CAUSES OF BUSINESS CYCLES

A variety of explanations have been offered for business cycles. The Austrian American economist Joseph Schumpeter published his innovation theory in the late 1930s. He related upswings in the business cycle to new inventions, which stimulate investment in capital-goods industries. Because new inventions develop unevenly, business conditions alternate between expansion and contraction, according to Schumpeter’s theory.

In the early 1960s American economist Milton Friedman offered another explanation of the business cycle, known as a monetarist theory. In a careful review of American economic history Friedman and his collaborator Anna Schwartz found that turning points in the growth rate of the money supply (the total amount of money circulating in the economy) preceded business cycle turning points. They also found that the sources of the changes in the money supply’s growth rate—for example, the spread of commercial banking and the output of gold during the 19th century—were independent of the changes in economic activity. This finding indicated that the money supply was the primary cause of changes in business conditions.

Some business cycle analysts, including statistician Edward Tufte, have argued that politics plays a major role in the business cycle. These analysts believe that elected officials manipulate monetary and fiscal policies in an effort to win reelection. According to this viewpoint, as a presidential election approaches, officeholders seek to stimulate the economy with reductions in taxes, increases in government spending, and decreases in interest rates. The elected officials do this because they believe voters, enjoying the favorable economic conditions, will reward them by reelecting them to office. But in the process they may be stimulating an expansion that cannot be sustained and so may lead soon to a contraction.

Still another explanation for business cycles, advanced by American economist Robert E. Lucas, Jr., and others, examines misperceptions about the movements of wages and prices. In this view producers mistakenly perceive an overall increase in the level of prices in the economy as increased demand for their products. They respond by expanding production and employment within their firms. If enough firms make the same mistake, overall business activity will accelerate, followed by a contraction when the firms realize that they were mistaken in perceiving a growing demand.

A fifth explanation for business cycles is known as real business cycle theory and was developed in the 1980s by American economist Edward C. Prescott and others. It looks beyond political, monetary, and perception considerations to “real” factors, such as significant changes in technology and productivity.

Some business cycle analysts believe that there is no single consistent cause of business cycles. Instead they study what might be called shocks to the economy—a positive shock promoting a business expansion and a negative shock pushing the economy into recession. World War II (1939-1945) might be considered a positive economic shock that ended the Great Depression, whereas the events leading up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War represented a negative shock that explained the recession of 1990-1991. Other negative shocks might include agricultural failures associated with droughts. Discoveries of precious resources such as oil or gold would represent positive shocks. So these economists view the history of business cycles as a history of alternating positive and negative shocks.