Japan's economic performance is ghastly. The first quarter of
2009 was arguably the nation's worst on record, building on a
terrible end to 2008. Naturally, debate rages over how the Japanese
government should respond. Questions also persist over how the
government should have responded to the weakness of the 1990s.
These two debates are linked.
In hindsight, Japanese economic policy in the 1990s was an utter
failure. A major part of that was the government's refusal to
restructure the economy, which would have speeded recovery from the
"lost decade" and cushioned the present crisis. Instead, throughout
the 1990s, Tokyo spent and spent. Yet it was exports that appeared
to finally end the lost decade, not government spending. Now the
export valve is shut off and, having eschewed restructuring, Japan
has again turned to public spending and debt and again faces
stagnation.
The Japanese example is critical to an America caught in a
financial crisis. The U.S. must look beyond present economic
weakness and resist phony cures such as fiscal stimulus, which
carry enormous long-term costs with no long-term benefits. The U.S.
must do what Japan should have done--cease government actions that
impede economic reform--or risk stalling any advance in American
living standards for a generation.
Reevaluating Japanese Economic
Performance
Japan's economic timeline has been grim for almost two decades.
The bubble economy of the late 1980s was originally deemed a sign
of success, similar to the U.S. technology bubble 10 years later.
The ensuing pop was doubly loud because Japanese stocks and
property were badly overvalued at the same time, while in America
the stock market bubble preceded the housing bubble by some
years.
That Japan suffered a financial shock is not news, but there are
still important aspects of the crash that are not well understood.
How long it took for the economy to hit bottom, for instance,
remains an open question. The view as recently as mid-2008 was that
it took a full six years to reach the bottom of the crash: from the
property market collapse in 1991 to the low point for comparative
GDP growth in 1997.[1] Recent events indicate that the truth is
far more painful.
The quarter-on-quarter drop in GDP accelerated from 3.3 percent
to close 2008 to 4.0 percent to open this year. The annualized rate
of decline worsened from a dreadful 12.7percent to a devastating
15.2 percent.[2] Incredibly, the Japanese economy is back to
the same size it was 17 or 18 years ago.[3] For the first four decades of
the post-war era, Japan enjoyed unmatched economic progress. For
the last two, it has seen no progress at all. While the second
quarter will almost surely show slower decline, the economy is
heading in the wrong direction. Ongoing contraction through 2009
would push Japan further backward in time.
Rather than taking six years to reach the low point of the
decline, it has taken more than 16--indeed, the Japanese economy
may still have further to fall. The initial lost decade is directly
linked to the present slump by Tokyo's continued clutching of a
failed economic model.
Four Errors
Four connected factors account for Japanese economic weakness.
It may be hard to believe, but in the early 1990s, Japanese
policymakers were actually too confident. For several years it was
apparently inconceivable that Japan could suffer a setback serious
enough to warrant strong action.[4]
Throughout the lost decade, transparency in economic policy was
an afterthought. A small group of bureaucrats was seen to have done
a marvelous job behind closed doors. When failed projects and
public confidence became issues, there was little motive or ability
to openly evaluate policy, so consumers became cynical about the
efficacy of government action and defensive in their behavior.[5]
Even now, fiscal waste continues. The initial response to the
popping of the 1990s bubbles was to do nothing. This eventually
gave way to wildly high deficit spending, which failed to
rejuvenate the economy and resulted in the highest public debt
burden in the OECD.[6]
It is reasonable to argue that Japan spent the money unwisely
and greater returns to government spending were possible. It is not
reasonable, however, to argue that simple Keynesian stimulus could
have been effective if only a bit more money was spent.
Finally, there is a crippling problem with the economic model
itself. A stunning, decade-long reversal should have prompted
fundamental reform. Instead, Japan continued to emphasize external
efficiency over a balanced economy. This approach seemed to pay off
when exports led a resurgence of growth from 2002 to 2005. But
stark export dependence is now a critical weakness.[7] Other countries face
the consequences of export dependence as well, but none suffered
the abject lesson Japan so studiously ignored.
What Japan Should Have Done
At least part of what Japan should have done is clear:
- Act immediately. Sudden financial contractions indicate serious
distortions that must be addressed.
- Whatever the government's response, it should be subject to
ongoing, sharp, and completely open scrutiny to see what changes
must be made.
- Do not use public spending to try to stop an economic
contraction, as it will only stretch it out.
- At some point in a slump, everything must be on the table. Even
some long-term strategies, such as Japan's export obsession, must
be modified or reversed.
Will Washington Learn?
Like the never-ending stream of Japanese prime ministers, the
Obama Administration is not responsible for the mess it inherited,
but its response is, so far, charting a disastrous course.[8] Unlike
Japan, America acted quickly to meet this financial shock. The
U.S., however, risks repeating Japan's other mistakes--in some
cases more profoundly.
The Obama Administration's performance on transparency--the
stringent examination of government programs--is thus far poor. For
example, TARP has been at the center of the response to the crisis
and quickly moved beyond its stated, statutory bounds.[9] The
Administration now suggests it be kept running for an unspecified
period and with an increasingly ill-defined set of
responsibilities.[10]
It should not be surprising, then, that America is replicating
Japanese fiscal waste. The federal budget deficit for 2009 is
expected to approach $2 trillion.[11] This is as much as the
past five years combined, when federal spending was already
excessive. Japan's experience demonstrates that deficits, no matter
the size, are no solution. Rather, they are a crutch to avoid
reform and excuse wasteful projects by claiming that the mere act
of spending has inherent value.
The most important lesson from Japan is, as usual, the hardest.
The American economy has under-saved and underinvested, pushed in
that direction by long-term policies such as an anti-saving,
anti-competitive federal income tax.
Unlike its Japanese counterpart, the U.S. government is
considering sweeping, structural reforms. Unfortunately, these
changes head in the wrong direction, threatening to make the
American economy less competitive. The reforms being considered
include imposing new distortions on energy and health care markets,
economically destructive environmental policies, and implicit or
explicit higher taxes on a wide range of businesses.
Lessons from Japan
The Administration and Congress must accept the extent of the
crisis and the harmful long-term impact of many of the policies now
being implemented or under consideration. The issue is not just
this year. The Japanese example shows clearly that American
economic vitality is not guaranteed. There are potentially
devastating domestic and international consequences if, paralleling
Japan, the U.S. economy is the same size in 2026 as 2009.
Derek Scissors, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Asia Economic Policy in
the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.
[4]See
Richard Koo, The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics: Lessons from
Japan's Great Recession (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press, 2009).
[5]Gary
Saxonhouse and Robert Stern, eds., Japan's Lost Decade: Origins,
Consequences and Prospects for Recovery (New York:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2004).
[8]A
key difference is that Japan's need to restructure traces directly
to government policy. In the U.S., imbalances result more because
of openness to international goods and capital, leaving the
American Economy as consumer of last resort. If Japan, China, and
Germany build economies on net exports, some Economy or economies
must be the net importer--most likely open economies such as the
U.S.