Download Criticisms of Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply

Criticisms of Aggregate
Demand and Aggregate
Supply and Mankiw’s
Presentation
Review of Radical Political Economics
42(3) 308­–314
© 2010 Union for Radical
Political Economics
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0486613410377615
http://rrpe.sagepub.com
Fred Moseley1
Abstract
This paper argues that the standard AD-AS framework as presented in intermediate macro­
economic textbooks is (1) internally logically inconsistent and (2) empirically unrealistic. The
logical inconsistency is because the AD and AS curves represent two mutually exclusive theories
of the relation between output and the price level in the same economy. The empirical unreality
is that it assumes that, when there is excess supply, prices will fall, and furthermore, falling prices
will return the economy to full employment. Neither of these assumptions is valid for our
economy today. The paper focuses specifically on Mankiw’s presentation of AD-AS in his bestselling textbook.
JEL classification: A22, E10
Keywords
aggregate demand, aggregate supply, logically inconsistent, empirically unrealistic
The aggregate demand–aggregate supply (AD-AS) framework has dominated intermediate macroeconomics textbooks since the 1980s. However, there have been significant criticisms of the
AD-AS framework, beginning in the 1990s (Rao 1991, 1998, 2007; Colander 1995; Grieve 1996,
1998; Nevile and Rao 1996; Dutt 1997; Colander and Sephton 1998; Fields and Hart 1998). In
spite of these criticisms, the AD-AS framework has continued to dominate the textbooks, with
little or no response to these criticisms by the textbook authors.
This paper reviews the main criticisms of the AD-AS framework, using Gregory Mankiw’s
presentation of AD-AS in his best-selling textbook Macroeconomics as an example. Two main
criticisms will be discussed: logical inconsistency and lack of empirical realism.
1. Logical Inconsistency
The logical inconsistency between the AD curve and the short-run AS curve depends on the
specific nature of the AS curve. The derivations of the AD curve are all essentially the same.
1
Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA
Corresponding Author:
Fred Moseley, Economics, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
309
Moseley
There have been three main versions of the AS curve that I classify as: labor market, cost plus,
and sticky price. Due to space constraint, I will focus on the sticky price version of AS, because
that is the version that Mankiw emphasizes.1 I will first briefly review the derivation of the AD
curve from the ISLM model.
1.1 Derivation of AD
In ISLM theory, the main variable determined is the equilibrium quantity of output. According
to ISLM theory: (1) the equilibrium quantity of output is determined by aggregate expenditures;
(2) an adjustment to equilibrium output is assumed to take place by means of changes in the quantity of output produced, with the price level constant; and (3) an autonomous change of aggregate
expenditures has a “multiplier effect” on equilibrium output, because the initial change (e.g.
increase) of expenditures causes output to increase, which in turn increases income and (consumer) expenditure, etc.
The adjustment process from disequilibrium to equilibrium in the goods market is an essential
part of ISLM theory. It explains how the equilibrium output in ISLM theory is related to the real
world; there is a tendency for real world output to move toward this equilibrium value. When the
AD curve is derived from ISLM, the AD curve implicitly incorporates this adjustment process to
equilibrium as well.
The AD curve is then derived from the ISLM theory by analyzing the effect of a change in the
price level on the equilibrium quantity of output, as determined by the ISLM theory. There are
several different ways in which a change in the price level is supposed to have an inverse effect
on the ISLM equilibrium output: the Pigou effect on real consumer spending, the Keynes effect
on real investment spending, and the international effect on real net exports.
Thus we can see that the AD curve is not really a demand curve at all, but is instead an equilibrium output curve, which includes both the demand and the supply of output, as determined
by ISLM theory. Mankiw’s derivation of the AD curve is standard in all these respects.
1.2 “Sticky price” AS
In the “sticky price” version of AS, AS is not defined as a quantity of output (as it was originally),
but is instead defined as a price (the aggregate price level), which is a function of output. Instead
of output as a function of price (Y = f(P)), price is a function of output (P = f(Y)). Thus, it is very
misleading to call this price curve a “supply” curve, which commonly connotes a quantity of output. In addition, “equilibrium” and “disequilibrium” between AD and AS are meaningless in this
case because AD is a quantity and AS is a price.
In this sticky price version of AS, an unexpected change of output causes prices to change.
“Flexible price” competitive firms change prices quickly, but “sticky price” monopolistic firms
change prices more slowly, because of “menu costs” associated with changing prices.2 So the
price level depends on the level of output and the relative proportions of “flexible” and “sticky”
price firms in the economy.
1
See the longer version of this paper cited in footnote #1 and Grieve (2009) for a discussion of the logical
inconsistencies between the AD curve and the labor market version of the AS curve.
2
Mankiw’s prototypical example is restaurant menus (hence the name “menu costs”). But surely restaurant
menus are not typical of large manufacturing and service corporations today, who in this internet age can
change prices almost costlessly with the stroke of a few computer keys. Airlines seem to change prices
almost every day!
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
310
Review of Radical Political Economics 42(3)
However, this version of AS is logically inconsistent with the ISLM AD theory of output at
any price level other than the “equilibrium” price level (“equilibrium” here means merely the
point of intersection; it does not mean AD=AS), because these two theories conclude or assume
different combinations of output and price level would exist at the same time. For example, at a
higher than “equilibrium” P1, AD concludes that firms will produce a lower than “equilibrium”
Y(AD), and AS implies that the higher P is the result of a higher than “equilibrium” Y(AS). Output cannot be both lower and higher than the “equilibrium” output at the same price level.
1.3 Adjustment to “equilibrium”
Because of this logical inconsistency, the “sticky price” version of AS cannot provide a coherent
explanation of the adjustment process from “disequilibrium” to “equilibrium.” For example, with
a higher than “equilibrium” P, a return to “equilibrium” requires a reduction of P. But why would
P fall? Not because AS > AD because “AS >AD” is meaningless and cannot cause prices to fall.
According to this sticky price AS, P would fall only as a result of a fall in Y. However, according
to AD, Y would fall only if P increases.
Mankiw attempts to explain the adjustment process to an unexpected increase in aggregate
demand as follows, referring to Figure 13.2:
In the short run, the equilibrium moves from point A to point B. The increase of aggregate
demand raises the actual price level from P1 to P2. Because people did not expect this
increase in the price level, the expected price level remains at EP2, and output rises from
Y1 to Y2, which is above the natural level Ŷ. (387; emphasis added)
We can see that Mankiw assumes that the economy adjusts to “equilibrium” because the increase
of aggregate demand causes the price level to increase, which in turn causes the AS quantity of
output to increase.
However, this adjustment process to “equilibrium” is contradictory to the “sticky price”
model of AS. Mankiw’s adjustment process assumes that AS is a quantity of output, which is a
positive function of price, and thus that an increase of price causes the AS output to increase.
However, the “sticky price” model assumes the opposite relation between price and output: that
AS is a price level, which is a function of output. Therefore, the adjustment process in the “sticky P”
model cannot work by means of a price increase causing an increase of AS output, as described
by Mankiw.
2. Lack of Empirical Realism – Deflation
Even if these fundamental logical problems could somehow be resolved, another important criticism of the AD-AS theory is that it is empirically unrealistic. The main unrealistic features of
AD-AS are: (1) it assumes that prices fall, if either AS is greater than AD in a situation of SR
disequilibrium, or the SR equilibrium output is less than the full employment “natural” level of
output. In what follows, I will focus on the second case, since that case has received the most
attention in the textbooks and has the more important implications. (2) Furthermore, and more
importantly, the AD-AS theory also assumes that this decline of the price level is good for the
economy, i.e. it would increase AD and the economy would return to the full employment equilibrium price level and quantity of output, with only minor difficulties.
Both of these two assumptions are extremely unrealistic. In the first place, prices hardly ever
fall anymore; the last time the price level fell in the United States was in 1955, and then only a
tiny bit. And yet the level of output has been less than the full employment natural output for
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
311
Moseley
most of the post-World War II period! Therefore, a theory that assumes that {Y < full employment Y} causes prices to fall has a serious disconnect with contemporary economic reality.
Even more importantly, even if prices were to fall, this “deflation” would not increase AD and
would not provide an unproblematic return to full employment output, but would instead be a
disaster, especially for a heavily indebted economy, such as the U.S. economy. Falling prices
would increase the real debt burden of borrowers, which would increase delinquencies and bankruptcies, which in turn would cause a financial crisis and a significant reduction of AD (both C
and I). Thank goodness that prices do not fall as AD-AS theory predicts! If prices did fall, we
would really be in trouble. A theory that concludes that falling prices will provide an unproblematic return to full employment equilibrium has an even more serious disconnect with reality than
the assumption of falling prices itself. Deflation is the greatest fear of most macroeconomists
today, and yet macroeconomists still continue to teach the AD-AS model, with the same old
unrealistic conclusions about the positive effects of deflation.
Graphically, this “bankruptcy effect” of deflation would reduce AD (both C and I) and make
the AD curve positively sloped, rather than negatively sloped. The negative slope of the conventional AD curve is due to the Keynes effect (lower real rate of interest → higher investment
spending) and (perhaps) to the Pigou effect (higher real balances → higher consumer spending).
However, these two effects are likely to be small (especially the Pigou effect) and overwhelmed
by the “bankruptcy effect” of deflation on both investment spending and consumer spending.
An important implication of an upward-sloping AD curve is that there is no automatic adjustment to full employment output, even in the long run. According to AD-AS theory, the SR equilibrium output can be less than the natural output only if the actual price level is lower than
expected price level. In this case, the expected price level is supposed to decrease and adjust to
the new actual price level, which shifts the AS curve to the right. The rightward shift of the AS
curve creates an excess supply at the original SR equilibrium price level, which is supposed to
cause the price level to fall. The fall in the price level in turn is supposed to increase AD (C and I),
which is supposed to generate a downward movement along a negatively sloped AD curve, until
the economy returns to LR equilibrium at the full employment natural output. However, if the
AD curve is positively sloped, then a rightward shift of the AS curve results in a reduction of the
short-run equilibrium output, rather than an increase, and the economy moves further away from
the full employment output, rather than moving closer toward it.
Mankiw discusses deflation in three places in the book. The first discussion is in the introductory chapter 9, which assumes a horizontal AS curve. It is assumed that the economy is
initially in long-run equilibrium, and then assumes a reduction of AD (the AD curve shifts to the
left). The economy adjusts to a new short-run equilibrium with lower output and the same price
level, and Mankiw concludes:
Over time, in response to low demand, wages and prices fall. The gradual reduction in the
price level moves the economy downward along the aggregate demand curve to point C,
which is the new long run equilibrium. (269-70; emphasis added; see Figure 9-12)
There is no mention here of possible negative effects of deflation on debtors and AD, etc.
Mankiw’s second discussion of deflation is at the end of section 11-2 (in which the AD curve
is derived), in the context of a discussion of the key difference between Keynesian theory and
classical theory (fixed prices vs. flexible prices). The example assumes that the initial short-run
equilibrium output is below the natural level, and as a result the price level falls. The price decline
eventually causes a downward movement along the AD curve (i.e. the ISLM equilibrium output
increases) and output returns to its full employment level. Mankiw concludes:
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
312
Review of Radical Political Economics 42(3)
Eventually, the low demand for goods and services causes prices to fall, and the economy
moves back toward its natural rate. (316; emphasis added; see Figure 11-7)
Again, there is no mention here of any possible difficulties caused by deflation.
Finally, toward the end of section 11-3 (on the Great Depression), there is a more extensive
and more important discussion of deflation, which acknowledges possible difficulties:
From 1929 to 1933 the price level fell 25 percent. Many economists blame this deflation
for the severity of the Great Depression. They argue that the deflation may have turned
what in 1931 was a typical economic downturn into an unprecedented period of high
unemployment and depressed income. (321; emphasis added)
The statement that many economists blame deflation for the Great Depression must come as a
surprise to students, who have been taught in previous chapters (and in previous courses) that
deflation is an effective means for the economy to return to full employment (which is indeed a
key premise of the whole AD-AS theory).
Mankiw first discusses the usual “stabilizing effects of deflation” – the Keynes effect and the
Pigou effect – which increase AD (i.e. moves the economy downward along the AD curve). Then
Mankiw goes on to discuss, for the first and only time in the book, the possible “destabilizing
effects of deflation.” The first destabilizing effect is the “debt-deflation theory,” according to
which deflation redistributes income from debtors to creditors, which in turn reduces the overall
marginal propensity to consume (because creditors have a higher propensity to consume than
debtors). Another destabilizing effect of deflation discussed by Mankiw is that expected deflation increases the real rate of interest, which in turn reduces investment spending. However,
Mankiw does not mention the “bankruptcy effect,” which is the most serious destabilizing effect
of deflation. Nor does Mankiw discuss the important question of the likely net effect of the stabilizing and destabilizing effects of deflation on AD and the possibility of a positively sloped AD
curve, which implies that deflation would not provide a return to full employment “natural”
output, even in the long run.
Mankiw concludes this section by asking “Could the Great Depression happen again?” His
answer is “unlikely,” and the main reason is that the Fed would not allow a reduction of the money
supply, which implies that deflation is not very likely. What are students supposed to think now?
The main conclusion of AD-AS theory is that deflation is an effective way to return to full employment, but Mankiw is confident that another Great Depression will not happen again, because the
Fed would never allow another deflation! Implicitly, it appears that Mankiw agrees that deflation
would be bad for the economy; indeed, deflation might cause another Great Depression!
This conclusion undermines the whole AD-AS framework, and especially the assumption that
a price decline results in a downward movement along a stable AD curve, until output returns to
its full employment natural level. Instead, these destabilizing effects could lead to “an unprecedented period of high unemployment and depressed income.”
3. Conclusion
Mankiw concludes part 4 of his textbook (on short-run fluctuations) as follows:
If you find it difficult to fit all the pieces together, you are not alone. The study of aggregate
supply remains one of the most unsettled – and therefore the most exciting – research areas
in macroeconomics. (401; emphasis added)
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
313
Moseley
I argue that the reason why so many students (and professors as well) “find it difficult to fit
all the pieces together” is that the pieces do not fit together logically! The pieces – the AD and
AS curves – are mutually contradictory. It is not only that the theory of AS is unsettled, but more
fundamentally that all the theories of AS are logically inconsistent with the ISLM theory of AD
with which it is combined. In addition, AD and AS are defined in confusing and misleading
ways. The fact that students “find it difficult” is a good sign, not a bad sign. It is not a sign
that students are not smart enough for the theory, but rather that the theory has serious logical
problems, and that students are smart enough to have an intuition about these problems, even
though they usually cannot fully identify and articulate them.3
In addition to these logical inconsistencies, the static AD-AS theory is based on the unrealistic
assumptions that output less than full employment natural output causes prices to fall, and that
this deflation would be a good thing for the economy. The current economic crisis has revealed
with dramatic clarity the falseness of these assumptions, especially the positive effects of deflation on AD. Rather than continue to make these unrealistic assumptions, macro theory should be
primarily about the rate of inflation (rather than the price level), and should analyze in depth the
positive and negative effects of deflation, including especially the effects on debtors.
A full discussion of alternatives to AD-AS for intermediate macro textbooks is beyond the
scope of this limited paper, but (very briefly) my own alternative would be essentially to return
to the ISLM model to explain output, plus an improved Phillips curve to explain inflation
(augmented with inflationary expectations, supply shocks, etc., and without a “natural rate of
unemployment”).4 The ISLM + Phillips curve theory has its own weaknesses (mainly the absence
of debt and profit as variables, and these could be added), but at least it is logically consistent,
and can explain the adjustment process from disequilibrium to equilibrium, and does not assume
that deflation will eliminate unemployment.
In sum, I think the current economic crisis is both a sufficient reason and an opportune time
to jettison the logically inconsistent and empirically unrealistic AD-AS framework altogether
from intermediate macroeconomics textbooks. AD-AS was a pedagogical experiment that failed.
Let us acknowledge that failure and move on, and search for better alternatives.
Author’s Note
A longer version of this paper is available at: http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/conference/program/retrieve
.php?pdfid=82.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Colander, D. 1995. The stories we tell: A reconsideration of ASAD analysis. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (3): 169–188.
3
One is reminded of Colander’s “precocious student,” who asks probing questions about the inconsistencies
between the ISLM model and the AD-AS model, and does not receive good answers from the professor, and
decides to switch to another major (1995: 174-76).
4
See the longer version of this paper cited in footnote #1 for further discussion of my suggested alternative.
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
314
Review of Radical Political Economics 42(3)
Colander, D., and P. Sephton. 1998. Acceptable and unacceptable dirty pedagogy: The case of ADAS. In
Aggregate demand and supply: A critique on orthodox macroeconomic modeling, ed. B. B. Rao.
Dutt, A. 1997. On an alleged inconsistency in AS/AD analysis. Eastern Economic Journal 23 (4): 469-75.
Grieve, R. 1996. Aggregate demand, aggregate supply, a Trojan Horse and a Cheshire Cat. Journal of Economic Studies 23: 64-82.
———. 1998. The ADAS model: Two into one won’t go. In Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of
orthodox macroeconomic modeling, ed. B. B. Rao.
———. 2009. Two into one won’t go: A critical view of the popular AD/AS model. http://www.aeaweb.
org/aea/conference/program/retrieve.php?pdfid=92.
Fields, T. W., and W. Hart. 1998. Theoretical inconsistencies in the ADAS model: Can the model be rehabilitated? In Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of orthodox macroeconomic modeling, ed. B. B. Rao.
Mankiw, G. 2009. Macroeconomics, 7th ed. New York: Worth.
Nevile, J. W., and B. Rao. 1996. The use and abuse of aggregate demand and supply functions. The Manchester
School 64 (2): 189–207.
Rao, B. B. 1991. What is the matter with aggregate demand and supply? Australian Economic Papers 30 (57):
264-77.
———. ed. 1998. Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of orthodox macroeconomic modeling. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
———. 2007. The nature of the ADAS model based on the ISLM model. Cambridge Journal of Economics
31: 413-22.
Bio
Fred Moseley is Professor of Economics at Mount Holyoke College, editor of Marx’s Theory of Money:
Modern Appraisals (2004), and author of numerous other books and articles on Marxian theory. He is
co-coordinator of the URPE sessions at the annual ASSA meetings, 2007 to present.
Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016