Herndon, Ash in Pollin (HAP) so marca lani razburkali akademsko javnost z razkritjem napak, ki sta jih naredila Carmen Reinhart in Kenneth Rogoff v članku “Growth in a Time of Debt”. Pred nedavnim, konec decembra 2013, je bil v on-line verziji Cambridge Journal of Economics objavljen njihov dopolnjen članek “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth”, ki je šel skozi sito akademskih ocenjevalcev. V dopolnjeni verziji gredo HAP še naprej in pokažejo, da tudi odzivi in popravki Reinhartove in Rogoffa temeljijo na napačnih izračunih.
Spodaj je zapis iz bloga enega izmed avtorjev, Roberta Pollina na blogu založnika Oxford University Press. Očitno je tudi akademska ekonomija potrebovala tak škandal za večjo popularizacijo sicer dokaj hermetične akademske ekonomije. Predvsem pa je ključno, da je sama akademska scena razkrila napake, ki so obrnile na glavo ekonomsko politiko v smeri škodljive politike varčevanja.
In 2010, the Harvard University economics professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff published a paper in the American Economic Review, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” that spoke to the world’s biggest policy question: should we cut public spending to control the deficit or use the state to rekindle economic growth? This paper subsequently served as an important intellectual bulwark in support of austerity policies in the United States and Europe. It has been frequently cited by major economic policymakers, including the US Congressman Paul Ryan, the UK Chancellor George Osborne, and Olli Rehn, the leading economic official of the European Commission. Indeed, the Economics Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman observed that “Reinhart-Rogoff may have had more immediate influence on public debate than any previous paper in the history of economics.”
However, my co-authors Thomas Herndon and Michael Ash and I showed, initially in an April 2013 preliminary working paper of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) titled “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth,” that several of the critical findings advanced in the Reinhart-Rogoff paper were wrong. Our working paper set off an intense global debate through much of the spring of 2013, including multiple responses by Reinhart and Rogoff themselves, and rejoinders by my co-authors and I.
Now, in a final, fully refereed version of our paper, with the same title and published online in December 2013 with the Cambridge Journal of Economics, we examine these questions further, by expanding the range of our critique of the Reinhart-Rogoff research, and addressing the responses advanced by Reinhart and Rogoff in response to our initial working paper. Reinhart and Rogoff have referred to this debate as an “academic kerfuffle,” yet we think the debate has been constructive because it has brought greater clarity over the ideas shaping austerity policies in both the United States and Europe. We would welcome a formal substantive response by Reinhart and Rogoff to our published CJE paper.
O sami naravi napak, odzivih na odkritje ter implikacijah za ekonomsko politiko preberite več na Robert Pollin – Oxford University Press