December 31, 1969
Integrity and Accuracy in Economic Forecasts
For those of us with the audacity to publish economic forecasts, it has been a bad couple of years. It may be best to begin with a look in the mirror. In December 2008, I forecast the US and Indiana economy shrinking throughout the coming year, with job losses and declines in all sectors except healthcare. I also said that the economy would hit bottom in the summer of 2009, but that recovery – especially in the labor market – would be slow. In December of 2009 I repeated this exercise, predicting slow growth in everything but the labor force beginning last winter. So how’d I do?
I am pleased to say my timing of the turnaround and the relative decline in each sector appears to have been nearly spot on. Sadly, I did a wretched job of estimating the depth of either jobs or income losses here in Indiana. My estimates on income declines were off by half, and job losses the same. The timing is important, but the depth of the decline is far more critical. It is small comfort that I am not alone. The Presidents Council of Economic Advisors, as fine a group of economists as you’ll find, did worse. They forecasted current unemployment rates to be roughly 3.5 percentage points lower than they are now. So what next?
A New York Times columnist recently wrote about the issue of economic forecasts, arguing that economists would soon do away with their models. That was precisely wrong. Instead we are going back to the models, keeping the parts that work and remedying the errors. My forecast contains about 125 equations which rely heavily on the experience of recent history. This recent history predicted a more modest downturn than we had. I’ve already rewritten the models to incorporate a longer memory. I hope to get it better next time, and I am sure I am not alone. But that begs the question, just what should economists be expected to know and how should we explain it? I think that there is one easy principle: honesty. We ought to be honest about what we do and do not know, and how prone to error an estimate might be. This last part is the most difficult to communicate. We could do like weather forecasters and give probabilities, but that doesn’t make public budgeting any easier. Perhaps we shouldn’t say the unemployment rate will be 9.5 percent, when we really mean it will be between 9.1 and 9.9 percent.
We can forecast things like the annual labor force, population, house hold income for broad regions with great certainty. The smaller the region and the longer the time horizon the less certain are forecasts. Partly this is because data is less accurate and available for small places, but also small regions suffer more random changes, which are devilishly hard to model. Ironically, the things we wish to know with the most certainty are often the things we can forecast the least well. Just like the weather.
About the Author
Recent
Economic and Policy Expectations for a Trump PresidencyIt is not hard to gauge the policy choices Trump will prefer.
My Apology to LogansportThe city is well known as an immigration success story in the Midwest.
Indiana Is Ground Zero for Anti-American IdeologiesBad ideas rarely die of their own accord.
Lessons in Home PricesIndiana’s dominant housing problem is a surplus of homes that are unlikely to ever again be occupied.
View archives