different designs permit different degrees of discretion for a central bank. For example, responsibility for setting monetary policy is often delegated by an elected legislature to an independent central bank. However, the mandates given to central banks differ across countries. The Fed is often said to have a dual mandate; some banks have a hierarchal mandate; and others have a single mandate. Yet economists endow their New Keynesian DSGE models with strikingly uniform Taylor-type rules, always assuming complete credibility. Policy analysis might be improved by considering the institutional design of central banks and how it relates to the ability to commit and the specification of the Taylor-type rules that go into New Keynesian models. Central banks with different levels of discretion will respond differently to the same set of shocks.


 Let me offer a slightly different take on this issue. Policymakers are not Ramsey social planners. They are individuals who respond to incentives like every other actor in the economy. Those incentives are often shaped by the nature of the institutions in which they operate. Yet the models we use often ignore both the institutional environment and the rational behavior of policymakers. The models often ask policymakers to undertake actions that run counter to the incentives they face. How should economists then think about the policy advice their models offer and the outcomes they should expect? How should we think about the design of our institutions? This is not an unexplored arena, but if we are to take the policy guidance from our models seriously, we must think harder about such issues in the context of our models.

Shout it from the rooftops!

Bhagwati dishes:

Dr. B. is not a fan of the Obama administration's pick of Jim Kim for World Bank President.

He's also not a fan of an exclusively micro approach to development:

But perhaps the most compelling factor in Obama’s choice seems to have been a fundamental misunderstanding of what “development” requires. Micro-level policies such as health care, which the Obama administration seems to believe is what “development” policy ought to be, can only go so far. But macro-level policies, such as liberalization of trade and investment, privatization, and so forth, are powerful engines of poverty reduction; indeed, they are among the key components of the reforms that countries like India and China embraced in the mid-1980’s and early 1990’s. Such reforms turned these countries from stagnation to stellar growth. 


The anti-reform lobbies reacted by arguing that poverty and inequality had worsened. But new empirical studies show otherwise: growing economies benefit the poor not because wealth “trickles down,” but because growth “pulls up” those at the bottom. In fact, it is the rapid acceleration of economic growth in the major emerging countries that has reduced poverty, not only directly, through jobs and higher incomes, but also by generating the revenues governments need to undertake the public-health, education, and other programs that sustain poverty reduction – and growth – in the long term. India followed this path...


The problem with Kim, and presumably with the Obama administration’s development experts, is that they do not understand that successful development requires big-payoff pro-reform, pro-growth policies, not just small-payoff micro-level policies. Bangladesh has gone down that road, substituting such policies for macro-level reforms, and is developing at a far slower pace than India, where macro-level reforms came first.

I have to say that while I don't think it really matters who becomes president of the WB, I am quite sympathetic to Bhagwati's point of view about what really matters for development.