Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

CHRIS WATTIE/Chris Wattie/Reuters

We've known for a long time now that the federal government has a structural deficit -- that is, a deficit that will not go away when the recession does. As far as I can make out, the proximate cause is the Conservatives' decision to cut two percentage points from the GST, which reduced revenues by about $12-billion a year. But since no federal party dares suggest that this cut should be reversed, the debate has been reduced to cutting federal spending versus tax increases that won't actually do much to increase revenues. The Conservative government has been signalling its preference for spending cuts, and we can probably expect some sort of austerity program in the next budget. But is now the right time?

As far as partisan political considerations go, the government's answer must surely be "yes". The time to implement unpopular measures is the first year of a government's mandate. Voters' memories being what they are, pain inflicted in the spring of 2012 will likely be long forgotten by the fall of 2015.



Even so, getting the economic timing right is at least as important. Many pundits around the world have pointed to the remarkable success of the Chrétien-Martin budgets of the mid-1990s -- in which a federal deficit of 4.8 per cent of GDP was turned into a surplus in the space of three years -- and concluded that deficits can be eliminated with little cost. But as the Conservative/Liberal-Democrat U.K. coalition government is finding out, austerity imposed at the wrong point of the business cycle can make a bad situation much worse.

Story continues below advertisement



One of the most important features to remember of the 1990s budgets is that austerity was imposed after the economy had recovered from recession. Cuts in public-sector employment were more than compensated by job creation in the private sector.



The U.K. austerity program clearly fails this test: cuts were implemented while private-sector employment was still 2 per cent below its pre-recession peak, and it has yet to recover. And recovery in U.S. private-sector employment is still several years away. Worse still, governments in the U.K. and the U.S. have actually reduced public-sector employment during the recession.



The Canadian situation is very different: private-sector employment recovered its pre-crisis peak last June, and public-sector employment has grown during the recession. In this respect, the Harper government is at least as well-positioned to implement austerity as was the Chrétien government.



But there are still two important differences. In the mid-1990s, the Bank of Canada was able to counter the contractionary effects of fiscal austerity by cutting interest rates by 5 percentage points. Even though the cuts we might expect of this government are likely to be much smaller than in the 1990s, the Bank of Canada has almost no room to accommodate a significant fiscal contraction.



The other is the ever-present risk that the euro zone debt problems might produce a financial crisis comparable to the one we saw in the autumn of 2008. Indeed, it is this risk that is largely responsible for the Bank of Canada's reluctance to increase interest rates even as the Canadian economy moves out of recession.



If the Conservatives do implement an austerity budget this spring, it will be based on three premises:



1) The cuts will be much less severe than in 1995-1996.

Story continues below advertisement

2) The euro zone debt crisis will not bring down global financial markets.

3) The Bank of Canada will be able to use monetary policy to offset the effects of a modestly contractionary fiscal policy.



These may be reasonable assumptions to make. We'll soon find out of the federal government is comfortable using them as the basis for policy.



For more of Stephen Gordon's recent posts, click here.



Economy Lab, winner of the 2011 Eppy Award for best business blog. Follow Economy Lab on twitter



Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies