Skip to content
Browse All Resources
Essays

MAY 21, 2021

Weekend reading: The U.S. anti-austerity tradition edition

Weekend reading: Why stable schedules matter edition

Abstract

This is a post we publish each Friday with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is relevant and interesting articles we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Amid increased government spending to combat the coronavirus and the ensuing recession alongside overblown fears of inflation, some policymakers are pushing for austerity and against additional public investments. But U.S. history shows that anti-austerity policies are proven to bolster and grow the U.S. economy equitably. Nic Johnson, Robert Manduca, and Chris Hong look back at three widely held anti-austerity perspectives from the early 20th century—underconsumption theory, channeling finance, and secular stagnation—that laid the groundwork for the New Deal and the post-World War II economic boom. Underconsumption theory is the idea that when workers can’t afford to buy everything they produce, it creates imbalances in the economy that are obscured by unsustainable credit and debt levels. The proponents of this idea at the time suggested channeling finance and steadying financial institutions to break the resulting vicious cycle and open wealth-building opportunities for more Americans. Lastly, secular stagnation is the theory that describes the economic condition where the number of profitable investment opportunities is not sufficient to absorb the savings in the economy. The co-authors explain how each of these three perspectives can teach us a great deal these days about growing the economy sustainably and broadly, and provide a path forward that doesn’t embrace austerity or financialization. Adhering to these perspectives, they conclude, would also work to address the rampant inequality evident across the U.S. economy and society since the 1980s.

This week, Director of Markets and Competition Policy Michael Kades submitted a statement for the record with the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee for a hearing on anticompetitive behaviors in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and soaring prescription drug prices. Kades provided a summary of the anticompetitive behavior in which pharmaceutical company AbbVie (whose CEO was testifying in the hearing) has long engaged—namely, pay-for-delay patent settlements, frivolous patent litigation, and product hopping—and how Congress can act to change these market dynamics that lead to concentration and soaring profits for drug companies, and rising costs and fewer options for consumers. He recommends that Congress stop pay-for-delay settlements, which allow a company to pay its generic competitors to not release or defer the release of their product; restore the Federal Trade Commission’s disgorgement authority, depriving companies of illegal profits earned as a result of anticompetitive behavior; and deter strategic behavior that protects monopolies, such as product hopping, or the release of “new and improved” products that are not significantly different from their predecessors in order to quash generic competition. These actions would help lower prescription drug costs for consumers in the United States and protect competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

Head to Brad DeLong’s latest Worthy Reads column (opens in a new tab), where he provides summaries and analysis of recent must-read content from Equitable Growth and elsewhere.

Related

Your Direct Line to Cutting-Edge Research

Get updates on our latest research, event announcements, and policy insights delivered straight to your inbox. Stay connected with the leading voices on equitable growth.