This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics, was awarded to Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims.
The Nobel jury said that one of the main reasons these two men won the award was for developing methods that answer “many ... questions regarding the causal relationship between economic policy and different macroeconomic variables such as GDP, inflation, employment and investments ... Today, the methods developed by Sargent and Sims are essential tools in macroeconomic analysis.”
In other words, Sargent and Sims made significant contributions to economic policy that are very similar to those of last year’s three winners.
The Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides or “DMP” model created by last year’s winners can be used to predict length of unemployment, job vacancies, actual wages and other items based on unemployment factors such as the amount of unemployment benefits, actual interest rates, employment agency efficiency and the cost of hiring and firing. The model shows that since buyers and sellers in a market lack complete information, it is difficult or even impossible to find the perfect match.
According to the prize committee, “one conclusion [reached by the DMP model] is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.”
In addition, public job-saving policies are often more of a hindrance than a help and might lead to idle workers.
This year’s two winners use a macroeconomic model that applies complex mathematics to analyze and examine government economic policies. Sargent made his name in the 1980s when the theory of rational expectations was popular. He enjoyed equal fame with Robert Lucas, the winner of the economics Nobel in 1995. Many experts were surprised and felt it unfair that he did not share the 1995 award with Lucas. However, as high unemployment has once again become a global problem, Sargent has now finally being honored.
In an interview in July 1982, Sargent said he had been very naive about what governments could achieve when he graduated from the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard University. He said his naivete was his own fault, because at the time he was strongly in favor of intervention, believing that governments should have a hand in all matters. However, by the time of the interview, Sargent had changed his mind drastically.
The insights from the interview show that Sargent originally came from the John Maynard Keynes school of thought, which advocates government intervention. However, after encountering the University of Chicago school of thought and its theories, Sargent threw his support behind the theory of rational expectations and neoclassical economics, eventually becoming one of its leaders. In the 1980s, the neoclassical school was said to be the economy of Lucas and Sargent.
Using the concept of rational expectations, Lucas and Sargent applied “dynamic equilibriums” to demonstrate the inefficacy of government interference. This theory showed that when a government policy changes, the civil sector changes its decisionmaking rules accordingly.
This is illustrates the basic tenets of optimization theory, a new view which developed out of the theory of rational expectations. Sargent emphasized that he, along with Lucas and Edward Prescott, the winner of the economics Nobel in 2004, were all once Keynesian economists who had drastically changed their views.
When asked to explain high unemployment, Sargent answered that the Phillips curve model of rational expectations offers a good explanation.
The Phillips curve of rational expectations shows that there is not a trade-off relationship between commodity prices and unemployment. It shows that a government’s adoption of expansionary policies will boost prices, but not solve the unemployment problem. Thus, the Phillips curve is a vertical or even positive curve, which means that in addition to causing prices to rise, unemployment can also increase. In other words, long-term high unemployment is a result of long-term policy intervention.
Despite this, the world still labors under the myth that governments can resolve problems simply by implementing policies, although research has already demonstrated that this often aggravates the situation.
A look at monetary policy shows that countries have attempted to save their markets during the past few decades by printing money, which has only created more greed and finally resulted in a financial crisis. Not to mention that inflation and economic bubbles have been a constant presence, leading to the coexistence of high inflation and high unemployment.
Former US president Ronald Reagan was right when he said that, “government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
Awarding the Nobel Prize in Economics to rational expectation economists makes us rethink and review whether or not governments should intervene in and dominate economic activities with its policies.
Last year’s three winners also had a relatively negative view on government intervention in the labor market. They focused on the theory and practice of agent-based models, while this year’s two winners focus on macroeconomics. However, all of them call for the role of the government to be rethought and this is worthy of further consideration.
Wu Hui-lin is a researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with