Crowding out (economics)

In economics, crowding out is any reduction in private consumption or investment that occurs because of an increase in government spending. If the increase in government spending is not accompanied by a tax increase, government borrowing to finance the increased government spending would increase interest rates, leading to a reduction in private investment. There is some controversy in modern macroeconomics on the subject, as different schools of economic thought differ on how households and financial markets would react to more government borrowing.

Usually when economists use the term "crowding out" they are referring to the government spending using up financial and other resources that would otherwise be used by private enterprise. However, some commentators use "crowding out" to refer to government providing a service or good that would otherwise be a business opportunity for private industry.

Crowding out resources

If increased borrowing leads to higher interest rates by creating a greater demand for money and loanable funds and hence a higher "price" (ceteris paribus), the private sector, which is sensitive to interest rates will likely reduce investment due to a lower rate of return. This is the investment that is crowded out. The weakening of fixed investment and other interest-sensitive expenditure counteracts to varying extents the expansionary effect of government deficits. More importantly, a fall in fixed investment by business can hurt long-term economic growth of the supply side, i.e., the growth of potential output.

However, this crowding-out effect might be moderated by the fact that government spending sometimes expands the market for private-sector products through the multiplier and thus stimulates – or "crowds in" – fixed investment (via the "accelerator effect"). This accelerator effect is most important when business suffers from unused industrial capacity, i.e., during a serious recession or a depression.

Crowding out can, in principle, be avoided if the deficit is financed by simply printing money, but this carries concerns of accelerating inflation.

Chartalist and Post-Keynesian economists critique crowding out because government bonds sales have the actual effect of lowering interest rates, not raising them, since the rate for short term debt is in effect set (in the US) by the Federal reserve at its target rate, or very close. Additionally, private credit is not constrained by any "amount of funds" or "money supply" or similar concept. Rather, banks lend to any credit-worthy customer, constrained by their capitalization level and risk regulations. The resulting loan creates a deposit simultaneously, increasing the amount of endogenous money at that time.

Crowding out is most serious when an economy is already at potential output or full employment. Then the government's expansionary fiscal policy encourages increased prices, which lead to an increased demand for money. This in turn leads to higher interest rates (ceteris paribus) and crowds out interest-sensitive spending. At potential output, businesses are in no need of markets, so that there is no room for an accelerator effect. More directly, if the economy stays at full employment gross domestic product, any increase in government purchases shifts resources away from the private sector. This phenomenon is sometimes called "real" crowding out.

The negative effects on long-term economic growth that occur when private fixed investment are crowded out can be moderated if the government uses its deficit to finance productive investment in education, basic research, and the like. The situation is made worse, of course, if the government wastes borrowed money.

Crowding out of another sort (often referred to as international crowding out) may occur due to the prevalence of floating exchange rates, as demonstrated by the Mundell-Fleming model. Government borrowing leads to higher interest rates, which attract inflows of money on the capital account from foreign financial markets into the domestic currency (i.e., into assets denominated in that currency). Under floating exchange rates, that leads to appreciation of the exchange rate and thus the "crowding out" of domestic exports (which become more expensive to those using foreign currency). This counteracts the demand-promoting effects of government deficits but has no obvious negative effect on long-term economic growth.

Crowding out demand

In terms of health economics, "crowding-out" refers to the phenomenon whereby new or expanded programs meant to cover the uninsured have the effect of prompting those already enrolled in private insurance to switch to the new program. This effect was seen, for example, in expansions to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in the late 1990s. [citation needed]

Therefore, high takeup rates for new or expanded programs do not merely represent the previously uninsured, but also represent those who may have been forced to shift their health insurance from the private to the public sector. As a result of these shifts, it can be projected that healthcare improvements as a result of policy change may not be as robust. In the context of the CHIP debate, this assumption was challenged by projections produced by the Congressional Budget Office, which "scored" all versions of the CHIP reauthorization and included in those scores the best assumptions available regarding the impacts of increased funding for these programs. CBO assumed that many already eligible children would become enrolled as a result of the new funding and policies in CHIP reauthorization, but that some would be eligible for private insurance. The vast majority, even in states with enrollments of those above twice the poverty line (around $40,000 for a family of four), did not have access to age-appropriate health insurance for their children. New Jersey, supposedly the model for profligacy in SCHIP with eligibility that stretched to 350% of the federal poverty level, testified that it could identify 14% crowd-out in its CHIP program.

In the context of CHIP and Medicaid, many children are eligible but not enrolled. Thus, in comparison to Medicare, which allows for near "auto-enrollment" for those over 64, children's caregivers may be required to fill out 17-page forms, produce multiple consecutive pay stubs, re-apply at more than yearly intervals and even conduct face-to-face interviews to prove the eligibility of the child. These anti-crowd-out procedures can fracture care for children, sever the connection to their medical home and lead to worse health outcomes.

Some strategies to combat the effect of crowding out are to instate waiting periods, to limit eligibility to the uninsured, to subsidize employer-based insurance, or to apply a premium to families at higher levels of income eligibility. At this point, every CHIP program requires premiums at higher income eligibility and many undertake all of these strategies to encourage enrollment of those without insurance. However, crowding out may not be entirely negative, and may reflect the fact that the insurance that many low-wage employees receive is inadequate, and the state program would present an improvement to healthcare access.

See also

• Motivation crowding theory
• Treasury View

References

• Olivier J. Blanchard, 2008. "crowding out," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Ed., Abstract.
• Roger W. Spencer & William P. Yohe, 1970. "The 'Crowding Out' of Private Expenditures by Fiscal Policy Actions", Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, October, pp. 12-24 (press+).