L ECTURE 6 The Effects of Fiscal Changes: Cross-Section Evidence - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

l ecture 6
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

L ECTURE 6 The Effects of Fiscal Changes: Cross-Section Evidence - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Economics 210c/236a Christina Romer Fall 2018 David


slide-1
SLIDE 1

LECTURE 6

The Effects of Fiscal Changes: Cross-Section Evidence September 26, 2018

Economics 210c/236a Christina Romer Fall 2018 David Romer

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Office Hours

  • No office hours this Thursday (9/27).
  • Office hours Monday (10/1) 4–5:30 and Thursday

(10/4) 2–4.

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • I. OVERVIEW OF STATE-BASED STUDIES OF THE IMPACT

OF FISCAL CHANGES

slide-4
SLIDE 4

How does monetary policy affect the fiscal multiplier?

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Open Economy Relative Multiplier

  • Multiplier: Effect of G on Y
  • Relative: How relative G in a state or region affects

relative Y or employment

  • Open Economy: Are effects of spending in a state

felt in the state?

slide-6
SLIDE 6

How does the open economy relative multiplier compare with the closed economy aggregate multiplier?

  • Impact of monetary policy
  • State spillovers
  • Impact of Ricardian equivalence and crowding out
slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • II. CHODOROW-REICH, FEIVESON, LISCOW, AND

WOOLSTON, “DOES STATE FISCAL RELIEF DURING RECESSIONS INCREASE EMPLOYMENT? EVIDENCE FROM

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT”

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Experiment They Consider

  • ARRA increased aid to states to pay for Medicaid

(FMAP).

  • Look at whether states that got more aid did better.
  • Main outcome variable is employment by state.
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Omitted Variable Problem

  • More troubled states got more state fiscal relief in

ARRA.

  • Solution: IV using 2007 state FMAP spending per

person as instrument for ARRA FMAP increase.

  • Idea is that some states got more ARRA FMAP funds

just because they had more generous systems before the recession.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

C-R,F,L,W Specification

Where:

  • Es is employment in state s
  • Ns is the population aged 16+ in state s
  • AIDs is state fiscal relief received by state s
  • Controls are state- and region-specific variables
slide-11
SLIDE 11

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

Instrument

slide-12
SLIDE 12

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Control Variables

  • Region dummies
  • Employment in manufacturing
  • Lagged state employment
  • Union share and Kerry vote share
slide-14
SLIDE 14

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-15
SLIDE 15

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-16
SLIDE 16

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Timing of Impact

  • Do a Jordà-type procedure.
  • Run the cross-section regression many times,

increasing the horizon by 1 month each time.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-19
SLIDE 19

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-20
SLIDE 20

From: Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Evaluation

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • III. NAKAMURA AND STEINSSON, “FISCAL STIMULUS IN A

MONETARY UNION: EVIDENCE FROM U.S. REGIONS”

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Experiment They Consider

  • Time series-cross section data on defense

procurement by state.

  • Look at whether state GDP and employment respond

to defense procurement by state.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Nakamura and Steinsson’s Specification

Where:

  • Yit is output in state i in period t
  • Git is government procurement in state i in

period t

  • αi are state fixed effects
  • γt are year fixed effects
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Omitted Variable Problem

  • State may be able to argue for more defense

spending when local conditions are weak.

  • Could imagine OVB going the other way as well—

states with successful military contractors are better at winning more contracts.

  • Going to use IV.
  • Key assumption: national defense spending is

determined by geopolitical events, not local conditions.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

IV Approach

  • Instruments are national defense spending as a

share of GDP interacted with state dummy variables (so 50 instruments).

  • Variation comes from interaction of national shocks

and differences in how sensitive state defense spending is to national spending.

  • Alternative variable (Bartik instrument) is Gi/Yi in

base period times Gt/Yt (so 1 instrument).

slide-28
SLIDE 28

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-29
SLIDE 29

How good are their instruments?

  • When use national defense interacted with state

dummy, have 50 instruments. They tell us they have a weak instrument problem.

  • With Bartik instrument, only have one instrument.

No weak instrument problem.

  • I would like to see more diagnostics on the first

stage.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-31
SLIDE 31

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-32
SLIDE 32
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Nakamura and Steinsson’s Specification

Where:

  • Yit is output in state i in period t
  • Git is government procurement in state i in

period t

  • αi are state fixed effects
  • γt are year fixed effects
  • Iit is an indicator for a period of low economic

slack

slide-34
SLIDE 34

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Evaluation

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Translating the Open-Economy Relative Multiplier into the Closed-Economy Aggregate Multiplier

  • Write down a complicated, optimizing model with

two regions and calibrate it.

  • Generate data from the calibrated model based on

different assumptions (such as sticky versus flexible prices, or accommodative versus counteracting monetary policy).

  • Estimate OERM and CEAM from the generated data

to see how they compare.

slide-37
SLIDE 37

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-38
SLIDE 38

From: Nakamura and Steinsson, “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union”

slide-39
SLIDE 39
  • IV. HAUSMAN, “FISCAL POLICY AND ECONOMIC

RECOVERY: THE CASE OF THE 1936 VETERANS’ BONUS”

slide-40
SLIDE 40

1936 Veterans’ Bonus Average Bonus in 1936 was $547

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Experiment He Considers

  • Did the Veterans’ bonus raise consumption and
  • utput?
  • Can’t use aggregate time-series variation.
  • He has four different approaches:
  • Cross-state analysis
  • Individual-level analysis of consumer behavior
  • American Legion survey
  • Narrative evidence
slide-42
SLIDE 42

Cross-State Analysis

  • What is his approach?
  • What does it capture? (MPC and local spillovers)
  • Data limitations
slide-43
SLIDE 43

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-44
SLIDE 44

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Could there be omitted variable bias?

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Hausman’s Specification

Where:

  • As is new car sales per capita in state s
  • Xs is a vector of control variables (such as per capita

auto sales in 1929, region fixed effects, farm share of the population, black share of the population)

slide-47
SLIDE 47

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-48
SLIDE 48

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Individual-Level Analysis

  • Has detailed consumer expenditure data based on a

survey in 1935 and 1936.

  • Key feature: Some people were surveyed before the

bonus, some after.

  • If he knew veteran status, he could do a difference-

in-difference analysis to see if veterans raised consumption more than non-veterans following the bonus.

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Hausman’s Specification

Pre-Bonus Post-Bonus Non-Veteran β3 Veteran β2 β2+ β3 + β4

How much more does consumption rise post-bonus for a non-veteran? β3 How much more does consumption rise post-bonus for a veteran? β3 + β4. So β4 shows the effect on consumption post-bonus of a veteran versus a non-veteran.

Consumption over Previous 12 mos.

Where Vi is a dummy for if the household contains a veteran and Pi is a dummy for if the household was surveyed after the bonus.

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Hausman’s Data Problem

  • Doesn’t observe whether family got a bonus or

veteran status.

  • How does he get around this problem?
slide-52
SLIDE 52

Hausman’s Specification

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

  • What covariates are included in Zj and Zi?
slide-53
SLIDE 53

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-54
SLIDE 54

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-55
SLIDE 55

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-56
SLIDE 56

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-57
SLIDE 57

American Legion Survey

  • Another case where there is data one might not have

expected.

  • Under-utilized archivists can be your friend.
  • Analogous to studies asking consumers how they

plan to use tax rebates.

slide-58
SLIDE 58

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-59
SLIDE 59

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Narrative Evidence

slide-61
SLIDE 61

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-62
SLIDE 62

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

slide-63
SLIDE 63

From: Hausman, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Recovery”

Aggregate Impact of the Bonus

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Evaluation