This factoid (or as economist prefer "stylised fact") had become part of the armoury of those defending austerity. It is now officially nonsense.
The idea came from a paper by Reinhart and Rogoff, the authors of an acclaimed book on financial crises, This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
The paper has been criticised before, for example by Krugman , but now it is discredited. However I have always argued that the methodology, or the logic, was flawed. The two economists examined a vast dataset of countries with various levels of debt to GDP ratios. Here is how I explained the error of logic in an earlier post:
The paper simply slices the data into four sets where the debt ratio is below 30%, 30%-60%, 60%-90% and above 90% and then compares median and mean growth rates. So the 90% "threshold" is manufactured by the methodology. It does not emerge from the data.In other words they chose 90% and so cannot conclude that 90% is a threshold. As an error of logic it is known as petitio principii or begging the question or a circular argument. What if they had cut the date into 20 % chunks instead. Would we have had an 80% threshold or a 100% threshold?
Indeed looking at the footnotes of the original paper we find that the authors were aware of this problem, (although it didn't prevent them boldly stating their conclusion):
The four “buckets” encompassing low, medium-low, medium-high, and high debt levels are based on our interpretation of much of the literature and policy discussion on what is considered low, high etc debt levels. ... Sensitivity analysis involving a different set of debt cutoffs merits exploration ...At last, the notion of a threshold can be junked because of a mistake in a speadsheet. But don't let that put you off the book. It is in a different class altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment