Lacker: gran parte del desempleo es estructural

Genevieve Signoret & Patrick Signoret

En un discurso el lunes, el presidente de la Fed de Richmond y miembro votante de la FOMC Jeffrey Lacker explicó por qué cree que una parte significativa del desempleo en EE UU es estructural y no cíclica. En consecuencia, no cree que la Fed deba llevar a cabo más estímulo monetario para reducir la tasa de desempleo. (La Fed de Atlanta, en su macroblog, vincula a varias perspectivas y análisis alternativos sobre este tema, incluyendo este de Brad DeLong.)

Jeffrey Lacker (negritas son nuestras):

Many economists have tried to determine the extent to which elevated unemployment reflects a broad deficiency in spending, which presumably could be offset through monetary policy stimulus or instead reflects changes in economic fundamentals, such as the decline of certain industries, changing technologies or demographic shifts. Sometimes the former is referred to as “cyclical unemployment,” and the latter is referred to as “structural unemployment.” But these terms can be quite misleading because cyclical downturns are often associated with substantial shifts across economic sectors. Indeed, the proximate cause of the last recession was a collapse in residential construction and related industries, which have yet to recover and are unlikely to recover fully anytime soon, given the substantial remaining overhang in housing inventory. The broader point to bear in mind is that recoveries are not always the mirror image of the contraction that preceded them.

While quantifying the contributions to unemployment of structural economic factors versus spending is quite difficult, our sense is that structural factors are playing a considerable role. As I mentioned earlier, we have heard from a number of employers who are having trouble hiring, despite the large pool of unemployed workers, and surveys by other Reserve Banks have reported this same finding. This suggests that there is some degree of “mismatch” between the skills demanded by employers and the skills available in the pool of potential workers.

This mismatch argument is not based solely on anecdotes, though. One broad quantitative measure of mismatch comes from what’s called “the Beveridge curve,” which refers to the relationship between unemployment and vacancies. […] At present, however, both the unemployment and vacancy rates are relatively high, which suggests that unemployed workers are not finding jobs as rapidly as usual, despite the large number of open positions. This apparent outward shift in the Beveridge curve suggests that labor markets have become less effective at matching workers and vacancies. Empirical estimates suggest that this reduced efficiency could account for between ½ and 1-½ percentage points of unemployment.

[…]What does the preceding discussion suggest about possible policy responses to current labor market conditions? One standard option is to increase unemployment insurance benefits in order to offset households’ loss of purchasing power. […] It’s worth pointing out, however, that as beneficial as such insurance programs can be, they also can affect the incentives to look for work or accept employment offers. Thus, they may actually increase the unemployment rate and the duration of unemployment. […] Recent estimates suggest that between 0.8 and 1.7 percentage points of elevated unemployment may be attributable to extended unemployment benefit programs.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the effects of unemployment insurance benefits together with the effects of labor market inefficiencies could plausibly account for a quite substantial portion of our elevated unemployment rate. […]. We shouldn’t necessarily assume these effects are additive, but combining all three together yields a range of 2.9 to 5.9 percentage points, which is sizable relative to the increase in the total unemployment rate of 5-½ percentage points during the recession.

Another option is accommodative monetary policy in an effort to boost aggregate spending. The Fed has kept its target for the federal funds rate at between zero and 25 basis points since the end of 2008 and has engaged in a variety of asset purchase programs in an effort to provide additional stimulus to the economy. Some commentators are urging the Fed to take additional action as long as the unemployment rate remains elevated. But if elevated unemployment reflects largely fundamental factors rather than insufficient spending, such stimulus might have little impact on unemployment and instead just raise the risk of pushing inflation up.

The notion that skills mismatch is constraining labor market improvements suggests a third policy approach: investing in job training and education. While perhaps not a quick resolution to the current unemployment problem, I believe such investments are likely to yield greater benefits for both workers and the economy as a whole than efforts aimed at providing short-term stimulus.