The Corner

Why the Stimulus Didn’t Work as Predicted

There has been a lot of debate about the effectiveness of stimulus spending to jump start an economy. For one thing, economics can’t agree on what the value of the multiplier is. Notwithstanding the confidence of stimulus advocates, there is no academic consensus regarding the size or even the sign of the multiplier. As my colleague Matt Mitchell and I explained in a paper that reviewed the multiplier literature last year, the largest recent estimate is can be as high as 3.7 (implying that $1.00 in government purchases stimulates another $2.70 in private sector economic activity) and the smallest one is 2.88, (implying that $1.00 in government purchases displaces $3.88 in private-sector economic activity.) 

We found that this wide range of estimates exists, in part, because there are many different circumstances in which stimulus might be applied. As it happens, many of the circumstances necessary for stimulus spending to trigger large economic growth aren’t present in the U.S. currently.

But perhaps the most important reason to be skeptical about the potency of stimulus spending is that the money must be distributed just as Keynesian theory says they ought to be. That means it must be timely, targeted, and temporary. As it happens, it is more difficult that one may think.

A new paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York looks at the whether or not the funding was indeed targeted, meaning whether it was spent in a way that would use idle resources — i.e., unemployed workers — and put them back to work. Not so much, they find. The authors write a good summary of their paper in a blog post:

Our analysis of the distribution of ARRA funds across states shows that the expanded assistance to unemployed workers was indeed highly correlated with state unemployment rates. It turned out, however, that most other state allocations had little association—positive or negative—with state unemployment rates. 

They also explain why that is, and ask great follow-up questions:

In sum, practical considerations in targeting new federal spending under a vast program like the ARRA led to spending that was less linked to state unemployment rates than might be expected. Estimates vary as to the effects of the ARRA, but larger questions remain. Did the particular way that the funds were targeted affect the ultimate impact of the program? Would a given amount of funding distributed in another way have been more effective? Would future anti-recessionary spending programs benefit from pre-planned allocation formulas? Answering those questions would take more than a blog post.

The whole paper is here, and the blog post is here. This paper is consistent with this paper by George Mason University’s Garett Jones and AEI’s Dan Rothschild, which looked at whether stimulus money was used to hire the unemployed. 

Veronique de Rugy — Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More