Rules for America's Road to Recovery

By JOHN B. TAYLOR, WSJ

America's economic future is increasingly uncertain. In my view, unpredictable economic policy—massive fiscal "stimulus" and ballooning debt, the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing with multiyear near-zero interest rates, and regulatory uncertainty due to ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms—is the main cause of persistent high unemployment and our feeble recovery from the recession.

A reform strategy built on more predictable, rules-based fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies will help restore economic prosperity. That will be a daunting task, of course, but as they undertake the necessary changes, reformers should pay close attention to what the great economist and philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek wrote in the middle years of the last century.

Hayek argued that the case for rules-based policy goes beyond economics and should appeal to all those concerned about assaults on freedom. He wrote in his classic 1944 book, "The Road to Serfdom," that "nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law."

Hayek added, "Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."

Rules-based policies make the economy work better by providing a predictable policy framework within which consumers and businesses make decisions. But they also protect freedom, a concept Hayek developed in his 1960 book, "The Constitution of Liberty."

Enlarge Image

David Gothard

Hayek traces the relationship of the rule of law to freedom back to Aristotle, and then to Cicero, about whom he wrote, "No other author shows more clearly . . . that freedom is dependent upon certain attributes of the law, its generality and certainty, and the restrictions it places on the discretion of authority." Hayek also quotes from the Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke, the father of classical liberalism who had a profound influence on America's Founding Fathers: "The end [meaning the purpose] of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom . . . where there is no law, there is no freedom."

Hayek understood that a rules-based system has a dual purpose—freedom and prosperity. Thus the needed reforms in America today—and in any society overburdened by government intervention—are supported by two constituencies: those focused on freedom and those focused on prosperity.

But skeptics ask how a system of policy rules can work when politicians and government officials want to "do something" to help the economy or feel public pressure to do so. A rules-based system with less discretion sounds good in theory, they say, but rules mean you do nothing, and that is impossible in today's charged political climate and 24-hour news cycle.

Hayek had an answer to this. In "The Road to Serfdom" he wrote that it was wrong to say that the "characteristic attitude [of a rules-based system] is inaction of the state" and presented a counter example to this common view, saying that "the state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud or deception in any other way) is certainly acting."

Consider other examples. Rules for monetary policy do not mean that the central bank does not change the instruments of policy (interest rates or the money supply) in response to events, or provide loans in the case of a bank run. Rather they mean that they take such actions in a predictable manner.

But in the years immediately preceding the 2008 financial crisis, monetary policy deviated from the more predictable rules-based policy that worked in the 1980s and '90s—i.e., the Federal Reserve held rates too low for too long. Moreover, government regulators did not enforce existing rules on risk-taking at banks and other financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then came the discretionary stimulus packages and exploding debt, the regulatory unpredictability associated with ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, which includes hundreds of rules still waiting to be written, and the unprecedented quantitative easing through which the Federal Reserve bought 77% of new federal debt in 2011.

The U.S. tax code has become particularly unpredictable. The number of provisions expiring has skyrocketed to 133 in 2010-12 from 11 in 2000-02. And now the epitome of unpredictable policy is upon us in the form of a self-inflicted "fiscal cliff" where virtually the entire tax code will be up for grabs by the end of this year.

It is deviation from a rule or a strategy that creates uncertainty and hinders prosperity. Thus, regulators who decide not to act when financial institutions take on risk beyond the limits of the rules and regulations are not being faithful to the law and indeed to the rule of law.

What can citizens do to achieve a more rules-based system? Here Hayek issued a warning. In a chapter in "The Road to Serfdom" called "Why the Worst Get on Top," he argued that there is a bias against individuals in government who firmly believe in rules-based policy. People who have the ambition to get to the top frequently have a bias toward discretionary interventionism, whether motivated by the desire to capture regulatory agencies on behalf of clients, advance the interests of cronies or indeed simply to position themselves for further career advancement later on.

Those who benefit directly from interventions will work hard to make sure that officials who favor discretionary activism advance. Firms in the financial industry, for example, that benefit from a bailout mentality will favor officials who are comfortable with bailouts. Perhaps the answer is to find people who are "overcommitted" to rules-based policy. Then, after all the inevitable pressures and perverse incentives, they may emerge with a sensible balance.

Some will claim, of course, that crises force policy makers to deviate from predictable rules. One can argue that bailouts and other discretionary interventions were needed during the panic of the fall of 2008, and perhaps they prevented a more serious panic. But that is like saying that the person who set fire to your house should be exonerated because he helped put out the fire and saved a few rooms.

Mr. Taylor is professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His book, "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America's Prosperity" (Norton 2012), was awarded the 2012 Hayek prize by the Manhattan Institute. This op-ed is adapted from his Hayek Prize Lecture delivered on May 31.

Economics for the Long Run

By JOHN B. TAYLOR, WSJ

Individuals should be free to decide what to produce and consume, and their decisions should be made within a predictable policy framework based on the rule of law

As this election year begins, a lot of people are wondering what we can do to restore America's prosperity and create more jobs. Republican presidential candidates are offering their ideas, and at his State of the Union message on Tuesday President Obama presented his. I believe the fundamental answer is simple: Government policies must adhere more closely to the principles of economic freedom upon which the country was founded.

At their most basic level, these principles are that families, individuals and entrepreneurs must be free to decide what to produce, what to consume, what to buy and sell, and how to help others. Their decisions are to be made within a predictable government policy framework based on the rule of law, with strong incentives derived from the market system, and with a clearly limited role for government.

The history of American economic policy displays major movements between more and less economic freedom, more and less emphasis on rules-based policy in fiscal and monetary affairs, more and less expansive roles for government, more and less reliance on markets and incentives. Each of these swings has had enormous consequences. Taken together, they make for a historical proving ground to determine which policy direction is better for restoring prosperity.

A big move toward more interventionist policies started in the mid-1960s, after more activist Keynesian economists came to town in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and it lasted through the 1970s in the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. We saw short-term stimulus packages, temporary tax rebates or surcharges, go-stop monetary policy with inflationary overexpansion followed by severe contraction, wage-and-price guidelines and controls. The eventual result was high unemployment, high inflation and slow economic growth.

This was followed by a shift toward more predictable policies and a more limited role for government starting in the Reagan administration and largely continuing into the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. The result was lower unemployment and higher economic growth with long expansions and few recessions.

More recently—beginning during the George W. Bush administration but really taking wings in the current Obama administration—policy has returned toward more and more government intervention, with results we are all experiencing.

How to move the country back toward the policies that sustain economic freedom and prosperity? To start, much can be learned from the stories of the politicians and economic officials who got us in and out of these messes, and remembering that the cast is bipartisan. Most pertinent to our current predicament is the story of how we got out of the economic mess of the late 1970s.

It's difficult to recall now the seriousness of the U.S. economic slump at that time. Unemployment was high and persistent. Inflation had increased past the creeping stage to a trot. Confidence in U.S. economic leadership was plunging at home and abroad.

That changed when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. Temporary, short-term Keynesian actions and interventions were out. Stable, permanent policy was in. Reagan proposed and Congress passed critical long-term reforms, especially across-the-board tax rate reductions.

The president was a firm believer in economic freedom, an avid reader and follower of economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Between the time he failed to unseat President Gerald Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries and his announcement to run again in 1980, Reagan gave innumerable radio addresses putting forth his principles. He used down-home stories of economic freedom that he could tell in three minutes or less. There were no ghost writers—he wrote his stories in long hand on lined yellow paper as he traveled around the country. The failed policies of the 1970s made Reagan's case appealing across the political spectrum. He based his winning election campaign on these principles.

Reagan appointed a large number of economic officials who also were firmly committed to moving away from interventionist policies. No members of the original Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan had come from the Keynesian school of thought, and most of them during the Reagan administrations were influenced by Milton Friedman.

In addition, the president appointed a group of outside economic advisers—originally including George Shultz, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer, William Simon and Thomas Sowell—who helped him and others in the administration implement policies to move the country toward economic freedom and then stay the course.

As an example of Reagan's firm commitment to principle, consider monetary policy. When he became president, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, a Democrat appointed by President Carter, was determined to reduce inflation and end the go-stop interventions of the 1970s. That meant temporarily high interest rates, which contract the economy. One might have expected Reagan to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates to give a short-term boost to the economy. He did not, despite the political costs. In comparison with the political pressure put on Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin by the Johnson administration and on Arthur Burns by the Nixon administration to follow easy money policies, Reagan's decision to support Mr. Volcker was remarkable.

The president's economic strategy was ready to go as soon as the votes were counted in November 1980. That same month, George Shultz, along with many of the economists who had worked in the campaign, wrote an extraordinary memo to Reagan entitled "Economic Strategy for the Reagan Administration." It began with a call for action: "Sharp change in present economic policy is an absolute necessity. The problems . . . an almost endless litany of economic ills, large and small, are severe. But they are not intractable. Having been produced by government policy, they can be redressed by a change in policy. . . . The need for a long-term point of view is essential to allow for the time, the coherence and the predictability so necessary for success."

That predictable, long-term view continued well beyond the Reagan presidency, but it is no longer with us. The clear lesson is to find and select those leaders, regardless of political party, who along with their advisers are most firmly committed to the principles of economic freedom and who know how to implement and maintain them.

Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. This op-ed is adapted from "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring American Prosperity," published this week by W.W. Norton.