As discussed in previous posts, for economists like Rogoff and Reinhart nothing is more painful for a Rortian moment: when they lose the approval of their peers.
As Miles Kimball describes it, there is nothing more that scholars fear than a negative Rorty moment:
"Ken Rogoff is an economist who has always been kind to me, and for whom I have deep respect. And I have no animus toward Carmen Reinhart. Nevertheless, I hope there has been a nightmarish quality to the last few days of what Quartz writer Matt Phillips called a “bone-crunching social media pile-on that Harvard economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart received in recent days after some other researchers questioned their influential findings that high government debt is a drag on economic growth.” I say this because I know from my own experience as a researcher how powerfully the hint of such an embarrassment motivates economists and other researchers to sweat the details to get things right. Some errors will always slip through the cracks, but a researcher ought to live in mortal fear of a contretemps like that Reinhart and Rogoff have found themselves in this week."
As Miles Kimball describes it, there is nothing more that scholars fear than a negative Rorty moment:
"Ken Rogoff is an economist who has always been kind to me, and for whom I have deep respect. And I have no animus toward Carmen Reinhart. Nevertheless, I hope there has been a nightmarish quality to the last few days of what Quartz writer Matt Phillips called a “bone-crunching social media pile-on that Harvard economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart received in recent days after some other researchers questioned their influential findings that high government debt is a drag on economic growth.” I say this because I know from my own experience as a researcher how powerfully the hint of such an embarrassment motivates economists and other researchers to sweat the details to get things right. Some errors will always slip through the cracks, but a researcher ought to live in mortal fear of a contretemps like that Reinhart and Rogoff have found themselves in this week."
R-R themselves speak bitterly of the pummeling they've taken:
"IN May 2010, we published an academic paper, “Growth in a Time of Debt.” Its main finding, drawing on data from 44 countries over 200 years, was that in both rich and developing countries, high levels of government debt — specifically, gross public debt equaling 90 percent or more of the nation’s annual economic output — was associated with notably lower rates of growth."
Yet, as Marcus Nunes reminds us, they've been on the other side. Check out Rogoff's broadside against Stiglitz back in 2002:
Back when he was IMF Chief-Economist, Rogoff strongly criticized Stiglitz´s ‘ arrogance’ in his book “Globalization and it´s discontents”.
In this context how bad do you feel for them now? Marcus also suggests that R-R's peers aren't letting them get away with much of anything these days. See this piece, with the great title of The Beneficial Side Effects of R-R's Fall From Growth:
The report:
1. On the harm brought on by the 90% debt ratio ‘tipping point’:
Second, you put forth a blueprint for how you believe the IMF can radically improve its advice on macroeconomic policy. Your ideas are at best highly controversial, at worst, snake oil. This leads to my third and most important point. In your role as chief economist at the World Bank, you decided to become what you see as a heroic whistleblower, speaking out against macroeconomic policies adopted during the 1990s Asian crisis that you believed to be misguided. You were 100% sure of yourself, 100% sure that your policies were absolutely the right ones. In the middle of a global wave of speculative attacks, that you yourself labeled a crisis of confidence, you fueled the panic by undermining confidence in the very institutions you were working for. Did it ever occur to you for a moment that your actions might have hurt the poor and indigent people in Asia that you care about so deeply? Do you ever lose a night’s sleep thinking that just maybe, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, and Stan Fischer had it right—and that your impulsive actions might have deepened the downturn or delayed—even for a day—the recovery we now see in Asia?
2. On the ‘causality issue’:
Joe, throughout your book, you condemn the IMF because everywhere it seems to be, countries are in trouble. Isn’t this a little like observing that where there are epidemics, one tends to find more doctors?
3. On ‘fact checking’
http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/rogoff-should-have-remembered-his-2002-letter-to-joe-stiglitz/I haven’t had time, Joe, to check all the facts in your book, but I do have some doubts. On page 112, you have Larry Summers (then Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary) giving a “verbal” tongue lashing to former World Bank Vice-President Jean-Michel Severino. But, Joe, these two have never met. How many conversations do you report that never happened? You give an example where an IMF Staff report was issued prior to the country visit. Joe, this isn’t done; I’d like to see your documentation.
In this context how bad do you feel for them now? Marcus also suggests that R-R's peers aren't letting them get away with much of anything these days. See this piece, with the great title of The Beneficial Side Effects of R-R's Fall From Growth:
The report:
With budget cuts blamed for a second straight year of recession, the EU’s top economics official Olli Rehn indicated over the weekend that more flexibility on tough economic targets was needed. His boss, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, said on Monday that austerity had reached its natural limits of popular support.“While I think this policy is fundamentally right, I think it has reached its limits,” he told a conference. “A policy to be successful not only has to be properly designed, it has to have the minimum of political and social support.”
As Wolfgang Munchau recounts, it was not too long ago that the same Olli Rehn stated:
“Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have coined the ‘90 per cent rule’,” he said. “That is, countries with public debt exceeding 90 per cent of annual economic output grow more slowly. High debt levels can crowd out economic activity and entrepreneurial dynamism, and thus hamper growth. This conclusion is particularly relevant at a time when debt levels in Europe are now approaching the 90 per cent threshold, which the US has already passed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment