By Kate Davidson
Two of the biggest challenges of fighting a recession are
knowing when you're in one and deciding what to do next. When
economic data weaken, it's impossible to know in real time whether
it's a blip or something more prolonged. The official declaration
usually comes a year or more after a recession starts.
Now, a Federal Reserve economist has come up with a simple rule
based on movements in unemployment to rapidly determine when a
recession is under way. In conjunction with that rule, Claudia Sahm
has also proposed policies to immediately soften the downturn
without the political hurdles that usually slow stimulus
efforts.
For now, the so-called Sahm rule is sending a reassuring signal:
The economy may be slowing but no recession has begun. Nonetheless,
it is generating excitement among economists and at least one
presidential contender looking for new ideas on how to combat
future recessions at a time when the Fed lacks its normal
ammunition since interest rates are already so low.
Policy makers need to know when a recession has begun before
they can act to prop up the economy, said Jay Shambaugh, director
of the Hamilton Project, a liberal think tank that included Ms.
Sahm's proposal in a book this year on preparing for the next
downturn. "Knowing that in as close to real time as possible is a
huge advantage over waiting, say, for Congress to act over a six-
to eight-month period," he said.
In January 2008, Fed officials projected the flagging U.S.
economy would avoid a recession. Fed staff believed the probability
of recession within the next six months was 45%, according to a
policy meeting transcript.
In fact, a recession had begun the previous month, a
determination the official arbiter, the National Bureau of Economic
Research -- a nonpartisan, nonprofit academic network -- would take
almost a year to make. It took six to 21 months to call previous
recessions.
"That's too long for stabilization policy to wait," Ms. Sahm
said on Twitter earlier this year. "Stimulus early could help
reduce the severity of a downturn."
The unemployment rate has risen sharply in every recession, and
thus economists have long looked for recession signals in its
behavior. Ms. Sahm spent weekends playing with a massive
spreadsheet, testing different rates of increase over varying
periods of time, to arrive at the following formula: If the average
of unemployment rate over three months rises a half-percentage
point or more above its low over the previous year, the economy is
in a recession.
Her formula would have accurately called every recession since
1970 within two to four months of when it started, with no false
positives, which could trigger unnecessary and costly fiscal
stimulus.
Ms. Sahm says her rule is based on historical relationships in
the U.S. and thus can't be applied to other countries or individual
states, whose labor markets may behave differently.
Nor should it be used predict recessions, as are some indicators
such as an inverted yield curve, when long-term interest rates fall
below short-term rates. The Sahm rule only determines when one has
started. Yet that is potentially quite valuable.
Ms. Sahm received her Ph.D. at the University of Michigan then
joined the Fed in 2007 where she studied the effects of fiscal
policy on households. She and others have found that sending
lump-sum payments to individuals, as the government did in 2001 and
2008, had a bigger effect on spending than spreading the money out
across paychecks by lowering tax withholding, as Congress did in
2009.
By automating such payments, and designing the size, structure
and funding ahead of time, policy makers could avoid those
difficult decisions in a crisis, Ms. Sahm wrote in "Recession
Ready," the book published by the Hamilton Project and Washington
Center for Equitable Growth, a left-leaning think tank where Ms.
Sahm will soon move to become director of macroeconomic policy. The
book discussed how to improve automatic stabilizers, the safety-net
programs that kick in when the economy weakens, such as
unemployment insurance and food stamps.
Ms. Sahm proposed that the Treasury begin sending payments to
households equal to 0.7% of gross domestic product, or 1% of
consumer spending, when the Sahm rule trigger is met, and extend
those payments in subsequent years if the unemployment rate
increases at least 2 percentage points above the level at the time
of the first payment, then gradually scaling them back as the
jobless rate declines.
Under her proposal, payments in the last recession would have
started in April 2008 and continued into 2013, after the last of
the big household stimulus programs expired. The boost to spending
in 2008 and 2009 together would have been about 50% larger than
under the stimulus actually enacted, she estimated.
Expanding automatic stabilizers this way could have drawbacks,
warns Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum,
a right-of-center think tank, and former Congressional Budget
Office director. They would boost mandatory spending, which already
weighs on the federal budget, and lawmakers would still face
political pressure to respond with additional discretionary
stimulus, he said.
Since its release in May, Ms. Sahm's rule has been flagged in
Wall Street research notes and news reports, and added to the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis's free economic database, known
as FRED. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have asked for briefings on the
proposal, and Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), who is running for
president, highlighted it along with others in his campaign's
economic platform.
"The reason it's been getting attention is it is simple, it is
understandable, it is something people can observe themselves," Mr.
Shaumbaugh said.
It also helps that Ms. Sahm, unusual for a Fed staffer, is
active on Twitter, where she has discussed the Sahm rule -- and
noted the name wasn't her idea. "[In my opinion] 'unemployment
change rule' is a better label," she tweeted.
Write to Kate Davidson at kate.davidson@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
November 03, 2019 09:14 ET (14:14 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.