Australia's economic performance has been the standout among advanced economies for several decades. With economic growth at nearly twice the pace of US or Germany over the past decade, a remarkable 25 years without a recession and a large, highly competitive mining sector despite the end of the resources boom, Australia remains a strong economic participant in a region of the world where future global growth is likely to be generated.

But with drivers of growth over the past 25 years unlikely to be the engines of growth in coming decades, now is not a time for complacency. And if there's one lesson from Britain's decision to leave the EU, it's that that disruptive forces are sweeping through the global economy. Australia, with its cohesive politics and economic success, has been able to avoid the worst of these problems, but the dangers are present if the economic challenges are not met.

To start with, the impacts of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s are fading. The investment boom in mining is over, and the prices for mining and agricultural exports will probably remain subdued with slower growth in China. While Australia's incomes were boosted by the improved terms of trade, this has partially reversed. The housing boom will inevitably eventually slow.

As evidenced by the results of the Brexit referendum, there is a distrust of the political and economic elites that have led the world's biggest economies. Disruptive, rapid changes in technology have not led to broad-based productivity growth. Workers in many countries have been left with stagnant incomes and governments with rising public debt.

Industry policy has a bad name among American economists who see it as a manifestation of "capture" where special interests are able to obtain subsidies from taxpayers or special protections that are not in the national interest. The modern theory of industry policy, however, recognises that a well-designed policy can actually help markets work better, therefore helping an economy like Australia's make the transition to a new growth path when faced with changing economic conditions. Productivity is the key to high growth and rising incomes – and well-designed industry policy can help.

Structure of trade competitiveness

Take, for example, Australia's manufacturing sector. Mostly because of comparative advantage, it is the smallest among all advanced economies relative to the size of its economy. In 2010, Germany had 21.2 per cent of its workforce in manufacturing while Australia's was 8.9 per cent. While it's not surprising that Australia's structure of trade competitiveness differs from Germany's because of its enormous export strength of mining and agriculture, it will benefit by taking advantage of its highly skilled workforce and the potential to develop industries based on this human capital – including advanced manufacturing industries.

One of the traditional strengths of the American economy is the close link that exists between leading universities and businesses – an area Australian policymakers are seeking to improve upon. At MIT and Stanford, professors of engineering, biology, finance or economics finish their lectures and head off to the companies they run or advise. They often enlist graduate or undergraduate students to help them with their commercial projects and these collaborations often result in jobs as well as experience. There is a danger in this model if pure research loses out to business interests, but the interaction between academia and the practical needs of companies can largely improve both research and business profitability. It's worth recalling that even the giants of science in the 18th century were motivated by the need to improve navigation or build new machines or design buildings. Funding for research should support greater industry-university cooperation as highlighted by the Watt Review.

Another important element in Australia's continued economic success is the growth of its service industries. With most jobs in these industries, the performance and productivity of services will be the largest determinant of Australia's living standards. Productivity comparisons between Australia and the United States show that Australian productivity lagged behind the US as recently as the mid-1990s, but there has since been substantial catch-up taking place. Smart regulation that promotes competition and rewards innovation are necessary to bring up the laggards. While there is a continuing debate about the possible end of productivity growth in advanced economies, Australia can still do much to catch up to global best practice.

The winners of this weekend's election will be charged with answering an important question: what is the role of government in a modern economy? How they answer that will determine future prosperity for all Australians.

Martin Baily is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers. He has been invited by the Australian Ministry of Industry Innovation and Science to report on lessons from the US for policies to enhance economic growth, innovation and competitiveness.

Warwick McKibbin AO, is the director of the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis in the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Editor's note: this opinion first appeared in Australian Financial Review.

American voters are angry. But while the ill effects of globalization top their list of grievances, nobody is well served when complex economic issues are reduced to bumper-sticker slogans – as they have been thus far in the presidential campaign.

It is unfair to dismiss concerns about globalization as unfounded. America deserves to have an honest debate about its effects. In order to yield constructive solutions, however, all sides will need to concede some inconvenient truths – and to recognize that globalization is not the same phenomenon it was 20 years ago.

Protectionists fail to see how the United States’ eroding industrial base is compatible with the principle that globalization boosts growth. But the evidence supporting that principle is too substantial to ignore.

Recent research by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) echoes the findings of other academics: global flows of goods, foreign direct investment, and data have increased global GDP by roughly 10% compared to what it would have been had those flows never occurred. The extra value provided by globalization amounted to $7.8 trillion in 2014 alone.

And yet, the shuttered factories dotting America’s Midwestern “Rust Belt” are real. Even as globalization generates aggregate growth, it produces winners and losers. Exposing local industries to international competition spurs efficiency and innovation, but the resulting creative destruction exacts a substantial toll on families and communities.

Economists and policymakers alike are guilty of glossing over these distributional consequences. Countries that engage in free trade will find new channels for growth in the long run, the thinking goes, and workers who lose their jobs in one industry will find employment in another.

In the real world, however, this process is messy and protracted. Workers in a shrinking industry may need entirely new skills to find jobs in other sectors, and they may have to pack up their families and pull up deep roots to pursue these opportunities. It has taken a popular backlash against free trade for policymakers and the media to acknowledge the extent of this disruption.

That backlash should not have come as a surprise. Traditional labor-market policies and training systems have not been equal to the task of dealing with the large-scale changes caused by the twin forces of globalization and automation. The US needs concrete proposals for supporting workers caught up in structural transitions – and a willingness to consider fresh approaches, such as wage insurance.

Contrary to campaign rhetoric, simple protectionism would harm consumers. A recent study by the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers found that middle-class Americans gain more than a quarter of their purchasing power from trade. In any event, imposing tariffs on foreign goods will not bring back lost manufacturing jobs.

It is time to change the parameters of the debate and recognize that globalization has become an entirely different animal: The global goods trade has flattened for a variety of reasons, including plummeting commodity prices, sluggishness in many major economies, and a trend toward producing goods closer to the point of consumption. Cross-border flows of data, by contrast, have grown by a factor of 45 during the past decade, and now generate a greater economic impact than flows of traditional manufactured goods.

Digitization is changing everything: the nature of the goods changing hands, the universe of potential suppliers and customers, the method of delivery, and the capital and scale required to operate globally. It also means that globalization is no longer exclusively the domain of Fortune 500 firms.

Companies interacting with their foreign operations, suppliers, and customers account for a large and growing share of global Internet traffic. Already half of the world’s traded services are digitized, and 12% of the global goods trade is conducted via international e-commerce. E-commerce marketplaces such as Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay are turning millions of small enterprises into exporters. This remains an enormous untapped opportunity for the US, where fewer than 1% of companies export– a far lower share than in any other advanced economy.

Despite all the anti-trade rhetoric, it is crucial that Americans bear in mind that most of the world’s customers are overseas. Fast-growing emerging economies will be the biggest sources of consumption growth in the years ahead.

This would be the worst possible moment to erect barriers. The new digital landscape is still taking shape, and countries have an opportunity to redefine their comparative advantages. The US may have lost out as the world chased low labor costs; but it operates from a position of strength in a world defined by digital globalization.

There is real value in the seamless movement of innovation, information, goods, services, and – yes – people. As the US struggles to jump-start its economy, it cannot afford to seal itself off from an important source of growth.

US policymakers must take a nuanced, clear-eyed view of globalization, one that addresses its downsides more effectively, not only when it comes to lost jobs at home, but also when it comes to its trading partners’ labor and environmental standards. Above all, the US needs to stop retrying the past – and start focusing on how it can compete in the next era of globalization.

Editor's note: this piece first appeared on Project-Syndicate.org.

A major oil spill will result in cleanup spending that boosts GDP, but no one thinks oil spills are good. Oil spills and other forms of pollution are examples of negative externalities — harm caused to others by the economic activity of a firm or industry. These externalities represent a failure of the market, and unless there is corrective action, their presence means that there is too much production of something that causes negative spillovers.

That criticism can be applied to the financial services industry. Many say that it grew too large, triggered a financial crisis and damaged the rest of the economy. Is that still the case, and is financialization spoiling the economy? Despite the alarmist rhetoric around today’s finance sector, the answer is generally “no” because of changes made to financial regulation.

First, a check on the facts: How large is the industry and how much has it grown? The broad definition of the financial sector includes finance, insurance and real estate, known by the acronym “FIRE.” It was 17.5 percent of gross domestic product in 1990 and rose to 20.0 percent in 2014, but that figure is misleading as it includes office and apartment rents and leases — stuff that has little to do with Wall Street.

Finance and insurance separately peaked well before the financial crisis at 7.7 percent of GDP, which was up from 5.8 percent in 1990. In 2014, it was 7.0 percent of GDP. Employment in finance and insurance has been on a downtrend since 2003 and is currently 4.25 percent of total nonfarm payrolls. Most of those jobs are in offices and bank branches around the country. (The output data given here are drawn from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP by Industry data. The employment data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Payroll Employment data. Author’s calculations.)

Still, salaries and bonuses at the top are extremely attractive, so perhaps the externality plays out by drawing the best and brightest away from other more productive activities. The Harvard Crimson reported that in 2007, 23 percent of graduating Harvard seniors said they planned to enter finance. That is an impressive number, but things turned around sharply, with the 23 percent figure falling to 11.5 percent in 2009 after the financial crisis. At this point, the financial industry really isn’t large enough to crowd out other parts of the economy.

Meanwhile, the insurance industry serves an important social purpose providing life, property, and casualty insurance. AIG got into trouble in the crisis because it strayed into providing very risky financial services, not because of its main insurance business. Likewise, the core value of banks is financial intermediation between savers and investors, giving savers relatively secure and liquid assets while also funding investment.

There are critics of how well our banking industry serves this core purpose, a quality that is hard to determine. My judgment is that it does the job pretty well compared to most other countries. As the IMF reported in September 2015, the non-performing loan problem among European banks remains severe, whereas most U.S. banks now have strong balance sheets. Good financial intermediation means that most of the savings dollars are transferred to investors and are not lost through inefficient bank operations. A 2002 study that I participated in found bank productivity higher in the United States than in France or Germany.

The parts of the financial sector that give rise to the most concern are market-making, deal-making and the creation and trading of derivatives on Wall Street. The volume of market trading has increased exponentially because of the increased speed of computers and communications. Up to a certain point, the increased volume is helpful because it adds to the liquidity of markets, but the advent of high-frequency trading has taken us over the top. As Michael Lewis describes in his book Flash Boys, the high speed traders are finding ways to shave milliseconds off the time needed to make trades. That is thoroughly wasteful. As for deal-making, it has been going on for a long time — indeed the go-go years for deals were in the 1980s — so it is hard to blame the recent slowing of economic growth on this activity.

Still, the explosion of derivatives and other overly-complex instruments was problematic, and it is crystal clear that the mortgage market became too opaque and removed accountability from the system. The layering of complex derivatives on top of lousy mortgages (and other shaky assets) distorted the economy, resulted in the overbuilding of houses, and caused the financial crisis. There are plenty of people at fault besides the bankers, but the smart people on Wall Street were driving the process, and they should have known better. The excessive financialization obscured the reality of loans that depended upon ever-rising home prices and thus were never going to be paid back. There was an externality because the private calculations of potential profit ignored the risks being imposed on society.

Is that still the situation today? No. Things have changed. Banks and other financial institutions that create risks for the whole economy are now required to hold sufficient capital to cover losses even in periods of economic and financial stress, plus a liquidity buffer (they must pass “stress tests” administered by the Federal Reserve). The screws have been turned pretty tight, and the owners of large financial institutions will bear the costs of future failures — not taxpayers. This brings private incentives in line with the public interest, getting rid of the externality that gave us too much financialization in the first place. But to keep the future safe, we’ll have to make sure no one forgets what happened in the last crisis, and ensure that new risks are not created in other, less-regulated parts of the industry.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in the Washington Post.

Event Information

The financial crisis is now eight years behind us, but its legacy lingers on. Many Americans are concerned about their financial security and are particularly worried about whether they will have enough for retirement. Guaranteed benefit pensions are gradually disappearing, leaving households to save and invest for themselves. What role could equities play for retail investors?

Another concern about the lingering impact of the crisis is that business investment and overall economic growth remains weak compared to expectations. Large companies are able to borrow at low interest rates, yet many of them have large cash holdings. However, many small and medium sized enterprises face difficulty funding their growth, paying high risk premiums on their borrowing and, in some cases, being unable to fund investments they would like to make. Equity funding can be an important source of growth financing.

On Friday, April 15, the Initiative on Business and Public Policy at Brookings examined what role equity markets can play for individual retirement security, small business investment and whether they can help jumpstart American innovation culture by fostering the transition from startups to billion dollar companies.

You can join the conversation and tweet questions for the panelists at #EquityMarkets.

Video

• Keynote address by Richard G. Ketchum
• Panel Discussion
• Keynote address by Roger Ferguson

Audio

• Not just for the professionals? Understanding equity markets for retail and small business investors

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• Equity Markets Retirement Security 2016 Apr 15 (2)
• 20160415_equity_markets_transcript

For more than a decade, the economy’s rate of productivity growth has been dismal, which is bad news for workers since their incomes rise slowly or not at all when this is the case. Economists have struggled to understand why American productivity has been so weak. After all, with all the information technology innovations that make our lives easier like iPhones, Google, and Uber, why hasn’t our country been able to work more productively, giving us either more leisure time, or allowed us to get more done at work and paid more in return?

One answer often given is that the government statisticians must be measuring something wrong – notably, the benefits of Google and all the free stuff we can now access on our phones, tablets and computers. Perhaps government statisticians just couldn’t figure out how to include those new services in a meaningful way into the data?

A new research paper by Fed economists throws cold water on that idea. They think that free stuff like Facebook should not be counted in GDP, or in measures of productivity, because consumers do not pay for these services directly; the costs of providing them are paid for by advertisers. The authors point out that free services paid for by advertising are not new; for example, when television broadcasting was introduced it was provided free to households and much of it still is.

The Fed economists argue that free services like Google are a form of “consumer surplus,” defined as the value consumers place on the things they buy that is over and above the price they have paid. Consumer surplus has never been included in past measures of GDP or productivity, they point out. Economist Robert Gordon, who commented on the Fed paper at the conference where it was presented, argued that even if consumer surplus were to be counted, most of the free stuff such as search engines, e-commerce, airport check-in kiosks and the like was already available by 2004, and hence would not explain the productivity growth slowdown that occurred around that time.

The Fed economists also point out that the slowdown in productivity growth is a very big deal. If the rate of growth achieved from 1995 to 2004 had continued for another decade, GDP would have been $3 trillion higher, the authors calculate. And the United States is not alone in facing weak productivity; it is a problem for all developed economies. It is hard to believe that such a large problem faced by so many countries could be explained by errors in the way GDP and productivity are measured.

Even though I agree with the Fed authors that the growth slowdown is real, there are potentially serious measurement problems for the economy that predate the 2004 slowdown.

Health care is the most important example. It amounts to around 19% of GDP and in the official accounts there has been no productivity growth at all in this sector over many, many years. In part that may reflect inefficiencies in health care delivery, but no one can doubt that the quality of care has increased. New diagnostic and scanning technologies, new surgical procedures, and new drugs have transformed how patients are treated and yet none of these advances has been counted in measured productivity data. The pace of medical progress probably was just as fast in the past as it is now, so this measurement problem does not explain the slowdown. Nevertheless, trying to obtain better measures of health care productivity is an urgent task. The fault is not with the government’s statisticians, who do a tremendous job with very limited resources. The fault lies with those in Congress who undervalue good economic statistics.

Gordon, in his influential new book The Rise and Fall of American Growth, argues that the American engine of innovation has largely run its course. The big and important innovations are behind us and future productivity growth will be slow. My own view is that the digital revolution has not nearly reached an end, and advances in materials science and biotechnology promise important innovations to come. Productivity growth seems to go in waves and is impossible to forecast, so it is hard to say for sure if Gordon is wrong, but I think he is.

Fortune reported in June 2015 that 70% of its top 500 CEOs listed rapid technological change as their biggest challenge. I am confident that companies will figure out the technology challenge, and productivity growth will get back on track, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared in Fortune.

The support for Bernie Sanders among young people has stirred a debate about the merits of the American style of a market economy versus the European version, and particularly the Nordic version of capitalism seen in Denmark.

Of course, the chances that Sanders will actually become president are remote and the chances of his enacting his program, if he were to become president, are even more remote. Still, the debate is an interesting one. David Brooks (writing in his New York Times column February 12, 2016) says that Denmark and similar economies in Europe are stagnant and lack the dynamism of America. Sanders’ supporters wrote in response, pointing to the strengths of Denmark: the absence of extreme poverty, the guaranty of good quality health care, and the availability of free college education.

Denmark gets a lot of things right. It provides universal health care of high quality at only a fraction of the cost of the U.S. system. Health outcomes are at least as good as in the United States with Danish wait-times similar to those we have here and infant mortality much lower. Denmark also does well in its primary and secondary education and in its labor market programs. They use tough love on those who are out of work, providing generous income support and training, but if they do not find a job or accept one that is found for them, the unemployed lose their benefits. The Danish “flexicurity” system is much admired because it combines a flexible labor market with income security. People are not guaranteed to keep the job they are in, but they are pretty much guaranteed that they can have a job.

Brooks is correct in pointing to the negative impact of very high tax rates on work. In the Nordic economies and in Germany, the employment rate is high but people work a lot fewer hours than workers in the U.S. On average, employed workers work 1,788 hours a year in the U.S. and only 1,438 in Denmark, and even less in Germany at 1,363, according to the OECD. Of course the Europeans are choosing to work shorter hours, but that choice is made in the face of very high taxes. Consider a busy professional couple in Denmark who want a renovation done to their home. They take home only a fraction of their salary after paying taxes and then they pay a plumber or an electrician to work on their house, and each of these tradespeople gets to keep only a fraction of what they charge for their services. The couple may find it is better to forget about the renovation, or hire people off the books to avoid the prohibitive double taxation.

In terms of innovation, Europe does not have the equivalent of Silicon Valley or the innovation hubs around Cambridge, Massachusetts, or the National Institutes of Health in Maryland. These creative centers generate innovations made in the U.S. that spread around the world and benefit everyone. Denmark is too small to sustain such centers by itself, but the problem extends to Europe more broadly, where policymakers struggle to match American innovation. Brooks is also correct about the danger of universal free college education. Those who graduate from four-year colleges will usually be in the upper half of the income distribution and should not expect to get a free ride from taxpayers who are making far less themselves. At the same time, creating broad financial support to allow children from low-income families to attend college while avoiding crippling debts is absolutely the right policy.

The U.S. is an exceptional country with a dynamic and successful economy. Europe would profit from copying the innovation culture of America. American capital markets, notwithstanding the financial crisis, are much more efficient than those in Europe and offer financial support and mentoring to start-up companies. Going the other way, America could learn about ways to retrain workers and avoid the desperate poverty that afflicts too many of our citizens. We could learn about the benefits of negotiating for lower prices from doctors, hospitals and drug companies. Whoever wins the White House should be secure in their belief about America’s strengths and vitality, while admitting that we can learn from what other countries do well.

Neel Kashkari, the newly appointed President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, is super-smart with extensive experience in the financial industry at Goldman Sachs and then running the government’s TARP program, but his call to break up the big banks misses the mark.

Sure, big banks, medium-sized banks and small banks all contributed to the devastating financial crisis, but so did the rating agencies and the state-regulated institutions (mostly small) that originated many of the bad mortgages.  It was vital that regulation be strengthened to avoid a repetition of what happened – and it has been.  There should never again be a situation where policymakers are faced with either bailing out failing institutions or letting them fail and seeing financial panic spread.

That’s why the Dodd-Frank Act gave the authorities a new tool to avoid that dilemma titled “Orderly Liquidation Authority,” which gives them the ability to fail a firm but sustain the key parts whose failure might cause financial instability.  Kashkari thinks that the authorities will not want to exercise this option in a crisis because they will be fearful of the consequences of imposing heavy losses on the original owners of the largest banks.  It’s a legitimate concern, but he underestimates the progress that has been made in making the orderly liquidation authority workable in practice.  He also underestimates the determination of regulators not to bail out financial institutions from now on.

To make orderly liquidation operational, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) devised something called the “single point of entry” approach, or SPOE, which provides a way of dealing with large failing banks.  The bank holding company is separated from the operating subsidiaries and takes with it all of the losses, which are then imposed on the shareholders and unsecured bond holders of the original holding company, and not on the creditors of the critical operating subs and not on  taxpayers.  The operating subsidiaries of the failing institution are placed into a new bank entity, and they are kept open and operating so that customers can still go into their bank branch or ATM and get their money, and the bank can still make loans to support household and business spending or the investment bank can continue to help businesses and households raise funds in securities markets.  The largest banks also have foreign subsidiaries and these too would stay open to serve customers in Brazil or Mexico.

This innovative approach to failing banks is not magic, although it is hard for most people to understand.  However, the reason that Kashkari and other knowledgeable officials have not embraced SPOE is that they believe the authorities will be hesitant to use it and will try to find ways around it.  When a new crisis hits, the argument goes, government regulators will always bail out the big banks.

First, let’s get the facts straight about the recent crisis.  The government did step in to protect the customers of banks of all sizes as well as money market funds.  In the process, they also protected most bondholders, and people who had lent money to the troubled institutions, including the creditors of Bear Stearns, a broker dealer, and AIG, an insurance company.  This was done for a good reason because a collapse in the banking and financial system more broadly would have been even worse if markets stopped lending to them.  Shareholders of banks and other systemically important institutions lost a lot of money in the crisis, as they should have.  The CEOs lost their jobs, as they should have (although not their bonuses).  Most bondholders were protected because it was an unfortunate necessity.

As a result of Dodd-Frank rules the situation is different now from what it was in 2007.  Banks are required to hold much more capital, meaning that there is more shareholder equity in the banks.  In addition, banks must hold long-term unsecured debt, bonds that essentially become a form of equity in the event of a bank failure.  It is being made clear to markets that this form of lending to banks will be subject to losses in the event the bank fails—unlike in 2008.  Under the new rules, both the owners of the shares of big banks and the holders of their unsecured bonds have a lot to lose if the bank fails, providing market discipline and a buffer that makes it very unlikely indeed that taxpayers would be on the hook for losses.

The tricky part is to understand the situation facing the operating subsidiaries of the bank holding company — the parts that are placed into a new bank entity and remain open for business.  The subsidiaries may in fact be the part of the bank that caused it to fail in the first place, perhaps by making bad loans or speculating on bad risks.  Some of these subsidiaries may need to be broken off and allowed to fail along with the holding company—provided that can be done without risking spillover to the economy.  Other parts may be sold separately or wound down in an orderly way.  In fact the systemically important banks are required to submit “living wills” to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve that will enable the critical pieces of a failing bank to be separated from the rest.

It is possible that markets will be reluctant to lend money to the new entity but the key point is that this new entity will be solvent because the losses, wherever they originated, have been taken away and the new entities recapitalized by the creditors of the holding company that have been “bailed in.”   Even if it proves necessary for the government to lend money to the newly formed bank entity, this can be done with reasonable assurance that the loans will be repaid with interest.  Importantly, it can be done through the orderly liquidation authority and would not require Congress to pass another TARP, the very unpopular fund that was used to inject capital into failing institutions.

There are proposals to enhance the SPOE approach by creating a new chapter of the bankruptcy code, so that a judge would control the failure process for a big bank and this could ensure there is no government bailout.  I support these efforts to use bankruptcy proceedings where possible, although I am doubtful if the courts could handle a severe crisis with multiple failures of global financial institutions.  But regardless of whether failing financial institutions are resolved through judicial proceedings or through the intervention of the FDIC (as specified under Title II of Dodd-Frank) the new regulations guaranty that shareholders and unsecured bondholders bear the losses so that the parts of the firm that are essential for keeping financial services going in the economy are kept alive.  That should assure the authorities that bankruptcy or resolution can be undertaken while keeping the economy relatively safe.

The Federal Reserve regulates the largest banks and it is making sure that the bigger the bank, the greater is the loss-absorbing buffer it must hold—and it will be making sure that systemically important nonbanks also have extra capital and can be resolved in an orderly manner.  Once that process is complete, it can be left to the market to decide whether or not it pays to be a big bank.  Regulators do not have to break up the banks or figure out how that would be done without disrupting the financial system.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Bloomberg Government. 

Event Information

The White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was created by Congress in 1946 to advise the president on ways “to foster and promote free competitive enterprise” and “to promote maximum employment, production and purchasing power.” President Truman, who signed the Employment Act of 1946 into law, was unenthusiastic about the Council and didn’t nominate members for nearly six months. Yet the CEA, comprised of three individuals whom Congress says are to be “exceptionally qualified,” has not only survived but also prospered for 70 years and remains an important part of the president’s economic policy decisionmaking.

On February 11, the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at Brookings marked this anniversary by examining the ways the CEA and other economists succeed and fail when they set out to advise elected politicians and tap the expertise of some of the “exceptionally qualified” economists who have chaired the Council over the past four decades.

You can join the conversation and tweet questions for the panelists at #CEAat70.

Video

• Panel 1: The CEA in Moments of Crisis
• Panel 2: The CEA and Policymaking
• Panel 3: Current Economic Policy Issues

Audio

• The Council of Economic Advisers: 70 years of advising the president

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160211_economic_advisers_transcript

Productivity, which is the output produced by each hour of work in the non-farm business sector, grew at a paltry 1.2 percent a year in the 10 years through the third quarter of this year. In the prior decade, the growth rate was more than double, at around 3 percent a year. The question is what it means.

High-wage workers have done better than the average Joe; and profits have grown faster than wages, but productivity growth is even more important — it is the rising tide that lifts most boats. Average wages grew at more than 2 percent a year during the years of strong productivity growth and are growing at under 1 percent a year now.

The pace of the productivity increase is also vital to the nation’s finances. The last balanced federal budgets came after the fast-growth 1990s, which drove up incomes, profits and tax revenues. Today there are scary forecasts of the size of future budget deficits, and those forecasts are set to become much scarier unless productivity improves.

Slow productivity growth does not have the drama of Janet Yellen arguing with angry senators. It is a problem like termites in the attic where you don’t realize it exists until the roof collapses. And, even worse, it is a problem where there is no generally recognized explanation, nor are there obvious solutions.

One possible explanation, put forward by leading economist Robert Gordon, is that all the best innovations have been used up. He looks at the broad sweep of history, describing the age of steam, the age of electricity, and so on. The last wave, he argues, is the one fueled by the technology bubble, and it ran its course 10 years ago.

Gordon’s diagnosis is hard to swallow, however, as technology is changing all around us. A June 2015 survey of the Fortune 500 companies asked CEOs to list the biggest challenges they face, and their number-one answer by far was the challenge of rapid technological change. Any visitor to Silicon Valley or Cambridge, Massachusetts, is impressed by the pace of change.

There seems to be a major gap occurring between the cup and the lip. Technology changes apace, but the changes are apparently not translating into more efficient factories and offices.

One reason for this could be a lack of investment in business and human capital —the skills of the workforce. The Great Recession certainly put a damper on all forms of investment and the recovery has been sluggish. Regardless of what caused the slowdown, a boost to investment would help productivity.

Another possibility is that economic data are not capturing the fruits of innovations. Improved surgical procedures, new drugs and better treatment protocols allow hospitals to become more productive, but this large sector of the economy shows almost no measured productivity growth. Silicon Valley is turning out new apps to make our lives easier, but very little of this activity shows up in our productivity statistics.

Another clue to the productivity problem is that, for some reason, the dynamism of the U.S. economy seems to have faded. The number of startups is down, especially the so-called gazelles that grow fast and become much more productive.

Traditionally, a source of productivity growth has been the expansion of the most productive firms and the contraction of the less productive, and this dynamic has also slowed, perhaps due to diminished access to funding, or maybe regulation has become more burdensome.

While the cause of the problem and the nature of the solution remain uncertain, there is a lot of exciting research going on to understand productivity better and formulate policies to enhance it. If misery loves company, the United States should feel better because weak productivity is a problem for all advanced economies.

Moreover, understanding slow growth is not just a challenge for “experts.” Many of the latest best ideas are coming from the global community. Perhaps a new explanation for and solution to the productivity problem will bubble up from the new interconnected world.

Editor's Note: this piece first appeared in Inside Sources. 

Community banks play a key role in their local communities by offering traditional banking services to households and lending to nearby small businesses in the commercial, agriculture, and real estate sectors. Because of their close relationship with small businesses, they drive an important segment of economic growth. In fact, compared to all other banks (and to credit unions), small banks devote the greatest share of their assets to small business loans.

In this paper, titled "The community banks: The evolution of the financial sector, Part III," (PDF) Baily and Montalbano examine the evolution of community banks before, through, and after the financial crisis to assess their recovery.

The authors find that despite concerns about the long-term survival of community banks due a decline in the number of banks and increased Dodd-Frank regulations, they continue to recover from the financial crisis and are in fact out-performing the Big Four banks in several key measures.

Although the number of community banks has been steadily declining since before 2003, most of the decline has come from the steep drop in the smallest banking organizations—those with total consolidated assets of less than $100 million. Community banks with total consolidated assets that exceed $300 million have in fact increased in number. Most of the decline in community banks can be attributed to the lack of entry into commercial banking.

In a previous paper, Baily and Montalbano showed that the gap in loans and leases among the Big Four has widened since the financial crisis, but the new research finds that community banks seem to be returning to their pre-crisis pattern, although slowly, with the gap between deposits and loans shrinking since 2011. While total deposits grew gradually after 2011, though at a pace slower than their pre-crisis rate, loans and leases bottomed out in 2011 at $1.219 trillion.

The authors also examine community banks' return on assets (ROA), finding it was lower overall than for the Big Four or for the regionals, and has come back to a level closer to the pre-crisis level than was the case for the larger banks. The level of profitability was slightly lower for community banks in 2003 than it was for the larger banks—about 1.1 percent compared to 1.7 percent for the regional banks—but it did not dip as low, reaching a bottom of about -0.1 percent compared to -0.8 percent for the regional banks.

Baily and Montalbano also find that total assets of the community banks increased 22.5 percent (adjusted for inflation, the increase was 7 percent); the average size of community banks has increased substantially; total bank liabilities grew steadily from 2003-2014; the composition of liabilities in post-crisis years looked largely similar to the composition in the pre-crisis years; and securitization—which plays a relatively small role in the community banking model—has been steadily increasing in the time period both before and after the crisis. 

To read more, download the full paper here.

The paper is the third in a series that examines how the financial sector has evolved over the periods both before and after the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The first paper examines the Big Four banks, and the second takes a closer look at regional banks.

Downloads

• Download "The community banks: The evolution of the financial sector, Part III"

Can this sector be saved? We often hear sentiments like: "Does America still produce anything?" and "The good jobs in manufacturing have all gone." There is nostalgia for the good old days when there were plentiful well-paid jobs in manufacturing. And there is anger that successive U.S. administrations of both parties have negotiated trade deals, notably NAFTA and the admission of China into the World Trade Organization, that have undercut America's manufacturing base.

Those on the right suggest that if burdensome regulations were lifted, this would fire up a new era of manufacturing prowess. On the left, it is claimed that trade agreements are to blame and, at the very least, we should not sign any more of them. Expanding union power and recruiting are another favorite solution. Despite his position on the right, Donald Trump has joined those on the left blaming China for manufacturing’s problems.

What is the real story and what needs to be done to save this sector? The biggest factor transforming manufacturing has been technology; and technology will largely determine its future.

Disappearing jobs

Employment in the manufacturing sector declined slowly through the 1980s and 1990s, but since 2000, the decline has been much faster falling by over 6 million workers between 2000 and 2010. There were hopes that manufacturing jobs would regain much of their lost ground once the recession ended, but the number of jobs has climbed by less than a million in the recovery so far and employment has been essentially flat since the first quarter of 2015. Manufacturing used to be a road to the middle class for millions of workers with just a high school education, but that road is much narrower today—more like a footpath. In manufacturing’s prime, although not all jobs were good jobs, many were well paid and offered excellent fringe benefits. Now there are many fewer of these.

Sustained but slow output growth

The real output of the manufacturing sector from 2000 to the present gives a somewhat more optimistic view of the sector, with output showing a positive trend growth, with sharp cyclical downturns. There was a peak of manufacturing production in 2000 with the boom in technology goods, most of which were still being produced in the U.S. But despite the technology bust and the shift of much of high-tech manufacturing overseas, real output in the sector in 2007 was still nearly 11 percent higher than its peak in 2000.

Production fell in the Great Recession at a breathtaking pace, dropping by 24 percent starting in Q3 2008. Manufacturing companies were hit by a bomb that wiped out a quarter of their output. Consumers were scared and postponed the purchase of anything they did not need right away. The production of durable goods, like cars and appliances, fell even more than the total. Unlike employment in the sector, output has reclaimed it previous peak and, by the third quarter of 2015, was 3 percent above that peak. The auto industry has recovered particularly strongly. While manufacturing output growth is not breaking any speed records, it is positive.

Understanding the pattern

The explanation for the jobs picture is not simple, but the Cliff Notes version is as follows: manufacturing employment has been declining as a share of total economy-wide employment for 50 years or more—a pattern that holds for all advanced economies, even Germany, a country known for its manufacturing strength. The most important reason for U.S. manufacturing job loss is that the overall economy is not creating jobs the way it once did, especially in the business sector. This conclusion probably comes as a surprise to most Americans who believe that international trade, and trade with China in particular, is the key reason for the loss of jobs. In reality, trade is a factor in manufacturing weakness, but not the most important one.

The most important reason for U.S. manufacturing job loss is that the overall economy is not creating jobs the way it once did, especially in the business sector.

The existence of our large manufacturing trade deficit with Asia means output and employment in the sector are smaller than they would be with balanced trade. Germany, as noted, has seen manufacturing employment declines also, but the size of their manufacturing sector is larger than ours, running huge trade surplus. In addition, right now that there is global economic weakness that has caused a shift of financial capital into the U. S. looking for safety, raising the value of the dollar and thus hurting our exports. In the next few years, it is unlikely that the U.S. trade deficit will improve—and it may well worsen.

Even though it will not spark a jobs revival, manufacturing is still crucial for the future of the U.S. economy, remaining a center for innovation and productivity growth and if the U.S. trade deficit is to be substantially reduced, then manufacturing must become more competitive. The services sector runs a small trade surplus and new technologies are eliminating our energy trade deficit. Nevertheless a substantial expansion of manufactured exports is needed if there is to be overall trade balance.

Disruptive innovation in manufacturing

The manufacturing sector is still very much alive and reports of its demise are not just premature but wrong. If we want to encourage the development of a robust competitive manufacturing sector, industry leaders and policymakers must embrace new technologies. The sector will be revived not by blocking new technologies with restrictive labor practices or over-regulation but by installing them—even if that means putting robots in place instead of workers. To speed the technology revolution, however, help must be provided to those whose jobs are displaced. If they end up as long-term unemployed, or in dead-end or low-wage jobs, then not only do these workers lose out but also the benefits to society of the technology investment and the productivity increase are lost.

The manufacturing sector performs 69 percent of all the business R&D in the U.S. which is powering a revolution that will drive growth not only in manufacturing but also in the broader economy as well. The manufacturing revolution can be described by three key developments:

1. In the internet of things, sensors are embedded in machines, transmitting information that allows them to work together and report impending maintenance problems before there is a breakdown.
2. Advanced manufacturing includes 3-D printing, new materials and the “digital thread” which connects suppliers to the factory and the factory to customers; it breaks down economies of scale allowing new competitors to enter; and it enhances speed and flexibility.
3. Distributed innovation allows crowdsourcing is used to find radical solutions to technical challenges much more quickly and cheaply than with traditional R&D.

In a June 2015 Fortune 500 survey, 72 percent of CEOs reported their biggest challenge is that technology is changing fast, naming it as their number one challenge. That new technology churn is especially acute in manufacturing. The revolution is placing heavy demands on managers who must adapt their businesses to become software companies, big data companies, and even media companies (as they develop a web presence). Value and profit in manufacturing is shifting to digital assets. The gap between current practice and what it takes to be good at these skills is wide for many manufacturers, particularly in their ability to find the talent they need to transform their organizations.

Recent OECD analysis highlighted the large gap between best-practice companies and average companies. Although the gap is smaller in manufacturing than in services because of the heightened level of global competition in manufacturing, it is a sign that manufacturers must learn how to take advantage of new technologies quickly or be driven out of business.

Closing the trade deficit

A glaring weakness of U.S. manufacturing is its international trade performance. Chronic trade deficits have contributed to the sector’s job losses and have required large-scale foreign borrowing that has made us a net debtor to the rest of the world -- to the tune of nearly $7 trillion by the end of 2014. Running up endless foreign debts is a disservice to our children and was one source of the instability that led to the financial crisis. America should try to regain its balance as a global competitor and that means, at the least, reducing the manufacturing trade deficit. Achieving a significant reduction in the trade deficit will be a major task, including new investment and an adjustment of today’s overvalued dollar.

The technology revolution provides an opportunity, making it profitable to manufacture in the U.S. using highly automated methods. Production can be brought home, but it won’t bring back a lot of the lost jobs. Although the revolution in manufacturing is underway and its fate is largely in the hands of the private sector, the policy environment can help speed it up and make sure the broad economy benefits.

First, policymakers must accept that trying to bring back the old days and old jobs is a mistake. Continuing to chase yesterday’s goals isn’t productive, and at this point it only puts off the inevitable. Prioritizing competitiveness, innovativeness, and the U.S. trade position over jobs could be politically difficult, however, so policymakers should look for ways to help workers who lose jobs and communities that are hard hit. Government training programs have a weak track record, but if companies do the training or partner with community colleges, then the outcomes are better. Training vouchers and wage insurance for displaced workers can help them start new careers that will mostly be in the service sector where workers with the right skills can find good jobs, not just dead-end ones.

Second, a vital part of the new manufacturing is the ecosystem around large companies. There were 50,000 fewer manufacturing firms in 2010 than in 2000, with most of the decline among smaller firms. Some of that was inevitable as the sector downsized, but it creates a problem because as large firms transition to the new manufacturing, they rely on small local firms to provide the skills and even the technologies they do not have in-house. The private sector has the biggest stake in developing the ecosystems it needs, but government can and has helped, particularly at the state and local level. Sometimes infrastructure investment is needed, land can be set aside, mentoring programs can be established for young firms, help can be given in finding funding, and simplified and expedited permitting processes instituted.

It is hard to let go of old ways of thinking. Policymakers have been trying for years to restore the number of manufacturing jobs, but that is not an achievable goal. Yes manufacturing matters; it is a powerhouse of innovation for our economy and a vital source of competitiveness. There will still be good jobs in manufacturing but it is no longer a conveyor belt to the middle class. Policymakers need to focus on speeding up the manufacturing revolution, funding basic science and engineering, and ensuring that tech talent and best-practice companies want to locate in the United States.

Mercutio: I am hurt. A plague a’ both your houses! I am sped. Is he gone and hath nothing? — Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, scene 1, 90–92

The eurozone crisis, which includes the Greek crisis but is not restricted to it, has undermined the credibility of the EU institutions and left millions of Europeans disillusioned with the European Project. The euro was either introduced too early, or it included countries that should never have been included, or both were true. High rates of inflation left countries in the periphery uncompetitive and the constraint of a single currency removed a key adjustment mechanism. Capital flows allowed this problem to be papered over until the global financial crisis hit.

The leaders of the international institutions, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, together with the governments of the stronger economies, were asked to figure out a solution and they emphasized fiscal consolidation, which they made a condition for assistance with heavy debt burdens. The eurozone as a whole has paid the price, with real GDP in the first quarter of 2015 being about 1.5 percent below its peak in the first quarter of 2008, seven years earlier, and with a current unemployment rate of 11 percent. By contrast, the sluggish U.S. recovery looks rocket-powered, with GDP 8.6 percent above its previous peak and an unemployment rate of 5.5 percent.

The burden of the euro crisis has been very unevenly distributed, with Greece facing unemployment of 25 percent and rising, Spain 23 percent, Italy 12 percent, and Ireland 9.7 percent, while German unemployment is 4.7 percent. It is not surprising that so many Europeans are unhappy with their policy leaders who moved too quickly into a currency union and then dealt with the crisis in a way that pushed countries into economic depression. The common currency has been a boon to Germany, with its $287 billion current account surplus, but the bane of the southern periphery. Greece bears considerable culpability for its own problems, having failed to collect taxes or open up an economy full of competitive restrictions, but that does not excuse the policy failures among Europe’s leaders. A plague on both sides in the Greek crisis!

During the Great Moderation, it seemed that the Bretton Woods institutions were losing their usefulness because private markets could provide needed funding. The financial crisis and the global recession that followed it shattered this belief. The IMF did not foresee the crisis, nor was it a central player in dealing with the period of greatest peril from 2007 to 2009. National treasuries, the Federal Reserve, and the European Central Bank were the only institutions that had the resources and the power to deal with the bank failures, the shortage of liquidity, and the freezing up of markets. Still, the IMF became relevant again and played an important role in the euro crisis, although at the cost of sharing the unpopularity of the policy response to that crisis.

China’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is the result of China’s growing power and influence and the failure of the West, particularly the United States, to come to terms with this seismic shift. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations have deliberately excluded China, the largest economy in Asia and largest trading partner in the world. Reform of the governance structure of the World Bank and the IMF has stalled with disproportionate power still held by the United States and Europe. Unsurprisingly, China has decided to exercise its influence in other ways, establishing the new Asian bank and increasing the role of the yuan in international transactions. U.S. policymakers underestimated China’s strength and the willingness of other countries to cooperate with it, and the result has been to reduce the role and influence of the Bretton Woods institutions.

Can the old institutions be reinvented and made more effective? In Europe, the biggest problem is that bad decisions were made by national governments and by the international institutions (although the ECB policies have been generally good). The World Bank and IMF do need to reform their governance, but it may be too late to bring China back into the fold.

Earlier this summer, we examined how the Big Four banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – performed before, during, and after the 2007-09 financial crisis.  We also blogged about the lending trends within these large banks, expressing concern about the growing gap between deposits taken and loans made by the Big Four, and calling on policymakers to explore the issue further.  We have conducted a similar analysis on the regional banks - The regional banks: The evolution of the financial sector, Part II - and find that these smaller banks are actually faring somewhat better than their bigger counterparts.

Despite the mergers and acquisitions that happened during the crisis, the Big Four banks are a smaller share of banking today than they were in 2007.  The 15 regionals we evaluated, on the other hand, are thriving in the post-crisis environment and have a slightly larger share of total bank assets than they had in 2007.  The Big Four experienced rapid growth in the years leading up to the crisis but much slower growth in the years since.  The regionals, however, have been chugging along: with the exception of a small downward trend during the crisis, they have enjoyed slow but steady growth since 2003.

There is a gap between deposits and loans among the regionals, but it is smaller than the Big Four’s gap.  Tellingly, the regionals’ gap has remained basically constant in size during the recovery, unlike the Big Four’s gap, which is growing.  Bank loans are important to economic growth, and the regional banks are growing their loan portfolios faster than the biggest banks.  That may be a good sign for the future if the regional banks provide more competition for the big banks and a more competitive banking sector overall.

Executive Summary ¹

The regional banks play an important role in the economy providing funding to consumers and small- and medium-sized businesses. Their model is simpler than that of the large Wall Street banks, with their business concentrated in the U.S.; they are less involved in trading and investment banking, and they are more reliant on deposits for their funding. We examined the balance sheets of 15 regional banks that had assets between $50 billion and $250 billion in 2003 and that remained in operation through 2014.

The regionals have undergone important changes in their financial structure as a result of the financial crisis and the subsequent regulatory changes:

• Total assets held by the regionals grew strongly since 2010. Their share of total bank assets has risen since 2010.

• Loans and leases make up by far the largest component of their assets. Since the crisis, however, they have substantially increased their holdings of securities and interest bearing balances, including government securities and reserves.

• The liabilities of the regionals were heavily concentrated in domestic deposits, a pattern that has intensified since the crisis. Deposits were 70 percent of liabilities in 2003, a number that fell through 2007 as they diversified their funding sources, but by 2014 deposits made up 82 percent of the total.

• Regulators are requiring large banks to increase their holdings of long term subordinated debt as a cushion against stress or failure. The regionals, as of 2014, had not increased their share of such liabilities.

• Like the largest banks, the regionals increased their loans and leases in line with their deposits prior to the crisis. And like the largest banks, this relation broke down after 2007, with loans growing much more slowly than deposits. Unlike the largest banks, the regionals have increased loans strongly since 2010, but there remains a significant gap between deposits and loans.

• The regional banks’ share of their net income from traditional sources (mostly loans) has been slowly declining over the period.

• The return on assets of the regionals was between 1.5 and 2.0 percent prior to the crisis. This turned sharply negative in the crisis before recovering after 2009. Between 2012 and 2014 return on assets for these banks was around 1.0 percent, well below the pre-crisis level.

As we saw with the largest banks, the structure and returns of the regional banks has changed as a result of the crisis and new regulation. Perhaps the most troubling change is that the volume of loans lags well behind the volume of deposits, a potential problem for economic growth. The asset and liability structure of the banks has also changed, but these banks have a simpler business model where deposits and loans still predominate.

Downloads

• Download the revised paper
• Media summary

Introduction

I would like to thank the Department for giving me the opportunity to testify on this important issue. The document I submitted to you is more general than most of the comments you have received, talking about the issues facing retirement savers and policymakers, rather than engaging in a point-by-point discussion of the detailed DOL proposal¹.

Issues around Retirement Saving

1. Most workers in the bottom third of the income distribution will rely on Social Security to support them in retirement and will save little. Hence it is vital that we support Social Security in roughly its present form and make sure it remains funded, either by raising revenues or by scaling back benefits for higher income retirees, or both.

2. Those in the middle and upper middle income levels must now rely on 401k and IRA funds to provide income support in retirement. Many and perhaps most households lack a good understanding of the amount they need to save and how to allocate their savings. This is true even of many savers with high levels of education and capabilities.

3. The most important mistakes made are: not saving enough; withdrawing savings prior to retirement; taking Social Security benefits too early² ; not managing tax liabilities effectively; and failing to adequately manage risk in investment choices. This last category includes those who are too risk averse and choose low-return investments as well as those that overestimate their own ability to pick stocks and time market movements. These points are discussed in the paper I submitted to DoL in July. They indicate that retirement savers can benefit substantially from good advice.

4. The market for investment advice is one where there is asymmetric information and such markets are prone to inefficiency. It is very hard to get incentives correctly aligned. Professional standards are often used as a way of dealing with such markets but these are only partially successful. Advisers may be compensated through fees paid by the investment funds they recommend, either a load fee or a wrap fee. This arrangement can create an incentive for advisers to recommend high fee plans.

5. At the same time, advisers who encourage increased saving, help savers select products with good returns and adequate diversification, and follow a strategy of holding assets until retirement provide benefits to their clients.

Implications for the DoL’s proposed conflicted interest rule

1. Disclosure. There should be a standardized and simple disclosure form provided to all households receiving investment advice, detailing the fees they will be paying based on the choices they make. Different investment choices offered to clients should be accompanied by a statement describing how the fees received by the adviser would be impacted by the alternative recommendations made to the client.

2. Implications for small-scale savers. The proposed rule will bring with it increased compliance costs. These costs, combined with a reluctance to assume more risk and a fear of litigation, may make some advisers less likely to offer retirement advice to households with modest savings. These households are the ones most in need of direction and education, but because their accounts will not turn profits for advisors, they may be abandoned. According to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the proposed rule will save families with IRAs more than $40 billion over the next decade. However, this benefit must be weighed against the attendant costs of implementing the rule. It is possible that the rule will leave low- and medium-income households without professional guidance, further widening the retirement savings gap. The DoL should consider ways to minimize or manage these costs. Options include incentivizing advisors to continue guiding small-scale savers, perhaps through the tax code, and promoting increased financial literacy training for households with modest savings. Streamlining and simplifying the rules would also help.

3. Need for Research on Online Solutions. The Administration has argued that online advice may be the solution for these savers, and for some fraction of this group that may be a good alternative. Relying on online sites to solve the problem seems a stretch, however. Maybe at some time in the future that will be a viable option but at present there are many people, especially in the older generation, who lack sufficient knowledge and experience to rely on web solutions. The web offers dangers as well as solutions, with the potential for sub-optimal or fraudulent advice. I urge the DoL to commission independent research to determine how well a typical saver does when looking for investment advice online. Do they receive good advice? Do they act on that advice? What classes of savers do well or badly with online advice? Can web advice be made safer? To what extent do persons receiving online advice avoid the mistakes described earlier?

4. Pitfalls of MyRA. Another suggestion by the Administration is that small savers use MyRA as a guide to their decisions and this option is low cost and safe, but the returns are very low and will not provide much of a cushion in retirement unless households set aside a much larger share of their income than has been the case historically.

5. Clarifications about education versus advice. The proposed rule distinguished education from advisement. An advisor can share general information on best practices in retirement planning, including making age-appropriate asset allocations and determining the ideal age at which to retire, without triggering fiduciary responsibility. This is certainly a useful distinction. However, some advisors could frame this general information in a way that encourages clients to make decisions that are not in their own best interest. The DoL ought to think carefully about the line between education and advice, and how to discourage advisors from sharing information in a way that leads to future conflicts of interest. One option may be standardizing the general information that may be provided without triggering fiduciary responsibility.

6. Implications for risk management. Under the proposed rule advisors may be reluctant to assume additional risk and worry about litigation. In addition to pushing small-scale savers out of the market, the rule may encourage excessive risk aversion in some advisors. General wisdom suggests that young savers should have relatively high-risk portfolios, de-risking as they age, and ending with a relatively low-risk portfolio at the end of the accumulation period. The proposed rule could cause advisors to discourage clients from taking on risk, even when the risk is generally appropriate and the investor has healthy expectations. Extreme risk aversion could decrease both market returns for investors and the “value-add” of professional advisors. The DoL should think carefully about how it can discourage conflicted advice without encouraging overzealous risk reductions.

The proposed rule is an important effort to increase consumer protection and retirement security. However, in its current form, it may open the door to some undesirable or problematic outcomes. With some thoughtful revisions, I believe the rule can provide a net benefit to the country.

^{1. Baily’s work has been assisted by Sarah E. Holmes. He is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Director of The Phoenix Companies, but the views expressed are his alone.}

^{2. As you know, postponing Social Security benefits yields an 8 percent real rate of return, far higher than most people earn on their investments. For most of those that can manage to do so, postponing the receipt of benefits is the best decision.}

Downloads

• Download the full testimony

Nearly 30 years ago, the economists Robert Solow and Stephen Roach caused a stir when they pointed out that, for all the billions of dollars being invested in information technology, there was no evidence of a payoff in productivity. Businesses were buying tens of millions of computers every year, and Microsoft had just gone public, netting Bill Gates his first billion. And yet, in what came to be known as the productivity paradox, national statistics showed that not only was productivity growth not accelerating; it was actually slowing down. “You can see the computer age everywhere,” quipped Solow, “but in the productivity statistics.”

Today, we seem to be at a similar historical moment with a new innovation: the much-hyped Internet of Things – the linking of machines and objects to digital networks. Sensors, tags, and other connected gadgets mean that the physical world can now be digitized, monitored, measured, and optimized. As with computers before, the possibilities seem endless, the predictions have been extravagant – and the data have yet to show a surge in productivity.

A year ago, research firm Gartner put the Internet of Things at the peak of its Hype Cycle of emerging technologies.

As more doubts about the Internet of Things productivity revolution are voiced, it is useful to recall what happened when Solow and Roach identified the original computer productivity paradox. For starters, it is important to note that business leaders largely ignored the productivity paradox, insisting that they were seeing improvements in the quality and speed of operations and decision-making. Investment in information and communications technology continued to grow, even in the absence of macroeconomic proof of its returns.

That turned out to be the right response. By the late 1990s, the economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin Hitt had disproved the productivity paradox, uncovering problems in the way service-sector productivity was measured and, more important, noting that there was generally a long lag between technology investments and productivity gains.

Our own research at the time found a large jump in productivity in the late 1990s, driven largely by efficiencies made possible by earlier investments in information technology. These gains were visible in several sectors, including retail, wholesale trade, financial services, and the computer industry itself. The greatest productivity improvements were not the result of information technology on its own, but by its combination with process changes and organizational and managerial innovations.

Our latest research, The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype, indicates that a similar cycle could repeat itself. We predict that as the Internet of Things transforms factories, homes, and cities, it will yield greater economic value than even the hype suggests. By 2025, according to our estimates, the economic impact will reach $3.9-$11.1 trillion per year, equivalent to roughly 11% of world GDP. In the meantime, however, we are likely to see another productivity paradox; the gains from changes in the way businesses operate will take time to be detected at the macroeconomic level.

One major factor likely to delay the productivity payoff will be the need to achieve interoperability. Sensors on cars can deliver immediate gains by monitoring the engine, cutting maintenance costs, and extending the life of the vehicle. But even greater gains can be made by connecting the sensors to traffic monitoring systems, thereby cutting travel time for thousands of motorists, saving energy, and reducing pollution. However, this will first require auto manufacturers, transit operators, and engineers to collaborate on traffic-management technologies and protocols.

Indeed, we estimate that 40% of the potential economic value of the Internet of Things will depend on interoperability. Yet some of the basic building blocks for interoperability are still missing. Two-thirds of the things that could be connected do not use standard Internet Protocol networks.

Other barriers standing in the way of capturing the full potential of the Internet of Things include the need for privacy and security protections and long investment cycles in areas such as infrastructure, where it could take many years to retrofit legacy assets. The cybersecurity challenges are particularly vexing, as the Internet of Things increases the opportunities for attack and amplifies the consequences of any breach.

But, as in the 1980s, the biggest hurdles for achieving the full potential of the new technology will be organizational. Some of the productivity gains from the Internet of Things will result from the use of data to guide changes in processes and develop new business models. Today, little of the data being collected by the Internet of Things is being used, and it is being applied only in basic ways – detecting anomalies in the performance of machines, for example.

It could be a while before such data are routinely used to optimize processes, make predictions, or inform decision-making – the uses that lead to efficiencies and innovations. But it will happen. And, just as with the adoption of information technology, the first companies to master the Internet of Things are likely to lock in significant advantages, putting them far ahead of competitors by the time the significance of the change is obvious to everyone.

Editor's Note: This opinion originally appeared on Project Syndicate August 6, 2015.

Event Information

With keynote addresses by Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell and Counselor to the Treasury Secretary Antonio Weiss

Bond markets are the principal source of credit for businesses and governments in the United States, with almost $40 trillion of outstanding debt. They are also the main mode of investment for pension funds, mutual funds, and many other investors, which is why the safety and efficiency of these markets is, therefore, crucial.

On August 3, the Economic Studies program at Brookings hosted a number of experts to discuss the structure of bond markets in the U.S. and how changes over the last few years are affecting market liquidity, volatility, and overall safety and efficiency. Keynote addresses by Governor Jerome Powell and Counselor Antonio Weiss focused on the Treasury bond market with a panel of experts examining corporate bond markets.

After each session, the speakers and panelists took audience questions.

Antonio Weiss with Jerome Powell and Douglas Elliott (l-r)

Martin Baily with Kashif Riaz, Annette Nazareth, Steve Zamsky and Dennis Kelleher (r-l)

Video

• Keynote Addresses on the U.S. Treasury Markets
• Panel on the Corporate Bond Markets

Audio

• Are there structural issues in U.S. bond markets?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20150803_bond_markets_transcript
• 20150803_liquidity_kelleher_presentation

Americans are enjoying longer lifespans than ever before. Living longer affords individuals the opportunity to make more contributions to the world, to spend more time with their loved ones, and to devote more years to their favorite activities – but a longer life, and particularly a longer retirement, is also expensive. The retirement security landscape is evolving as workers, employers, retirees, and financial services companies find their needs shifting. Once, many workers planned to stay with a single employer for most or all of their careers, building up a sizeable pension and looking forward to a comfortable retirement. Today, workers more and more workers will be employed by many different employers.  Additionally, generous defined benefit (DB) retirement plans are less popular than they once were – though they were never truly commonplace – and defined contribution (DC) plans are becoming ever more prevalent.  

Figure 1, below, shows the change from DB to DC that has occurred over the past three decades.

In the past many retirees struggled financially towards the end of their lives, just as they do now, but even so, the changes to the retirement security landscape have been real and marked, and have had a serious impact on workers and retirees alike. DB plans are dwindling, DC plans are on the rise, and as a result individuals must now take a more active role in managing their retirement savings. DC plans incorporate contributions from employees and employers alike, and workers much choose how to invest their nest egg.  When a worker leaves a job for retirement or for a different job he or she will often roll over the money from a 401(k) plan into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). While having more control over one’s retirement funds might seem on its face to be a net improvement, the reality is that the average American lacks the financial literacy to make sound decisions (SEC 2012).

The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) expressed concern earlier this year that savers with IRA accounts may receive poor investment advice, particularly in cases where their financial advisors are compensated through fees and commissions. “[The] best recommendation for the saver may not be the best recommendation for the adviser’s bottom line” (CEA 2015). President Obama echoed these concerns in a speech at AARP in February, asking the Department of Labor (DoL) to update its rules for financial advisors to follow when handling IRA accounts (White House 2015). The DoL receives its authority to craft such rules and requirements from the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (DoL 2015a).

The DoL recently proposed a regulation designed to increase consumer protection by treating some investment advisors as fiduciaries under ERISA and the 1986 Internal Revenue Code (DoL 2015b). The proposed rule has generated heated debate, and some financial advisors have responded with great concern, arguing that it will be difficult or impossible to comply with the rule without raising costs to consumers and/or abandoning smaller accounts that generate little or no profit. Advisors who have traditionally offered only the proprietary products of a single company worry that the business model they have used for many years will no longer be considered to be serving the best interests of clients.

Rather than offering detailed comments on the DoL proposals, this paper will look more broadly at the problem of saving for retirement and the role for professional advice. This is, of course, a well-travelled road with a large literature by academics, institutions and policy-makers, however, it is worthwhile to think about market failures, lack of information and individual incentives and what they imply for the investment advice market.

Downloads

• Download the full paper
• Media summary

Financial advisors offer their clients many advantages, such as setting reasonable savings goals, avoiding fraudulent investments and mistakes like buying high and selling low, and determining the right level of risk for a particular household. However, these same advisors are often incentivized to choose funds that increase their own financial rewards, and the nature and amount of the fees received by advisors may not be transparent to their clients, and small-scale savers may not be able to access affordable advice at all.  What is in the best interest of an individual may not be in the best interest of his or her financial advisor.

To combat this problem, the Department of Labor (DoL) recently proposed a regulation designed to increase consumer protection by treating some investment advisors as fiduciaries under ERISA and the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.  The proposed conflict of interest rule is an important step in the right direction to increasing consumer protections.  It addresses evidence from a February 2015 report by the Council of Economic Advisers suggesting that consumers often receive poor recommendations from their financial advisors and that as a result their investment returns on IRAs are about 1 percentage point lower each year.   Naturally, the proposal is not without its controversies and it has already attracted at least 775 public comments, including one from us .

For us, the DoL’s proposed rule is a significant step in the right direction towards increased consumer protection and retirement security.  It is important to make sure that retirement advisors face the right incentives and place customer interests first.  It is also important make sure savers can access good advice so they can make sound decisions and avoid costly mistakes.  However, some thoughtful revisions are needed to ensure the rule offers a net benefit. 

If the rule causes advisors’ compliance costs to rise, they may abandon clients with small-scale savings, since these clients will no longer be profitable for them.  If these small-scale savers are crowded out of the financial advice market, we might see the retirement savings gap widen.  Therefore we encourage the DoL to consider ways to minimize or manage these costs, perhaps by incentivizing advisors to continue guiding these types of clients.  We also worry that the proposed rule does not adequately clarify the difference between education and advice, and encourage the DoL to close any potential loopholes by standardizing the general educational information that advisors can share without triggering fiduciary responsibility (which DoL is trying to do).  Finally, the proposed rule could encourage some advisors to become excessively risk averse in an overzealous attempt to avoid litigation or other negative consequences.  Extreme risk aversion could decrease market returns for investors and the ‘value-add’ of professional advisors, so we suggest the DoL think carefully about discouraging conflicted advice without also discouraging healthy risk.

The proposed rule addresses an important problem, but in its current form it may open the door to some undesirable or problematic outcomes.  We explore these issues in further detail in our recent paper.

Event Information

The financial sector has undergone major changes in response to the Great Recession and post-crisis regulatory reform, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. These changes have created serious questions about the sector’s role in supporting economic growth and how it affects financial and overall economic stability.

On June 8, the Initiative on Business and Public Policy at Brookings explored the intersection of the financial system and economic growth with the goal of informing the public policy debate. The event featured a keynote address by Richard Berner, director of the Office of Financial Research and other participants with a wide range of views from a variety of backgrounds. Among other issues, the experts considered the changing landscape of the financial sector; growth-promoting allocation and investment decisions; credit availability for low- and moderate-income households; the ideal balance between growth and stability; and the impact of the 2014 midterm elections on regulatory reform.

 Follow the conversation at @BrookingsEcon or #Finance.

Video

• Keynote remarks by Richard Berner
• The financial sector: How has it changed?
• The view from the trenches
• The future of the U.S. financial sector

Audio

• Can the financial sector promote growth and stability?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• Aaron Kleins presentation
• 20150608 BAER slides
• 20150608 MEHTA slides
• 20150608_financial_sector_stability_transcript

State and local bond finance represents a powerful but underutilized tool for future clean energy investment.

For 100 years, the nation’s state and local infrastructure finance agencies have issued trillions of dollars’ worth of public finance bonds to fund the construction of the nation’s roads, bridges, hospitals, and other infrastructure—and literally built America. Now, as clean energy subsidies from Washington dwindle, these agencies are increasingly willing to finance clean energy projects, if only the clean energy community will embrace them.

So far, these authorities are only experimenting. However, the bond finance community has accumulated significant experience in getting to scale and knows how to raise large amounts for important purposes by selling bonds to Wall Street. The challenge is therefore to create new models for clean energy bond finance in states and regions, and so to establish a new clean energy asset class that can easily be traded in capital markets. To that end, this brief argues that state and local bonding authorities and other partners should do the following:

• Establish mutually useful partnerships between development finance experts and clean energy officials at the state and local government levels
• Expand and scale up bond-financed clean energy projects using credit enhancement and other emerging tools to mitigate risk and through demonstration projects
• Improve the availability of data and develop standardized documentation so that the risks and rewards of clean energy investments can be better understood
• Create a pipeline of rated and private placement deals, in effect a new clean energy asset class, to meet the demand by institutional investors for fixed-income clean energy securities

Downloads

• Report
• Press Release

With Washington adrift and the United Nations climate change panel again calling for action, the search for new clean energy finance solutions continues.  

Against this backdrop, the Metro Program has worked with state- and city-oriented partners to highlight such responses as repurposing portions of states’ clean energy funds and creating state green banks.  Likewise, the Center for American Progress just recently highlighted the potential of securitization and investment yield vehicles, called yield cos. And last week an impressive consortium of financiers, state agencies, and philanthropies announced the creation of the Warehouse for Energy Efficiency Loans (WHEEL) aimed at bringing low-cost capital to loan programs for residential energy efficiency. WHEEL is the country’s first true secondary market for home energy loans—and a very big deal. 

Another big deal is the potential of bond finance as a tool for clean energy investment at the state and local level. That’s the idea advanced in a new paper released this morning that we developed with practitioners at the Clean Energy Group and the Council for Development Finance Authorities.

Over 100 years, the nation’s state and local infrastructure finance agencies have issued trillions of dollars’ worth of public finance bonds to fund the construction of the nation’s roads, bridges, hospitals, and other infrastructure—and literally built America. Now, as clean energy subsidies from Washington dwindle, these agencies are increasingly willing to finance clean energy projects, if only the clean energy community will embrace them.

So far, these authorities are only experimenting. However, the bond finance community has accumulated significant experience in getting to scale and knows how to raise large sums for important purposes by selling bonds to Wall Street. Accordingly, the clean energy community—working at the state and regional level—should leverage that expertise. The challenge is for the clean energy and bond finance communities to work collaboratively to create new models for clean energy bond finance in states, and so to establish a new clean energy asset class that can easily be traded in capital markets.

Along these lines, our new brief argues that state and local bonding authorities, clean energy leaders, and other partners should do the following: 

• Establish mutually useful partnerships between development finance experts and clean energy officials at the state and local government levels
• Expand and scale up bond-financed clean energy projects using credit enhancement and other emerging tools to mitigate risk and through demonstration projects
• Improve availability of data and develop standardized documentation so that the risks  and rewards of clean energy investments can be better understood
• Create a pipeline of rated and private placement deals, in effect a new clean energy asset class, to meet the demand by institutional investors for fixed-income clean energy securities

State clean energy funds (CEFs) have emerged as effective tools that states can use to accelerate the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. These clean energy funds, which exist in over 20 states, generate about $500 million per year in dedicated support from utility surcharges and other sources, making them significant public investors in thousands of clean energy projects.

However, state clean energy funds’ emphasis on a project finance model—which directly promotes clean energy project installation by providing production incentives and grants/rebates—is by itself not enough to build a statewide clean energy industry. State clean energy funds also need to pay attention to other critical aspects of building a robust clean energy industry, including cleantech innovation support through research and development funding, financial support for early-stage cleantech companies and emerging technologies, and various other industry development efforts.

As it happens, some of these state clean energy funds are already supporting a broader range of clean energy-related economic development activities within their states. As more and more states reorient their clean energy funds from a project finance-only model in order to encompass broader economic development activities, clean energy funds can collectively become an important national driver for economic growth.

To become true economic development engines in clean energy state clean energy funds should:

• Reorient a significant portion of their funding toward clean energy-related economic development
• Develop detailed state-specific clean energy market data
• Link clean energy funds with economic development entitites and other stakeholders in the emerging industry
• Collaborate with other state, regional, and federal efforts to best leverage public and private dollars and learn from each other's experiences

Downloads

• Download the Full Paper

Washington is again paralyzed and pulling back on clean energy economic development. Deficit politics and partisanship are firmly entrenched and the raft of federal financial supports made available through the 2009 stimulus law and elsewhere is starting to expire.

No wonder it’s hard to imagine—especially if you’re sitting in the nation’s capital—how the next phase of American clean energy industry growth will be financed or its next generation of technologies and firms supported.

And yet, one source of action lies hidden in plain sight. With federal clean energy activities largely on hold, a new paper we are releasing today as part of the Brookings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation argues that U.S. states hold out tremendous promise for the continued design and implementation of smart clean energy finance solutions and economic development.

Specifically, we contend that the nearly two dozen clean energy funds (CEFs) now running in a variety of mostly northern states stand as one of the most important clean energy forces at work in the nation and offer at least one partial response to the failure of Washington to deliver a sensible clean energy development approach.

To date, over 20 states have created a varied array of these public investment vehicles to invest in clean energy pursuits with revenues often derived from small public-benefit surcharges on electric utility bills. Over the last decade, state CEFs have invested over $2.7 billion in state dollars to support renewable energy markets, counting very conservatively.  Meanwhile, they have leveraged another $9.7 billion in additional federal and private sector investment, with the resulting $12 billion flowing to the deployment of over 72,000 projects in the United States ranging from solar installations on homes and businesses to wind turbines in communities to large wind farms, hydrokinetic projects in rivers, and biomass generation plants on farms. 

In so doing, the funds stand well positioned—along with state economic development and other officials—to build on a pragmatic success and take up the challenge left by the current federal abdication of a role on clean energy economic development.

Yet here is the rub: For all the good the funds have achieved, project-only financing—as needed as it is—will not be sufficient to drive the growth of large and innovative new companies or to create the broader economic development taxpayers demand from public investments.  Also needed will be a greater focus on the deeper-going economic development work that can help spawn whole new industries. 

All of which points to the new brand of fund activity that our paper celebrates and calls for more of. 

In recent years, increasingly ambitious efforts in a number of states have featured engagement on at least three major fronts somewhat different from the initial fund focus: (1) cleantech innovation support through research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) funding; (2) financial support for early-stage cleantech companies and emerging technologies, including working capital for companies; and (3) industry development support through business incubator programs, regional cluster promotion, manufacturing and export promotion, supply chain analysis and enhancement, and workforce training programs.

These new economic development efforts—on display in California, Massachusetts, New York, and elsewhere—show the next era of state clean energy fund leadership coming into focus. States are now poised to jumpstart a new, creative period of expanded clean energy economic development and industry creation, to complement and build upon individualistic project financing. 

Such work could not be more timely at this moment of federal gridlock and market uncertainty.

Along these lines, then, our paper advances several recommendations for moving states more aggressively into this new period of clean energy economic development. We suggest that:

• States should reorient a significant portion (at least 10 percent of the total portfolio) of state CEF money to clean energy-related economic development

• States, as they reorient portions of their CEFS to economic development, should better understand the market dynamics in their metropolitan regions.  They need to lead by making available quality data on the number of jobs in their regions, the fastest-growing companies, the critical industry clusters, gaps in the supply chain for those industries, their export potential, and a whole range of economic development and market indicators

• States also should better link their clean energy funds with economic development entities, community development finance institutions (CDFIs), development finance organizations and other stakeholders who could be ideal partners to develop decentralized funding and effective economic development programs

In addition, we think that Washington needs to recognize the strength and utility of the CEFs and actively partner with them:

• The federal government should consider redirecting a portion of federal funds (for instance, from federal technology support programs administered by the Department of Energy and other programs meant for federal-state cooperation) to provide joint funding of cluster development, export programs, workforce training, and other economic development programs  through matching dollars to state funds that now have active economic development programs, and to provide incentives to states without such programs to create them

• The federal government should create joint technology partnerships with states to advance each state’s targeted clean energy technology industries, by matching federal deployment funding with state funding.

• The states and the federal government, more generally, should look to “decentralize” financing decisions to local entities with street knowledge of their industries, relying on more “development finance” authorities that have financed traditional infrastructure and now could finance new clean energy projects and programs

In sum, our new paper proposes a much greater focus in U.S. clean energy finance on “bottom up,” decentralized clean initiatives that rely on the states to catalyze regional economic development in regions. Such an approach—which reflects the emergence of an emerging “pragmatic caucus” in U.S. economic life—is currently demanded by federal inaction. However, it might also be the smartest, most durable way to develop the clean energy industries of the future without the partisan rancor and obtuseness that has stymied federal energy policy. State clean energy funds—having funded thousands of individual projects—bring significant knowledge to bear as they focus now on building whole industries. For that reason, the funds’ transition from project development to industry creation should be nurtured and supported.