Saving glut or… investment famine?

by Ugo Pagano

The financial crisis is often blamed on a saving glut, while protectionism is almost unanimously viewed as its most dangerous potential consequence. But it is more likely that the crisis is due to a famine of investments due partly to protectionism camouflaged behind the blessed principles of ‘intellectual property’.

The immediate causes of the crisis are often seen as being the lack of regulation and the expansionary policies of the Fed, which by keeping interest rates artificially low, has provoked an excessive supply of saving. As amply explained by the well-known models of adverse selection, the latter has in turn produced a growing pool of toxic debt, with the consequences by now evident worldwide. According to an article in the Economist of last January, a beneficial “flow” of saving has turned into a disastrous “flood”, but this flood is more due to “global imbalances” generated abroad than being an endogenous product of the American economy and policies. Governor Bernanke has long argued that the role of the Fed in credit expansion has been marginal, and that the prime cause of the crisis has been a saving glut forced on the United States by massive inflows of savings from other countries.


There is something appealingly infantile in Bernanke’s argument. For many of us (and for me at my mother’s), ‘bellyfuls’ and the indigestion which they cause are due to the excellent and over-abundant food that is served. The real weakness in Bernanke’s thesis, however, is not so much its infantilism as the inaccuracy of its content. As shown by the data set out in the Bank of France paper by Moec and Frey, there has been no overabundance of savings in other countries, but rather a famine of investments. In recent years, savings have not grown around the world; instead, and especially outside the United States, investments have diminished. In other words, the abundance of food in America has been the result of a blockage in the digestive systems of its neighbours. It can be argued that, in this situation, the Americans have generously done the digesting on behalf of other countries, and give them transfusions of pre-digested food. Part of the saving absorbed by America, in fact, has been injected in the form of direct investments in countries suffering from blockages in their digestive systems. Is it therefore not the fault of the neighbours if they have been unable to create suitable investment opportunities and if, moreover, they have poisoned the Americans with their flood of savings?

The problem is that the lobbies for the American multinationals, by applying pressure for the new architecture of international trade founded at Marrakech in 1994, have played a major role in causing the blockages of their competitors’ digestive systems. We may start from 1992, when George Bush Senior concluded a presidency replete with success in foreign policy which saw, among other things, the collapse of the socialist economies and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Yet the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid!” was enough to make him lose the elections against Clinton. The cause was not so much the economic crisis which began in 1990 as the consolidated perception that the “American model” was falling behind the alternative Japanese and German models. In the previous decade, a huge body of studies had described the miracles of Japanese management and suggested various ways in which the Americans could imitate it. By the end of the 1990s the situation had gone into reverse. The United States (and the United Kingdom) had become the model to imitate, and yesterday’s heroes (not only Germany and Japan but, after the 1997 crisis, also all the Asian tigers) strove to restructure their economies on the so-called Anglo-American model. In the meantime the Chinese economy had undergone rapid development. What had led to this unexpected reversal?

The explanation may lie in the standard liberalist refrain: only the Americans (and the British) had suddenly have rediscovered the virtues of the market, thus offering numerous investment opportunities precluded to their rigid competitors. However, on closer inspection, it was not the virtues of competition, but rather the advantages of intellectual monopoly, which enabled the United States rapidly to catch up with the other Western economies. Indeed, in the first half of the 1990s, the United States no longer had global military and political rivals. It was thus able to reorganize the world economy so as to enhance its scientific and technological leadership, and above all its monopoly positions, to the maximum.

The salient features of the new world were contained in the TRIPS agreement signed at Marrakech on 15 April 1994. Significantly, TRIPS was the 1C annex to the agreement founding the WTO. The preamble to TRIPS states as self-evidently obvious that “intellectual property rights are private rights” like all other private property rights. Yet this obviousness would have been unknown to an innovation economist of Schumpeter’s calibre, and it has been recently disputed in Boldrin and Levine’s fine book Against Intellectual Monopoly. Whilst the granting of property rights (including intellectual ones) constituted the natural basis for free trade, ratification of TRIPS necessarily created an annex to the WTO agreements, and an obligatory requisite for access to international trade. Unlike all previous international agreements on intellectual property, the inclusion of TRIPS in the WTO constitution created an efficient mechanism with which to enforce intellectual property rights. States could now be disciplined through the institutions of the WTO itself; and, in extreme cases, access to international trade by intellectual property “thieves” could be restricted.

Notwithstanding the seductive rhetoric extolling free trade and private property, the Marrakech agreement surreptitiously introduced super-tariffs such that the most extreme protectionism pales into insignificance. Since TRIPS, intellectual property rights have become global monopolies; that is, in a certain sense, customs tariffs of almost infinite magnitude. Not only are competitors of other countries not allowed to export a good to the country of the intellectual monopolist, they are also prohibited from producing it in their own country. When multinationals of some countries organize themselves into “patent pools”, the economic desertification of that sector in other countries becomes inevitable, resembling Britain’s erstwhile levies on its colonies, especially India (Marcello De Cecco, Money and Empire, Rowman and Littlefield, 1975).

With notable exceptions like Krugman, a chorus of alarm at the dangers of impending protectionism has been raised in recent months. It is claimed that one of the worse effects of financial crises is the disruption of free trade. Yet the relationship between the two phenomena has a chicken-and-egg complexity which does not admit to easy solutions. It is certainly true that the crisis is generating protectionist attitudes and the resumption of economic nationalism. But it also true that protectionism, by appropriating the blessed principle of private property rights, has helped produce the financial crisis. It initially only reduced opportunities for investment outside the United States, while the latter, thanks to direct investments by its multinationals, for a certain time also ‘digested’ for others. In fact, as Moec and Frey show, the crisis was preceded primarily by a fall of investments outside America. This fall was initially attenuated by the direct investments of multinationals endowed with an unbeatable recipe based on American intellectual monopoly and low-cost Chinese labour.

Added to the fall of investments by other countries was a gradual digestive blockage of the American multinationals themselves. Already in July 2005 an article in the Economist talked of a “corporate savings glut”, and its subtitle noted that the great corporations, more than the emerging economies, had become the world leaders of the global switch to thrift. The same article then referred to Keynes’ famous paradox of thrift whereby if everyone wants to save, they must (in the absence of investments) reduce their saving … though they naturally first go through speculative bubbles and various “financial innovations”.

In conclusion, although the financial crises have provoked protectionism, the super-protectionism of intellectual property has driven down investments. This has happened in two stages (largely overlapping in time) and through two mechanisms. The first stage after TRIPS saw the launching of the Chinese-American model and a shift to investments designed to consolidate American intellectual monopolies. As new spaces opened up for the American companies super-endowed with these “resources”, numerous opportunities for investment were closed to Japan and the former Asian tigers, which had neither America’s monopolistic endowment nor China’s lower costs. This phase culminated in the Asian crisis of 1997. In the second stage, because of the mechanisms described in the well-known tragedies of the anti-commons, world intellectual monopolies became too pervasive and began to block each other. At this point the accumulation mechanism used by the great “knowledge owners” became jammed as well. The fall in investments therefore created some of the factors that led to the financial crisis, and the latter in its turn drove investments down to further depths from which it will be difficult to re-emerge without a significant number of economic policy measures. One such measure should engender an investment super-multiplier by combining Keynesian policies, on the one hand, with the capacity for knowledge to be used infinite times without deterioration on the other. Support for aggregate demand and the re-appropriation of knowledge may constitute the two components of a single policy intended to free innovation from the cage of intellectual monopoly and to furnish greater investment opportunities for everyone.

Read more on Saving glut or… investment famine?

Anti-crisis policies in knowledge-intensive economies

By Ugo Pagano, visiting professor at Central European University. web.me.com/ugopagano

A long period of neo-liberal academic dominance is coming to an end. Unfortunately, it is being wiped out by a difficult economic crisis and not by an end of the inertia of cross-citations-based academia. Some “old theories” (which were academic pariahs until a couple of months ago) offer the main intellectual framework for anti-crisis policies. Re-considering past theories and policies is certainly a very useful re-starting point. However, policy suggestions should not ignore how much the economy has changed since the thirties. At that time, the main focus of policies stimulating aggregate demand was on traditional infrastructures, like bridges, roads etc. In a modern knowledge-intensive economy, the focus should be different. Policies should exploit the new opportunities that contemporary economies offer for Keynesian-type measures.


The knowledge-intensive economy is characterized by an unprecedented share of privately owned knowledge (or, in other words, by widespread monopoly rights on intellectual assets). While global institutions (WTO and the related TRIPs agreements) have made private intellectual property more profitable, no global institution has increased the convenience of public intellectual property. The present (and, even more, the missing) institutions of the global economy have made it convenient to over-privatize knowledge and over-monopolize the economy by an intensive web of intellectual property rights (IPR).
Intellectual private property rights (IPR) can be a cause of economic stagnation. Monopoly prices restrict production. The drive to acquire monopolies may initially stimulate investments but, after a while, the stimulus is increasingly offset by the fear that the use of new knowledge may be blocked by monopolies on pre-existing complementary knowledge (the so called anti-commons tragedy). Moreover, IPR involve asymmetric arrangements for rich and poor countries. While developing countries export their commodities in competitive conditions, many firms of the first world countries can sell knowledge-intensive goods under the monopoly shield granted by IPR. Although being sold as a necessary ingredient of free trade, IPRs offer stronger protection than the strongest protectionist tariffs. They grant total protection not only for the home market but also everywhere else in the World. Similarly to high tariffs, they can make the economic crisis only worse.

The present institutions of the knowledge-intensive economy are likely to become one of the causes of a prolonged stagnation. However, the knowledge-intensive economy offers great opportunities for more effective Keynesian policies. Instead of being used to nationalize inefficiently the assets of firms producing private goods, Keynesian policies could be used to decrease the monopolization of knowledge and to transfer efficiently knowledge from the private to the public sphere. The WTO, which has made intellectual private property more convenient, should be balanced by the institution of a strong WRO (World Research Organization) which helps to make intellectual public property feasible whenever it can better foster development. Countries should acknowledge that knowledge is a non-rival good which should be treated as the most precious and specific global common of humankind. In Jefferson’s vivid image, knowledge is like the flame of candle: lightening one more candle is not diminishing the flame of the other candles. By contrast, allowing others to contribute to the fire increases the shining of each candle!
Anti-crisis policies should include the funding of public research infrastructures.
This funding should be coordinated at supranational level to avoid the free riding problems among countries, which are presently fettering the development of investments in public research.
More important, in the present crisis, the funding can immediately take the shape of a public acquisition of well-established IPRs from private firms. The effects of this policy would go well beyond those entailed by many current anti-crisis measures:
In the first place the funding does not involve a nationalization of the firm or the use of taxpayers money without any counterpart. By contrast, while the IPR is paid at its private value, it is transferred in the public arena where it has a greater public good value and decreases costs for many producers.
Secondly, financial support is granted to firms who have proved to be innovative. A powerful stimulus for new investments is given to the most efficient firms. On the one hand, these firms receive fresh funds but, on the hand, having sold the old intellectual property rights, they face tough competition. Therefore, they have an urgency to invest in the production of new intellectual assets, which boosts aggregate demand.
Thirdly a monopoly price for the asset is replaced by the lower competitive price, which has again a positive effect on aggregate demand.
Finally, the “anti-commons” problem is eased; everyone can now invest in new knowledge with the awareness that complementary pre-existing knowledge is less likely to be owned by other firms. The policy decreases the costs of future risky transactions necessary to use the fruits of innovation. While the immediate funding goes to incumbent innovative firms, which may often belong to the richer countries, the increase of the knowledge freely available to everyone has widespread beneficial effects and contributes to the overall development of the world economy.
The multiplicative effects, which we have indicated, are stronger than those traditionally associated with standard Keynesian policies: their total effects are more powerful both on aggregate demand and on the level efficiency of the economy. An investment “super-multiplier” can be made to work in knowledge-intensive economies

Read more on Anti-crisis policies in knowledge-intensive economies