The Progressive Fix

PPI WEEKLY WRAP-UP: Agenda 2016, What Democrats Are Missing, and TPP’s Impact on Small Business

AGENDA 2016–REVIVING U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH: The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) teamed up with Columbia University’s Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy to co-host a compelling symposium Nov. 6-7 in New York on revitalizing the U.S. economy. The event featured a distinguished roster of Richman Center economists and scholars, as well as PPI analysts and special guests, and more than two-dozen top policy aides to Members of Congress, Governors, and Mayors.

Held on Columbia’s Manhattan campus, the symposium examined the U.S. economy’s recent performance, as well as the causes of the long-term decline of productivity and economic growth. Against the backdrop of the 2016 election debate, the participants grappled with specific ideas for unleashing more economic innovation, modernizing infrastructure, reforming taxes, improving regulation, expanding trade and reducing inequality by ensuring that all children have access to high-quality public schools.

NEW DEMOCRATS SOUND ALARM: PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in a piece by The Guardian addressing the 2016 Democratic presidential candidates and the party’s shift to the left. “There is no question that the prevailing temper of the Democratic party is populist: strongly sceptical of what we like to call capitalism and angry about the perceived power of the monied elite in politics,” said PPI president and founder Will Marshall. “But inequality is not the biggest problem we face: it is symptomatic of the biggest problem we face, which is slow growth.”

WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE MISSING: In an op-ed for CNN, Marshall argues that Democrats must focus on economic growth and optimism leading into the 2016 election. “After their first debate in Las Vegas, Democrats congratulated themselves on having been more substantive than the Republicans. True enough: No sentient viewer could confuse the GOP Gong Show with the PBS NewsHour.

“But amid all the wonkery, something big was missing — a sense of economic optimism, buttressed by fresh ideas for stimulating innovation and growth. Working Americans want to know how they and their children can find opportunities and win in the global knowledge economy. Instead, Democrats dwelled at great length on how badly they are losing. They had plenty to say about inequality, but almost nothing about how to create new jobs, enterprises and wealth.”

PPI EUROPE ENGAGEMENT: Chief Economic Strategist Dr. Michael Mandel and Executive Director Lindsay Mark Lewis visited Paris, Brussels, and London last week, as PPI continues to engage with top European policy leaders on important economic issues across the pond, including Safe Harbor 2.0, digital trade, international taxation, encryption, copyright, and other growth issues. PPI is committed to building the transatlantic dialogue between the US and Europe, and this trip was a continuation of our desire to deepen our economic relationship.

TPP’S IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES: Ed Gerwin, PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity, was quoted by Quartz on how TPP will help small businesses interested in exporting their goods.  “TPP has a whole chapter on international e-commerce, and another on small- and medium-sized companies. …  the TPP ‘could be potentially transformative,’ Ed Gerwin, a trade expert at the Progressive Policy Institute, tells Quartz. ‘That stuff is a big deal,’ says Gerwin. ‘Having uniform rules is really important.’

Agenda 2016: Reviving U.S. Economic Growth

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) teamed up with Columbia University’s Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy to co-host a compelling symposium Nov. 6-7 in New York on revitalizing the U.S. economy. The event featured a distinguished roster of Richman Center economists and scholars, as well as PPI analysts and special guests, and more than two-dozen top policy aides to Members of Congress, Governors, and Mayors.

Held on Columbia’s Manhattan campus, the symposium examined the U.S. economy’s recent performance, as well as the causes of the long-term decline of productivity and economic growth. Against the backdrop of the 2016 election debate, the participants grappled with specific ideas for unleashing more economic innovation, modernizing infrastructure, reforming taxes, improving regulation, expanding trade and reducing inequality by ensuring that all children have access to high-quality public schools.

The discussions, which were off-the-record to encourage maximum candor, featured the following speakers and topics:

  • An overview of the U.S. economy’s recent performance by Abby Joseph Cohen, President of the Global Markets Institute and Senior Investment Strategist at Goldman Sachs.
  • A roundtable on key elements of a high-growth strategy, led by Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI, Andrew Stern, former head of the Service Employees International Union and now Ronald O. Perelman Senior Fellow at the Richman Center, and
Philip K. Howard, Founder of Common Good, a nonpartisan reform coalition. The conversation touched on ways to improve the regulatory environment for innovation, including reducing regulatory accumulation and requiring faster permitting for big infrastructure projects, as well as a lively debate on the future of work in a tech-driven knowledge economy.
  • An insightful macroeconomic analysis of why productivity and economic growth have slowed, by Pierre Yared, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Yared highlighted three potential contributors to the slowdown: labor demographics and participation; “capital intensity” or business investment; and the “production efficiency” of U.S. companies.
  • A detailed examination of the impact of energy innovation—from the shale boom to renewables and the construction of a new, “smart” grid—on jobs and economic growth. Leading this segment were Jason Bordoff, formerly energy advisor to President Obama and Director of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, and Derrick Freeman, Director of PPI’s Energy Innovation Project.
  • A dinner conversation at the Columbia Club with Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel Laureate in Economics and Director of Columbia’s Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Drawing on his recent book, Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change, he stressed the importance of indigenous innovation in creating the conditions for broad upward mobility. He also emphasized the crucial role of “modern” or individualistic cultural values in sustaining the mass innovation and entrepreneurship America needs to flourish again.
  • A detailed look at business taxation and reform as a potential driver of economic growth. It featured Michael Graetz, Alumni Professor of Tax Law at Columbia Law School, David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and the Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics at the Columbia Law School and Co-director at the Richman Center, as well as PPI’s Michael Mandel. The discussion ranged widely over global tax frictions, including the OECD’s new “BEPS” project; the need for corporate tax reform; “patent boxes” and mounting U.S. interest in consumption taxes.
  • A roundtable on trade and productivity growth with Ed Gerwin, PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity and the versatile Michael Mandel. Noting President Obama’s controversial call for a Trans-Pacific Partnership, Gerwin stressed the agreement’s potential for “democratizing” trade by making it easier for U.S. small businesses to connect with customers abroad. Mandel underscored another PPI priority: raising awareness among policymakers of the growing contribution of cross-border data flows to growth here and abroad, and the need to push back against proposals that would impede “digital trade”
  • A luncheon presentation on “financial regulation after the crisis” by Jeffrey Gordon, Richard Paul Richman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Gordon described the new regime put in place by Dodd-Frank and other rules to guard against “systemic risk” of another financial meltdown, and suggested its “perimeter” may been to be expanded beyond banks.
  • The symposium’s final panel featured a vigorous discussion on K-12 education reform and the economy. The discussants were Jonah Rockoff, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and David Osborne, who directs PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, and is a co-author of the seminal “Reinventing Government.” Rockoff highlighted research showing that the returns to school improvement are enormous, and recommended reforms that could increase school quality. Osborne traced the evolution of school governance in America, and offered detailed looks at new models emerging in cities like New Orleans and Washington, D.C., both of which are leaders in the public charter school movement.

The symposium gave the policy professionals who participated a rare opportunity to delve deeply into complicated economic realities, guided by presenters of extraordinarily high caliber. The conversations were highly illuminating and will inform PPI’s work on Agenda 2016—a new blueprint for reviving U.S. economic dynamism and opportunity.

How the Ex-Im Bank Serves Main Street

On real Main Streets across America, from Idaho to California to Maine, the Ex-Im Bank supports U.S. jobs.

On Main Streets across America, small businesses are a critical source of economic growth and good jobs. Over the past two decades, entrepreneurs and small firms have generated an astounding 65 percent of America’s net new jobs. Small businesses that export drive even greater growth.

According to shipping firm UPS, small firms engaged in global trade are 20 percent more productive and produce 20 percent greater job growth when compared to non-exporters. And because only about 4 percent of U.S. small businesses export, boosting small business trade can pay huge dividends for local communities and the overall American economy.

U.S. Export-Import Bank plays a key role in helping American small businesses seize export opportunities in foreign markets. Over the past four years, it has completed over 12,000 financing transactions for small firms—supporting nearly $50 billion in small business exports and well over 100,000 small business jobs—and has hosted over 75 small business export forums in communities nationwide. In 2014, 90 percent of the Ex-Im Bank’s transactions benefitted small businesses.

Despite this, critics like House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have suggested that gutting the Ex-Im Bank would somehow be a victory for the “Main Street competitive economy.”

In real “Main Street” communities across America, however, small businesses and workers that have benefitted from Ex-Im Bank financing support would certainly disagree. Indeed, more than a few of the small firms that the Ex-Im Bank has supported in recent years are actually located on “Main Streets” across America. Here are just a few examples:

The Ex-Im Bank provides these and many other local companies with the real-world help they need to grow, support their communities, and create good jobs by selling globally. For instance, Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees enable NOW International, a small producer of dietary supplements in Bloomingdale, Illinois and Sparks, Nevada, to gain financial backing from local lenders for exports that directly support 35 jobs at the company.

And the benefits of Ex-Im support for larger companies like Boeing also flow to the thousands of U.S. suppliers and workers that participate in large company supply chains, including businesses that line the “Main Streets” of communities throughout America.

There are, no doubt, scores of government programs that need to be replaced or reformed. But the Ex-Im Bank isn’t one of them. Rather, the Ex-Im Bank is an efficient and prudent institution that drives exports and economic growth and supports good American jobs, all while actually making a $2 billion profit for the U.S. Treasury over the past five years. If that’s not a model for good governance, what is?

Main Street America is already increasingly frustrated with Washington. Let’s not fuel the fire by eliminating worthwhile programs that directly address Main Street’s real needs.

This piece was originally published in Republic 3.0.

Jason Furman Remarks at Recent PPI Event on Reviving Private Investment in the U.S.

Business Investment in the United States: Facts, Explanations, Puzzles, and Policies

Remarks by Jason Furman Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers

September 30, 2015 Progressive Policy Institute Washington, D.C.

Download remarks

It is wonderful to join you at the Progressive Policy Institute’s (PPI) Reviving Private Investment forum. PPI has been an important voice in the economic policy conversation for more than twenty-five years, contributing ideas for smart policies that promote shared and sustainable growth. Forums like this one that bring together private-sector leaders, policy analysts, and government officials are a great way to advance that conversation.

It is hard to imagine an economic challenge where we have much more to gain from combining the views of the public and private sectors than encouraging business investment. Investment is critical to our economic growth, as a source of more capital that can help our workers produce more and of the services that our consumers count on. In addition, investment is an important source of technological progress and a principal contributor to productivity growth. PPI has done a service by highlighting a number of the companies that are leading the way in investment.

There truly are some exciting examples of recent investments: internet service providers have been outpacing other advanced economies in deploying tens of billions of dollars of investment, even during the Great Recession, making the United States the world leader in 4G and expanded broadband fiber; oil and gas companies have taken advantage of new technologies to increase U.S. oil production by almost 4 million barrels per day and also position the United States to become one of the world’s leading exporters of liquid natural gas; clean energy companies have made investments that have tripled wind energy generation and boosted solar generation twenty- fold since 2008; and American automakers have firmly rebounded from their crisis, increasing investments here in the United States.

Amidst this justifiable excitement, investment—after being a bright spot early in the recovery— has grown more slowly in recent years, mirroring trends across a range of advanced economies. This is noteworthy because it comes in the context of a strong labor market recovery in the United States. Employment is growing at its fastest pace since the 1990s, and we are in the midst of the longest streak of job creation on record. Figure 1 shows that while business investment normally moved with employment growth in response to broader business cycle shifts, the response since the global financial crisis has been more volatile.

This decline in investment growth across advanced economies merits an explanation. It has implications for our thinking about a number of major economic issues, including the future of productivity growth, the equilibrium interest rate and the “secular stagnation” hypothesis, and the role of public policy in encouraging and facilitating investment.

The investment slowdown is particularly notable because it comes at a time of high cash flows for businesses and substantial accumulated earnings both domestically and overseas. Some claim this supports the view that U.S. regulations or policy uncertainty or the international tax code are restraining investment. But that argument is not supported by the evidence. It cannot explain the slowdown across advanced economies, it is inconsistent with the strong job growth in the United States, and it rests on a false premise: business confidence has improved and corporate profits are surging.

In these remarks I argue—consistent with both longstanding theory and empirics—that the shift in investment more likely relates to the path of overall output growth and reflects both international and domestic factors. Indeed, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) outlined in the April 2015 World Economic Outlook (IMF 2015), the modest pace of investment growth across advanced economies has been broadly consistent with the slow pickup in total output growth, a relationship at the heart of “accelerator models” of investment. This conclusion has also been reached in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s June 2015 Economic Outlook (OECD 2015) and by the Council of Economic Advisers’ internal work. From that perspective, the key to boosting investment growth is to further strengthen overall economic output.

Although there is much we understand about the recent dynamics of investment, there is also much we do not understand. I will describe three puzzles surrounding investment growth: the impact of technology on investment, rising returns to capital, and potential mis-measurement. Each of these issues has important implications for the future of investment and of productivity growth, which is one of the central macroeconomic questions we face today.

Regardless of the solutions to these puzzles, however, we know that public policy should increase both the quantity and quality of public and private investment and that these goals can actually be complementary. To this end, the President has taken steps to encourage high-quality investment throughout the recovery. He continues to press for a robust pro-investment agenda that includes relieving the sequester, investing in infrastructure, reforming the business tax code, expanding trade and foreign direct investment, and continuing to support innovation, manufacturing, and small businesses.

The Investment Shortfall Across the Advanced Economies

Across the advanced economies, investment has not yet returned to its pre-recession trends. The four panels of Figure 2, adapted from the International Monetary Fund’s April 2015 World Economic Outlook, illustrate this phenomenon (IMF 2015). While previous business cycles have seen investment fluctuate above and below trend—with the notable exception of equipment investment after the 2000-01 recession—the financial crisis shocked the level of investment, and advanced economies have yet to catch up.

These patterns have been broadly consistent across the major economies, albeit with important variations, as shown in Figure 3. Both business investment and residential investment have fallen below pre-crisis forecasts. But because residential investment is smaller as a share of the total, its shortfall is less consequential for total investment. Public investment has also generally fallen below pre-crisis expectations as well, exacerbating the overall challenge but to a lesser degree than private investment. Given its relative importance, my remarks today will focus primarily on business fixed investment.

Investment in the United States: Accelerating R&D and Slowing Equipment Investment

The step down in aggregate investment growth, shown in Figure 4, masks divergent trends across the major investment categories of structures, equipment, and intellectual property products. Total business fixed investment grew at an annual rate of 8 percent per year from 2009:Q4 to 2011:Q4, 5 percent through 2014:Q4, and 23⁄4 percent in the first half of this year.

The halving of oil prices since the middle of last year can more than account for the lower pace of investment growth this year. Overall, the fall in oil prices benefits the U.S. economy because we are net importers of oil—and the lower oil price is, in effect, equivalent to a roughly $700 per household tax cut that boosts consumption. But these benefits for consumers have been partly offset by the costs to the oil extraction industry, which has seen a falloff in drilling investments.
Drilling investment was particularly strong in 2011, but it contributed little to output from 2012 through 2014 before contracting in the first half of this year. In fact, over the past two quarters, the slower rate of investment growth is entirely attributable to drilling as shown in Figure 5. Without drilling, the business investment picture has improved markedly this year and investment growth has increased in each of the past two years. There are tentative signs that the oil drag may be waning, as the number of oil rigs in operation—which collapsed sharply in the wake of the oil price decline—has largely stabilized since May.

So in recent quarters, the investment story has been about oil. But drilling cannot explain the broader trends over the past five years. Since 2010, most of the step down in investment growth was attributable to reduced growth in equipment investment, as shown in Figure 6. At the same time, intellectual property products investment has been accelerating and over the last four quarters it grew 7.3 percent, the fastest pace since 2005. In fact, stronger growth in intellectual property products investment has partially offset the slower growth in equipment investment over the past two years. Intellectual property products consists of about 45 percent research and development (R&D) investment, 45 percent software investment, and 10 percent artistic originals.

The acceleration in intellectual property products investment, and R&D in particular, is also encouraging for the future path of productivity. Economists believe that R&D investment is particularly valuable for boosting future productivity. Businesses seem to agree, as R&D investment has accelerated despite the broader challenges facing investment. Indeed, R&D investment has grown 7.9 percent over the past four quarters—three times faster than the whole economy, as shown in Figure 7. It is typical for R&D investment to outpace GDP in expansions, and this recent surge has brought R&D as a share of the economy to its highest level on record— back in line with its long-term trend.

The divergence in investment by type parallels the divergence in investment by industry—what Michael Mandel of PPI has called “uneven innovation” (Mandel 2015). Mandel argues that innovative information-technology firms are currently experiencing a boom in investment that is not shared by other large sectors, such as health care. This divergence reminds us that aggregate trends in investment can mask important differences across firms and industries, and that a pro- investment policy agenda must focus on a range of investment types.

Explaining Investment Trends in the United States: Investment Generally Follows Overall Demand, Notwithstanding High Cash Flows and Rising Business Confidence

In the United States as well as in many of the other advanced economies, investment growth has largely been consistent with the recovery in business output. In the standard economic model of investment, a representative firm with constant returns to scale chooses the level of capital that will maximize its expected future profits. Investment, as an addition to the capital stock, then increases when output growth is expected to increase, hence the long-standing “accelerator” model of investment (Samuelson 1939). According to this view, businesses invest because they expect consumers to buy their products in the future, not simply because they currently have high profits or substantial retained earnings.

Modern versions of the accelerator model, which allow for more general forms of production, capital depreciation, and adjustment costs, show that the recent decline in investment growth is not surprising given the overall trajectory of output growth (IMF 2015, Pinto and Tevlin 2014, OECD 2015).1 The initial burst of U.S. investment early in the recovery, as seen in Figure 8, likely owed to investment projects that had been delayed during the recession, in addition to the recovery in output. But more recently, investment growth has settled in line with its usual historical relationship with output growth. (Note that Figure 8 relates the growth of investment to the growth of overall output. The picture is similar when relating the growth of investment to the acceleration of overall output, or the change in the growth rate.)

It is reasonable to ask whether the estimates from accelerator models and the relationship in Figure 8 are driven by causation or correlation. One approach used by IMF economists was to examine the impact on investment of output changes caused only by the reduction of budget.

A standard assumption in estimating accelerator models of investment is that the ex-post realizations of output growth are a good proxy for firms’ ex-ante expectations for growth. This assumes that businesses incorporate any predictable information about future output growth in their outlook, not that they can perfectly predict future growth. Surveys of business sentiment, analysts’ earnings expectations, and corporate bond spreads provide additional information on growth expectations.

deficits. They argued that these policy-related shocks are plausibly unrelated business-cycle shocks, which affect both investment and output simultaneously. In general, their approach confirmed the results of standard accelerator models: recent output changes are sufficient to explain the trajectory of investment. That said, the IMF did identify some countries in the periphery of Europe that experienced a larger pull-back in investment than overall demand could explain, likely related to markedly tighter credit conditions and heightened political uncertainty.

Other stories are harder to square with the data. Some have blamed weak investment on pessimism and uncertainty among businesses, government regulations, limited access to credit, or laws governing international taxation. To the degree that investment growth has slowed across advanced economies, it is unlikely that the specific policies adopted in one country offer a likely explanation. Accelerator models explain essentially the entirety of this decline without leaving any residual unexplained. Moreover, the job market has consistently outperformed expectations in the United States (although not in many other advanced economies), casting further doubt on arguments about regulations or uncertainty holding back the economy.

The direct evidence also contradicts claims about pessimism and uncertainty. A broad range of business surveys, at the regional, sectoral, and national level, have generally shown improvements in business outlook in recent years as shown in Figure 9. In some cases, such as among small businesses, the outlook is still below pre-recession readings, but the recent improvement would still suggest an acceleration of investment. The Business Roundtable’s CEO Economic Outlook Index has generally averaged around pre-crisis levels.

Likewise, as shown in Figure 10, corporate bond spreads and the VIX equity volatility index (measures of economic uncertainty) as well as measures of policy uncertainty have retraced much of their sharp increases in the last recession. They have generally fallen over the course the economic expansion, with some recent uptick in uncertainty around the recent global turmoil.

Indeed, one could ask why the improvements in business sentiment and reductions in uncertainty have not led to an increased pace of investment growth. One possibility is that the Great Recession led to more cautious investment plans, such that it has taken longer than usual for an improved outlook to translate into new investment projects. In effect, two factors outside the simple accelerator model cancelled out. Regardless, the improvements in business sentiment in recent years should be viewed as a support to investment growth in the United States.

Three Puzzles About Business Investment

Economists have a reasonably good understanding of the recent trajectory of business investment and much of it is explained by textbook determinants of investment. Nevertheless, there are a number of deeper questions about current levels of investment, especially as they relate to the longer-term structural trends. In the following, I list three of these puzzles and offer some tentative observations, but in all cases they merit further discussion and thought.

1. Does the modern, technological economy require less investment?

Larry Summers has observed the emergence of a dichotomy between market valuations, which should reflect future expected earnings, and current levels of investment. As Summers noted, WhatsApp and Snapchat now have greater market valuations than Sony, with next to no capital investment required to achieve them—nothing compared to the physical and human capital amassed by Sony over decades (Summers 2014, Summers 2015). One might hypothesize that the modern technology-driven economy simply requires less capital and thus less investment.

To the degree that this is true, it is not obviously a source of concern. If anything, it represents an advance as we can effectively get higher levels of output without the same degree of capital inputs. The hypothesis does, however, have other implications. Summers argues that it is one reason that the equilibrium interest rate has fallen, with implications for macroeconomic policy.

In aggregate, however, it is less clear how true—or at least how quantitatively important—this issue is in the first place. Although Snapchat and WhatsApp require relatively little capital, consumers access them through the often large investments in wired and wireless networks made by internet service providers. Overall, the share of gross investment in GDP was consistent with its historical average in the years before the Great Recession, notwithstanding the fact that we had already witnessed the rise of the first and second generation internet companies, as shown in Figure 11.

Of course, some of that earlier investment could have reflected a temporary bubble. The fact that today’s gross investment is 2.3 percentage points lower than its historical average could reflect not just the macroeconomic forces described above, but also a structural break. Additionally, the composition of capital has shifted to shorter-lived equipment, like computers, so depreciation is higher than otherwise and businesses have to invest more just to maintain the capital stock. Investment net of depreciation as a share of GDP was already lower than its historical average going into the recession and today remains well below its historical average, as also shown in Figure 11.

Alternately, the explanation might be a reduction in investment spending due to technological progress—what economists would call a shift of the demand curve in the market for investment. However, this has largely manifested in lower prices (i.e., lower interest rates) rather than in lower quantities (i.e., lower investment) due either to very inelastic saving or a simultaneous increase in saving. Nevertheless, it is not at all clear based on the evidence to date that there has been a permanent reduction in gross investment as a share of the economy.

Lower interest rates themselves are somewhat at odds with the fact that the private return on capital has increased in the last few years—the basis of the second puzzle.

2. Why have the private returns to capital risen in recent years even as investment has not?

Business profits, cash flow, and the return to capital rebounded strongly in the recovery. Figure 12 shows the rebound in returns to capital since the crisis, now at a higher point than any time in recent decades.

Still, these favorable conditions have not translated into increased investment. Where, then, are the high profits going? From an economic perspective, an important part of the answer is the accelerator discussion above—research has consistently found that demand matters more for investment than cash flow. But this argument says nothing about the occurrence of high returns to capital in the first place.

From an accounting perspective, the mystery is resolved by dividends and share buybacks. Nonfinancial corporations are now returning nearly half of the funds that could be used for investment to stockholders, as shown in Figure 13. This is consistent with older firms returning more of their funds to stockholders than younger firms, as long-standing trends have resulted in a higher proportion of older firms relative to younger ones. The current share of funds being returned to stockholders, in the form of both dividends and share repurchases, has been trending higher for decades and remains at a high point compared with historical averages.

The increased preponderance of older firms might at least partially explain increased payouts to shareholders, but it does not explain the increased rate of return—or the fact that this increased rate of return coincides with a reduction in the risk-free rate. The answer to this conundrum may be found in the fact that one number—the aggregate return to capital—does not adequately reflect the profile of risks and rewards that individual businesses face as they make investment decisions. While aggregate returns have risen, they may be distributed more unequally or have a wider variance about them, reflecting riskier economic conditions.

Indeed, some evidence suggests that the distribution of returns to capital has grown increasingly skewed and the high returns increasingly persistent. This potentially reflects the rising influence of economic rents and barriers to competition, as some corporations make substantial returns year after year.

The distribution of equity returns among publicly traded corporations appears to have grown more skewed to the high end with time, as shown in Figure 14. While the mean return on equity across the S&P 500 is largely the same in both of the years shown, the distribution has skewed to the high end potentially reflecting more super-normal returns being earned by those firms at the high end of the distribution.

The return on invested capital shows a similar pattern of returns fanning out across the distribution of firms, suggesting that returns on capital have not been rising uniformly. To the extent economic rents are skewing the distribution, the aggregate return-on-capital figures might paint a misleading picture. However, like all the puzzles presented here, I am offering these observations more in the spirit of starting a conversation than of ending one.

3. Are we mis-measuring business investment?

A third puzzle is whether we are even measuring investment growth accurately. It is easy to measure the increase in nominal dollars spent on computers or robots, but measuring prices that account for improvements in the quality of these computers or robots is much harder. To the degree that quality is improving more quickly than is captured in the official statistics, then we are buying more and more computing or robot power each year—and real, price- and quality- adjusted investment is growing faster than in the official statistics. Moreover, this measurement problem would worsen in periods when actual innovation picks up with a more rapid introduction of new products or changes in business models.

Real investment, as measured in the official statistics, accelerated in the 1990s as the prices of investment goods decelerated, in part due to falling prices for high-tech investment goods, as shown in Figure 15. Official statistics now show modest increases in investment goods’ prices, though the increases may partly reflect difficulties in measuring quality improvements. If price increases had held steady (rather than rising), reported real investment growth would be higher now, other things equal. Economists have attempted to document some examples of this (Byrne, Oliner, and Sichel 2015). But it is unclear how widespread these examples are, whether there are counterexamples, and to what it extent it affects long-term trends.

The Stakes: Business Investment Growth and its Implications for the Future of Productivity Growth 

Two of the most important challenges in macroeconomics today are understanding the causes of the recent slowdown in global productivity and understanding its future outlook. In a recent speech, I argued that current trends in investment have played an important role in the lower growth rate of productivity (Furman 2015b). Historically, investment per worker-hour—referred to as capital intensity—has added nearly 1 percentage point to labor productivity growth, nearly matching the contributions of “total factor productivity” to total labor productivity growth. But since 2010, capital intensity has been a drag on productivity, as shown in Figure 16. Moreover, reduced capital deepening can account for two-thirds of the below average productivity growth in recent years. This is contrary to the usual historical pattern whereby the contributions of capital intensity to productivity growth are relatively constant across time while the major variations in labor productivity growth have been largely driven by variations in total factor productivity growth.

The optimistic view is that the headwinds to investment from the Great Recession have largely eased and investment is poised to return to its prior, stronger trend. Even years into the recovery, businesses had access to more capital services than the level of output would typically have required. The excess of capital suppressed new investment and helped lower capital services. Capital services are now back on trend as shown in Figure 17, one factor weighing toward a pick-up in investment. Any further increases in output are likely to be matched by stronger increases in investment than have occurred thus far during this expansion.

On the other hand, there are decades-long trends of less dynamism in the business sector which could suggest a shift in previous patterns of investment. The share of new firms among all firms—the startup rate—has trended down over the past decades, as shown in Figure 18.

The President’s Agenda to Increase the Quantity and Quality of Investment

This analysis and discussion motivates the President’s agenda for investment, an agenda whose goal is to increase both the quantity of investment and the quality of investment—focused on the complementary elements of public and private investment. The following section reviews steps that the President has already taken to support investment and lists some key elements of the agenda to encourage robust and high-quality investment going forward.

The first implication of this discussion is that strengthening the economy as a whole will act to increase investment through the accelerator mechanism discussed above. The most immediate step in this regard would be to relieve the sequester—a measure that was proposed in the President’s FY 2016 Budget and that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2015) estimates would add 0.4 percentage point to GDP growth in 2016.

Despite soaring levels of private R&D investment—which I discussed earlier—public R&D investment is at a historic low as a share of the economy. Since public R&D tends to focus on the “R” and private on the “D,” it is important for long-term productivity growth that both components remain robust—another reason it is essential to relieve the sequester and make the types of investments in research proposed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget. If, on the other hand, Congress enacted a full-year continuing resolution the result would be $1 billion less in funding than under the President’s Budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), translating into 1,300 fewer new grants, and also 1,000 fewer National Science Foundation (NSF) grants than under the President’s Budget.

Additional public infrastructure investment would complement private investment on both the demand side, by expanding the overall economy, and on the supply side, by boosting its rate of return and increasing its desirability. The Administration has proposed boosting surface transportation in the GROW Act. In addition, we are encouraging private infrastructure investment through the steps we have taken to streamline the permitting process—such as

enhancing the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard and releasing new guidance to Federal agencies establishing metrics for the permitting and environmental review of infrastructure projects. We have also taken steps to leverage private capital in infrastructure investment, including with the Build America initiative to encourage public-private collaboration.

One of the most direct tools to affect private investment is reforming our business tax system. A reformed system can be more neutral between different types of investment, financing of investment, and location of investment—all resulting in more capital being allocated to its highest returning projects rather than subjected to tax-influenced distortions. The President has proposed a framework that would cut the corporate rate to 28 percent, broaden and reform the tax base, and reduce opportunities for base erosion. However, we should not extend or make permanent bonus depreciation. Extending bonus depreciation, which was an effective temporary countercyclical measure, is no longer necessary and extending or making it permanent would add substantially to the deficit with little benefit for the broader economy.

Business tax reform would help ensure neutrality in the tax system, but some types of investment are particularly beneficial if they lead to greater innovation and spillovers of knowledge across firms. The President has also proposed expanding, reforming, and making permanent the Research and Experimentation tax credit, a step that would subsidize innovative activities undertaken in the United States on a going-forward basis. This measure would have substantially higher bang-for-the-buck than an innovation box, which would provide large windfall benefits for decisions that have already been made, highly profitable investments that would be pursued without additional tax incentive, and pure luck.
Steps to encourage innovative investment go beyond fiscal policy. The Administration has been focused on other measures to facilitate private investment, such as by freeing up spectrum so that it can be redeployed in higher-valued uses like mobile broadband—a critical catalyst for more business investment. In addition, sound regulatory policy can increase transparency and predictability for investment going forward. For example, the Administration has put forward emissions rules for vehicles that give automakers clear targets for future investment and innovation as well as flexibility in hitting these targets. In the electricity generation sector, the Clean Power Plan also provides a long-term roadmap that will encourage innovation in clean energy and conservation.

The Administration has been particularly focused on the manufacturing sector. Manufacturers have added nearly 900,000 jobs over 66 months. Moreover—as Gene Sperling has noted— manufacturing punches above its weight, with outsized contributions to exports, R&D, and investment. The Administration has continued to make targeted investments in advanced manufacturing—including initiatives to build U.S. leadership in cutting-edge manufacturing technologies through the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and linking small businesses to capabilities they need to compete through the White House Supply Chain Innovation Initiative; and linking manufactures to opportunities to bring production back to the United States.

Cutting across many of these areas, the analysis above has highlighted the multi-decade decline in new business formation and the potential implications that it has for business investment and innovation. The Administration supports a number of initiatives that help start-ups and small companies: gain access to capital with extensive lending facilities like the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) flagship 7(a) program; grow mentorship opportunities for entrepreneurs through small business development centers and women’s business centers; and increase export opportunities through the National Export Initiative/NEXT.

Investment is not only a domestic issue. Our businesses invest in order to export to foreign markets and there are substantial cross-border investment flows. The President is committed to opening up foreign markets to American goods, a step that would increase the return to making investments in the United States. Trade also has been shown to increase innovation by increasing competition and also through learning by exporting (Furman 2015a). The President’s trade agenda includes regional agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), as well as multilateral efforts through the World Trade Organization (WTO), including the WTO Information Technology Agreement, the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, the Trade in Services Agreement, and the Environmental Goods Agreement.

In addition, the Administration has sought to encourage more investment in the United States, including through the SelectUSA initiative, the first government-wide initiative to attract and retain job-creating business investment into the United States. This year, SelectUSA has assisted over 1,000 investment clients and helped generate more than $20 billion of investment and 9,300 jobs in the United States.

Ultimately, productivity growth is essential to raising middle-class incomes, crafting a sustainable budget, and building the long-term strength of our economy. Investment, in turn, is critical to productivity growth. There are a lot of exciting innovations at the cutting edge of businesses and research. There are important public policy steps we can take to capitalize on these developments, boosting both the quantity and the quality of private and public investment to lay the foundation for stronger growth in the future.

PPI Asia Trip Report

International engagement is integral to PPI’s mission of policy innovation, going back to the “third way” dialogues we helped to launch back in the 1990s. In addition to multiple visits to Brussels and other European capitals over the past several years, PPI went to Australia last summer to unveil a unique study of the App Economy” Down Under. Underscoring the value of such global outreach, the host for that July 2014 event, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, just became Australia’s Prime Minister. 

Extending our efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, we’ve just returned from a fascinating two-week foray to Japan, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Here’s a brief report on our trip, which centered on two new studies of the App Economy in Southeast Asia, as well as our work to support President Obama’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). 

It began on Sept. 7 (Labor Day) in Tokyo, where PPI’s traveling party was briefed by top officials of Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) on Japan’s priorities for the TPP negotiations, Among other things, we discussed TPP’s importance in supporting increased trade by small and mid-sized U.S. and Japanese firms, and we emphasized TPP’s critical role in promoting the cross border data flows on which the global economy increasingly depends.

 At the Ministry of Defense, we received a broad survey of regional security concerns, including China’s “creeping expansion” and island-building activities in the South China Sea. This briefing helped to provide context for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s controversial new security proposals, which are intended to allow Japan’s armed forces more latitude in joining mutual defense efforts in the region, including joint exercises with U.S. forces. 

 Energy also figured prominently in our talks. From directors of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy and Office for International Nuclear Energy Cooperation, we learned that the post-Fukushima shutdown of nuclear energy has left Japan importing an amazing 96 percent of its energy, leaving it hugely dependent on coal and Middle East oil. Little wonder that Japan is gradually bringing nuclear reactors back on line and trying to tilt its portfolio more toward natural gas and renewable solar and wind power. The United States could support these efforts by a key ally by lifting outdated restrictions on U.S. oil and gas exports. 

Other key meetings in Tokyo included a wide-ranging conversation on U.S.-Japan relations and the progress of “Abenomics” with the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), as well as a roundtable discussion with the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan on the investment climate in Japan, the government’s efforts to stimulate economic growth, and the attempts to stimulate innovation in regenerative medicine. 

PPI next traveled to Vietnam, a country in the throes of rapid economic development and modernization. In Ho Chi Minh City, we met with city officials eager to lower legal and regulatory barriers to foreign investors, as well as leaders of the city’s University of Technology and Education, an American-founded college that is trying to meet the economy’s insatiable demand for engineers and technicians. 

If Ho Chi Minh City is Vietnam’s business center, Hanoi is the seat of a government firmly controlled by the Communist Party. There, PPI released “Vietnam and the App Economy, a report by our chief economic strategist Michael Mandel. Using a methodology Mandel pioneered in measuring the number of U.S. app-related jobs since the introduction of the smartphone in 2007, the study shows that Vietnam ranks surprisingly high in app job growth – first, in fact, in Southeast Asia (including Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines). 

 The report warns, however, that new regulations under consideration – for example, a rule that would prohibit data from leaving Vietnam – could crimp the development of the country’s nascent digital sector. What’s more, the wisdom of a heavy state role in certain sectors, such as telecom and mobile broadband, was the subject of some very spirited discussions with our hosts. 

 PPI’s visit and Dr. Mandel’s report were well-received in the Vietnamese media, gaining positive coverage from the Vietnam News Agency, ICT News Vietnam, Vietnam Breaking NewsThe Voice of Vietnam, and VietnamPlus.

 PPI also released a second report, “TPP and the Benefits of Freer Trade for Vietnam: Some Lessons from U.S. Free Trade Agreements,” at an event organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi, which included leading Vietnamese economists and economic reformers. Written by Ed Gerwin, who directs PPI’s Trade and Global Opportunity project, the report shows how countries that use high-standard free trade agreements to enhance transparency and the rule of law, adopt higher labor and environmental standards, and make other key reforms often see significant growth in foreign investment, greater innovation, and broader participation in global commerce. Gerwin’s report garnered media coverage in The Hill and the Communist Party of Vietnam’s Online Newspaper.

 Our schedule also included meetings with top-level officials from Vietnam’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Information and Communication, and Science and Technology, as well as visits to Saigon Hi-Tech Park, the U.S. Embassy, Viettel Corporation, FPT Software, and Vietnam Silicon Valley.

 From Hanoi it was on to our final destination, Indonesia. At a packed public forum in Jakarta hosted by Mastel, an association of leading Indonesian and foreign companies, we released another Mandel study, “Indonesia: Road to the App Economy.” That was followed by a roundtable featuring top Indonesian government officials, business leaders and economists. PPI’s core premise – that emerging market economies, such as Indonesia, should not overlook possibilities for growth arising from the intangible, or data-driven economy, as well as traditional, labor-intensive manufacturing – sparked a lively discussion.

 The report and Dr. Mandel’s public comments were quoted in CNN Indonesia, Bisnis Indonesia (the leading business print newspaper in the country) (the number one online news outlet in Indonesia), and Kompas Online (the number one print newspaper by circulation).

The PPI delegation included Will Marshall, Michael Mandel, Lindsay Lewis, Cody Tucker, and Ed Gerwin. We will continue to find ways to engage on policy issues globally, as the new economy being fostered by U.S. innovation needs better international understanding and increased appreciation. We hope you will find the opportunity to join us in the coming year as we push for unique policy solutions at home and abroad.

PPI WEEKLY WRAP-UP: Taxing Broadband, China’s Currency Depreciation, & Innovation Struggles

TAXING BROADBAND: In a piece for Forbes on Thursday, PPI Senior Fellow Hal Singer argues against the FCC taxing broadband in order to subsidize it.

“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently proposed amending its low-income ‘Lifeline’ program—which provides a $9.25 per month credit for consumers of voice services—to permit recipients to apply that same subsidy instead to broadband services. Who could argue against increasing options for low-income Americans?

“Before critiquing the FCC’s proposal, it’s important to point out that expanding broadband access is a laudable goal. But financing this expansion through the Lifeline program will eventually lead to the perverse outcome of taxing broadband in order to subsidize it. Better to raise the funds for subsidized broadband from taxes imposed on behavior we want to discourage.”

CHINA’S CURRENCY DEPRECIATION: In a post on the PPI blog this week, Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel argues “that critics of China’s recent currency depreciation are missing the big picture. First, depreciation is a desperate measure which is a sign of the coming implosion of the Chinese economic model. Second, depreciation is a double-edged sword for China, because the Chinese export machine is heavily dependent on imported components that will rise in prices with depreciation. Third, the ultimate effect of a China economic implosion will be to send US interest rates and inflation soaring. Fourth, on the positive side, there may be an opportunity to rebuild the US manufacturing sector, if China’s economy is in turmoil. Fifth, the political implication is that presidential and other candidates should not expect a stable economy going into 2016, and a ‘crisis’ message may be needed.”

INNOVATION STRUGGLES: A new study by Mandel, “Where is Innovation Falling Short?: Using Labor Market Indicators to Map the Successful Innovation Frontier,” was highlighted this week in an article by Wall Street Journal chief economics commentator Greg Ip, “Beyond the Internet, Innovation Struggles.” The study was prepared for the Kauffman Foundation New Entrepreneurial Growth Conference, which took place in Amelia Island, Florida from June 17 to 19, 2015.

“In a new study, Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute notes that previous innovation waves straddled numerous disciplines: information processing, transportation, medicine, energy and materials.

“Where are the comparable advances in materials today? The Nobel prize was awarded in 1987 for the discovery of high-temperature superconductors—material that can carry electric current without resistance at temperatures above extreme cold. But as Mr. Mandel notes, few commercial superconductor applications are on the market. Nanotechnology—building materials out of microscopic particles—has found its way into tennis balls and odor-resistant fabrics but hardly measures up to steel or plastic in its breadth of uses.

“The staggering sums invested in biosciences haven’t yielded breakthroughs comparable to antibiotics in the 1930s and 1940s. The human genome was sequenced more than a decade ago. Yet as Mr. Mandel notes, there is still no approved gene therapy for sale.

“Quantifying innovation is difficult: Government statistics don’t adequately measure activities that only recently came into existence. Mr. Mandel circumvents this problem by surmising that innovation leaves its mark in the sorts of skills employers demand.

“His conclusion: Today’s economy is ‘unevenly innovative.’”

POLITICO: New Democrats plan ‘assertive’ new presence in House

The New Democrat Coalition sees opportunities this fall on taxes, trade, Medicare and others.
by Lauren French, POLITICO

In the hierarchy of the House, moderate Democrats — a minority in a party already deep in the minority — should be totally powerless.

But a group of pro-business Democrats, who allied with President Barack Obama and Republicans to pass landmark trade legislation, are angling to cut more deals with the GOP and White House as a way to assert themselves — and force the Democratic Caucus to the center.

Led by Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, the New Democrat Coalition of some 50 members sees opportunities this fall on taxes, trade, Medicare and government spending. Those are all areas where House Republicans have struggled to fashion 218-vote majorities from within their own party, with a cadre of restive conservatives often rejecting leadership’s compromises with Senate Democrats and Obama.

That leaves an opening for swing moderates to get legislation across the finish line.

“We need to reconstitute the center of American politics again, on both sides. That is a crucial role we have to play, especially when it comes to the economic message and what resonates in those competitive districts,” Kind said in a recent interview.

Moderates are tired of being overshadowed in a party where liberals have long dominated the agenda, even as Democrats slipped further into the House minority after the 2014 midterm elections. They’ve accused the White House and party leaders of focusing too much on niche economic issues like the minimum wage and pay equity — policies, moderates argue, that turn off suburban voters Democrats need if they want to take back the House. And top Democratic leaders have released them to break with the party’s liberal base, in many cases an acknowledgement that many moderates come from tightly contested districts.

Early returns have been positive.

When Obama needed support from his own party to pass landmark trade legislation, he turned to the New Democrat Coalition. The group mustered just enough votes — 28 in total — to clear fast-track trade authority through Congress, despite opposition from the party’s left, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. It was the latest — and most controversial — instance of the group flexing its muscles.

And now moderates are staking a claim to other economic polices normally dominated by Republicans. Reps. John Delaney of Maryland and Scott Peters of California introduced a “dynamic scoring” bill — an issue normally favored by Republicans — that would encourage budget scorekeepers to score tax cuts favorably to reevaluate how Congress spends money on infrastructure, research and education. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes is one of the most outspoken advocates for reforming the Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill, which he supports, and Delaney has worked to find common ground on foreign tax issues with both parties.

“There is a real opportunity to work with the administration and to work with the majority to try and get [our issues] done,” said California Rep. Ami Bera, a member of the group. “There is an appetite.”

Read More on POLITICO.

Does the FCC’s Open Internet Order Survive a Cost-Benefit Test? These 13 Economists Don’t Think So.

Yesterday, a stellar constellation of regulatory economists—including three economists affiliated with the Progressive Policy Institute—submitted an amicus brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, demonstrating that the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order failed a cost-benefit test.

How could this happen?

When proposing a remedy to address a perceived market failure, a regulatory agency may fail a cost-benefit test in three ways. First, the agency can overstate the benefits of its proposed remedy. Second, the agency can understate the costs of its proposed remedy.

Third, and a bit less obvious, the agency can ignore a less-restrictive alternative that would generate the same purported benefits but at a lower cost, thereby rendering its proposed remedy inefficient. For example, if the net benefits of a proposed remedy are $10 million per year, but a less-restrictive alternative generates net benefits of $15 million, then the proposal fails a cost-benefit test, even though the proposed remedy would have generated benefits in excess of costs.

The FCC committed all three errors in its Open Internet Order (OIO). As Chris Cillizza of the Post says in his recurring award for Worst Week in Washington, “Congrats, or something.”

The amicus brief explains in great detail how the FCC committed the first two errors.

In terms of overstating benefits, the OIO fails to consider that the profitability of (and thus the incentive to engage in) discriminatory conduct vis-à-vis content providers depends on whether the Internet service provider (ISP) could generate higher profits from the promoted (affiliated) products to cover the lost margins from departing broadband customers. The anticompetitive behavior feared by the Commission has simply not come to pass, which explains why the OIO is hard-pressed to cite any recent examples of consumer harm. A very limited number of service disruptions or degradations have actually occurred—among literally millions of opportunities for such behavior—and many of these have been dealt with expeditiously through private negotiations.

And in terms of understating costs, the OIO ignores or dismisses the economic evidence of the impact of Title II on investment in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and thereby dismisses the very real threat to ISP investment. Rather than ground its findings on economic scholarship, the OIO relies instead on the casual empiricism of an advocacy group that operates outside of the constraints of academic reputations, to reach the extraordinary conclusion that telco investment was “55 percent higher under the period of Title II’s application” than in the later period. These results hinge on which years are included in the Title II era: If one includes the years 1999 and 2000 as part of the pre-2005 period, then removal of Title II appears to have caused a decline in Bell investment. But those early years are associated with the boom and long-haul fiber glut, and it is difficult to remove Bell investments in backbone infrastructure from the capex figures.

The amicus brief spends less time on the third element of cost-benefit, largely due to a 4000-word limitation. So more on that here.

The OIO casually dismisses a less-restrictive alternative for handling paid priority disputes—namely, case-by-case enforcement—as being “too cumbersome” to enforce, despite the fact that: (1) the 2015 OIO itself embraces case-by-case review to address interconnection disputes and other conduct such as zero-rating; (2) the 2010 Open Internet Order embraced case-by-case to address paid priority disputes; (3) the FCC’s May 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would have permitted ISPs and content providers to engage in “individualized bargaining” subject to ex post review; and (4) the FCC relies upon case-by-case to adjudicate discrimination complaints against traditional video distributors. Why is this conduct different from all other conduct?

Recognizing this disparate treatment of paid priority and interconnection, the OIO argues that case-by-case enforcement “is an appropriate vehicle for enforcement where disputes are primarily over commercial terms and that involve some very large corporations. . . .” (paragraph 29). But interconnection disputes can involve small content providers as well. And if the concern is an asymmetry in litigation resources, the case-by-case regime can level the playing field by shifting evidentiary burdens and providing interim relief.

Indeed, the 2010 Open Internet Order considered and rejected a “flat ban” on paid priority in favor of a case-by-case approach; embracing the ban in 2015 presumably pushed the FCC towards its dreaded reclassification decision. This dramatic policy reversal begs the question: What happened in the intervening five years that caused the Commission to lose confidence in case-by-case adjudication for paid priority? The OIO does not give an answer.

It would seem that an overt and pronounced shift in regulatory policy would necessitate a clear and confident finding that such an alternative policy approach toward the Internet would produce better results—more innovation, more investment, and more consumer benefits. When viewed with an economic lens, the OIO fails a basic cost-benefit analysis.