The people of Spain, Greece and Portugal have been on the streets to oppose more ‘austerity’ as a solution to the economic crisis in these countries. Yet the Spanish government is proceeding to impose yet another round of austerity measures in its 2013 budget announced this week. The French ‘left’ government has also done something similar and the Greek coalition is struggling to reach agreement on yet another round of cuts in government spending demanded by the EU and the IMF.
Austerity is (correctly) conceived by the majority as trying to destroy their living standards now and in the future. But the Keynesian left also tells us that austerity won’t work anyway in creating economic recovery. As Paul Krugman put it in his blog only this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/krugman-europes-austerity-madness.html): “The straight economics of the situation suggests that Spain doesn’t need more austerity. It shouldn’t throw a party, and, in fact, it probably has no alternative (short of euro exit) to a protracted period of hard times. But savage cuts to essential public services, to aid to the needy, and so on actually hurt the country’s prospects for successful adjustment.”
So what is the point of austerity? Why do so many governments of the major capitalist economies persist in policies to reduce public sector spending, raise taxes and lower budget deficits at a time when their economies are in recession? Are they mad? Krugman thinks so (“Europe’s austerity madness”). And so does Larry Elliot, the Keynesian business editor of the UK’s Guardian newspaper, “Austerity mania is sweeping Europe” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/sep/28/blame-austerity-mania-breaks-euro).
The Keynesians see this policy of austerity not only as wrong-headed, but also ideological. It’s true that there is an ideological aspect to austerity. There is a built-in antagonism to any sector of the economy that is not capitalist and could threaten the dominance of capitalist production, by taxes on profits, ‘excessive’ welfare benefits, more regulation and ‘interference’ with free markets.
But that is not the main reason for governments pursuing policies of austerity. The main purpose of austerity is to restore the profitability of the capitalist sector of national economies after the Great Recession and resulting decline in profits. Capitalism in the major G7 economies has experienced a secular decline in the rate of profit since the 1960s and despite a relative recovery in the 1980s and 1990s, profitability peaked and started to slide in the last decade (see my paper, A world rate of profit (roberts_michael-a_world_rate_of_profit.). This decline was counteracted by a massive expansion of credit (fictitious capital) in the 2000s. But that eventually collapsed into the Great Recession. Now profitability needs to recover. The policies of austerity are designed to help do that. In the US, labour’s share is at a record low, pushing profitability back up. As a result, US economic growth has been relatively better than in Europe.
But the Keynesians argue that the problem is not profitability, they say, but a lack of ‘effective demand’. To boost demand, we need cheap money from the central banks, an injection of liquidity through the printing of money and more government spending, not less. To cut spending and even consider raising interest rates at this time is suicidal for capitalism and economic recovery.
As Elliot puts it: “The austerity programmes come with pledges of economic reforms. Put simply, the idea is that too many eurozone countries have been feather-bedded for too long and now need a chill blast of reality to wake them up. Budget retrenchment will ensure that countries live within their means while deregulation, privatisation and more flexible labour markets will make them leaner and fitter. Before too long a revitalised Europe will be punching above its weight in the global economy. All of which is total moonshine. Not one of the objectives set by Hollande, Mariano Rajoy in Spain or Antonis Samaras in Greece is likely to be met. The first goal is that budget deficits will come down rapidly as a result of austerity. All the evidence so far is that targets will be missed because demand will be sucked out of already pitifully weak economies, with the effects magnified because so many countries are acting in the same way simultaneously.
But the targets for budget deficits and debt levels would be met if European capitalism restored economic growth. The question is: how can that be done? The Keynesians say policies of austerity will not do it. But will Keynesian policies restore economic growth either? Under the capitalist mode of production, the purpose is not raise GDP or increase household consumption. That may be a by-product, but the purpose is to make profits. And profitability is still too low to encourage capitalists to raise investment sufficiently to reduce unemployment and wage incomes and thus ‘effective demand’. A policy of raising wages would reduce the share of profit in GDP; and a policy aimed at expanding government spending would be damaging to profits, just when capitalists are trying to ‘deleverage’ their ‘dead’ and unusable capital and reduce costs.
Sure, some capitalist sectors benefit from extra government spending through the procurement of government services and investment from the capitalist sector e.g. military weapons and equipment; roads, schools and hospitals etc. Mainstream economists often claim that government does not “produce anything”, it does not “create wealth”. What the mainstream really means is that government does not create new value (profit). It merely redistributes existing value, often against the interests of the capitalist sector as a whole. Government can thus be damaging to capitalist investment especially if taxes are diverted to welfare spending, workers pensions and public sector wages. And if government gets too large, it could even reverse the dominance of the capitalist mode of production.
So the Austerians see the need to keep government spending down, reduce the ‘size of the state’ and cut sovereign debt not as ends in themselves, but as part of the effort to revive profitability in the capitalist sector by cutting the costs of taxation and welfare. Indeed, from this light, the most important policies of austerity are not really the control of government spending but the accompanying ‘supply-side’ reforms that aim to ‘liberalise labour markets’ (cut jobs,public and private), reduce wages (public and private), lower pensions (public and private) – in other words, lower the cost of variable capital (labour) and drive up the rate of surplus value (profit to wages ratio). If the capitalist sector is also ‘deleveraging’ by destroying the value of its constant capital and financial debt (by liquidating it or paying it down), then both measures will raise profitability and set the scene for a new round of capitalist investment.
Austerity can work. But there are two problems. The first is that the majority of people may not put up with it and remove governments who implement it. The other problem is that it can take a very long time. The long depression of the late 19th century that swept across the major economies started in 1873 and did not really end until 20 years later. In my book, The Great Recession (Chapter 13), I show how Marx’s law of profitability operated during that period in the most important capitalist economy then, the UK. The UK rate of profit began to fall from early 1870s and stayed around 25% lower throughout until the early 1890s. It took a long time for capital value to be destroyed sufficiently.
In a previous post (The Great Depression and the war, 6 August 2012), I have shown that the Great Depression of the 1930s was not reversed until the second world war broke out, when capital was destroyed physically as well as in value terms and the capitalist mode of production was temporarily ‘suspended’ by state direction of (military) investment and control of wages. So austerity could well last a long time in this current Long Depression. But eventually, unless labour revolts against it, profitability will recover and capitalist investment will revive enough. From this perspective, Keynesian policies will only delay the process and the lengthen the time before recovery.
The Austerians like to cite the example of the Baltic states as showing that their policies will work much better than the Keynesians in quickly restoring capitalism. Yet another report justifying this has been released by the right-wing UK think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies (Estonia: a case study: how and why Estonia embraced austerity (http://www.cps.org.uk/). Head of research, Ryan Bourne at CPS argues that “Estonia proves that a turnaround through swift, sharp austerity is possible for a country provided … it is willing to undertake radical supply-side reform alongside curbing spending …What is needed are an end to “excessive borrowing, unstable welfare states, high debt burdens, unreformed and illiberal labour markets, excessive regulation etc”.
Bourne attacks Krugman for claiming that austerity has not worked because Estonia’s real GDP is still some 9% below its peak in 2007, having fallen over 17% from peak to trough. He says that this is unfair because Estonian unemployment has fallen back from 20% in early 2010 to just (!) 10% now and the economy grew at over 8% in 2011. So austerity worked. But Krugman is right to point out that Estonia’s real GDP is still way below where it was in 2007 and more important, Estonia will never return to the trend growth it has before 2007 – the value of that output has been lost forever.
Bourne sweeps past the reason for Estonia’s high growth before the global financial collapse, namely a humungous credit boom where private sector debt exploded to 100% of GDP, generating a current account deficit of 18% of GDP, with inflation peaking at 11% a year. So much for untrammelled capitalism providing a steady and sustainable economy. Bourne’s claim that ‘internal devaluation’ through policies of austerity adopted by the Estonian government had succeeded ‘quickly’ is also open to question. The government cut public spending but also slashed pensions, reduced sick pay and health benefits for all workers. The huge slump brought imports screeching to a halt and so the trade deficit was reversed as a result. The real success of austerity has been a sharp fall in real wages and cuts in corporate taxes – namely raising the share of profit.
But if austerity has worked in Estonia, the main reason is one not mentioned by Bourne at all: emigration. The Estonian labour force has been decimated as thousands left this tiny country to seek work elsewhere in Europe. The Estonian version of the British Tory cry to the unemployed of “get on your bike” to seek work was to get on the train or plane westwards for fill up the reserve army of labour in Germany etc. The money earned abroad also came back to families ameliorate the hit to living standards at home.
And there were two other factors not available to larger capitalist economies. Estonia’s banks are wholly owned by Swedish ones, who made sure they were bailed out and there was no collapse when the credit bubble burst. And second, tiny Estonia received over €3.4bn in EU structural funds to finance infrastructure spending. (For more on this, see my post, Keynes, the profits equation and the Marxist multiplier, 13 June 2012.) So small capitalist economies may well be able turn things round through austerity if the majority of working people are prepared to pay the bill for capitalism (as it seems the Estonian electorate has been – although they are a lot smaller in number than in 2007!).
Greece is not tiny like Estonia, but it is a relatively small capitalist economy, dependent on trade (including services like tourism). The troika (EU, IMF, ECB) is demanding even more austerity to drive down labour costs. It is demanding more wage and pension cuts (already cut 40%) and a six-day week for all Greeks as normal! This is the most blatant attempt to hike the rate of exploitation. The Greeks already work the longest hours in Europe (see my previous post, Europe: default or devaluation?, 16 November 2011).
The interesting thing is that austerity in Greece is supposed to be aimed at the public sector. The reality is that it is private sector workers that have been hit the most. Public sector employment shrank by some 56,000 from 2009 to 2011, a 7.8% drop. But private sector employment (a much larger share of the labour force) is down 13%. And labour costs are down 18.5%. This is the real target of austerity. And it is beginning to have an effect. In Greece, unit labor costs rose 33.7% between 2000 and 2009, while in Germany they rose just 0.6%. But this gap between German and Greek unit labor costs has already dropped to less than half the 2009 peak. Indeed, on current trends, Greek unit labour costs will be lower than Germany’s by early 2015, as Greek costs drop by over 40% and German costs rise by 10%. Greek capitalism is becoming ‘competitive’, but taking around eight years of hell to do so!
I made a (crude) measure of the rate of profit in the Greek economy over the last ten years. The rate of profit peaked in 2007 some two years before the crisis really hit Greece. Investment then plummeted 50% from 2007 to now.
So austerity is working to some extent in Greece, but without the destruction of the value of much more Greek capital, it will take a long time. And the rest of capitalism could enter a new global recession before Greek capitalism gets out of its pit, so destroying the prospects of recovery through more exports and tourism.
If it is still very difficult for small capitalist economies that depend on low unit labour costs and exports (like Ireland) to turn things round, it is even more difficult for larger capitalist economies (UK) or giant ones (US, Japan), where profits still depend mostly on domestic markets and the unemployed labour force cannot be transported to the rest of the world to relieve the burden on the state. The UK economy is the largest one where the government claims that austerity is the best (only) policy that will work (see my post, UK economy: no Plan B,18 July 2012). So far, it is failing. Far from the budget deficit coming down, it will be larger this current fiscal year to April 2013 than last year and the public debt to GDP is heading towards 100% of GDP. Government tax revenues are just not meeting targets because the UK economy is teetering on recession.
Even worse, there is no contribution to GDP growth from an improving trade account, as there is for Estonia, Greece and even Spain. The UK’s external deficit is widening, not narrowing.
British exporters are finding that the global recession and falling costs in Europe and elsewhere is pricing them out of trading markets at a truly horrendous rate
And most important, unlike the US, UK profitability has not recovered since the Great Recession. And that is keeping business investment well down.
The Austerians in the government conclude that the UK needs more austerity, or ‘supply-side’ reforms. The Labour opposition is also wedded to the idea of austerity, if the latest comment of the opposition finance spokesman, Ed Balls, is anything to go by: “The public want to know that we are going to be ruthless and disciplined in how we go about public spending,” Daily Telegraph, 28 September. The Keynesian left want Plan B, with more government spending.
Austerity or Keynesianism?: neither policy will succeed until profitability is restored.
And here’s a revealing addendum – Irish emigration. Just as in Estonia and the other Baltic states, that other poster for successful austerity, Ireland, has been able to turn its economy partially around by getting rid of its workforce. Irish emigration is now back at levels not seen since the dark days of late 1980s. It does not augur well for the future prosperity of irish capitalism if its young people have to leave the country.
15 thoughts on “Can austerity work?”
Another excellent post. Thank you.
Above, you say:
“This decline was counteracted by a massive expansion of credit (fictitious capital) in the 2000s.”
How did (does) credit expansion counteract an insufficient/falling rate of profit?
The Keynesians and undereconsumptionists cite this as necessary to counteract insufficient consumer demand, which as you correctly point out, they see as the key way to restore GDP growth and employment.
Extremely helpful for those of us on public sector union NECs here we have to keep an eye on national policy!
An NUT NEC member for Outer London
Looks like the UK is totally screwed, capitalistically speaking.
If capitalism was ever a dead end for a country, it would have to be the UK, homeland of “there is no alternative”!
Profits, whatever their rates, come from the sale of commodities produced by workers. If the workers have no money in their pockets because of Austerian policy, profits will be hard to come by and capitalist investors will keep their wealth sequestered away–what did you say earlier on in your blog about trillions sloshing around in the accounts of finance capitalists? Workers are the market. Left Keynsians worth their salt would promote printing cash grants to workers. However, as you’ve pointed out, QE (whatever number) ends up in sloshing around in the accounts of the finance capitalists where they lie relatively undisturbed because these investors see no opportunity to fund businesses which have nobody, no markets to absorb the very productive workers commodified wealth.
The wage system has become absurd. The ruling class is too greedy to allow the workers to have more wealth and free-time, which is the only solution which would actually serve to save their wretched system.
I couldn’t help but to read “Austrians” instead of “Austerians” every time I saw that word. Was that on purpose or is it only a coincidence?
Thanks for the analysis. I am a bit confused on one point though.
“Even worse, there is no contribution to GDP growth from an improving trade account”
I have also read Michael Burke’s latest take on ‘Socialist Economic Bulletin’ where it states the following.
“Government current spending has risen by £13bn while net exports have risen by £14bn. while net exports have risen by £14bn. The latter is overwhelmingly due to the slump in import demand as exports have risen by less than £3bn over the period.”
That refers to the cumulative figures from the 1st Qtr 2008 up to the 2nd Qtr 2012.
There seems to be a contradiction.
Another point is that even the CBI are demanding more infrastructure spending [Public Investment] even whilst supporting other cuts [welfare and benefits] suggesting that they do favour the notion of a ‘rentier’ economy with lucrative handouts to private contractors for road, rail and energy spending. So at least some capitalists have no problem with State spending, just so long as the spending is with their own companies.
Net exports did make a contribution over the whole period, but not in 2012. From Q2’2011 to Q2’2012 net trade made a negative contribution of 0.9%, with exports rising just 0.3% yoy and imports rising 3.2% yoy. In 2012 so far, net trade has made a negative contribution to growth of -1.6%. In the period chosen by my friend Michael B, exports of goods and services rose £2.6bn while imports of goods and services fell £4.3bn, so net trade rose accordingly. However, as I say, since the end of 2010, the net trade deficit has widened by over £5bn, with exports down £2bn and imports up £3bn.
I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with the following statement:
“The main purpose of austerity is to restore the profitability of the capitalist sector of national economies after the Great Recession and resulting decline in profits.”
Austerity is being imposed upon peripheral eurozone nations by the ECB, IMF, and EU…those institutions are far more concerned with the European banking system as a whole than the profitability of corporations in debt-stricken countries. European banks in the core hold a great deal of sovereign debt and they want it paid back. Default in one country (Greece) would mean of course the loss in value of Greek debt and of the debt of other peripheral countries (the markets would become very uncertain of their ability to avoid default, which would drive up borrowing costs and create a self-perpetuating cycle of rising debt until a probable default), which would be very damaging to the financial sector of the core. It is also likely that default on public debt would lead to widespread default on private debt as well, which is also very high in the periphery and mostly owed to core banks.
But perhaps equally important is that the value of the euro would plummet. The objective of creating the EU was to make a common currency with appreciative tendencies that could rival the dollar as a reserve currency. The European financial sector wanted such a currency for several reasons, not least for the value of their euro-dominated portfolios to remain high and only increase. A default by a periphery nation(s) probably would cause the euro to plummet, leading to a loss in value as well as a devastating blow to their project of creating a highly valuable global reserve currency.
The European capitalist sector certainly does want a reduction of labor costs (“structural reforms”/flexibility), privatization (investment opportunities), and deregulation (cost-cutting) but they are much more worried about the value of their assets (public/private debt of the periphery) and even more worried about the success of the European project as a whole and the value of the euro. The Troika and the core are the ones pushing for austerity policies (not to mention they represent the most powerful interests in Europe) so their interests, not the interests of the capitalist sectors of the periphery, must be behind the push for austerity and thus define its true objectives.
Of course you are right that governments want labour to pay for the banking collapse. The bailout costs have been shifted onto average taxpayers, workers in the public sector and labour in general as much as possible. Sill of me not to raise it, although I have at length in other posts. It is a particular feature of austerity in the UK, Spain and Ireland, for example. The other particular feature is preserving the Euro project and not allowing a break up into national currencies, as you say. But even without the Troika, the national capitalist elites would aim for austerity measures, if they no longer funded by transfers from others within Europe. Austerity is not just a Eurozone phenomenon.
I agree. Crises are often times turning points for politico-economic regimes and result in the reconfiguration of the balance of class forces/social structures of accumulation/institutions and paradigms/whatever you want to call it. While labor “won” after World War II (and then “lost” with the collapse of Bretton Woods and the rise of neoliberalism), it is obvious that finance capital is “winning” right now at the expense of the lower classes. Despite a financial crisis being the trigger for our current global depression, the banks have received only support from governments (primarily in the form of bailouts and aggressive monetary policy) while unemployment skyrockets and austerity squeezes the working classes.
In the US, the working classes seem to want to further enact the neoliberal project and dismantle the bare-bones welfare state and in Europe most want to save the euro (which if possible, and it probably isn’t, can only be done through austerity), a project that they’ve been convinced is in their interests. I think public opinion is shifting towards disintegration but far too late and after too many precious resources have been sucked out of the periphery.
Whatever the case, you are correct in that with or without the troika austerity would continue since the capitalist classes (which, as the crisis has shown, are more powerful than organized labor, a result of the single market of the EU I would argue) would use the crisis as an opportunity to maintain the current order and, when possible, further their supremacy over the lower classes.
I am new to the blog and I thank you very much for your prompt and excellent reply. I just bought your book and will continue to read your work. Keep up the good fight!
I understand the problem of “profitability”, but are u sure that there is not a problem or realization of profit in a capitalist economy? in a simple question, if we look at the D-M-D’ with D’>D, where that money to realize the profit come from?