Can surpluses lead to lower interest rates?

The Federal Government is continuing its pre-budget surplus sell, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard directly linking its plans to return the budget to surplus to lower interest rates. Gillard will use a speech in Perth today to call on businesses to support it’s surplus strategy, saying it gives the…

Hrhgjjpn-1334804191
Political, rather than economic: economists say there is no direct link to surpluses and lower interest rates. AAP

The Federal Government is continuing its pre-budget surplus sell, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard directly linking its plans to return the budget to surplus to lower interest rates.

Gillard will use a speech in Perth today to call on businesses to support it’s surplus strategy, saying it gives the RBA “room to move” on interest rates.

But is there a direct link to be made between surpluses and lower interest rates? The Conversation asked three economists.

Graham White, Senior Lecturer, School of Economics at University of Sydney

The short answer is there is no economic argument there. This would be the economic argument the government has put up in response to claims that it’s goal of a budget surplus is purely political, but the connection between the budget balance and the level of interest rates is at best tenuous. And that’s putting the glossiest version on it.

Interest rates for a start depend largely on what the Reserve Bank is doing and they’ve got their eye on inflation, so the only way the surplus could influence interest rates on that score is if it could influence what the Reserve Bank thinks might be happening with inflation. And that’s a real long shot.

Any influence on inflation comes down to whether the government is stimulating the economy or whether it’s slowing expenditure out of the economy. That may influence economic activity and perceptions by the RBA about inflation and what they might do about interest rates. But that’s not the same as the budget balance.

The budget balance might reflect what the government is doing in a discretionary way – whether it is deliberately increasing expenditure or what have you, or deliberating decreasing expenditure and increasing taxes – but it depends on a lot of other things, such as the way the economy is moving. The budget balance is never completely under the government’s control.

Tim Battin, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, School of Humanities at University of New England

There is no empirical or conceptual basis on which one can claim any strong or direct connection between deficits or surplus on the one hand and higher or lower interest rates on the other. That’s especially the case when we’re in the situation we’re now in, where broadly speaking the economic conditions should dictate to a government that they need to be very, very careful about moving the economy out of deficits too quickly.

Many economists would agree that it is very clear that we need to continue with deficits for the time being, and others would certainly be at least very wary about being too gung ho about a surplus.

The evidence of any indirect link (between surpluses and interest rates) that some people cite is mixed – if anything, it’s really the debt burden that matters, not deficits from year-to-year. Australia’s debt burden is low.

As we learnt during the global financial crisis – and as the wiser economists have been telling us years before that – governments need to engage in counter-cyclical demand management, which in common language means being willing to spend when there is a need to do so. That’s going to happen from time to time. It really is quite puzzling from one angle to look at the government being panicked towards moving to a surplus, when there is no need for it – to say the least – and when it may be quite harmful.

Sinclair Davidson, Professor of Institutional Economics at RMIT University

It is possible that a surplus will deliver lower interest rates but unlikely. If we think back to the early years of this century, the Howard government delivered surplus after surplus, yet interest rates rose on average.

It is possible to argue that interest rates were lower than than they otherwise would have been, but we should be wary of a mechanistic understanding of interest rates. At the same time the government should be applauded for their determination to bring the budget into surplus.

Join the conversation

7 Comments sorted by

  1. Dave Smith

    Energy Consultant

    I don't understand these positions. It is generally agreed by macroeconomists that lower interest rates and/or higher government spending will stimulate the economy. So, other things being equal and to maintain macroeconomic stability, if there is less of one there must be more of the other. If the government cuts spending to create a surplus, the resulting downturn in the economy will cause the RBA to reduce rates.

    Howard/Costello, of course, did the opposite: cutting taxes to minimise the surplus. That is why interest rates rose.

    report
    1. Bruce Tabor

      Research Scientist at CSIRO

      In reply to Dave Smith

      Dave,
      What they are is "...the connection between the BUDGET BALANCE and the level of interest rates is at best tenuous". This is contrary to the argument often put by politicians that government borrowing crowds out the loan market and forces up interest rates, which is just nonsense.

      On the other hand it is true that if the level of government spending is expansionary or contractionary (to a significant degree) it will have an effect on the economy and ultimately lead to Reserve Bank decisions on interest rates. But the context of this argument is a tiny contraction of spending in the economy to go from a deficit of $1.5 billion to a surplus of $1.5 billion - a 0.2% effect on the economy.
      See:
      http://www.rossgittins.com/2011/12/business-economists-play-politics-over.html

      report
    2. Dave Smith

      Energy Consultant

      In reply to Bruce Tabor

      Bruce,

      Agreed. But if it is really a "tiny" contraction, it is a small price to pay to keep the punters happy and economists (and the Conversation) really shouldn't be worrying about it.

      If, on the other hand, it is a significant contraction, it will have a significant impact on interest rates, for the reasons I outlined.

      report
    3. Graham White

      Associate Professor, School of Economics at University of Sydney

      In reply to Dave Smith

      Dave,

      My own view is that whether a surplus reduces interest rates depends on whether any fiscal contraction necessary to achieve the surplus substantially changes the Reserve Bank's view of the prospects of future inflation. Now it is conceivably possible that such a contraction could change that perception if the contraction is likely to slow the economy further. But there are two points to be made about that: first, the degree of contraction bears no hard and fast relation with the size of the resulting surplus; and second, even diregarding this first point, such a policy seems like cutting our nose off to spite our face. It would adversely affect employment for the sake of reducing inflation. This could only be justified if one thought - as is conventional economics - that the long-run path of the economy is something that policy makers at a macro level have little control over. For me at least this latter proposition does not have a coherent basis.

      report
    4. Dave Smith

      Energy Consultant

      In reply to Graham White

      Graham,

      It seems clear in the current context that some degree of fiscal contraction will be required in order to achieve a surplus and it is the current context that we are interested in. So, in this context, a surplus does mean lower interest rates, but perhaps not substantially so.

      More generally, interest rates are affected by many different factors, so of course there is no simple relationship between fiscal surplus/deficit and interest rate level.

      You may be thinking in terms of the general, but it is clear that Gillard was commenting on the current context. So, you are both right in different ways, but I think you are wrong if you are implying that Gillard is incorrect.

      report
  2. Robert Scopes

    logged in via email @bigpond.com

    I'm no economist, but the concept seems spurious. If a surplus leads to lower interest rates, then deficits should do the opposite. Yet look at the high deficit countries--the US, Europe--their rates are about zero !

    report
    1. Hugo Freeman

      Student

      In reply to Robert Scopes

      The point the third author was trying to make was, like the other two authors, that the budget and the interest rates are unrelated. So no a deficit will not necessarily do the opposite. It may do the same. It most probably will have no relationship at all though.
      Once this statement is understood your third sentence becomes meaningless.

      report