No evidence of supply-side constraints in approvals data

Possibly the central lesson of my previous post was that planning controls and development approvals by local councils are not a factor that limits the quantity of new homes constructed. Council behaviour in these areas could limit housing supply if councils began a system of quotas for approvals. But they don’t. They provide limitations on the location of new supply in their planning instruments, and they approve the quantity of homes demanded by the development industry - which is a reflection of the number of new home sales. Sales volumes of new homes and land determine the rate of supply of new dwellings. 

In my last post I provided no evidence for my assertion apart from logically examining the process of development in a hypothetical scenario.

So is there evidence that councils are limiting the supply of new dwelling through their planning controls and approvals processes?

No.

Let’s look at my home town of Brisbane. The following table shows the stock of approved house lots in Brisbane and surrounding local council areas that are yet to be developed (All data from here - Table 1. Excludes building units and retirement homes).



In Brisbane, where broadacre land is arguable more physically constrained, the stock of approved housing lots has remained relatively constant. And as you would expect, in the fringe areas, the stock of new house lots has grown far more rapidly than sales of lots or construction of housing. This indicates that councils approve far more housing lots than the market can absorb.

Yet it is this development approval that many claim is a hold-up to development.

In Brisbane, this reserve stock equates to about two years supply, while in surrounding areas there is between 3 and 10 years supply (Logan City and Somerset respectively) already approved. Of course, there are many thousands more lots that could be approved under existing planning schemes should demand arise.

Remember, this is just the stock of new land developments. If data were more readily available for unit developments there will no doubt be a similar story (in Brisbane attached homes are about 50% of new stock).

The clear message that comes from actual data on planning approvals is that they are not a constraint to supply. This might be one reason why these figures are never mentioned by ‘supply-siders’, even in the most detailed documents outlining supply side concerns in the housing market such as the 2003 Prime Ministers Taskforce on Home Ownership Report.

Health economics –unnecessary treatment and economic costs of illness... and goodbye

This blog has been quiet lately.  The evidence is mounting in support of much of my earlier analysis of Australia’s housing market, while the Government attempts one more manoeuvre to bolster the market.  The supreme risks to the market are no longer a secret, and our chronic supply shortage has been receiving far less airtime.  There is very little for me to add to the current discussions.

One reason for the lack of posts is that I am studying for the GAMSAT test that one needs to pass before commencing a graduate degree in medicine.  Yes, my disillusionment with economics has driven me to seek a more useful profession. And despite my rational nature, I will give up quite a deal of income for it.  At least this economist knows that money doesn’t buy happiness.

In this final sign-off post it may be worthwhile taking a look at economic issues surrounding medicine and health care.  This is a burgeoning field, with demand growing for paper shufflers of this particular specialty, and universities eager to fill the void with a qualification.

My core argument in this field has been that increasing preventative health care, while having the benefits of a healthier and long life, often come at increased total lifetime health costs, rather than decreased costs as is often proposed.  Remember, we all die some day, and any potential cause of death postponed will allow another to take its place, which of course has its own health costs.  Alternatively, a more healthy existence may make us more productive for longer and lead to us contributing more in taxes over our lifetime than the potential increase in health costs which were paid through the tax system for our preventative care.

Governments, and subsequently economists, worry about these things because many health care costs are borne by others though tax revenue, yet the net economic effect is anything but straightforward.

In light of these concerns a cottage industry of economic analysis has developed pandering to the interests of particular interest groups involved in medical research.  Each disease these days seems to have a lobby group, and to ensure funding for further research it is necessary to argue in terms of economic costs and benefits of a cure or treatment. 

Over at Catallaxy Files there is an interesting take on the abuse of economics and shady use of statistics when consulting firms are asked to produce reports on the economic cost and impact of a particular disease. After prodding around the reports from one firm, the author notes that:

Adding up the estimated economic cost of all these conditions begins to exhaust the GDP, which suggests that the estimates of the economic costs are grossly exaggerated for a number of reasons.  This should not come as any surprise of course since the sole purpose of these studies – they have no academic credibility – is to provide RHETORIC  to bolster the case for the RENT SEEKERS who are attempting to prize out additional taxpayer monies to support their particular activities, worthy though they may be.

One of the real problems with these studies is the double/triple/…  counting associated with these studies as many people have multiple pathologies.  Moreover, the projections of the numbers afflicted by these conditions in the future should be treated with a grain of salt (probably box).

These studies also conflict with the findings of the Productivity Commission in their work undertaken in relation to the National Reform Agenda. In large part because most people with chronic conditions manage to continue their working life, the PC’s estimates of the cost of most chronic conditions (including mental illness) are not especially high.

The interesting work of Eric Crampton at the Canterbury University – great paper delivered at the Mont Pelerin Society – also shows that government studies of the economic costs of alcohol use are grossly exaggerated. There are typically  both conceptual and measurement mistakes.

I have a slight problem comparing the sum of a total cost of over time (total economic cost) with a flow of production in a single time period (GDP), but the general practices of double counting, including a potential undiagnosed population, and taking the extreme assumptions of the diseases impact and applying to every candidate, are intentionally misleading.

This is perhaps one reason why proponents of preventative medical treatments overstate the aggregate benefits to the community and subsequently the reduction in health cost borne by the taxpayer. Another reason preventative health care does not always provide net benefits can be explored at an individual level.

Movember have been a huge promotional success, yet at the heart of the charitable event is a desire to raise awareness of prostate cancer and promote early detection and preventative treatment.  However, this particular cancer is possible one case where the cure is worse than the disease at an individual level.

This article argues the case against early screening for prostate cancer.

They know that prostate cancer is overwhelmingly a disease that kills men late in life. The average age of death for prostate cancer in Australia is 79.8 years, while the average age for all male cancers combined other than prostate cancer is 71.5.

The average age of death for an Australian man is 76 so on average, men who die from prostate cancer actually live longer. In 2007, just 2.8 per cent (83 men) who died from the disease were under 60, and 10 (0.1 per cent) were in their 40s.

The author notes that the unnecessary treatment undertaken by many men as a result of early testing often leads to impotence and occasionally incontinence, when there was a very high probability that they would have died from another cause before the cancer severely impacted their health. 

Medical associations and governments try hard to examine these issues prior to funding and promoting preventive health care.  Where current screening techniques return too many false positives the chances of over treatment are severe. One the other hand, a screening technique returning a high number of false negatives may not be such a concern if the disease develops slowly and screening is recommended periodically.

In all, it seems that the health industry is not immune to manipulative economic analysis and rent seeking behaviour.  I am sure there are positive ways economics have been contributing to debates on public health, yet in the haze of spin it gets very little publicity. 

Thanks to all my readers for contributing ideas and thoughts on this blog in the past few years. 

Merry Christmas.

Cameron

Prison, parenting, selection bias, and measuring success

In both parenting and the legal system one must carefully consider the role of punishment.  Recently, the discussion surrounding imprisonment has become focussed on rehabilitation, using recidivism rates inappropriately as a statistical measuring stick of success.  This seems to be the product of confusing success in parenting with success in crime prevention.

Sin tax myths – why smokers reduce health costs

Smokers have been the target of Australia's latest sin tax. Meanwhile, debate continues over using sin taxes to reduce consumption of 'unhealthy' foods such as soft drinks and confectionary.

(The word unhealthy is used quite loosely due to the fact that there is sufficient uncertainty about health – Are eggs good or bad these days? Margarine? – and because it is typically not the food itself, but the quantity consumed of a single food that is unhealthy.  Almost any food item consumed in excess will be unhealthy).

The primary arguments in favour of sin taxes are that

1.      the taxes reduce ‘harmful’ or ‘unhealthy’ consumption, and

2.      the taxes raised offset likely health costs such behaviours incur on others.

Unfortunately neither argument is compelling.

No limits to economic growth

For an environmental economist these words are blasphemous, but I said them, and I have good reason to. 

The modern Limits to Growth movement gained prominence with the publication of the Club of Rome’s book of the same name in 1972. This book, by Donella Meadows and colleagues, reports on the results of a computer simulation of the economy under the assumptions of finite resources. The World3 computer model produced scenarios showing that under various assumptions, a decline in non-renewable resources will lead to a decline in global food and industrial production, which will in turn lead to a decline in population and greatly reduced living standards for all. 

The following image is one example of the results of their simulations where a catastrophic decline in industrial output, food production and population will result form reaching our finite resource limits. 

While I don’t doubt the finitude of many natural resources, and that the human population cannot grow indefinitely, I doubt that finite limits of resource inputs to the economy necessarily means that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely.

To be sure, I am certain that substantial unforeseen changes to the rate of extraction of some resources will lead to short-term disruption of established production chains, such as shocks to oil supply, but in the long run I see no reason that an economy with finite resource inputs cannot increase production through improved technology and efficiency.

I need to be clear that when I talk of economic growth I mean our ability to produce more goods and services that we value for a given input. Increasing the size of the economy by simply having more people, each producing the same quantity of goods, will be measured as growth in GDP, but provides no improvement in the material well being of society.

A better measure of growth is real GDP per capita. This adjusts for the disconnection between the supply of money and the production of goods, and adjusts for the increase in scale provided by the extra labour inputs. Even then, this may overestimate the rate of real growth occurring, as there has been a trend of formalising much of the informal economy, for example child care, which is now a measured part of GDP rather than existing as individual family arrangements.

On these adjusted measures economic growth is a very slow process. In a world where non-renewable resource inputs are fixed or declining, it is the rate of the decline and the speed of adjustment that will determine the overall outcome for our well being. If the rate of decline of non-renewable resource inputs is below the rate of real growth (our ability to produce more with less) and the rate at which we can substitute to renewable alternatives, we can avoid economic calamity in the face of natural limits.

Unfortunately there are other factors at play.

The rate of population growth will greatly determine the per capita wellbeing in a time of limited growth. While extra labour input will no doubt contribute to production inputs, my suggestion is that this input will be outweighed by a decline in complementary resource inputs. Remember, we care about real economic ‘wealth’ per capita, and with more people there is a smaller share of remaining resources each person can utilise in production, thus reducing wellbeing.

Further, we can begin to take productivity gains as leisure time instead of more work time, thus there is a possibility of maintaining a given level of production in the economy with fewer labour inputs over time.

There is also the reliance of our financial system on high levels of growth. Many economic growth critics cite the need for exponential growth of financial measures of the economy as being in conflict with any finite system. Yet the ‘system’ itself is a human construction and I seen no reason why a stable money supply cannot operate under various levels of growth (even prolonged negative growth) if used cautiously and with little leverage.

Often forgotten is that many resources are currently fixed and yet go unnoticed. There are always 24 hours in a day, but that doesn’t stop us producing more each day. If a shortage of hours was encountered, would a sudden change to 23hrs (a 4% decline) have a dramatic impact? Or would society easily adjust to this new environment of tighter time scarcity?

While a smooth transition to prosperity under much greater limits on resource inputs to the economy is theoretically possible, I don’t expect this to be our future reality. Self interested governments, businesses and the general public will react to short term shocks in unexpected ways, potentially promoting conflict, and taking the bumpy road. I have no doubt that there will extended periods of prosperity in the future, but also expect a rough ride to get to them.

WEIRD people: Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic... and unlike anyone else on the planet

The Ultimatum Game works like this: You are given $100 and asked to share it with someone else. You can offer that person any amount and if he accepts the offer, you each get to keep your share. If he rejects your offer, you both walk away empty-handed.

How much would you offer? If it's close to half the loot, you're a typical North American. Studies show educated Americans will make an average offer of $48, whether in the interest of fairness or in the knowledge that too low an offer to their counterpart could be rejected as unfair. If you're on the other side of the table, you're likely to reject offers right up to $40.

It seems most of humanity would play the game differently. Joseph Henrich of the University of British Columbia took the Ultimatum Game into the Peruvian Amazon as part of his work on understanding human co-operation in the mid-1990s and found that the Machiguenga considered the idea of offering half your money downright weird — and rejecting an insultingly low offer even weirder.

"I was inclined to believe that rejection in the Ultimatum Game would be widespread. With the Machiguenga, they felt rejecting was absurd, which is really what economists think about rejection," Dr. Henrich says. "It's completely irrational to turn down free money. Why would you do that?" (here)

A recent paper by Dr Henrich and colleagues from the University of British Columbia investigates the psychological differences between WEIRD societies and other societies. In a deep examination of the literature, Henrich shows that while many basic similarities remain common to Homo sapiens, cultural factors play a large role in determining many psychological dispositions. Such differences occur when examining fairness, individualism and cooperation.

For me one standout finding was that the income maximising offer for the ultimatum game (discussed in the introductory quote) was a mere 10% of the total sum for most cultures in the review, while in typical WEIRD cultures a 50% offer was income maximising (see graph below).

So what environmental factors contribute to the difference?

Too good to be true environmental solutions

... roughly 42 percent of U.S. lighting energy (in Canada the fraction might even be a little higher) goes to incandescent bulbs. ...compact fluorescent lamps in all sorts of sizes and shapes that have roughly quadrupled efficiency -- 11 watts replacing 40, 18 watts replacing 75, and so on. They last about thirteen times as long as a regular light bulb; therefore each one of them saves you not only three quarters of the electricity, but also a dozen replacement bulbs and trips up the ladder. That more than pays for them, even though these things are rather expensive.

Think of such a compact bulb, with 14 watts replacing 75, as a 61 negawatt power plant. By substituting 14 watts for 75 watts, you are sending 61 unused watts -- or negawatts -- back to Hydro, who can sell the electricity saved to someone else without having to make it all over again. It is much cheaper to save the electricity than to make it -- and not only in thermal stations. It is cheaper for society to use these bulbs than to operate a Hydro plant, even if building the dam were to cost nothing. Each bulb has a net cost of minus several cents per kilowatt- hour, and no dam can compete with that! - The Negawatt Revolution 

The crackpot with a mo, Amory Lovins, wants people to be paid to not consume electricity as a way to promote energy efficiency and decrease the demand for energy. He has been pushing the negawatt bandwagon for twenty years, yet for all our dramatic increases in energy efficiency, we consume more energy than ever (or more correctly, we use more natural resources to generate more electricity, heat and motion than ever). 

The term negawatt describes the fact that in a capacity constrained electricity generation system, reduced energy consumption by one customer allows an increase in consumption by another customer. Without the reduced consumption by one customer, the increased consumption by the new customer would only have been possible by investing in new generation capacity. Thus, the energy saved is as good as energy generated - so much so that the energy generator could pay users to reduce their energy consumption.

From an engineering perspective there is little wrong with this concept. Unfortunately, an economic perspective reveals many flaws.

Energy efficiency - further reading

A robust discussion on the impact of energy efficiency on energy use took place in the journal Energy Policy over the decade since Len Brookes' article The greenhouse effect: the fallacies in the energy efficiency solution in 1994.  It concluded (for now) with another article by Brookes in 2003 entitled Energy efficiency fallacies- a postscript.  Brookes' conclusions are almost identical to my own, and those of Blake Alcott - capping or rationing resources where their use entails some kind of externality.

Brookes also adds taxing resources to reflect the cost of negative externalities, which one assumes, would be spent on reparation activities to return to a new optimal resource allocation which internalises the cost of pollution and eliminates the possibility of rebound effects (if reparations are possible).

It is worth reading his conclusions in full (below the fold):

Waste Revisited – the ‘Green’ bag revolution

The last time I wrote about waste I started like this:

The oft-repeated mantra of the ‘ecological modernist’ is that we are wasteful. They see the rise of disposable cups, packaging and plastic bags as a sign that of that wastefulness. Further, in terms of energy and climate change, they see traffic jams full of cars with only the driver inside, and lights on in buildings with no occupants in the city all night – a society squandering our resources. If only we could stop all this wastefulness and build a utopia.

I argued that waste is a relative and value driven term, and that the popularity of waste as a concept in environmental circles is in fact slowing progress on environment issues, as it distracts from the core problems.

Waste is not a useful concept, but litter, ‘stuff in the wrong place which may cause harm’, certainly is.  Governments have waged war against plastic bags in the name of reducing litter (even though they prefer the term waste).

Outlawing giveaway plastic bags appears to have gained traction with policy makers as one path to environmental bliss.  South Australia has a law.  Victoria has one. Ireland has one (although the list of exemptions is pretty long). California is considering one.  And the list goes on. 

What does it mean for an economy to ‘turn Japanese’ and what determines whether it will?

What few seem to appreciate, either inside or outside of Japan, is just how strong the resulting Japanese recovery from 2002-2008 was. It was the longest unbroken recovery of Japan’s postwar history, and, while not as strong as pre-bubble Japanese performance, was in fact stronger than the growth in comparable economies even when fuelled by their own bubbles.

How on Earth did Japan manage that with their ageing population and zero population growth? Indeed, Japan outperformed Australia in productivity growth since 2000 and very nearly kept pace with real GDP per capita growth.

The RBA’s Ric Battelino seems confused. In a recent speech on the Australian economy he notes that “the slowdown in productivity growth has meant that GDP growth in the latest decade was not as fast as in the previous decade”, while also saying that for the past two decades “part of the growth came, of course, from the fact that the population grew strongly over the period, particularly in recent years.” What? The data he presents shows a negative correlation between economic growth and population growth, yet he continues to promote a positive relationship.

Australia’s average annual real growth in GDP per capita (currently the best measure of economic performance) since 2000 is 1.28%. While I can’t find a direct measure from the Japanese Statistical agency, using the World Bank data collection I can make a comparison of real GDP growth per capita of Australia and Japan using a common methodology. Using these statistics I find that Australia had a mean annual growth in real GDP per person since 2000 of 1.8% while Japan’s was 1.4%.

Last piece of the population puzzle

I was pleasantly surprised by Dick Smith’s Population Puzzle documentary last night. He covered most of the key economic arguments against growth, including a rebuttal of the skills shortage and age dependency arguments. I was not taken by the food security argument, but was impressed by the way he highlighted the clash over land use on the urban fringes (where some of the most fertile soils are found).
Most importantly Dick raised the issue of vested interests promoting population growth early in his piece. He rightly singled out the property development lobby as a key exponent of higher population growth, and their obvious vested interests which do not align with the interests of most Australians.

Page 58 of today’s Financial Review has run a pro-population growth response to the Dick Smith documentary, advocating population growth on the grounds of economies of scale – an argument that is easily debunked.

A second argument appeals to economies of scale and suggests that with greater domestic consumption industries can expand to a point where they have economies of scale that make them internationally competitive. Why domestic population is currently a barrier to industry development is beyond me. If there are no artificial constraints on trade, shouldn’t the world be the marketplace of any industry even in its infancy? This argument only works if you couple high population with protectionism.

Economies of scale from increasing the size of the market only apply to monopolies in any case, and even then it is hard to know whether futher efficiency gains are possible (and whether they would be passed on to consumers).

But the confusion of the pro-population growth position is revealed later in the article when it states:

Of course it is possible to have economic growth without population growth – by setting up the conditions for higher productivity growth.

But the ‘meeting the challenges of growth’ argument persists in the end. We are apparently better off investing in massive duplication of infrastructure (roads, housing, energy and water) to accommodate higher population growth, which decreases productivity and economic growth, rather than focus on improving the productivity of the existing population - an absurd conclusion.

I have explained in detail in a previous post how housing investment and other infrastructure duplication does not improve productivity – it is a short term cost that simply allows more people to be equally as productive as the current population at some time in the future. Slower population growth is the recipe for improved per capita well being.

The relationship between growth and productivity is interlinked, but not in the way pro-population growth advocates maintain. Higher population growth is strongly negatively correlated with improved productivity. The graph below uses the ABS multifactor productivity measure and percentage change in population growth to demonstrate. Productivity improved most dramatically when population growth was around 1%.

The investment duplication argument is the final piece to the population puzzle.

Economic myths - another dose

Population growth

I have written at length on why population growth does not improve welfare. Mark Crosby over at Core Economics reiterates these fundamental arguments.

The pro-population growth arguments are theoretically flawed, and empirically dismissed. Below is a chart of the relationship between population growth and GDP per capita for around 200 countries and localities, showing a distinctly inverse relationship. If I was in the business of improving welfare, low population growth would be a key avenue.

Another emerging myth is that population growth will decrease interest rates. Renowned property spruiker Chris Joye has created plenty of media fanfare recently with his spurious connection between population growth and interest rates. This table shows the interest rates in 23 countries, and if I’m not mistaken, shows that countries with the lowest population growth (and highest GDP per capita) also have the lowest interest rates.

Food

Food myths are widespread. The environmental movement wants us to believe that vegetarianism is better for the environment and that ‘organic’ (what does that mean?) food is more nutritious and can solve hunger around the world. The agricultural lobby would have us believe that food self-sufficiency is of utmost importance, although their argument is shallow at best.

The latest myth to be busted is that chickens are pumped with artificial hormones and steroids to make them grow faster and larger. However, it appears that hormones are not part of the poultry picture at all.

While I firmly believe that raising animals for food should be conducted in a humane manner, those who push for change would garner more support if they were fully informed of current practices - their message could then be taken seriously by industry and government. Furthermore, the organic food movement could concentrate on promoting farming practices that reduce externalities, as a result of chemical use for instance, and improving land quality. The incentives for such change often align with the long term goals of the agricultural industry and may attract wider public support.

Safety

Under the rebound effect banner I have discussed how some innovations to improve safety can backfire if peoples’ behavioural response is to take on more risk. For example, the vigorous uptake in sunscreen use has led to a culture of sun exposure, offsetting the intended consequence of reduced skin cancer rates. The name for this behavioural response in the context of risk taking is the Peltzman Effect.

You can find this type of response in broad range of situations. Most recently, in trials of automatic lane correction technologies in cars, one participant noted:

...that she would love to have this feature in her own car. Then, after a night of drinking in the city, she would not have to sleep at a friend’s house before returning to her rural home

Minimum wage

The business lobby loves the textbook response to minimum wage laws, but even world renowned economists are sceptical.  No doubt this debate will continue.

Skilled labour immigration removes incentives for Australians to invest in education

The shrill from commentators warning of Australia’s apparent skills shortage is deafening. But there are a number of reasons why this claim, and the inevitable recommendation for government to increase quotas of skilled migrants, is flawed, and why the solution is not in the best interests of Australia in the long run.

For the acute observer the transparent falsehood of the claim jumps right out at you.

… skilled labour in an area like project construction is an international problem, so poaching what we need from overseas is not going to be easy.

ACIL Tasman points out that LNG project specialist workers are globally mobile, moving from site to site (and often between projects at varying stages of development) – wherever their services command the highest price. As the consultants warn, opting for less-experienced personnel carries with it the dangers of higher error rates in construction and resulting delivery delays and still more expense.

Translation: if you want the skills you need to pay.

A government with backbone, and an eye on long term prosperity, would tell industries crying poor to sort it out themselves. Large mining and gas projects have very long lead times - long enough in fact to train some of the existing workforce in skills that may be required for future projects. If you need the slam-dunk of skills and experience, you are inevitably poaching people from another project - experience only comes from a finite number of places.

Automation and the housework rebound effect

As I have previously argued, innovations that aim to save time, increase safety, decrease energy consumption can be subject to flow-on rebound effects that lead to the opposite result. These counter-intuitive results have lead to ineffective government intervention and bizarre social norms.

A typical challenge to the idea of rebound effects goes like this.

“If a business has to pay each worker more due to government intervention on wages, they are clearly going to employ fewer employers. Are you challenging the Law of Demand? If the price of labour is higher, demand will be lower.”

No, I don’t argue that if we hold everything in the world outside of an individual business constant that the business will employ more people. I argue that to believe the world is held constant robs you of the vision to see flow-on effects to society and the ability to estimate the real net effect of a policy or action.

Today's rebound effect concerns time saving and housework.

Minimum wage decision and the textbook response

Economists like to promote the idea that increasing the minimum wage results in fewer jobs. The law of demand states that when the price of a good goes up, demand goes down. But a welfare State has a role not just to encourage people to work, but to improve overall welfare.

The job loss textbook response is only fair if we cling to the unreasonable ceteris paribus assumption – that minimum wage increases and all else stays constant. But that is not reality.

For example, offsetting effects of an increase in the minimum wage include

- people choosing to study instead of work
- businesses investing in capital equipment to improve labour productivity

Both of these indirect effects of the minimum wage are good for society’s welfare in the long run via increased productivity.

Apart from being a good long run policy, I see the minimum wage as a tool to control possible market power of employers. Uninformed and low skilled workers are easily vulnerable to manipulation, and are unlikely to access legal guidance or negotiate their wage with vigour. Not all people are fully informed, perfect knowledge homo economicus. Asymmetric information and the resulting market power of employers of low skilled workers are justifiable reasons for government intervention.

One needs to exercise extreme caution when applying economic principles to reality. Most mainstream economic theories are based on completely unreasonable assumptions (an upward sloping supply curve and an ignorance of time for example).

Economic arguments against population growth

While Population Minister Tony Burke may be new to the debate, the population debate itself is certainly not new to politics. In 1994 the Commonwealth commissioned an inquiry (the Jones inquiry) into Australia’s population and carrying capacity, yet the inquiry failed to make firm recommendations. One of the inquiry’s authors then wrote a book in protest of the ‘government’s timidity’ and concluded that

... a sensible population policy for Australia would be to aim at stabilising the population within a generation or so and that this was quite feasible if net immigration of something below about 50 000 a year (say 100 000 migrants in gross terms) could be maintained. Population would then more-or-less stabilise somewhere between 19 and 23 million (depending on actual immigration) sometime before 2050.

Now, Tony Burke is faced with twin challenges of developing a policy position on population that keeps enough people happy to keep him in government.

We can easily run through some of the options available to Minister Burke – stimulate or dampen population growth. I suspect he would also like to encourage migration away from capital cities due to the ‘obvious housing shortage’, but as far as I can tell the Federal Government has little power to influence such regional migration (maybe an income tax relaxation depending on how remote your residence?)

To stimulate growth we could increase migration intake, and encourage higher birth rates – maybe $15,000 per child would do it? Or Burke could moderate population growth by reducing immigration quotas and discouraging high birth rates (by removing the baby bonus or even having a ‘child tax’).

But which option is best for Australia? Are there strong economic arguments in favour of either higher or lower population growth? I would argue that on balance, economic principles strongly favour a declining rate of population growth (even a negative rate of population growth not a problem).

For a start, we need to discredit some of the nonsense economics floating around. Bigger is not better. China and India both have plenty of people, while countries with the highest per capita incomes and standards of living generally have fewer people. China has greatly reduced population growth with its one child policy and seen vast economic growth – shouldn’t China have failed to grow because its population stabilised? The map above shows a pretty clear inverse relationship between population growth rates and standards of living.

Nor is a comparison of population density meaningful in this debate, or we could argue that any region with a low population density is ‘underpopulated’ (like Antarctica or the Simpson desert) because we have compared the region to Hong Kong or the Netherlands.

One core economic argument in favour of a greater population is that utility theory suggests that a trillion people living in poverty and slavery are better that one million happy and fulfilled people, leading lives directed by their own desires. It is known as the repugnant conclusion. I doubt anyone believes this is a good outcome, nor is claimed to be a good reason for greater population – it just happens to be at the heart of economic theory and can spawn unusual conclusions.

A second argument appeals to economies of scale and suggests that with greater domestic consumption industries can expand to a point where they have economies of scale that make them internationally competitive. Why domestic population is currently a barrier to industry development is beyond me. If there are no artificial constraints on trade, shouldn’t the world be the marketplace of any industry even in its infancy? This argument only works if you couple high population with protectionism (the infant industry argument, which itself is often challenged).

A third argument, that may be the focus of this debate, is that the demographic shift towards a flat population pyramid means that the proportion of people in the workforce will be much lower, and that public welfare support for the elderly will become a burden on a smaller workforce. However, one does not need to think too hard to realise that stimulating population growth simply delays this inevitable demographic shift. We have known this shift was coming for decades yet have failed to act. But it is not too late to implement solutions more practical than stimulation population growth.

Another argument is that of national security. Unless we have enough people, we won’t be able to defend our borders. To truly defend Australia from all others, how many people would we really need? 150million? More? This is a ridiculous argument and a reason we have strong allegiances with countries with large defence capabilities.

Apart from these arguments for high population growth over low growth or declining populations, Chris Joye cites the following reasons for a population minister, all of which have confusing and possibly contradictory implications

1. Australia’s long-term human capital requirements
2. The ramifications of those population projections for real GDP per capita and public finances;
3. The infrastructure that will be required to support the population base;
4. How that infrastructure will be funded by the public and private sectors;
5. The consequences of the population expectations for the nation’s housing needs;
6. Where we expect to locate this new housing (i.e. in which cities), and hence our long-term urban plans; and
7. The inextricable linkages between new housing supply and infrastructure investment, where the latter is a condition precedent to ‘enabling’ new shelter.

My response would include such lines of questioning as:

• Why would our human capital requirements ever be greater than our human capital?
• Why would population change have ramifications on per capita measures of GDP?
• Would not points 3), 4), 5), 6) and 7) suggest a slower rate of growth is preferable?

My last challenge leads to the heart of the arguments against high rates of population growth. My (and many others) argument is that providing basic services for these new people diverts investment from new technologies that improve per capita productivity. Population growth inflated by policy wonks is a burden many of us would choose to live without.

Like my argument that housing investment does not improve productivity, simply expanding the scale of capital infrastructure (such as roads, water supply, electricity supply etc) to match the scale of the population does not improve our per capita productivity. This investment diverts labour and resources away from actual productive capital investments such as new manufacturing technologies.

A second economic argument against stimulating population growth is that a high fertility rate will keep women (and some men) out of the workforce for longer. If we are worried about the welfare burden on a smaller workforce, we should also be worried about so many parents out of the workforce, and the increased welfare burden from the children (their education and health costs).

My final argument against high rates of population growth is that environmental impacts of new land developments are difficult to assess. The faster our rate of population growth, the lower we will be our standards of environmental controls. New mines, new housing, new industrial areas and ports will all have environmental impacts. To preserve environmental amenity for the current population, we should be careful about these impacts and adopt a cautious approach.

And what of a declining population? Traditionally a population decline was the result of war or famine, but, as suggested here, that doesn’t mean population decline should always be in the disaster basket.

But if the causes are benign, what about the consequences? If the decline in the number of people is slower than the natural growth in productivity (or output per person), then the economy will still grow. For example, a modest population decline of 0.25% a year would reduce Britain's economic growth rate of 2.25% to just 2% a year. That's hardly a recession. The number of consumers may decline, but the growth in incomes-and export markets-will ensure that demand stays buoyant. Nor will there be a demographic crisis, with huge numbers of old people overburdening those of working age. Population decline also leaves fewer children to support, train and educate for the first 20 economically unproductive years of their lives. The dependency ratio of workers to non-workers is virtually unaffected whether the population is growing 0.255 a year or falling 0.25%. Adjustments to an ageing society-discouraging early retirement, moving from pay-as-you-go to funded pensions-will be necessary in any case.

A high rate of population growth, stimulated by policy wonks on the back of fallacious economic reasoning, is a social burden I am sure we can do without.

Glenn Stevens' predicament: He wants us to believe interest rates are heading up without actually putting them up

I imagine it is a tough job being the nation's central banker. But the recent television interview with Glenn Stevens, RBA Governor, has made it quite clear the predicament he currently faces.

Stevens warned that property speculation is not the path to riches (the Real Estate Institute of Australia was apparently surprised by this statement). Obviously he is very worried about the stability of Australia's massive residential property market.  But to achieve the desired outcome, he needs to fool us all.

Affordable housing supply from a market crash

It seems that no matter what the objective market conditions are like, the same lobby groups (the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council of Australia for example) and property spruikers continue to trot out the housing shortage claim in an appeal for government assistance.

If you truly believed there is a housing shortage and hence an affordability crisis, a market crash (price declines >20%) is the best solution. I will outline my reasoning by referring to the appropriate economic models – the same models misused by those who believe that government intervention is causing supply constraints.

Random externalities

A complete reiteration of my arguments against exceptional circumstances provisions for farmers can be found on today on Business Spectator courtesy of David Leyonhjelm.  Simply, we fear a non-existent negative externality of diminished food production should farm businesses fail.   

As a parent I also found this article on the externalities of public advertising quite intriguing.  It seems that movies (private consumption decisions) need to be classified to prepare the viewer for their level of violence and sexuality, yet advertising in public spaces seems to be M rated even when Parental Guidance is not possible.  To avoid this negative externality on children and parents could we not adopt the G rating standard from the film and television industry as the standard for public advertising?

Those who are a fan of the movie Pay it Forward will ba happy to see that acts of kindness can spread through society very easily.  Just another bit of evidence for how culture can change behaviour and how our preferences, expressed through our behaviour, are not fixed at all (as economists would have us believe).  Given this is an example of a positive externality, economic theory would suggest we will face a constant battle to ensure a socially optimal level of kind acts.  Luckily the research suggests that once we adopt a strategy of kindness we don't go back to selfishness very easily.

Drought is not exceptional

The front page of yesterday's Australian newspaper reports Agricultural Minister Tony Burke's recent speech outlining his intention to reform Australian drought policy. The specific part of the Exceptional Circumstances subsidies targeted by the Minister's speech was the interest rate subsidy. Under this scheme farmers in drought declared areas can have 80% of the interest on their farm debts paid for by Australian taxpayers.  Farmers were provided $61 million per month in drought assistance at the end December 2009 - or about $730 million per year.

As a side note, it makes me wonder how substantial agricultural subsidies must be in Europe. Australian direct agricultural subsidies amount to approximately 8% of farm income, while in most European nations subsidies account for greater than 60% of farm income.

What I find particularly interesting about drought policy is the logical dilemma encountered when determining what are in fact 'exceptional circumstances'.