EH.net is owned and operated by the Economic History Association
with the support of other sponsoring organizations.

Advertising Bans in the United States

Jon P. Nelson, Pennsylvania State University

Freedom of expression has always ranked high on the American scale of values and fundamental rights. This essay addresses regulation of “commercial speech,” which is defined as speech or messages that propose a commercial transaction. Regulation of commercial advertising occurs in several forms, but it is often controversial. In 1938, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was given the authority to regulate “unfair or deceptive” advertising. Congressional hearings were first held in 1939 on proposals to ban radio advertising of alcohol beverages (Russell 1940; U.S. Congress 1939, 1952). Actions by the FTC during 1964-69 led to the 1971 ban of radio and television advertising of cigarettes. In 1997, the distilled spirits industry reversed a six decade-old policy and began using cable television advertising. Numerous groups immediately called for removal of the ads, and Rep. Joseph Kennedy II (D, MA) introduced a “Just Say No” bill that would have banned all alcohol advertisements from the airways. In 1998, the Master Settlement Agreement between that state attorneys general and the tobacco industry put an end to billboard advertising of cigarettes. Do these regulations make any difference for the demand for alcohol or cigarettes? When will an advertising ban increase consumer welfare? What legal standards apply to commercial speech that affect the extent and manner in which governments can restrict advertising?

For many years, the Supreme Court held that the broad powers of government to regulate commerce included the “lesser power” to restrict commercial speech.1 In Valentine (1942), the Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “purely commercial advertising.” This view was applied when the courts upheld the ban of broadcast advertising of cigarettes, 333 F. Supp 582 (1971), affirmed per curiam, 405 U.S. 1000 (1972). However, in the mid-1970s this view began to change as the Court invalidated several state regulations affecting advertising of services and products such as abortion providers and pharmaceutical drugs. In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy (1976), the Court struck down a Virginia law that prohibited the advertising of prices for prescription drugs, and held that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information as well as the right to speak. Responding to the claim that advertising bans improved the public image of pharmacists, Justice Blackmun wrote that “an alternative [exists] to this highly paternalistic approach . . . people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication rather than to close them” (425 U.S. 748, at 770). In support of its change in direction, the Court asserted two main arguments: (1) truthful advertising coveys information that consumers need to make informed choices in a free enterprise economy; and (2) such information is indispensable as to how the economic system should be regulated or governed. In Central Hudson Gas & Electric (1980), the Court refined its approach and laid out a four-prong test for “intermediate” scrutiny of restrictions on commercial speech. First, the message content cannot be misleading and must be concerned with a lawful activity or product. Second, the government’s interest in regulating the speech in question must be substantial. Third, the regulation must directly and materially advance that interest. Fourth, the regulation must be no more extensive than necessary to achieve its goal. That is, there must be a “reasonable fit” between means and ends, with the means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective. Applying the third and fourth-prongs, in 44 Liquormart (1996) the Court struck down a Rhode Island law that banned retail price advertising of beverage alcohol. In doing so, the Court made clear that the state’s power to ban alcohol entirely did not include the lesser power to restrict advertising. More recently, in Lorillard Tobacco (2001) the Supreme Court invalidated a state regulation on placement of outdoor and in-store tobacco displays. In summary, Central Hudson requires the use of a “balancing” test to examine censorship of commercial speech. The test weighs the government’s obligations toward freedom of expression with its interest in limiting the content of some advertisements. Reasonable constraints on time, place, and manner are tolerated, and false advertising remains illegal.

This article provides a brief economic history of advertising bans, and uses the basic framework contained in the Central Hudson decision. The first section discusses the economics of advertising and addresses the economic effects that might be expected from regulations that prohibit or restrict advertising. Applying the Central Hudson test, the second section reviews the history and empirical evidence on advertising bans for alcohol beverages. The third section reviews bans of cigarette advertising and discusses the regulatory powers that reside with the Federal Trade Commission as the main government agency with the authority to regulate unfair or deceptive advertising claims.

The Economics of Advertising

Judged by the magnitude of exposures and expenditures, advertising is a vital and important activity. A rule of thumb in the advertising industry is that the average American is exposed to more than 1,000 advertising messages every day, but actively notices fewer than 80 ads. According to Advertising Age (http://www.adage.com), advertising expenditures in 2002 in all media totaled $237 billion, including $115 billion in 13 measured media. Ads in newspapers accounted for 19.2% of measured spending, followed by network TV (17.3%), magazines (15.6%), spot TV (14.0%), yellow pages (11.9%), and cable/syndicated TV (11.9%). Internet advertising now accounts for about 5.0% of spending. By product category, automobile producers were the largest advertisers ($16 billion of measured media), followed by retailing ($13.5 billion), movies and media ($6 billion), and food, beverages, and candies ($6.0 billion). Beverage alcohol producers ranked 17th ($1.7 billion) and tobacco producers ranked 23rd ($284 million). Among the top 100 advertisers, Anheuser-Busch occupied the 38th spot and Altria Group (which includes Philip Morris) ranked 17th. Total advertising expenditures in 2002 were about 2.3% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Ad spending tends to vary directly with general economy activity as illustrated by spending reductions during the 2000-2001 recession (Wall Street Journal, Aug. 14, 2001; Nov. 28, 2001; Dec. 12, 2001; Apr. 25, 2002). This pro-cyclical feature is contrary to Galbraith’s view that business firms use advertising to control or manage aggregate consumer demand.

National advertising of branded products developed in the early 1900s as increased urbanization and improvements in communication, transportation, and packaging permitted the development of mass markets for branded products (Chandler 1977). In 1900, the advertising-to-GDP ratio was about 3.1% (Simon 1970). The ratio stayed around 3% until 1929, but declined to 2% during the 1930s and has fluctuated around that value since then. The growth of major national industries was associated with increased promotion, although other economic changes often preceded the use of mass media advertising. For example, refrigeration of railroad cars in the late 1870s resulted in national advertising by meat packers in the 1890s (Pope 1983). Around the turn-of-the-century, Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward utilized low-cost transportation and mail-order catalogs to develop efficient systems of national distribution of necessities. By 1920 more Americans were living in urban areas than in rural areas. The location of retailers began to change, with a shift first to downtown shopping districts and later to suburban shopping malls. Commercial radio began in 1922, and advertising expenditures grew from $113 million in 1935 to $625 million in 1952. Commercial television was introduced in 1941, but wartime delayed the diffusion of televison. By 1954, half of the households in the U.S. had at least one television set. Expenditures on TV advertising grew rapidly from $454 million in 1952 to $2.5 billion in 1965 (Backman 1968). These changes affected the development of markets — for instance, new products could be introduced more rapidly and the available range of products was enhanced (Borden 1942).

Market Failure: Incomplete and Asymmetric Information

Because it is costly to acquire and process, the information held by buyers and sellers is necessarily incomplete and possibly unequal as well. However, full or “perfect” information is one of the analytical requirements for the proper functioning of competitive markets — so what happens when information is imperfect or unequal? Suppose, for example, that firms charge different prices for identical products, but some consumers (tourists) are ignorant of the dispersion of prices available in the marketplace. For many years, this question was largely ignored by economists, but two contributions sparked a revolution in economic thinking. Stigler (1961) showed that because information is costly to acquire, consumer search for lower prices will be less than complete. As a result, a dispersion of prices can persist and the “law of one price” is violated. The dispersion will be less if the product represents a large expenditure (e.g., autos), since more individual search is supported and suppliers have an extra incentive to promote the product. Because information has public good characteristics, imperfect information provides a rationale for government intervention, but profit-seeking firms also have reasons to reduce search costs through advertising and brand names. Akerlof (1970) took the analysis a step further by focusing on material aspects of a product that are known to the seller, but not by potential buyers. In Akerlof’s “lemons model,” the seller of a used car has private knowledge of defects, but potential buyers have difficulty distinguishing between good used cars (“creampuffs”) and bad used cars (“lemons”). Under these circumstances, Akerlof showed that a market may not exist or only lower-quality products are offered for sale. Hence, asymmetric information can result in market failure, but a reputation for quality can reduce the uncertainty that consumers face due to hidden defects (Akerlof 1970; Richardson 2000; Stigler 1961).

Under some conditions, branding and advertising of products, including targeting of customer groups, can help reduce market imperfections. Because advertising has several purposes or functions, there is always uncertainty regarding its effects. First, advertising may help inform consumers of the existence of products and brands, better inform them about price and quality dimensions, or better match customers and brands (Nelson 1975). Indeed, the basic message in many advertisements is simply that the brand is available. Consumer valuations can reflect a joint product, which is the product itself and the information about it. However, advertising tends to focus on only the positive aspects of a product, and ignores the negatives. In various ways, advertisers sometimes inform consumers that their brand is “less bad” (Calfee 1997b). An advertisement that announces a particular automobile is more crash resistant also is a reminder that all cars are less than perfectly safe. Second, persuasive or “combative” advertising can serve to differentiate one firm’s brand from those of its rivals. As a consequence, a successful advertiser may gain some discretion over the price it charges (“market power”). Furthermore, reactions by rivals may drive industry advertising to excessive levels or beyond the point where net social benefits of advertising are maximized. In other words, excessive advertising may result from the inability of each firm to reduce advertising without similar reductions by its rivals. Because it illustrates a breakdown of desirable coordination, this outcome is an example of the “prisoners’ dilemma game.” Third, the costs of advertising and promotion by existing or incumbent firms can make it more difficult for new firms to enter a market and compete successfully due to an advertising-cost barrier to entry. Investments in customer loyalty or intangible brand equity are largely sunk costs. Smaller incumbents also may be at a disadvantage relative to their larger rivals, and consequently face a “barrier to mobility” within the industry. However, banning advertising can have much the same effect by making it more difficult for smaller firms and entrants to inform customers of the existence of their brands and products. For example, Russian cigarette producers were successful in banning television advertising by new western rivals. Given multiple effects, systematic empirical evidence is needed to help resolve the uncertainties regarding the effects of advertising (Bagwell 2005).

Substantial empirical evidence demonstrates that advertising of prices increases competition and lowers the average market price and variance of prices. Conversely, banning price advertising can have the opposite effect, but consumers might derive information from other sources — such as direct observation and word-of-mouth — or firms can compete more on quality (Kwoka 1984). Bans of price advertising also affect product quality indirectly by making it difficult to inform consumers of price-quality tradeoffs. Products for which empirical evidence demonstrates that advertising reduces the average price include toys, drugs, eyeglasses, optometric services, gasoline, and grocery products. Thus, for relatively homogeneous goods, banning price advertising is expected to increase average prices and make entry more difficult. A partial offset occurs if significant costs of advertising increases product prices.

The effects of a ban of persuasive advertising also are uncertain. In a differentiated product industry, it is possible that advertising expenditures are so large that an advertising ban reduces costs and product prices, thereby offsetting or defeating the purpose of the ban. For products that are well known to consumers (“mature” products), the presumption is that advertising primarily affects brand shares and has little impact on primary demand (Dekimpe and Hanssens 1995; Scherer and Ross 1990). Advertising bans tend to solidify market shares. Furthermore, most advertising bans are less than complete, such as the ban of broadcast advertising of cigarettes. Producers can substitute other media or use other forms of promotion, such as discount coupons, articles of apparel, and event sponsorship. Thus, government limitations on commercial speech for one product or media often lead to additional efforts to limit other promotions. This “slippery slope” effect is illustrated by the Federal Communications Commission’s fairness doctrine for advertising of cigarettes (discussed below).

The Industry Advertising-Sales Response Function

The effect of a given ban on market demand depends importantly on the nature of the relationship between advertising expenditures and aggregate sales. This relationship is referred to as the industry advertising-sales response function. Two questions regarding this function have been debated. First, it is not clear that a well-defined function exists at the industry level, since persuasive advertising primarily affects brand shares. The issue is the spillover, if any, from brand advertising to aggregate (primary) market demand. Two studies of successful brand advertising in the alcohol industry failed to reveal a spillover effect on market demand (Gius 1996; Nelson 2001). Second, if an industry-level response function exists, it should be subject to diminishing marginal returns, but it is unclear where diminishing returns begin (the inflection point) or the magnitude of this effect. Some analysts argue that diminishing returns only begin at high levels of industry advertising, and sharply increasing returns exist at moderate to low levels (Saffer 1993). According to this view, comprehensive bans of advertising will reduce market demand importantly. However, this argument is at odds with empirical evidence for a variety of mature products, which demonstrates diminishing returns over a broad range of outlays (Assmus et al. 1984; Tellis 2004). Simon and Arndt (1980) found that diminishing returns began immediately for a majority of 100-plus products. Furthermore, average advertising elasticities for most mature products are only about 0.1 in magnitude (Sethuraman and Tellis 1991). As a result, limited bans of advertising will not reduce sales of mature products or the effect is likely to be extremely small in magnitude. It is unlikely that elasticities this small could support the third prong of the Central Hudson test.

Suppose that advertising for a particular product convinces some consumers to use Brand X, and this results in more sales of the brand at a higher price. Are consumers better or worse off as a consequence? A shift in consumer preferences toward a fortified brand of breakfast cereal might be described as either a “shift in tastes,” an increase in demand for nutrition, or an increase in joint demand for the cereal and information. Because it concerns individual utility, it is not clear whether a “shift in tastes” reduces or increases consumer satisfaction. Social commentators usually respond that consumers just think they are better off or the demand effect is spurious in nature. Much of the social criticism of advertising is concerned with its pernicious effect on consumer beliefs, tastes, and desires. Vance Packard’s, The Hidden Persuaders (1957), was an early, but possibly misguided, effort along these lines (Rogers 1992). Packard wrote that advertisers can “channel our unthinking habits, our purchasing decisions, and our thought processes by the use of insights gleaned from psychiatry and the social sciences.” Of course, once a “hidden secret” is revealed, such manipulation is less effective in the marketplace for products due to cynicism toward advertisers or outright rejection of the advertising claims.

Dixit and Norman (1978) argued that because profit-maximizing firms tend to over-advertise, small decreases in advertising will raise consumer welfare. In their analysis, this result holds regardless of the change in tastes or what product features are being advertised. Becker and Murphy (1993) responded that advertising is usually a complement to products, so it is unclear that equilibrium prices will always be higher as advertising increases. Further, it does not follow that social welfare is higher without any advertising. Targeting by advertisers also helps to increase the efficiency of advertising and reduces the tendency to waste advertising dollars on uninterested consumers through redundant ads. Nevertheless, this common practice also is criticized by social commentators and regulatory agencies. In summary, the evaluation of advertising bans requires empirical evidence. Much of the evidence on advertising bans is econometric and most of it concerns two products, alcohol beverages and cigarettes.

Advertising Bans: Beverage Alcohol

In an interesting way, the history of alcohol consumption follows the laws of supply and demand. The consumption of ethyl alcohol as a beverage began some 10,000 years ago. Due to the uncertainties of contaminated water supplies in the West, alcohol is believed to have been the most popular and safe daily beverage for centuries (Valle 1998). In the East, boiled water in the form of teas solved the problem of potable beverages. Throughout the Middle Ages, beer and ale were drunk by common folk and wine by the affluent. Following the decline of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church entered the profitable production of wines. Distillation of alcohol was developed in the Arab world in 700 A.D. and gradually spread to Europe, where distilled spirits were used ineffectively as a cure for plague in the 14th century. During the 17th century, several non-alcohol beverages became popular, including coffee, tea, and cocoa. In the late eighteenth century, religious sentiment turned against alcohol and temperance activity figured prominently in the concerns of the Baptist, Friends, Methodist, Mormon, Presbyterian, and Unitarian churches. It was not until the late nineteenth century that filtration and treatment made safe drinking water supplies more widely available.

During the colonial period, retail alcohol sellers were licensed by states, local courts, or town councils (Byse 1940). Some colonies fixed the number of licenses or bonded the retailer. Fixing of maximum prices by legislatures and the courts encouraged adulteration and misbranding by retailers. In 1829, the state of Maine passed the first local option law and in 1844, the territory of Oregon enacted a general prohibition law. Experimentation with statewide monopoly of the retail sale of alcohol began in 1893 in South Carolina. As early as 1897, federal regulation of labeling was enacted through the Bottling in Bond Act. Following the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, the Federal Alcohol Control Administration was created by executive order (O’Neill 1940). The Administration immediately set about creating “fair trade codes” that governed false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and prices that were “oppressively high or destructively low.” These codes discouraged price and advertising competition, and encouraged shipping expansion by the major midwestern brewers (McGahan 1991). The Administration ceased to function in 1935 when the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional. The passage of Federal Alcohol Administration Act in 1935 created the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) within the Treasury Department, which regulated trade practices and enforced the producer permit system required by the Act. In 1939, the FAA was abolished and its duties were transferred to the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (later named the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). The ATF presently administers a broad range of provisions regarding the formulation, labeling, and advertising of alcohol beverages.

Alcohol Advertising: Analytical Methods

Three types of econometric studies examine the effects of advertising on the market demand for beverage alcohol. First, time-series studies examine the relationship between alcohol consumption and annual or quarterly advertising expenditures. Recent examples of such studies include Calfee and Scheraga (1994), Coulson et al. (2001), Duffy (1995, 2001), Lariviere et al. (2000), Lee and Tremblay (1992), and Nelson (1999). All of these studies find that advertising has no effect on total alcohol consumption and small or nonexistent effects on beverage demand (Nelson 2001). This result is not affected by disaggregating advertising to account for different effects by media (Nelson 1999). Second, cross-sectional and panel studies examine the relationship between alcohol consumption and state regulations, such as state bans of billboards. Panel studies combine cross-sectional (e.g., all 50 states) and time-series information (50 states for the period 1980-2000), which alters the amount of variation in the data. Third, cross-national studies examine the relationship between alcohol consumption and advertising bans for a panel of countries. This essay discusses results obtained in the second and third types of studies.

Background: State Regulation of Billboard Advertising

In the United States, the distribution and retail sale of alcohol beverages is regulated by the individual states. The Twenty-First Amendment, passed in 1933, repealed Prohibition and granted the states legal powers over the sale of alcohol, thereby resolving the conflicting interests of “wets” and “drys” (Goff and Anderson 1994; Munger and Schaller 1997; Shipman 1940; Strumpf and Oberholzer-Gee 2000). As a result, alcohol laws vary importantly by state, and these differences represent a natural experiment with regard to the economic effects of regulation. Long-standing differences in state laws potentially affect the organization of the industry and alcohol demand, reflecting incentives that alter or shape individual behaviors. State laws also differ by beverage, suggesting that substitution among beverages is one possible consequence of regulation. For example, state laws for distilled spirits typically are more stringent than similar laws applied to beer and wine. While each state has adopted its own unique regulatory system, several broad categories can be identified. Following repeal, eighteen states adopted public monopoly control of the distribution of distilled spirits. Thirteen of these states operate off-premise retail stores for the sale of spirits, and two states also control retail sales of table wine. In five states, only the wholesale distribution of distilled spirits is controlled. No state has monopolized beer sales, but laws in three states provide for restrictions on private beer sales by alcohol content. In the private license states, an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) agency determines the number and type of retail licenses, subject to local wet-dry options. Because monopoly states have broad authority to restrict the marketing of alcohol, the presumption is that total alcohol consumption will be lower in the control states compared to the license states. Monopoly control also raises search costs by restricting outlet numbers, hours of operation, and product variety. Because beer and wine are substitutes or complements for spirits, state monopoly control can increase or decrease total alcohol use, or the net effect may be zero (Benson et al. 1997; Nelson 1990, 2003a).

A second broad experiment includes state regulations banning advertising of alcohol beverages or which restrict the advertising of prices. Following repeal, fourteen states banned billboard advertising of distilled spirits, including seven of the license states. Because the bans have been in existence for many years and change infrequently over time, these regulations provide evidence on the long-term effectiveness of advertising bans. It is often argued that billboards have an important effect on youth behaviors, and this belief has been a basis for municipal ordinances banning billboard advertising of tobacco and alcohol. Given long-standing bans, it might be expected that youth alcohol behaviors will show up as cross-state differences in adult per capita consumption. Indeed, these two variables are highly correlated (Cook and Moore 2000, 2001). Further, fifteen states banned price advertising by retailers using billboards, newspapers, and visible store displays. In general, a ban of price advertising reduces retail competition and increases search costs of consumers. However, these regulations were not intended to advance temperance, but rather were anti-competitive measures obtained by alcohol retailers (McGahan 1995). For example, in 44 Liquormart (1996) the lower court noted that Rhode Island’s ban of price advertising was designed to protect smaller retailers from in-state and out-of-state competition, and was closely monitored by the liquor retailers association. A price advertising ban could reduce alcohol consumption by elevating full prices (search costs plus monetary prices). Because many states banned only price advertising of spirits, substitution among beverages also is a possible outcome.

Table 1 illustrates historical changes since 1935 in alcohol consumption in the United States and three individual states. Also, Table 1 shows nominal and real advertising expenditures for the U.S. After peaking in the early 1980s, per capita alcohol consumption is now at roughly the level experienced in the early 1960s. Nationally, the decline in alcohol consumption from 1980 to 2000 was 21.0%. This decline has occurred despite continued high levels of advertising and promotion. At the state-level, the percentage changes in consumption are Illinois, -25.3%; Ohio, -15.5%; and Pennsylvania, -20.5%. Pennsylvania is a state monopoly for spirits and wines and also banned price advertising of alcohol, including beer, prior to 1997. However, the change in per capita consumption in Pennsylvania parallels what has occurred nationally.

Econometric Results: State-Level Studies of Billboard Bans

Seven econometric studies estimate the relationship between state billboard bans and alcohol consumption: Hoadley et al. (1984), Nelson (1990, 2003a), Ornstein and Hanssens (1985), Schweitzer et al. (1983), and Wilkinson (1985, 1987). Two studies used a single year, but the other five employed panel data covering five to 25 years. Two studies estimated demand functions for beer or distilled spirits only, which ignores substitution. None of the studies obtained a statistically significant reduction in total alcohol consumption due to bans of billboards. In several studies, billboard bans increased spirits consumption significantly. A positive effect of a ban is contrary to general expectations, but consistent with various forms of substitution. The study by Nelson (2003a) covered 45 states for the time period 1982-1997. In contrast to earlier studies, Nelson (2003a) focused on substitution among alcohol beverages and the resulting net effect on total ethanol consumption. Several subsamples were examined, including all 45 states, ABC-license states, and two time periods, 1982-1988 and 1989-1997. A number of other variables also were considered, including prices, income, tourism, age demographics, and the minimum drinking age. During both time periods, state billboard bans increased consumption of wine and spirits, and reduced consumption of beer. The net effect on total ethanol consumption was significantly positive during 1982-1988, and insignificant thereafter. During both time periods, bans of price advertising of spirits were associated with lower consumption of spirits, higher consumption of beer, and no effect on wine or total alcohol consumption. The results in this study demonstrate that advertising regulations have different effects by beverage, indicating the importance of substitution. Public policy statements that suggest that limited bans have a singular effect are ignoring market realities. The empirical results in Nelson (2003a) and other studies are consistent with the historic use of billboard bans as a device to suppress competition, with little or no effect on temperance.

Econometric Results: Cross-National Studies of Broadcast Bans

Many Western nations have restrictions on radio and television advertising of alcohol beverages, especially distilled spirits. These controls range from time-of-day restrictions and content guidelines to outright bans of broadcast advertising of all alcohol beverages. Until quite recently, the trend in most countries has been toward stricter rather than more lenient controls. Following repeal, U.S. producers of distilled spirits adopted a voluntary Code of Good Practice that barred radio advertising after 1936 and television advertising after 1948. When this voluntary agreement ended in late 1996, cable television stations began carrying ads for distilled spirits. The major TV networks continued to refuse such commercials. Voluntary or self-regulatory codes also have existed in a number of other countries, including Australia, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands. By the end of the 1980s, a number of countries had banned broadcast advertising of spirits, including Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom (Brewers Association of Canada 1997).

Table 1
Advertising and Alcohol Consumption (gallons of ethanol per capita, 14+ yrs)

Illinois Ohio Pennsylvania U.S. Alcohol Ads Real Ads Real Ads Percent
Year (gal. p.c.) (gal. p.c.) (gal. p.c.) (gal. p.c.) (mil. $) (mil. 96$) per capita Broadcast
1935 1.20
1940 1.56
1945 2.25
1950 2.04
1955 2.00
1960 2.07
1965 2.27 242.2 1018.5 7.50 38.7
1970 2.82 2.22 2.28 2.52 278.4 958.0 6.41 34.7
1975 2.99 2.21 2.35 2.69 395.6 979.9 5.99 44.0
1980 3.00 2.33 2.39 2.76 906.9 1580.5 8.83 55.1
1981 2.91 2.25 2.37 2.76 1014.9 1618.7 8.91 56.6
1982 2.83 2.28 2.36 2.72 1108.7 1667.0 9.07 58.1
1983 2.80 2.22 2.29 2.69 1182.9 1708.4 9.18 62.0
1984 2.77 2.26 2.25 2.65 1284.4 1788.9 9.50 66.0
1985 2.72 2.20 2.22 2.62 1293.0 1746.1 9.16 68.2
1986 2.68 2.17 2.23 2.58 1400.2 1850.6 9.61 73.5
1987 2.66 2.17 2.20 2.54 1374.7 1766.1 9.09 73.5
1988 2.64 2.11 2.11 2.48 1319.4 1639.8 8.37 74.4
1989 2.56 2.07 2.10 2.42 1200.4 1436.6 7.27 68.2
1990 2.62 2.09 2.15 2.45 1050.4 1209.7 6.10 64.8
1991 2.48 2.03 2.05 2.30 1119.5 1247.2 6.22 66.4
1992 2.43 1.98 1.99 2.30 1074.7 1172.0 5.78 68.5
1993 2.38 1.95 1.96 2.23 970.7 1030.9 5.04 70.4
1994 2.35 1.85 1.93 2.18 1000.9 1041.1 5.03 69.4
1995 2.29 1.90 1.86 2.15 1027.5 1046.4 5.00 68.2
1996 2.30 1.93 1.86 2.16 1008.8 1008.8 4.77 68.5
1997 2.26 1.91 1.84 2.14 1087.0 1069.2 5.01 66.5
1998 2.25 1.97 1.86 2.14 1187.6 1154.6 5.36 66.3
1999 2.27 2.00 1.87 2.16 1242.2 1189.5 5.45 64.2
2000 2.24 1.97 1.90 2.18 1422.6 1330.8 5.89 62.8

Sources: 1965-70 ad data from Adams-Jobson Handbooks; 1975-91 data from Impact; and 1992-2000 data from LNA/Competitive Media. Nominal data deflated by the GDP implicit price deflator (1996 = 100). Alcohol data from National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S. Apparent Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (1997) and 2003 supplement. Real advertising per capita is for ages 14+ based on NIAAA and author’s population estimates.

The possible effects of broadcast bans are examined in four studies: Nelson and Young (2001), Saffer (1991), Saffer and Dave (2002), and Young (1993). Because alcohol behavior or “cultural sentiment” varies by country, it is important that the social setting is considered. In particular, the level of alcohol consumption in the wine-drinking countries is substantially greater. In France, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain, alcohol consumption is about one-third greater than average (Nelson and Young 2001). Further, 20 to 25% of consumption in the Scandinavian countries is systematically under-reported due to cross-border purchases, smuggling, and home production. In contrast to other studies, Nelson and Young (2001) accounted for these differences. The study examined alcohol demand and related behaviors in a sample of 17 OECD countries (western Europe, Canada, and the U.S.) for the period 1977 to 1995. Control variables included prices, income, tourism, age demographics, unemployment, and drinking sentiment. The results indicated that bans of broadcast advertising of spirits did not decrease per capita alcohol consumption. During the sample period, five countries adopted broadcast bans of all alcohol beverage advertisements, apart from light beer (Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, Sweden). The regression estimates for complete bans were insignificantly positive. The results indicated that bans of broadcast advertising had no effect on alcohol consumption relative to countries that did not ban broadcast advertising. For the U.S., the cross-country results are consistent with studies of successful brands, studies of billboard bans, and studies of advertising expenditures (Nelson 2001). The results are inconsistent with an advertising-response function with a well-defined inflection point.

Advertising Bans: Cigarettes

Prior to 1920, consumption of tobacco in the U.S. was mainly in the form of cigars, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, and snuff. It was not until 1923 that cigarette consumption by weight surpassed that of cigars (Forey et al. 2002). Several early developments contributed to the rise of the cigarette (Borden 1942). First, the Bonsak cigarette-making machine was patented in 1880 and perfected in 1884 by James Duke. Second, the federal excise tax on cigarettes, instituted to help pay for the Civil War, was reduced in 1883 from $1.75 to 50 cents a thousand pieces. Third, during World War I, cigarette consumption by soldiers was encouraged by ease of use and low cost. Fourth, the taboo against public smoking by women began to wane, although participation by women remained substantially below that of men. By 1935, about 50% of men smoked compared to only 20% of women. Fifth, advertising has been credited with expanding the market for lighter-blends of tobacco, although evidence in support of this claim is lacking (Tennant 1950). Some early advertising claims were linked to health, such as a 1928 ad for Lucky Strike that emphasized, “No Throat Irritation — No Cough.” During this time, the FTC banned numerous health claims by de-nicotine products and devices, e.g., 10 FTC 465 (1925).

Cigarette advertising has been especially controversial since the early 1950s, reflecting known health risks associated with smoking and the belief that advertising is a causal factor in smoking behaviors. Warning labels on cigarette packages were first proposed in 1955, following new health reports by the American Cancer Society, the British Medical Research Council, and Reader’s Digest (1952). Regulation of cigarette advertising and marketing, especially by the FTC, increased over the years to include content restrictions (1942, 1950-52); advertising guidelines (1955, 1960, 1966); package warning labels (1965, 1970, 1984); product testing and labeling (1967, 1970); public reporting on advertising trends (1964, 1967, 1981); warning messages in advertisements (1970); and advertising bans (1971, 1998). The history of these regulations is discussed below.

Background: Cigarette Prohibition and Early Health Reports

During the 17th century, several of the northern colonies banned public smoking. In 1638, the Plymouth colony passed a law forbidding smoking in the streets and, in 1798, Boston banned the carrying of a lighted pipe or cigar in public. Beginning around 1850, a number of anti-tobacco groups were formed (U.S. Surgeon General 2000), including the American Anti-Tobacco Society in 1849, American Health and Temperance Association (1878), Anti-Cigarette League (1899), Non-Smokers Protective League (1911), and the Department of Narcotics of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (1883). The WCTU was a force behind the cigarette prohibition movement in Canada and the U.S. During the Progressive Era, fifteen states passed laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to adults and another twenty-one states considered such laws (Alston et al. 2002). North Dakota and Iowa were the first states to adopt smoking bans in 1896 and 1897, respectively. In West Virginia, cigarettes were taxed so heavily that they were de facto prohibited. In 1920, Lucy Page Gaston of the WCTU made a bid for the Republican nomination for president on an anti-tobacco platform. However, the movement waned as the laws were largely unenforceable. By 1928, cigarettes were again legal for sale to adults in every state.

As the popularity of cigarette smoking spread, so too did concerns about its health consequences. As a result, the hazards of smoking have long been common knowledge. A number of physicians took early notice of a tobacco-cancer relationship in their patients. In 1912, Isaac Adler published a book on lung cancer that implicated smoking. In 1928, adverse health effects of smoking were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. A Scientific American report in 1933 tentatively linked cigarette “tars” to lung cancer. Writing in Science in 1938, Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University demonstrated a statistical relationship between smoking and longevity (Pearl 1938). The addictive properties of nicotine were reported in 1942 in the British medical journal, The Lancet. These and other reports attracted little attention from the popular press, although Reader’s Digest (1924, 1941) was an early crusader against smoking. In 1950, three classic scientific papers appeared that linked smoking and lung cancer. Shortly thereafter, major prospective studies began to appear in 1953-54. At this time, the research findings were more widely reported in the popular press (e.g., Time 1953). In 1957, the Public Health Service accepted a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer (Burney 1959; Joint Report 1957). Between 1950 and 1963, researchers published more than 3,000 articles on the health effects of smoking.

Cigarette Advertising: Analytical Methods

Given the rising concern about the health effects of smoking, it is not surprising that cigarette advertising would come under fire. The ability of advertising to stimulate primary demand is not debated by public health officials, since in their eyes cigarette advertising is inherently deceptive. The econometric evidence is much less clear. Three methods are used to assess the relationship between cigarette consumption and advertising. First, time-series studies examine the relationship between cigarette consumption and annual or quarterly advertising expenditures. These studies have been reviewed several times, including comprehensive surveys by Cameron (1998), Duffy (1996), Lancaster and Lancaster (2003), and Simonich (1991). Most time-series studies find little or no effect of advertising on primary demand for cigarettes. For example, Duffy (1996) concluded that “advertising restrictions (including bans) have had little or no effect upon aggregate consumption of cigarettes.” A meta-analysis by Andrews and Franke (1991) found that the average elasticity of cigarette consumption with respect to advertising expenditure was only 0.142 during 1964-1970, and declined to -0.007 thereafter. Second, cross-national studies examine the relationship between per capita cigarette consumption and advertising bans for a panel of countries. Third, several time-series studies examine the effects of health scares and the 1971 ban of broadcast advertising. This essay discusses results obtained in the second and third types of econometric studies.

Econometric Results: Cross-National Studies of Broadcast Bans

Systematic tests of the effect of advertising bans are provided by four cross-national panel studies that examine annual per capita cigarette consumption among OECD countries: Laugesen and Meads (1991); Stewart (1993); Saffer and Chaloupka (2000); and Nelson (2003b). Results in the first three studies are less than convincing for several reasons. First, advertising bans might be endogenously determined together with cigarette consumption, but earlier studies treated advertising bans as exogenous. In order to avoid the potential bias associated with endogenous regressors, Nelson (2003b) estimated a structural equation for the enabling legislation that restricts advertising. Second, annual data on cigarette consumption contain pronounced negative trends, and the data series in levels are unlikely to be stationary. Nelson (2003b) tested for unit roots and used consumption growth rates (log first-differences) to obtain stationary data series for a sample of 20 OECD countries. Third, the study also tested for structural change in the smoking-advertising relationship. The motivation was based on the following set of observations: by the mid-1960s the risks associated with smoking were well known and cigarette consumption began to decline in most countries. For example, per capita consumption in the United States increased to an all-time high in 1963 and declined modestly until about 1978. Between 1978 and 1995, cigarette consumption in the U.S. declined on average by -2.44% per year. Further, the decline in consumption was accompanied by reductions in smoking prevalence. In the U.S., male smoking prevalence declined from 52% of the population in 1965 to 33% in 1985 and 27% in 1995 (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking also is increasingly concentrated among individuals with lower incomes or lower levels of education (U.S. Public Health Service 1994). Changes in prevalence suggest that the sample of smokers will not be homogeneous over time, which implies that empirical estimates may not be robust across different time periods.

Nelson (2003b) focused on total cigarettes, defined as the sum of manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes for 1970-1995. Data on cigarette and tobacco consumption were obtained from International Smoking Statistics (Forey et al. 2002). This comprehensive source includes estimates of sales in OECD countries for manufactured cigarettes, hand-rolled cigarettes, and total consumption by weight of all tobacco products. The data series begin around 1948 and extend to 1995. Regulatory information on advertising bans and health warnings were obtained from Health New Zealand’s International Tobacco Control Database and the World Health Organization’s International Digest of Health Legislation. For each country and year, HNZ reports the media in which cigarette advertising are banned. Nine media are covered, including television, radio, cinema, outdoor, newspapers, magazines, shop ads, sponsorships, and indirect advertising such as brand names on non-tobacco products. Based on these data, three dummy variables were defined: TV-RADIO (= 1 if only television and radio are banned, zero otherwise); MODERATE (= 1 if 3 or 4 media are banned); and STRONG (= 1 if 5 or more media are banned). On average, 4 to 5 media were banned in the 1990s compared to only 1 or 2 in the 1970s. Except for Austria, Japan and Spain, all OECD countries by 1995 had enacted moderate or strong bans of cigarette advertising. In 1995, there were 9 countries in the strong category compared to 5 in 1990, 4 in 1985, and only 3 countries in 1980 and earlier. Additional control variables in the study included prices, income, warning labels, unemployment rates, percent filter cigarettes, and demographics.

The results in Nelson (2003b) indicate that cigarette consumption is determined importantly by prices, income, and exogenous country-specific factors. The dummy variables for advertising bans were never significantly negative. The income elasticity was significantly positive and the price elasticity was significantly negative. The price elasticity estimate of -0.39 is identical to the consensus estimate of -0.4 for aggregate data (Chaloupka and Warner 2000). Beginning about 1985, the decline in smoking prevalence resulted in a shift in price and income elasticities. There also was a change in the political climate favoring additional restrictions on advertising that followed rather than caused reductions in smoking and smoking prevalence, which is “reverse causality.” Thus, advertising bans had no demonstrated influence on cigarette demand in the OECD countries, including the U.S. The advertising-response model that motivates past studies is not supported by these results. Data and estimation procedures used in three previous studies are picking-up the substantial declines in consumption that began in the late-1970s, which were unrelated to major changes in advertising restrictions.

Background: Regulation of Cigarettes by the Federal Trade Commission

At the urging of President Wilson, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was created by Congress in 1914. The Commission was given the broad mandate to prevent “unfair methods of competition.” From the very beginning, this mandate was interpreted to include false and deceptive advertising, even though advertising per se was not an antitrust issue. Indeed, the first cease-and-desist order issued by the FTC concerned false advertising, 1 FTC 13 (1916). It was the age of the patent medicines and health-claims devices. As early as 1925, FTC orders against false and misleading advertising constituted 75 percent of all orders issued each year. However, in Raladam (1931) the Supreme Court held that false advertising could be prevented only in situations where injury to a competitor could be demonstrated. The Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938 added a prohibition of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in or affecting commerce. This amendment broadened Section 5 of the FTC Act to include consumer interests as well as business concerns. The FTC could thereafter proceed against unfair and deceptive methods without regard to alleged effects on competitors.

As an independent regulatory agency, the FTC has rulemaking and adjudicatory authorities (Fritschler and Hoefler 1996). Its rulemaking powers are quasi-legislative, including the authority to hold hearings and trade practice conferences, subpoena witnesses, conduct investigations, and issue industry guidelines and proposals for legislation. Its adjudicatory powers are quasi-judicial, including the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, consent decrees, injunctions, trade regulation rules, affirmative disclosure and substantiation orders, corrective advertising orders, and advisory opinions. Administrative complaints are adjudicated before an administrative law judge in trial-like proceedings. Rulemaking by the FTC is characterized by broad applicability to all firms in an industry, whereas judicial policy is based on a single case and affects directly only those named in the suit. Of course, once a precedent is established, it may affect other firms in the same situation. Lacking a well-defined constituency, except possibly small business, the FTC’s use of its manifest powers has always been controversial (Clarkson and Muris 1981; Hasin 1987; Miller 1989; Posner 1969, 1973; Stone 1977).

Beginning in 1938, the FTC used its authority to issue “unfair and deceptive” advertising complaints against the major cigarette companies. These actions, known collectively as the “health claims cases,” resulted in consent decrees or cease-and-desist orders involving several major brands during the 1940s and early 1950s. As several cases neared the final judgment phase, in September 1954 the FTC sent a letter to all companies proposing a seven-point list of advertising standards in light of “scientific developments with regard to the [health] effects of cigarette smoking.” A year later, the FTC issued its Cigarette Advertising Guides, which forbade any reference to physical effects of smoking and representations that a brand of cigarette is low in nicotine or tars that “has not been established by a competent scientific proof.” Following several articles in Reader’s Digest, cigarette advertising in 1957-1959 shifted to emphasis on tar and nicotine reduction during the “tar derby.” The FTC initially tolerated these ads if based on tests conducted by Reader’s Digest or Consumer Reports. In 1958, the FTC hosted a two-day conference on tar and nicotine testing, and in 1960 it negotiated a trade practice agreement that “all representations of low or reduced tar or nicotine, whether by filtration or otherwise, will be construed as health claims.” This action was blamed for halting a trend toward increased consumption of lower-tar cigarettes (Calfee 1997a; Neuberger 1963). The FTC vacated this agreement in 1966 when it informed the companies that it would no longer consider advertising that contained “a factual statement of tar and nicotine content” a violation of its Advertising Guides.

On January 11, 1964, the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health issued its famous report on Smoking and Health (U.S. Surgeon General 1964). One week after the report’s release, the FTC initiated proceedings “for promulgation of trade regulation rules regarding unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the advertising and labeling of cigarettes” (notice, 29 Fed Reg 530, January 22, 1964; final rule, 29 Fed Reg 8325, July 2, 1964). The proposed Rule required that all cigarette packages and advertisements disclose prominently the statement, “Caution: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health [and] may cause death from cancer and other diseases.” Failure to include the warning would be regarded as a violation of the FTC Act. The industry challenged the Rule on grounds that the FTC lacked the statutory authority to issue industry-wide trade rules, absent congressional guidance. The major companies also established their own Cigarette Advertising Code, which prohibited advertising aimed at minors, health-related claims, and celebrity endorsements.

The FTC’s Rule resulted in several congressional bills that culminated in the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-92, effective Jan. 1, 1966). The Labeling Act required each cigarette package to contain the statement, “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” According to the Act’s declaration of policy, the warnings were required so that “the public may be adequately informed that cigarette smoking may be hazardous to the health.” The Act also required the FTC to report annually to Congress concerning (a) the effectiveness of cigarette labeling, (b) current practices and methods of cigarette advertising and promotion, and (c) such recommendations for legislation as it may deem appropriate. Beginning in 1967, the FTC commenced its annual reporting to Congress on advertising of cigarettes. It recommended that health warning be extended to advertising and strengthened to conform to its original proposal, and it called for research on less-hazardous cigarettes. These recommendations were repeated in 1968 and 1969, and a recommendation was added that advertising on television and radio should be banned.

Several other important regulatory actions also took place in 1967-1970. First, the FTC established a laboratory to conduct standardized testing of tar and nicotine content for each brand. In November 1967, the FTC commenced public reporting of tar and nicotine levels by brand, together with reports of overall trends in smoking behaviors. Second, in June of 1967, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that the “fairness doctrine” was applicable to cigarette advertising, which resulted in numerous free anti-smoking commercials by the American Cancer Society and other groups during July 1967 to December 1970.2 Third, in early 1969 the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to ban broadcast advertising of cigarettes (34 Fed Reg 1959, Feb. 11, 1969). The proposal was endorsed by the Television Code Review Board of the National Association of Broadcasters, and its enactment was anticipated by some industry observers. Following the FCC’s proposal, the FTC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (34 Fed Reg 7917, May 20, 1969) to require more forceful statements on packages and extend the warnings to all advertising as a modification of its 1964 Rule in the “absence of contrary congressional direction.” Congress again superseded the FTC’s actions, and passed the Public Health Smoking Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-222, effective Nov. 1, 1970), which banned broadcast advertising after January 1, 1971 and modified the package label to read, “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.” In 1970, the FTC negotiated agreements with the major companies to (1) disclose tar and nicotine levels in cigarette advertising using the FTC Test Method, and (2) include the health warning in advertising. By 1972, the FTC believed that it had achieved the recommendations in its initial reports to Congress.3

In summary, the FTC has engaged in continuous surveillance of cigarette advertising and marketing practices. Industry-wide regulation began in the early 1940s. As a result, the advertising of cigarettes in the U.S. is more restricted than other lawful consumer products. Some regulations are primarily informational (warning labels), while others affect advertising levels directly (broadcast ban). During a six-decade period, the FTC regulated the overall direction of cigarette marketing, including advertising content and placement, warning labels, and product development. Through its testing program, it has influenced the types of cigarettes produced and consumed. The FTC engaged in continuous monitoring of cigarette advertising practices and prepared in-depth reports on these practices; it held hearings on cigarette testing, advertising, and labeling; and it issued consumer advisories on smoking. Directly or indirectly, the FTC has initiated or influenced promotional and product developments in the cigarette industry. However, it remains to be shown that these actions had an important or noticeable effect on cigarette consumption and/or industry advertising expenditures. Is there empirical evidence that federal regulation has affected aggregate cigarette consumption or advertising? If the answer is negative or the effects are limited in magnitude, it suggests that the Congressional and FTC actions after 1964 did not add materially to information already in the marketplace or these actions were otherwise misguided.4

Table 2 displays information on smoking prevalence, cigarette consumption, and advertising. Smoking prevalence has declined considerably compared to the 1950s and 1960s. Consumption per capita reached an all-time high in 1963 (4,345 cigarettes per capita) and began a steep decline around 1978. By 1985, consumption was below the level experienced in 1947. Cigarette promotion has changed greatly over the years as producers substituted away from traditional advertising media. As reported by the FTC, the category of non-price promotions includes expenditures on point-of-sale displays, promotional allowances, samples, specialty items, public entertainment, direct mail, endorsements and testimonials, internet, and audio-visual ads. The shift away from media advertising reflects the broadcast and billboard bans as well as the controversies that surround advertising of cigarettes. As a result, spending on traditional media now amounts to only $356 million, or about 7% of the total marketing outlay of $5.0 billion. Clearly, regulation has affected the type of promotion, but not the overall expenditure.

Econometric Results: U.S. Time-Series Studies of the 1971 Advertising Ban

Several econometric studies examine the effects of the 1971 broadcast ban on cigarette demand, including Franke (1994), Gallet (1999), Ippolito et al. (1979), Kao and Tremblay (1988), and Simonich (1991). None of these studies found that the 1971 broadcast ban had a noticeable effect on cigarette demand. The studies by Franke and Simonich employed quarterly data on cigarette sales. The study by Ippolito et al. covered an extended time period from 1926 to 1975. The studies by Gallet and Kao and Tremblay employed simultaneous-equations methods, but each study concluded that the broadcast advertising ban did not have a significant effect on cigarette demand. Although health reports in 1953 and 1964 may have reduced the demand for tobacco, the results do not support a negative effect of the 1971 Congressional broadcast ban. By 1964 or earlier, the adverse effects of smoking appear to have been incorporated in consumers’ decisions regarding smoking. Hence, the advertising restrictions did not contribute to consumer information and therefore did not affect cigarette consumption.

Conclusions

The First Amendment protects commercial speech, although the degree of protection afforded is less than political speech. Commercial speech jurisprudence has changed profoundly since Congress passed a flat ban on broadcast advertising of cigarettes in 1971. The courts have recognized the vital need for consumers to be informed about market conditions — an environment that is conducive to operation of competitive markets. The Central Hudson test requires the courts and agencies to balance the benefits and costs of censorship. The third-prong of the test requires that censorship must directly and materially advance a substantial goal. This essay has discussed the difficulty of establishing a material effect of limited and comprehensive bans of alcohol and cigarette advertisements.

Sales per cap. 5-media Non-Price Total per cap.

Table 2
Advertising and Cigarette Consumption

Prevalence: Total Cig Sales Cigs
per cap.
Ad Spending:
5-media
Promotion:
Non-Price
Real Total Real Total
per cap.
Male Female
Year (%) (%) (bil.) (ages 18+) (mil. $) (mil. $) (mil 96$) (ages 18+)
1920 44.6 665
1925 79.8 1,085
1930 119.3 1,485 26.0 213.1
1935 53 18 134.4 1,564 29.2 286.3
1940 181.9 1,976 25.3 245.6
1947 345.4 3,416 44.1 269.7 2.70
1950 54 33 369.8 3,552 65.5 375.4 3.61
1955 50 24 396.4 3,597 104.6 528.8 4.83
1960 47 27 484.4 4,171 193.1 870.2 7.53
1965 52 34 528.8 4,258 249.9 1050.9 8.49
1970 44 31 536.5 3,985 296.6 64.4 1242.3 9.26
1975 39 29 607.2 4,122 330.8 160.5 1227.3 8.28
1980 38 29 631.5 3,849 790.1 452.2 2177.9 13.29
1985 33 28 594.0 3,370 932.0 1544.4 3360.6 19.09
1986 583.8 3,274 796.3 1586.1 3163.5 17.78
1987 32 27 575.0 3,197 719.2 1861.3 3326.2 18.49
1988 31 26 562.5 3,096 824.5 1576.3 2993.1 16.44
1989 540.0 2,926 868.3 1788.7 3190.8 17.35
1990 28 23 525.0 2,817 835.2 1973.0 3246.1 17.52
1991 28 24 510.0 2,713 772.6 2054.6 3153.2 16.86
1992 28 25 500.0 2,640 621.5 2435.0 3328.1 17.62
1993 28 23 485.0 2,539 542.1 2933.9 3695.9 19.38
1994 28 23 486.0 2,524 545.1 3039.5 3733.6 19.41
1995 27 23 487.0 2,505 564.2 2982.6 3615.5 18.62
1996 487.0 2,482 578.2 3220.8 3799.0 19.37
1997 28 22 480.0 2,423 575.7 3561.4 4058.0 20.47
1998 26 22 465.0 2,320 645.6 3908.0 4412.4 22.03
1999 26 22 435.0 2,136 487.7 4659.0 4918.0 24.29
2000 26 21 430.0 2,092 355.8 5015.0 5043.0 24.53
Sources: Smoking prevalence and cigarette sales from Forey et al (2002) and U.S. Public Health Service (1994). Data on advertising compiled by the author from FTC Reports to Congress (various issues); 1930-1940 data derived from Borden (1942). Nominal data deflated by the GDP implicit price deflator (1996=100). Advertising expenditures include TV, radio, newspapers, magazine, outdoor and transit ads. Promotions exclude price-promotions using discount coupons and retail value-added offers (“buy one, get one free”). Real total includes advertising and non-price promotions.

Law Cases

44 Liquormart, Inc., et al. v. Rhode Island and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Assoc., 517 U.S. 484 (1996).

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643 (1931).

Food and Drug Administration, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., et al., 529 U.S. 120 (2000).

Lorillard Tobacco Co., et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., 533 U.S. 525 (2001).

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

Valentine, Police Commissioner of the City of New York v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, et al. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., et al., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).

References

Akerlof, George A. “The Market for ‘Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (1970): 488-500.

Alston, Lee J., Ruth Dupre, and Tomas Nonnenmacher. “Social Reformers and Regulation: The Prohibition of Cigarettes in the U.S. and Canada.” Explorations in Economic History 39 (2002): 425-45.

Andrews, Rick L. and George R. Franke. “The Determinants of Cigarette Consumption: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10 (1991): 81-100.

Assmus, Gert, John U. Farley, and Donald R. Lehmann. “How Advertising Affects Sales: Meta-Analysis of Econometric Results.” Journal of Marketing Research 21 (1984): 65-74.

Backman, Jules. Advertising and Competition. New York: New York University Press, 1967.

Bagwell, Kyle. “The Economic Analysis of Advertising.” In Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 3, edited by M. Armstrong and R. Porter. Amsterdam: North-Holland, forthcoming 2005.

Becker, Gary and Kevin Murphy. “A Simple Theory of Advertising as a Good or Bad,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (1993): 941-64.

Benson, Bruce L., David W. Rasmussen, and Paul R. Zimmerman. “Implicit Taxes Collected by State Liquor Monopolies.” Public Choice 115 (2003): 313-31.

Borden, Neil H. The Economic Effects of Advertising. Chicago: Irwin, 1942.

Brewers Association of Canada. Alcoholic Beverage Taxation and Control Policies: International Survey, 9th ed. Ottawa: BAC, 1997.

Burney, Leroy E. “Smoking and Lung Cancer: A Statement of the Public Health Service.” Journal of the American Medical Association 171 (1959): 135-43.

Byse, Clark. “Alcohol Beverage Control Before Repeal.” Law and Contemporary Problems 7 (1940): 544-69.

Calfee, John E. “The Ghost of Cigarette Advertising Past.” Regulation 20 (1997a): 38-45.

Calfee, John E. Fear of Persuasion: A New Perspective on Advertising and Regulation. LaVergne, TN: AEI, 1997b.

Calfee, John E. and Carl Scheraga. “The Influence of Advertising on Alcohol Consumption: A Literature Review and an Econometric Analysis of Four European Nations.” International Journal of Advertising 13 (1994): 287-310.

Cameron, Sam. “Estimation of the Demand for Cigarettes: A Review of the Literature.” Economic Issues 3 (1998): 51-72.

Chaloupka, Frank J. and Kenneth E. Warner. “The Economics of Smoking.” In The Handbook of Health Economics, vol. 1B, edited by A.J. Culyer and J.P. Newhouse, 1539-1627. New York: Elsevier, 2000.

Chandler, Alfred D. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1977.

Clarkson, Kenneth W. and Timothy J. Muris, eds. The Federal Trade Commission since 1970: Economic Regulation and Bureaucratic Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Cook, Philip J. and Michael J. Moore. “Alcohol.” In The Handbook of Health Economics, vol. 1B, edited by A.J. Culyer and J.P. Newhouse, 1629-73. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000.

Cook, Philip J. and Michael J. Moore. “Environment and Persistence in Youthful Drinking Patterns.” In Risky Behavior Among Youths: An Economic Analysis, edited by J. Gruber, 375-437. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Coulson, N. Edward, John R. Moran, and Jon P. Nelson. “The Long-Run Demand for Alcoholic Beverages and the Advertising Debate: A Cointegration Analysis.” In Advertising and Differentiated Products, vol. 10, edited by M.R. Baye and J.P. Nelson, 31-54. Amsterdam: JAI Press, 2001.

Dekimpe, Marnick G. and Dominique Hanssens. “Empirical Generalizations about Market Evolution and Stationarity.” Marketing Science 14 (1995): G109-21.

Dixit, Avinash and Victor Norman. “Advertising and Welfare.” Bell Journal of Economics 9 (1978): 1-17.

Duffy, Martyn. “Advertising in Demand Systems for Alcoholic Drinks and Tobacco: A Comparative Study.” Journal of Policy Modeling 17 (1995): 557-77.

Duffy, Martyn. “Econometric Studies of Advertising, Advertising Restrictions and Cigarette Demand: A Survey.” International Journal of Advertising 15 (1996): 1-23.

Duffy, Martyn. “Advertising in Consumer Allocation Models: Choice of Functional Form.” Applied Economics 33 (2001): 437-56.

Federal Trade Commission. Staff Report on the Cigarette Advertising Investigation. Washington, DC: FTC, 1981.

Forey, Barbara, et al., eds. International Smoking Statistics, 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Franke, George R. “U.S. Cigarette Demand, 1961-1990: Econometric Issues, Evidence, and Implications.” Journal of Business Research 30 (1994): 33-41.

Fritschler, A. Lee and James M. Hoefler. Smoking and Politics: Policy Making and the Federal Bureaucracy, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.

Gallet, Craig A. “The Effect of the 1971 Advertising Ban on Behavior in the Cigarette Industry.” Managerial and Decision Economics 20 (1999): 299-303.

Gius, Mark P. “Using Panel Data to Determine the Effect of Advertising on Brand-Level Distilled Spirits Sales.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 57 (1996): 73-76.

Goff, Brian and Gary Anderson. “The Political Economy of Prohibition in the United States, 1919-1933.” Social Science Quarterly 75 (1994): 270-83.

Hasin, Bernice R. Consumers, Commissions, and Congress: Law, Theory and the Federal Trade Commission, 1968-1985. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1987.

Hazlett, Thomas W. “The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment.” The Public Interest 96 (1989): 103-16.

Hoadley, John F., Beth C. Fuchs, and Harold D. Holder. “The Effect of Alcohol Beverage Restrictions on Consumption: A 25-year Longitudinal Analysis.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 10 (1984): 375-401.

Ippolito, Richard A., R. Dennis Murphy, and Donald Sant. Staff Report on Consumer Responses to Cigarette Health Information. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, 1979.

Joint Report of the Study Group on Smoking and Health. “Smoking and Health.” Science 125 (1957): 1129-33.

Kao, Kai and Victor J. Tremblay. “Cigarette ‘Health Scare,’ Excise Taxes, and Advertising Ban: Comment.” Southern Economic Journal 54 (1988): 770-76.

Kwoka, John E. “Advertising and the Price and Quality of Optometric Services.” American Economic Review 74 (1984): 211-16.

Lancaster, Kent M. and Alyse R. Lancaster. “The Economics of Tobacco Advertising: Spending, Demand, and the Effects of Bans.” International Journal of Advertising 22 (2003): 41-65.

Lariviere, Eric, Bruno Larue, and Jim Chalfant. “Modeling the Demand for Alcoholic Beverages and Advertising Specifications.” Agricultural Economics 22 (2000): 147-62.

Laugesen, Murray and Chris Meads. “Tobacco Advertising Restrictions, Price, Income and Tobacco Consumption in OECD Countries, 1960-1986.” British Journal of Addiction 86 (1991): 1343-54.

Lee, Byunglak and Victor J. Tremblay. “Advertising and the US Market Demand for Beer.” Applied Economics 24 (1992): 69-76.

McGahan, A.M. “The Emergence of the National Brewing Oligopoly: Competition in the American Market, 1933-1958.” Business History Review 65 (1991): 229-84.

McGahan, A.M. “Cooperation in Prices and Advertising: Trade Associations in Brewing after Repeal.” Journal of Law and Economics 38 (1995): 521-59.

Miller, James C. The Economist as Reformer: Revamping the FTC, 1981-1985. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1989.

Munger, Michael and Thomas Schaller. “The Prohibition-Repeal Amendments: A Natural Experiment in Interest Group Influence.” Public Choice 90 (1997): 139-63.

Nelson, Jon P. “State Monopolies and Alcoholic Beverage Consumption.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 2 (1990): 83-98.

Nelson, Jon P. “Broadcast Advertising and U.S. Demand for Alcoholic Beverages.” Southern Economic Journal 66 (1999): 774-90.

Nelson, Jon P. “Alcohol Advertising and Advertising Bans: A Survey of Research Methods, Results, and Policy Implications.” In Advertising and Differentiated Products, vol. 10, edited by M.R. Baye and J.P. Nelson, 239-95. Amsterdam: JAI Press, 2001.

Nelson, Jon P. “Advertising Bans, Monopoly, and Alcohol Demand: Testing for Substitution Effects Using State Panel Data.” Review of Industrial Organization 22 (2003a): 1-25.

Nelson, Jon P. “Cigarette Demand, Structural Change, and Advertising Bans: International Evidence, 1970-1995.” Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy 2 (2003b): 1-28. http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/contributions (electronic journal).

Nelson, Jon P. and Douglas J. Young. “Do Advertising Bans Work? An International Comparison.” International Journal of Advertising 20 (2001): 273-96.

Nelson, Phillip. “The Economic Consequences of Advertising.” Journal of Business 48 (1975): 213-41.

Neuberger, Maurine B. Smoke Screen: Tobacco and the Public Welfare. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

O’Neill, John E. “Federal Activity in Alcoholic Beverage Control.” Law and Contemporary Problems 7 (1940): 570-99.

Ornstein, Stanley O. and Dominique M. Hanssens. “Alcohol Control Laws and the Consumption of Distilled Spirits and Beer.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (1985): 200-13.

Packard, Vance O. The Hidden Persuaders. New York: McKay, 1957.

Pearl, Raymond. “Tobacco Smoking and Longevity.” Science 87 (1938): 216-17.

Pope, Daniel. The Making of Modern Advertising. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Posner, Richard A. “The Federal Trade Commission.” University of Chicago Law Review 37 (1969): 47-89.

Posner, Richard A. Regulation of Advertising by the FTC. Washington, DC: AEI, 1973.

“Does Tobacco Harm the Human Body?” (by I. Fisher). Reader’s Digest (Nov. 1924): 435. “Nicotine Knockout, or the Slow Count” (by G. Tunney). Reader’s Digest (Dec. 1941): 21. “Cancer by the Carton” (by R. Norr). Reader’s Digest (Dec. 1952): 7.

Richardson, Gary. “Brand Names before the Industrial Revolution.” Unpub. working paper, Department of Economics, University of California at Irvine, 2000.

Rogers, Stuart. “How a Publicity Blitz Created the Myth of Subliminal Advertising.” Public Relations Quarterly 37 (1992): 12-17.

Russell, Wallace A. “Controls Over Labeling and Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages.” Law and ContemporaryProblems 7 (1940): 645-64.

Saffer, Henry. “Alcohol Advertising Bans and Alcohol Abuse: An International Perspective.” Journal of Health Economics 10 (1991): 65-79.

Saffer, Henry. “Advertising under the Influence.” In Economics and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems, edited by M.E. Hilton, 125-40. Washington, DC: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1993.

Saffer, Henry and Frank Chaloupka. “The Effect of Tobacco Advertising Bans on Tobacco Consumption.” Journal of Health Economics 19 (2000): 1117-37.

Saffer, Henry and Dhaval Dave. “Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol Advertising Bans.” Applied Economics 34 (2002): 1325-34.

Scherer, F. M. and David Ross. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990.

Schweitzer, Stuart O., Michael D. Intriligator, and Hossein Salehi. “Alcoholism.” In Economics and Alcohol: Consumption and Controls, edited by M. Grant, M. Plant, and A. Williams, 107-22. New York: Harwood, 1983.

Sethuraman, Raj and Gerard J. Tellis. “An Analysis of the Tradeoff Between Advertising and Price Discounting.” Journal of Marketing Research 28 (1991): 160-74.

Shipman, George A. “State Administrative Machinery for Liquor Control.” Law and Contemporary Problems 7 (1940): 600-20.

Simmons, Steven J. The Fairness Doctrine and the Media. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978.

Simon, Julian L. Issues in the Economics of Advertising. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970.

Simon, Julian L. and John Arndt. “The Shape of the Advertising Response Function.” Journal of Advertising Research 20 (1980): 11-28.

Simonich, William L. Government Antismoking Policies. New York: Peter Lang, 1991.

Stewart, Michael J. “The Effect on Tobacco Consumption of Advertising Bans in OECD Countries.” International Journal of Advertising 12 (1993): 155-80.

Stigler, George J. “The Economics of Information.” Journal of Political Economy 69 (1961): 213-25.

Stone, Alan. Economic Regulation and the Public Interest: The Federal Trade Commission in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977.

Strumpf, Koleman S. and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. “Local Liquor Control from 1934 to 1970.” In Public Choice Interpretations of American Economic History, edited by J.C. Heckelman, J.C. Moorhouse, and R.M. Whaples, 425-45. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 2000.

Tellis, Gerard J. Effective Advertising: Understanding When, How, and Why Advertising Works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.

Tennant, Richard B. The American Cigarette Industry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1950.

“Beyond Any Doubt.” Time (Nov. 30, 1953): 60.

U.S. Congress. Senate. To Prohibit the Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages by Radio. Hearings before the Subcommittee on S. 517. 76th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Liquor Advertising Over Radio and Television. Hearings on S. 2444. 88th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.

U.S. Public Health Service. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964.

U.S. Public Health Service. Surveillance for Selected Tobacco-Use Behaviors — United States, 1900-1994. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.

U.S. Public Health Service. Reducing Tobacco Use. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.

Vallee, Bert L. “Alcohol in the Western World.” Scientific American 278 (1998): 80-85.

Wilkinson, James T. “Alcohol and Accidents: An Economic Approach to Drunk Driving.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1985.

Wilkinson, James T. “The Effects of Regulation on the Demand for Alcohol.” Unpub. working paper, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, 1987.

Young, Douglas J. “Alcohol Advertising Bans and Alcohol Abuse: Comment.” Journal of Health Economics 12 (1993): 213-28.

Endnotes

1. See, for example, Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (1932); Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951); E.F. Drew v. FTC, 235 F.2d 735 (1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 969 (1957).

2. In 1963, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) notified broadcast stations that they would be required to give “fair coverage” to controversial public issues (40 FCC 571). The Fairness Doctrine ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting (1969). At the request of John Banzhaf, the FCC in 1967 applied the Fairness Doctrine to cigarette advertising (8 FCC 2d 381). The FCC opined that the cigarette advertising was a “unique situation” and extension to other products “would be rare,” but Commissioner Loevinger warned that the FCC would have difficulty distinguishing cigarettes from other products (9 FCC 2d 921). The FCC’s ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court, which argued that First Amendment rights were not violated because advertising was “marginal speech” (405 F.2d 1082). During the period 1967-70, broadcasters were required to include free antismoking messages as part of their programming. In February 1969, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to ban broadcast advertising of cigarettes, absent voluntary action by cigarette producers (16 FCC 2d 284). In December 1969, Congress passed the Smoking Act of 1969, which contained the broadcast ban (effective Jan. 1, 1971). With regard to the Fairness Doctrine, Commissioner Loevinger’s “slippery slope” fears were soon realized. During 1969-1974, the FCC received thousands of petitions for free counter-advertising for diverse products, such as nuclear power, Alaskan oil development, gasoline additives, strip mining, electric power rates, clearcutting of forests, phosphate-based detergents, trash compactors, military recruitment, children’s toys, airbags, snowmobiles, toothpaste tubes, pet food, and the United Way. In 1974, the FCC began an inquiry into the Fairness Doctrine, which concluded that “standard product commercials, such as the old cigarette ads, make no meaningful contribution toward informing the public on any side of an issue . . . the precedent is not at all in keeping with the basic purposes of the fairness doctrine” (48 FCC 2d 1, at 24). After numerous inquires and considerations, the FCC finally announced in 1987 that the Fairness Doctrine had a “chilling effect,” on speech generally, and could no longer be sustained as an effective public policy (2 FCC Rcd 5043). Thus ended the FCC’s experiment with regulatory enforcement of a “right to be heard” (Hazlett 1989; Simmons 1978).

3. During the remainder of the 1970s, the FTC concentrated on enforcement of its advertising regulations. It issued consent orders for unfair and deceptive advertising to force companies to include health warnings “clearly and conspicuously in all cigarette advertising.” It required 260 newspapers and 40 magazines to submit information on cigarette advertisements, and established a task force with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to determine if newspaper ads were deceptive. In 1976, the FTC announced that it was again investigating “whether there may be deception and unfairness in the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.” It subpoenaed documents from 28 cigarette manufacturers, advertising agencies, and other organizations, including copy tests, consumer surveys, and marketing plans. Five years later, it submitted to Congress the results of this investigation in its Staff Report on Cigarette Investigation (FTC 1981). The report proposed a system of stronger rotating warnings and covered issues that had emerged regarding low-tar cigarettes, including compensatory behaviors by smokers and the adequacy of the FTC’s Test Method for determining tar and nicotine content. In 1984, President Reagan signed the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act (P.L. 98-474, effective Oct.12, 1985), which required four rotating health warnings for packages and advertising. Also, in 1984, the FTC revised its definition of deceptive advertising (103 FTC 110). In 2000, the FTC finally acknowledged the shortcoming of its tar and nicotine test method.

4. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over cigarettes as drugs in cases involving health claims for tobacco, additives, and smoking devices. Under Dr. David Kessler, the FDA in 1996 unsuccessfully attempted to regulate all cigarettes as addictive drugs and impose advertising and other restrictions designed to reduce the appeal and use of tobacco by children (notice, 60 Fed Reg 41313, Aug. 11, 1995; final rule, 61 Fed Reg 44395, Aug. 28, 1996); vacated by FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)

Citation: Nelson, Jon. “Advertising Bans, US”. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. May 20, 2004. URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/nelson-adbans/

History and Financial Crises: Lessons from the 20th Century

Reviewer(s):Moen, Jon

Published by EH.Net (August 2013)

Christopher Kobrak and Mira Wilkins, editors, History and Financial Crises: Lessons from the 20th Century.? New York: Routledge, 2013. x + 138 pp. $140 (cloth), ISBN: 978-0-415-62297-4.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Jon Moen, Department of Economics, University of Mississippi.

This book is a collection of six papers that were originally published as a special issue of Business History (Volume 53, Issue 2, April 2011).? It includes a new summary chapter on the use of history in understanding modern financial crises.? Two themes tied the original collection together: the roles of globalization and regulation in financial crises.? Because of the five papers chosen, the collection focuses on the 1920s and 30s.? The papers cover the experiences of the German, Swedish, British, Canadian, and U.S. financial and banking sectors just before and during the Great Depression.? Individually, the five papers draw useful lessons from historical episodes of financial crises, and I enjoyed reading them.? Because they were subject to careful peer-review, I will not review them individually.? Instead, I will review the effectiveness of the collection as a whole.

The original introductory essay and the new concluding essay distract from the five papers; they do not clearly make a case for why I should read them as a collection.? The introductory essay by Christopher Kobrak and Mira Wilkins starts with an extended discussion on the definition of a financial crisis.? It acknowledges Charles Kindleberger?s (2011) self-confessed inability to define a crisis and notes attempts to define a crisis on the basis of sudden movements in interest rates or the money supply.? Yet it ends quite unsatisfyingly with ?no absolute definition of either financial or economic crisis? (p. 5).? Later the essay apologizes for ultimately choosing a set of papers that are limited to the twentieth century, with an emphasis on the Great Depression (p. 10).? That is not bad, but the apology diminishes what the five essays do offer, as noted carefully in the next few pages.? One important point that the essay points out, however, is that not all crises covered in the special issue resulted in a collapse in demand and prices (p. 15).? Why crises do not inevitably lead to recessions or worse could be examined more.

The new, concluding essay by Christopher Kobrak is problematic.? As a stand-alone essay, I found it to be a potentially compelling survey of the relationship between financial and banking panics and the perils of making casual historical comparisons.? In particular, highlighting the relevance of the banking crises of the early 1930s rather than the spectacular stock market crash of 1929 helps in making historical comparisons with the crisis that started in 2008.? But then the essay veers off into topics that are again distracting, like musing on the loss of governmental discipline from the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement (p. 119).? This is odd, as the introductory essay indicates that the paper by Mark Billings and Forrest Capie emphasizes the benefits of flexible exchange rates.? The author then regrets not having an essay or more discussion of the Bank Panic of 1907, stating that it gets ?little press in financial histories? (p. 120) and then proceeds to write several pages on the Panic.? I have found quite a bit about 1907 in financial histories by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz (1963), Gary Gorton (2010), Richard Timberlake (1993), and Elmus Wicker (2000), just to name a few.? I may have contributed something myself.? The section on regulation (p. 123) starts out well, noting how historically regulation has always been trying to play catch-up to financial innovation.? But the subsequent discussion of the breakdown in Bretton Woods again doesn?t seem closely related to the papers of the special issue.? The discussion of ?Good Financial Crises? argues that crises that were successfully averted rarely get examined.? Wicker clearly points out that the New York Clearing House successfully dealt with the Panic of 1873, and he refers to the reactions to the Panics of 1884 and 1890 as success stories from the point of view of the Clearing House.? I mention this because there is a lot of historical analysis of specific panics out there that could have been tied into this essay.

The conclusion to the essay left me a bit puzzled.? Certainly financial markets are much more complicated today than, say, in 1907.? But is this the result of an increasing lack of social responsibility on the part of financiers today?? We are asked to compare today?s leaders with those of 1907, who ?stepped in to save a system from problems they themselves had created? (p. 131).? Whatever those problems were, I have a hard time imagining that saving his own skin was not first and foremost in J.P. Morgan?s mind, an incentive that just happened to be compatible with that of New York?s financial market in general.? Nevertheless, read the special issue or the book for the all of the essays.? Just do not expect to find a lot of lessons.

References:

Friedman, Milton, and Anna J. Schwartz. A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton, NJ: University Press, 1963.

Gorton, Gary.? Slapped by the Invisible Hand: The Panic of 2007.? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Kindleberger, Charles.? Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, 6th edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Timberlake, Richard.? Monetary Policy in the United States: An Intellectual and Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Wicker, Elmus.? Banking Panics of the Gilded Age.? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
?

Jon Moen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Mississippi.? He has studied retirement in the United States in addition to his research on the Panic of 1907.? He is currently working on a project with Ellis Tallman of Oberlin College and the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank on the effectiveness of the New York Clearing House in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.??
???
Copyright (c) 2013 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (August 2013). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):Europe
North America
Time Period(s):20th Century: Pre WWII

Money over Two Centuries: Selected Topics in British Monetary History

Author(s):Capie, Forrest
Wood, Geoffrey
Reviewer(s):Wood, John H.

Published by EH.Net (December 2012)

Forrest Capie and Geoffrey Wood, Money over Two Centuries: Selected Topics in British Monetary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. x + 367 pp. $125 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-19-965512-0.

Reviewed for EH.Net by John H. Wood, Department of Economics, Wake Forest University.

Two eminent professors emeriti of economic history at City University London have collected some of their published work over three decades into a convenient and useful analytical account of British monetary experiences the last two centuries.? Competing hypotheses of connections between money, inflation, central banking, and financial stability are examined to help us understand twenty-first-century events as well as the past.? The authors say in the introduction that they began with the goal of a monetary history of the United Kingdom similar to Friedman and Schwartz?s Monetary History of the United States.? An insurmountable obstacle, however, was the openness of the British economy.? For an economy with a third of national income engaged in foreign trade, domestic policies are only part of the story.? It can hardly be said, for example, that because wage changes are moderate there are no inflation dangers.? Nor are other closed-economy models imported from the United States helpful.? An ?output gap? derived from a domestically measured ?supply potential? of an economy open to the world is a meaningless concept (pp. 1-2).? This would also explain why the NBER?s cyclical domestic measures at the center of Friedman and Schwartz?s study are less useful to the analysis of more open economies.? The book and the rest of this review are divided into three parts that treat (i) the causes and effects of money, 1870-1939, (ii) financial crises, 1914-1949, and (iii) international problems and policies since World War II.?
???
Chapter 2 applies an ARIMA analysis to the distinction between two explanations of the Great Depression (which should probably be renamed ?The Great Price Fall?) of 1873-96 in Britain ? money and excess agricultural supply ? and finds in favor of the former; in particular, the international gold standard under which the quantity of money is outside the control of the authorities and the price level is determined internationally by gold production. (This reviewer would have said the relative cost of gold, but it comes to the same thing.)? The demand for money was also stable, helped by remarkable monetary stability (Chapter 3), which also explains why the post-1929 depression was less severe in Britain than the United States (Chapter 4).? Whatever monetary problems Britain had, including the return to gold in 1925 and the suspension of 1931, the authors conjecture that the stability of money contributed to general economic stability.? ?Institutions were crucial to the contrast in monetary stability between Britain and the rest of the world? (p. 99).? They were at least part of the reason why the deflations of 1873-96 and the interwar period had no important real effects, at least compared with the rest of the world.? The predictability of prices leads to the rejection of Keynes?s and Fisher?s theories of adverse effects of deflation on output in Britain (Chapter 5).?

Chapters 6 and 7 examine devaluations.? British monetary policies left much to be desired during the interwar period, but its institutions managed to get through what might have been crises without severe damage to the economy.? Although suspension of the gold convertibility of the pound in 1931 was a surprise, it was not associated with any of the shocks present in Minsky?s or Kindleberger?s accounts of crises.? There was no major boom and bust, bank run, reserve loss, or large government deficit.? Public and policy responses were mainly sighs of relief, and the suspension was treated as part of a considered adjustment to international events, forced in this case by the breakdown of the gold standard.? The 1949 devaluation was planned, on the other hand, but was similar to 1931 in being a response to conditions.? Both were ?beneficial? though feared beforehand (p. 203).
???
The third part is historical with interesting implications for the present.? Chapter 11 notes that apparently significant technological and institutional innovations have not ?threatened to move us from a money-using society to one which transacts by some other means,? so that their ?implications for monetary policy have … been, in theory at least, trivial? (p. 235).? A strategic market game implies that as long as transactions costs exist there will be fiat money (p. 249).? To the question, ?Can the EMU Survive?? (Chapter 12), the history of monetary unions suggests: not without more fiscal and political union.? The history of central banks and inflation (Chapter 13) suggests that the distinction between dependent and independent central banks has been overdrawn.? The choice has always depended on the government?s preference.? The history of the IMF in Chapter 14 finds no redeeming qualities.? The institution?s purpose as originally envisioned ? a flexible international order ? was not realized, and its self-anointed role as crisis manager, consisting largely of indefensible bailouts, has not been surprising in ?unelected officials who are not accountable for their actions,? quoting Anna Schwartz (p. 323).? In ?Financial Crises from 1803 to 2009: The Crescendo of Moral Hazard? (Chapter 15), we see government regulation deteriorate from reinforcing market solutions by providing lender-of-last facilities to their opposite, i.e., impeding rather than helping market incentives.? Those who would understand the development of British monetary policies, and appreciate how we got where we are, can do no better than begin with this book.

John H. Wood, Reynolds Professor of Economics, Wake Forest University, is co-author (with Sandeep Mazumder) of ?The Great Recession of 1929-33: It (Almost) Had to Happen,? forthcoming in the Journal of Economic History.

Copyright (c) 2012 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (December 2012). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):Europe
Time Period(s):19th Century
20th Century: Pre WWII
20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

Monetary and Banking History: Essays in Honour of Forrest Capie

Author(s):Wood, Geoffrey
Mills, Terence C.
Crafts, Nicholas
Reviewer(s):Neal, Larry

Published by EH.Net (November 2012)

Geoffrey Wood, Terence C. Mills and Nicholas Crafts, editors, Monetary and Banking History: Essays in Honour of Forrest Capie. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011. xxii + 316 pp.? $140 (cloth), ISBN: 978-0-415-45146-8.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Larry Neal, Department of Economics, University of Illinois.

As Forrest Capie was wrapping up his official history of the Bank of England covering the period 1950s to 1979, a book already a classic in the literature, he was honored at a conference held at the Bank of England organized by his friend, frequent co-author, and former colleague at the Cass Business School in the City University, Geoffrey Wood.? Geoffrey solicited papers from a wide range of fellow monetary and financial historians, even including the present reviewer, and most responded with excellent papers, each of which deserves reading on its own merits.? Alas for this reviewer and potential readers, however, the papers as a group do not cohere with each other in any obvious way.? Reflecting the variety of topics Forrest has dealt with over his career and the number of friends and admirers he has acquired, the papers cover a variety of subjects with a mix of methodologies, which range from time series analysis to narrative accounts of previous Bank of England histories.? Recognizing the problem, the editors have organized the contributions into categories pertinent to the corpus of Forrest?s scholarly work.

Part I, ?Writing History,? has Charles Goodhart disparaging previous histories of the Bank while setting a high bar for Forrest?s then unpublished history (update: Forrest met the bar and then some, see my jacket blurb) and Barry Eichengreen reviewing the literature of ?The New Monetary and Financial History,? that combines analysis of monetary disturbances with due attention to financial innovations and crises.? Goodhart provides a helpful guide to past histories of the Bank of England, while Eichengreen gives a masterly overview of the recent contributions to monetary and financial history covering the period from mid-nineteenth century on.

Part II, ?Crisis Management,? has Mae Baker and Michael Collins evaluating the information exchanges between Bank of England officials and private bank managers before and during the financial crisis of 1836; Eugene N. White arguing that the Banque de France did apply Bagehot?s rule effectively even in financial crises caused by miscalculations in the derivatives markets in Paris in the 1880s; and Charles Calomiris insisting that the Bank of England got the lender of last resort role right by 1856, while the U.S. financial system was repeatedly waylaid by misguided regulation.? Baker and Collins demonstrate how intense were personal communications between bankers and regulators dealing with the vicissitudes of impersonal and international money markets at the outset of global financial markets.? White elucidates how Bagehot?s rule depended on the role of collateral, but it took independent experts to assess the quality of collateral.? Calomiris highlights the problems of inadequate information and capital that plagued the fragmented American unit banking system as contrasted with both the British and Canadian systems of concentrated branch banking.

Part III, ?Money and Interest Rates,? presents three analyses of new financial and monetary time series to show: 1) that a true ?liquidity trap? did not exist even in the depths of Great Depression in the U.S. (Peter Basile, John Landon-Lane and Hugh Rockoff) as shown by the junk bond market of the time; 2) that the separate monetary regimes created in Britain over two-and-a-half centuries created different interactions between inflation and nominal interest rates so that Gibson?s famous paradox of a positive relationships between the price level and the nominal interest rate existed only during the gold standard periods (Terence C. Mills and Geoffrey Wood); and 3) that creating a consistent broad measure of the money supply, M4 retail, over the period of rapid monetary innovation of the 1970s and 1980s allows a stable money demand function to re-emerge despite the Bank of England?s decision to target exchange rates rather than money supply at the end of the 1980s (Alec Chrystal and Paul Mizen).??

Part IV, ?Implications of Economic Integration,? puts together two papers dealing with the flawed design of the euro, first from a comparative historical perspective that briefly surveys four successful monetary unions and two disasters leaving this reviewer convinced that the disaster examples of Argentina and Brazil are most relevant despite the authors? attempt to be optimistic (Michael Bordo, Lars Jonung, and Agnieszka Markiewcz); and then from an inside look at the turf battles between central bank governors and finance ministers that led to the eventual creation of the euro without, however, resolving the issue of bank regulation (Harold D. James).? These are followed by two papers that show how the progressive lowering of tariffs by the United Kingdom after World War II and then the reforms undertaken during the Thatcher era did improve Britain’s productivity significantly and permanently (?Openness, Protectionism and Britain?s Productivity Performance over the Long Run,? by Stephen Broadberry and Nicholas Crafts; and ?The Price-cost Markup in the UK: A Long-run Perspective,? by Nicholas Crafts and Terence C. Mills).? Neither contribution gives much credit to the removal of capital controls or the financial innovations that were key to the Thatcher reforms.

Overall, each reader can decide on the basis of his/her own interests which of these contributions is worth checking in the university library?s copy, but will probably not find it worthwhile to pay the $140 retail price for a personal copy.? They will, nevertheless, be well-advised to go directly to Forrest Capie, The Bank of England: 1950s to 1979, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, the completion of which was the occasion for the conference volume.

Larry Neal is professor emeritus of economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and visiting professor at the London School of Economics.?? His books include The Rise of Financial Capitalism: International Capital Markets in the Age of Reason (1990) and ?I Am Not Master of Events?: The Speculations of John Law and Lord Londonderry in the Mississippi and South Sea Bubbles (2012).

Copyright (c) 2012 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (November 2012). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):General, International, or Comparative
Time Period(s):18th Century
19th Century
20th Century: Pre WWII
20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

A Europe Made of Money: The Emergence of the European Monetary System

Author(s):Mourlon-Druol, Emmanuel
Reviewer(s):Mushin, Jerry

Published by EH.Net (November 2012)

Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, A Europe Made of Money: The Emergence of the European Monetary System.? Ithaca: NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. viii + 359 pp. $55 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-8014-5083-9.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Jerry Mushin, School of Economics and Finance, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

At a time when the problems in the euro zone are frequently in the news, it is wise to consider the nature and origins of its immediate predecessor. Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, of the University of Glasgow and the London School of Economics, has written a thorough description and analysis of the political and economic developments that led to the establishment, in 1979, of the European Monetary System [EMS].

The author explains that, especially from the early 1970s, there were several processes, which were often conflicting. Two were of particular importance. There was a cooperative, transnational monetary elite of technocrats, which was especially interested in the macroeconomic and operational benefits of monetary integration. In addition, from 1974, regular meetings of heads of government at the European Council ensured that this issue remained current. The politicians were often more interested in the importance of monetary stability in the establishment of a European identity. Despite the difficulties, there was a hesitant transition from emphasis on European cooperation to emphasis on European integration.

Although it deals with economic issues, this book is principally a political and diplomatic history, and not an economic history, of the founding of the EMS. It is part of the publisher?s Political Science series. The author has shown that the eventual outcome was reached by a tortuous process that was influenced by recent history and by traditional rivalries. The intermittent progress and regress of negotiations depended on the interaction of a small number of strong and idealistic personalities. Economic arguments were tempered by political pressures and vice versa. Political pressures frequently dominated the economic arguments.

Mourlon-Druol places the negotiations of the 1970s in their proper context. He refers to economic and political events in individual countries, including election results and national policies against inflation. He also shows the significance of world developments, including the perceived increasing weakness of the United States dollar. However, it is curious that the Sterling Area does not merit much attention. In the 1960s, the role of the UK in the Sterling Area was frequently seen, especially by France, as an obstacle in the British application to join the European Economic Community. The author also refers to the theoretical basis of monetary integration, including optimum currency area theory, and to the development of transnational and supranational institutions in Europe.

The negotiations occurred during the existence of the Snake, a cooperative exchange rate arrangement that dated from 1972. There were serious problems in this system. Membership was unstable; the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic withdrew after less than one month, and only the German Federal Republic remained a member for the whole of its existence. Other countries withdrew and rejoined and some, including France, did this more than once. The structure and processes that were eventually agreed for the EMS were an attempt to learn from the experience of the Snake. This was a lengthy process in which the dominant issues included the nature of the parity grid, the role of gold and of the SDR, the width of margins, the increased freedom of capital movements, and the precise obligations of members. The intention was that benefits and obligations would be symmetrical between larger and smaller members. The outcome was the establishment of the EMS, from which, in 1999, the euro zone could evolve.

Although Mourlon-Druol is a fluent and engaging writer, the volume of detail is likely to be overwhelming to all but the most committed specialists. This indicates one of the strengths of this book. It is based on extensive use of primary sources (including the archives of central banks). For this reason, it should be purchased by university libraries. However, it also indicates a weakness. An excess of detail means that this book is unlikely to be accessible to a wide readership.

Although this book should be purchased, as a research resource, by university libraries, it is unlikely to be included on undergraduate reading lists.

Jerry Mushin?s most recent book is Interest Rates, Prices, and the Economy, Scientific Publishers [India], Jodhpur, 2009. jerry.mushin@vuw.ac.nz

Copyright (c) 2012 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (November 2012). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

<!–[if gte mso 9]> 800×600 <![endif]–>

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):Europe
Time Period(s):20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System

Author(s):Eichengreen, Barry
Reviewer(s):Toniolo, Gianni

Published by EH.NET (August 2011)

Barry Eichengreen, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. iii + 215 pp. $28 (cloth), ISBN: 978-0-19-975378-9.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Gianni Toniolo, Departments of Economics and History, Duke University.

?We are seeing the government of a global sport (cricket) passing from west to east for the first time. The shift is unique and irreversible. The east can now take something western and make the west a supplicant. We had better get used to it? (M. Bose, Financial Times, 7/21/2011, p.11).? How long will it take before the main reserve currency will be added to the list of ?something western? passing east?? The main tenet of Barry Eichengreen?s book is that it will take a long time before the dollar follows the fate of cricket, not so much because of the dollar?s strength but because of the weakness of the alternatives.

The book, written for the general public, is useful and pleasant to read also by the so-called professionals. Those used to Eichengreen?s clear and fluent prose will find here a particularly light touch obtained by dropping here and there a good dose of anecdotal hints to lessen the weight of serious history and rigorous economics: this is particularly appreciated by those like me who write on monetary history and know how heavy a meal it is to digest — both by undergraduates and the educated public.

A brief introduction sketches the main argument of the book, namely that there is a ?fallacy behind the notion that the dollar is engaged in a death race with its rivals? (p. 9): rather than getting used to money moving, with cricket, from west to east we should prepare to a world ?in which several international currencies coexist,? as they did for most of the past two centuries.

Chapter 2 traces a brief history of the dollar, from its humble and foreign origin (it even got its name by assonance with the silver thaler coming from the south) to the turning point of the 1930s.? The main question here is why the dollar didn?t become the leading international currency by the end of the nineteenth century when American economy and trade were already larger than Britain?s, the producer of the most important among the international currencies of the day. The answer, for Eichengreen, is to be found in the underdevelopment of the U.S. money market vis ? vis Britain?s.? As long as acceptances were more efficiently traded in the liquid London market, the dollar could not aspire to the status of international currency. Had Jackson not vetoed the renewal of the Second Bank of the United States, things might have been different; as it was, the international rise of the dollar was checked by the absence of a central bank. Things changed after 1919 when the pound remained inconvertible and the United States became the main lender to Europe: by 1925, when London resumed convertibility, the dollar had already overtaken the sterling in the reserve portfolios of the world?s central banks. One might add that, had the Congress ratified the Versailles Peace Treaty, giving America a more decisive role in European affairs, by 1930 the dollar?s weight as international currency might have been more decisive.

Chapter 3 deals with the time when ?the dollar reigned supreme,? much to De Gaulle?s chagrin (hence the title of the book). Everything of course began at Bretton Woods where Keynes?s bancor never stood a chance. Brains or no brains, industrial might and military power had already decided in favor of the American currency. The history of the rise and fall of the Bretton Woods system has been told so many time, including by Eichengreen, that relatively few pages are devoted to the quarter-century following 1945. There were, of course, good reasons for the continued dominance of the dollar much beyond the demise of Bretton Woods: Eichengreen stresses both the strength of the American economy and the lack of alternatives.

Chapter 4 outlines the history of the euro, potentially the only credible rival to the dollar. An outstanding expert on European monetary history and economics, Eichengreen provides a lively account of the long gestation of the single currency from the road leading to the Warren Report of 1970, up to the present. The chapter will be my suggested reading to those in need a short briefing on the politics of European monetary union, an object still largely misunderstood not only by the American public and press but by academic experts as well. Eichengreen?s conclusion is that the euro would have made a formidable rival to the dollar had the UK opted in. This may be true from a technical point of view but, as Eichengreen knows only too well, for good or bad, Continental ways are not British ways. British participation has arguably weakened the progress towards a more politically integrated Europe (a prerequisite for the health of the euro in the long run) and one may wonder how British and German cultures would be integrated in running the ECB.

Chapter 5 provides a masterful user?s manual for the crisis that began in 2007. Interestingly, in fact, each chapter of this book can be read in its own right as a synopsis for relevant international monetary issues, regardless of their bearing on the book?s theme: the future of the dollar. The manuscript was given to the publisher when the Great Recession (the terminology might look awkward a few years hence) was on its way to being slowly overcome. The events of Summer 2011, unfolding while I write this review, might oblige at least a partial change the overall interpretation of the past eventful years. They might also impact on the prospects of the dollar-euro relation. It is, however, impossible to say to what extent this will be the case. Economic history stops at the end of the cycle previous to the one when it is written: economic historians need the perspective of the full cycle in order to explain both its origins and consequences.

Chapters 6 and 7 can be read together: they discuss the end of the dollar?s monopoly as reserve currency and ask whether the dollar will (relatively) soon crash or just slowly lose weight, sharing its reserve currency role with other means of international payment. History shows ? and this is one of the themes of the book ? that the ?normal? case is one where several reserve currencies coexist, with one of them in more or less dominant but not monopolistic position. Monopoly, in the post- Second World War years, was an exception due to both economic and geopolitical reasons. We are now back to ?normal? times but, for all the economic and political weakness of the United States, we shall not witness a precocious move away from the dollar. For one thing, the American economy is still the world?s largest and, at market exchange rates, it is destined to remain such for another while.? For the rest, alternatives don?t look very promising: the euro has problems of its own, the renminbi is not convertible, the Swiss franc is backed by too small an economy, the Indian and Brazilian currencies might in the future qualify for limited diversification but are no match to the dollar, gold is not used for current transactions, timber is illiquid, and so on. International trade is still largely invoiced in dollars and this is a powerful incentive for central banks to hold dollar reserves. All these conditions may, and probably will, change: the future will look like the early twentieth century when a number of reserve currencies coexisted with the leading one. What we saw after the publication of this book tends to reinforce its conclusions: the demand for T Bonds and other dollar-denominated assets increased in spite of Standard & Poor?s.

As I said, this is a book aimed to a large audience of non-specialists. Its chapters make superb assignments to undergraduate classes (most economics Ph.D. students would hugely benefit from reading it but I doubt that many of them ever will.). It contains a lot of details that will interest specialists as well. There is only one question the reader, specialist or otherwise, finds unanswered: what about geopolitical factors? Eichengreen brings them explicitly to the fore in discussing, with a wealth of details, the impact of the unfortunate Anglo-Franco expedition to Egypt in 1956. For the rest, there are here and there hints that politics matters for the international status of leading currencies and Eichengreen states that the leading world power also tends to own the leading currency but one remains a bit unsatisfied by the relative paucity of elaboration on this theme, particularly regarding future scenarios. Jeffrey Sachs recently stated the obvious when writing: ?For at least two decades the U.S. has been unable to provide monetary stability, financial regulation and fiscal rectitude? (Financial Times, May 31, 2011). Are we, in this respect, back to the interwar years? Eichengreen seems to agree that similarities exist. If so, will weak international leadership have no impact on the dollar?s status in any plausible scenario? The dollar might even get stronger in cases of looming international military or political crises, as it did in the late 1930s: by bringing geopolitical considerations more to the fore Eichengreen would have probably strengthened his own conclusions.

Gianni Toniolo is Research Professor of Economics and History, Duke University, Contract Professor of Political Science at the Libera Universit? delle Scienze Sociali (Roma) and Research Fellow at CEPR, London

Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (August 2011). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):General, International, or Comparative
North America
Time Period(s):20th Century: Pre WWII
20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

Inside the Fed: Monetary Policy and Its Management, Martin through Greenspan to Bernanke

Author(s):Axilrod, Stephen H.
Reviewer(s):Wood, John H.

Published by EH.NET (August 2011)

Stephen H. Axilrod, Inside the Fed: Monetary Policy and Its Management, Martin through Greenspan to Bernanke (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. viii + 225 pp.? $25 (cloth), ISBN: 978-0-262-01562-2.

Reviewed for EH.Net by John H. Wood, Department of Economics, Wake Forest University.

This book is truly from ?inside the Fed.?? The author served the Board of Governors from 1952 to 1986, nearly half the time as senior advisor for monetary policy to chairmen Arthur Burns (1970-78), G. William Miller (1978-79), and Paul Volcker (1979-87).? He also observed William McChesney Martin, Jr. (1951-70) in action as chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee, and has kept in touch with the making of monetary policy under Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) and Ben Bernanke (since 2006).? Axilrod?s accounts of policymaking as seen from inside the Fed are interesting and informative, as are the ?anecdotes,? as he calls them, which reveal the personalities and methods of Fed chairmen, including their working relationships with advisors, fellow governors, and other central bankers.
???
Axilrod doesn?t deny that theory influences policy, but he suggests that the personal characteristics of chairmen and their sensitivities to the public and political circumstances are also important.? Burns, for example, was unable to deal effectively with the Great Inflation of the 1970s for several reasons.? Although he had been a student of the consistencies embodied in business cycles, he seemed to see ?each cyclical episode as embodying a unique set of events,? of which money was only one.? Rising inflation during 1974-77, when the real fed funds rate turned negative, caused the market to perceive ?that the Fed was doing too little to contain money growth to a pace that would significantly restrain inflation, and the institution?s anti-inflation credibility substantially eroded.?
???
Although Burns possessed substantial persuasive powers in small groups, aided by an explosive temper, his effectiveness as inflation-fighter was hampered by his inability even ?to attempt to exercise powers of persuasion and logic dramatically and compellingly enough in public speeches and congressional testimony so as to evoke the public support that might have made it easier for the Fed itself to pursue a stronger anti-inflationary policy.?? Such a ?task may seem too Herculean,? but it should be remembered that Volcker?s shift was only a year or two in the future, and Burns had a president in Gerald Ford who probably would have supported a genuine attack on inflation (which the Whip Inflation Now ? WIN ? campaign against greed was not).? Burns was further limited by his lack of a potentially persuasive policy, of something more than a maneuver ?inside the box.?
???
Paul Volcker, on the other hand, ?combined great sensitivity to shifting trends in political economy (he could see what the country would now accept) with a willingness to take dramatic action,? and see it through.? When a New York Fed official said ?the Fed was in the process of ?experimenting? with a new approach to policy [as it shifted from interest-rate to money targeting], Volcker … went ballistic …. The idea of an ?experiment? was anathema to him because it suggested a lack of conviction at the Fed and would most certainly not help us regain market credibility.?? Some of this might be hindsight on Axilrod?s part, but he had no difficulty finding concerns for credibility among successful Fed chairman such as Martin, Volcker, and the early Greenspan before it became a part of economic models.
???
He does not give high grades to Bernanke or the later Greenspan in this respect.? He shares what might be the consensus belief that the Fed contributed to the recent crisis.? Its opposition to inflation seemed half-hearted after 1998, and belief in the Greenspan-put — that the Fed would underwrite the large risks being taken — contributed to its loss of credibility, Axilrod believes.
???
Bernanke inherited a difficult situation and didn?t improve on it.? The Fed seemed unaware of speculative and inflationary pressures, and the real fed funds rate became negative before the Fed belatedly shifted to tight money.? Its reactions to the crisis were unusual, and how it will deal with its gargantuan balance sheet is unknown.? There may ?be no very significant technical difficulties in either reining in the monetary base or at least minimizing the extent to which some larger than normal monetary base can be transformed into excess public liquidity.? But the Fed?s ability to undertake effective monetary policies in so complicated and uncertain a transition requires more than technical capacity.? It also requires from its chairmen … a public stature that enables him to perform effectively on the national stage, [which] does not yet seem to be firmly within Bernanke?s grasp.????
???
?My experiences at the Fed suggest that a great leader for monetary policy is differentiated not especially by economic sophistication, but by his or her ability to perceive when social and political limits can and should be placed to make space for a significant, paradigmatic change in the approach to policy should it be required, as well as by the courage and bureaucratic moxie to pull it off.?? ?Native good judgment and plain old common sense,? as well as ?an intuitive feel for markets,? are also important.
???
He gives no formal ranking of the chairmen, but there is no doubt that Volcker would be at the top of his list, probably with Martin second, although the latter had no ?powerful, dramatic crises to deal with.?
???
Unsurprising in a ?lifer,? Axilrod?s stories of people and policies at the Fed reveal institutional beliefs that might improve our understanding of American monetary policy.? One belief that has often found expression among the governors and the staff is that the Fed is fighting inflation, which is hard to swallow when we know that inflation is fully explained by the Fed?s injections of reserves.? Statements to this effect possess the characteristics of a state of denial in an organization that has caused the greatest inflation in U.S. history, and make sense only if it means that the fight is against other, primarily political, interests for the independence to conduct a stable price policy.? There is even less reason, in light of his delivery of inflation leading up to the 1972 election, to call Burns ?unfortunate in the particular decade, the 1970s, where fate placed him as chairman … in years of quite strong inflationary winds.?? The relatively stable conditions in Martin?s term might not have been all luck. ???
One reason why the governors and senior staff have resisted academic influence is the Fed?s immersion in the money markets that are barely evident in economic theories.? The groups have different models for different interests.? There has been a circle-the-wagons reaction to the nearly universal academic disapproval of monetary policy during most of the postwar period.? Axilrod?s recollections in this area are ambivalent.? In the early 1960s, he believed that monetarist Karl Brunner?s description of the Fed?s control of the money stock ?was telling us nothing that we didn?t already know.?? However, Axilrod?s account of the Fed?s growing interest in money seemed to reflect a similar development among economists.?

Whatever the intellectual causes and effects between academia and the Fed — I believe each underrates the other — Axilrod?s bilingual discussion of the development of monetary policy over time, particularly the logical and empirical connections between money and credit, is a genuine contribution to our understanding of monetary policy and the institution that makes it.?

This book by a uniquely placed participant is an interesting and informative read on its own, but those who would like to learn more about Axilrod and his times are advised to read some of the many writings that offer different perspectives of the same events, for example, Allan Meltzer, who confirms Axilrod?s warnings about lagged reserve accounting when it was adopted (A History of the Federal Reserve); the Bank of England?s Charles Goodhart, who gives Axilrod an almost equal share with Volcker for the 1979 policy shift and calls him the second most important person at the Fed, (?Review,? Economica, Jan. 2011); and William Greider, who wrote that Chairman Miller?s lack of expertise made Axilrod ?an extraordinarily powerful bureaucrat.? Axilrod contradicts this by saying that the staff tended to have ?more influence when the chairman was strong than when he was not. … I always had the feeling that in Miller?s time … my views? were received ?with a bit less intensity.?? An author and defender of the modified monetarist model that replaced interest targeting in 1979, Axilrod finds no sense in the statements ?by a policymaker or two [that] the new policy was simply a cover so that the Fed could raise interest rates while ducking direct responsibility.?? It should be noted that one of the offending parties was Volcker (Volcker and Tyoo Gyohten, Changing Fortunes).

John H. Wood, Reynolds Professor of Economics, Wake Forest University, jw@wfu.edu, is the author of A History of Central Banking in Great Britain and the United States (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and A History of Macroeconomic Policy in the United States (Routledge, 2009). A current research project connects the economics and politics of William McChesney Martin, Jr. at the Fed and as president of the New York Stock Exchange. His Federal Reserve experience has been as a fellowship student at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for two summers, an economist at the Board for three years and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas for two years, and further visits at the Federal Reserve Banks of Dallas, Chicago and Philadelphia.? He remembers looking down enviously from his window in the Flow-of-Funds section at the noon tennis match of which Axilrod writes, although he eventually got a chance with the afternoon group formed by Dewey Daane when he joined the Board.

Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (August 2011). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):North America
Time Period(s):20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

The Plans That Failed: An Economic History of the GDR

Author(s):Steiner, André
Reviewer(s):Polyakova, Maria

Published by EH.NET (April 2011)

Andr? Steiner, The Plans That Failed: An Economic History of the GDR. (Translated from German by Ewald Osers.) New York: Berghahn Books, 2010. xiii + 228 pp. $60 (hardback), ISBN: 978-1-84545-748-8.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Maria Polyakova, Department of Economics, M.I.T.

In 1945, the Third Reich unconditionally surrendered to the Allied forces of Great Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union. The Allies occupied Germany in the same year, splitting the country and its capital into four Zones of Occupation. The northeastern part of modern Germany became the Soviet Occupation Zone governed by the Soviet Military Administration. In 1949, four years after the end of the War, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) proclaimed the foundation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), also known as East Germany, in place of the Soviet Zone. The political history of East Germany has had a number of academic and broad audience publications devoted to it. Detailed analysis of its economic history, on the other hand, has been surprisingly scarce in comparison.

Andr? Steiner, Research Director for the Department of Economic and Social History at the Center for Contemporary History Potsdam (ZZF) and professor of economic and social history at the University of Potsdam, attempts to reduce this gap. The study is meant primarily to provide an analytical summary of the existing research on the topic (both by Steiner himself and other scholars) and accomplishes its goal well.? In about 200 pages of condensed prose, Steiner presents a detailed, yet concise, overview of the key economic decisions and policies — and their consequences — that characterized the socialist German state from 1945 to 1990. In his account, Steiner relies on a number of primary and secondary sources that include published collections of documents, archival materials, and scholarly writings. Among these sources are diverse protocols from the political discussions of the time, contemporary legal and regulatory publications, as well as analytical books and articles written in the midst of the historical developments.

Steiner?s main questions are ?why things happened the way they happened and, above all, what alternatives were available and why they were not chosen? (p. 1) as well as ?how was it possible … that the system survived for forty years? (p. 7). Steiner rightfully claims that, just by observing the end result of the economic development in the GDR, we cannot be confident that the system of the centrally planned economy, in and of itself, was the key reason for the failure of East Germany.? To get closer to the heart of the matters, Steiner lays out the details of the economic development of the GDR in six chapters. In each chapter, he considers both the political economy of the policies and the daily experience of the GDR?s population during different ?political caesuras? (p. 8) of the GDR?s economic history. The hard work of organizing and explaining the often chaotic and controversial economic events (as well as their academic accounts) in East Germany, allows Steiner to conclude that, indeed, ?the crucial negative element was the planned-economy system? (p. 1). This conclusion will hardly surprise the readers familiar with East German history. The merit of the book, however, lies in its well-structured account of the events and the relevant primary sources. These serve to convince readers of the non-dogmatic objectivity of the book?s conclusion.??

Steiner devotes the first two chapters of the book to the discussion of the immediate post-war situation in the Soviet Zone and the first five years of the GDR?s existence. Steiner shows that the area of the Soviet Occupation was highly industrialized and produced a sizeable agricultural surplus. Its industry, however, critically depended on the supplies of raw materials from the Western territories — a fact that would later cause much trouble for the GDR?s government.? Steiner provides evidence that the Zone?s wartime destruction was lower than in its Western neighbor and should not have been inhibitive for the economic reconstruction.? The controversial attempts to nationalize agriculture, restore the production of consumer goods, and, at the same time, develop heavy industry, as instructed by the Soviet Union, were, however, inhibitive.

The Soviet dismantling of plants and the reorganization of the industrial structures had a severe effect on the capacities of the GDR?s industry. The book further accounts for the complications that the GDR?s new political leadership faced in trying to restart production and stabilize employment, monetary exchange, and the supply of consumer goods and food.? Harvest failures and the collectivization reforms of agriculture resulted in severe food shortages.? Dismantling, reparations and incentive mismatch in the manufacturing resulted in the escape of more than 4,000 producers to the West, while the remaining ones struggled to provide desirable quantity and quality. The difficult situation led to the strike of June 17, 1953 that was forcefully resolved with Soviet tanks.

In the third chapter, Steiner discusses the economic situation during the second decade after the end of the War. He characterizes this period as a time that experienced rapid growth from the post-war production level. At the same time, there were consumption shortages, severe underinvestment into the production of consumer goods and big waves of emigration to the West. It was also a period of further deep structural changes in all sectors of the economy. Steiner emphasizes the dependency of the young German state upon the Soviet command and its struggle of keeping up with its Western neighbor, which by this time clearly offered a much more attractive environment for the consumers and firms of the East. The chapter culminates with the request of the East German government to the Soviet Union to allow for the construction of the Berlin Wall to shut off emigration from the country.

Although the official justification for the construction of the Wall was political, Steiner argues that the real reason (and the one that East German policy-makers stressed in their internal discussions) was economic. In the next two chapters, Steiner discusses how the forceful hold of the population and firms within the country allowed the GDR?s government to pursue the economic reforms it desired. The SED still advertised that the goal of the GDR was to ?overtake? the living standards of the Western neighbor, but now it didn?t have to worry about the extensive emigration that was the consequence of the obvious failures in the past. Over the course of these two decades, the GDR?s government implemented an array of reforms that tied it closer to the Eastern bloc and were supposed to convince its citizens of the merits of the socialist system. Steiner argues that the reforms of the ?New Economic System?? and the ?Overtake without Catching Up? programs were often undermined by structural inconsistencies that followed the attempt ?to simulate market mechanisms without, however, introducing the foundations of a market economy? (p. 111).? The standard of living and the industrial output showed improvement in the sixties and seventies.? Consumer demand continued to be dictated by the government, however, rather than by the consumers themselves. That is, there was no way for the economy to signal its needs to the planners.
?
Lastly, Steiner discusses another big problem, namely the indebtedness of the different parts of the system and its reliance on support from the Soviet Union. The country was severely indebted to both the East and the West. Within the country, companies relied heavily on subsidies from the state. East German exports were not competitive and the economy was not self-sustainable, relying to a considerable extent on the imports. The political events of the following decades led to a termination of the credit line from the West. At this point, as Steiner skillfully puts it ?reality caught up with the GDR: it was in an indebtedness trap? (p. 142). The last decade before the fall of the Berlin Wall saw the country struggling with debt, rising prices for raw material imports, the growing demands of the population, shortages, declining investments and productivity and, finally, renewed emigration to the West. The economic crisis and the dramatic changes in the political circumstances in the Eastern bloc eventually led to the fall of the Wall and the GDR in 1989.

As Steiner sums up, ?the socialist economic system?s immanent incapacity to produce structural and technological or innovatory change was the decisive cause of the GDR?s economic weakness in its final decade? (p. 193)

The 2004 German edition of the book with the original title Von Plan zu Plan: Eine Wirtschaftsgeschichte der DDR became a popular read in Germany. This is, of course, not surprising, given the low number of good systematic accounts of economic life in East Germany and the slowly fading heritage of the GDR?s economy and society in modern Germany. The audience for the English translation of the book might be harder to define. While it is unlikely to arouse a lot of interest among the non-German casual readers, it is at the same time too general for specialized researchers of East Germany?s economic history, who would probably prefer to use the German edition anyway. On the other hand, it would provide an excellent introduction for students and researchers who are just starting their work in the area of East Germany?s history, or for the researchers of state-owned enterprises and planned economies, who are interested in an overview of the historical precedent. Furthermore, Steiner?s bibliography presents an impressive scholarly reference to a large subset of primary and secondary sources that are available on the topic.

Maria Polyakova is a graduate student at the Department of Economics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.? One of her current research projects concerns the organization of the German industry in the first decade after World War II.

Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator (administrator@eh.net). Published by EH.Net (April 2011). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Subject(s):Economic Planning and Policy
Economywide Country Studies and Comparative History
Geographic Area(s):Europe
Time Period(s):20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

Integrazione internazionale e sviluppo interno: Stati Uniti e Italia nei programmi di riarmo del blocco atlantico 1945-1955 [International Economic Integration and Home Growth: The United States and Italy in the Western Bloc Rearmament Programs 1945-1955]

Author(s):Selva, Simone
Reviewer(s):Martinez Oliva, Juan Carlos

Published by EH.NET (April 2010)

Simone Selva, Integrazione internazionale e sviluppo interno: Stati Uniti e Italia nei programmi di riarmo del blocco atlantico (1945-1955) [International Economic Integration and Home Growth: The United States and Italy in the Western Bloc Rearmament Programs, 1945-1955]. Rome: Carocci, 2009. 383 pp. ?40 (paperback), ISBN: 978-88-430-5253-0.

Reviewed for EH.NET by Juan Carlos Martinez Oliva, Department for Structural Economic Analysis, Bank of Italy.

This book examines the economic and political relationship between Italy and the United States from the start of postwar reconstruction until the mid-fifties. The complex events characterizing those crucial years are depicted in the light of the rearmament program following the establishment of the North Atlantic alliance in 1949. The analysis highlights the main steps of the process of integration of Italy into the international economy and the strategy pursued by national authorities to trigger a successful growth process. To this end the author makes use of a broad amount of archival evidence from a large number of national and international sources.

The book is divided into six chapters. The first considers the link between the defense strategy of the U.S. and the industrial policy in the countries involved, particularly regarding its impact on productive capacity and aggregate demand in domestic markets. The growing worry that the military objectives of the rearmament plan could be in conflict with the goal of achieving stronger growth and investment in Europe initially brought about a separation of military and non-military expenditures, and of corresponding financial resources.

The second chapter analyzes the impact of rearmament as an engine of growth, starting from the institution of the Medium Term Defense Program (MDAP) in 1949, tailored to not interfere with the European Recovery Program (ERP). In the following years, however, this stance was replaced by one of larger support of European military production to the end of reinforcing Atlantic defense goals. Growing political pressure by the Europeans followed, aimed at achieving stronger U.S. support of the external and domestic imbalances created by costly military expenditure.

The third chapter moves to the policy of military foreign aid to Italy in the initial period of Atlantic alliance. Following the gradual shift from British to U.S. involvement in Italian military defense, Italy’s manufacturing sector progressively enhanced its role in producing military supplies, while nonetheless meeting financial constraints which were only partially alleviated by U.S. foreign assistance. The outbreak of the Korean conflict, with its heavy impact on international commodity prices, threatened the recovery outlook of Italian economy, thus inducing Italian authorities to use U.S. military aid as a means to alleviate the negative effects of the war on internal prices and production.

The fourth chapter discusses the impact of the 1947 Peace Treaty on the Italian aeronautical industry. The involvement of some major industrial groups in the attempt to boost and reinforce Italian productivity and exports testifies to the authorities’ continuing aim to achieve growth and stability in the fifties. During that period complex negotiations were carried out by the Italian government with the Mutual Security Agency (MSA), NATO, and the U.S. Department of State. A special role was played by the Off-Shore Procurements (OSP), which were orders for military items produced in Europe and destined for the armed forces of the producing countries or to those of their NATO partners. As one of the most relevant playing fields of the diplomatic dialogue between the U.S. and European partners, the OSP can be viewed as a relevant indicator of the complex interplay of the different policy objectives of the partners involved.

Particularly interesting is the description, in the fifth chapter, of the interaction between the OSP to the Italian aeronautical industry in 1953-54 and the political negotiations associated with relevant issues characterizing Italian postwar reconstruction such as the territorial question of Trieste, threatened by the Yugoslavian claims; the balance of payments difficulties experienced by Italy within the EPU following the almost total removal of trade barriers; and the U.S. preoccupations arising from the 1953 general elections in Italy.

The final chapter covers the years 1954-55. It is shown that in this period financial assistance to Italy, mostly represented by the OSP, became more strictly tied to the political objective of fighting communism in Italy. This orientation, started in 1954, was strongly supported by U.S. Ambassador Claire Luce, largely as a response to the unfavorable electoral results in the previous year. Quite interestingly, in that period the fight against unemployment became a top priority of U.S. foreign policy in Italy, and particular attention was paid to the task of improving the economic conditions of the Italian Mezzogiorno. The focus on prosperity as a means to counter communism, so closely resembling the original flavor of Truman doctrine, paved the way for a number of financial initiatives in favor of Italy in mid-fifties.

Simone Selva’s book once again confirms the Italian authorities’ ability to reconcile the country’s internal targets with its commitment with partner countries and allies throughout the fifties and the sixties [see Cavalieri and Martinez Oliva (2009)]. The commitment of the Italian authorities to a system based on Atlantic cooperation remained in place in spite of occasional difficulties. This allowed the achievement of the full-fledged integration of the country into the international environment, and the realization of the Italian ?economic miracle? of the 1950s and 1960s.

Simone Selva has carried out a very helpful investigation into a particular aspect of complex Italian-American relations in the years of Europe’s postwar recovery. The huge number of documents quoted testifies that there is still plenty of material for new research on issues related to the cold-war diplomacy of the early years of Italian Republican history. Recent decades have shown a growing interest of Italian historians in that particular period under a large number of viewpoints. Selva’s book is a further contribution to better knowledge of those years and worth reading for those who want to have a closer look at a very crucial juncture of Italian economic and political history.

Reference:

Elena Cavalieri and Juan Carlos Martinez Oliva, “Between National Interest and International Cooperation: Italy and the Bretton Woods System in the 1960s” in: H. James and J.C. Martinez Oliva (editors), International Monetary Cooperation across the Atlantic, Adelmann GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 2009.

Juan Carlos Martinez Oliva is a Principal Director in the Department for Structural Economic Analysis of the Bank of Italy. His research work includes various contributions in international economics and economic history, among which are “Too Much for One Country: The United States and the Bretton Woods System, 1958-1971″ (with Harold James) in: H. James and J.C. Martinez Oliva (editors), International Monetary Cooperation Across the Atlantic (2009) and ?The Italian Stabilization of 1947: Domestic and International Factors,? Institute of European Studies, Paper 070514, University of California, Berkeley, 2007. He can be reached at: juancarlos.martinezoliva@bancaditalia.it.

Subject(s):Military and War
Geographic Area(s):North America
Time Period(s):20th Century: WWII and post-WWII

A History of the Federal Reserve: Vol. II, 1951-85

Author(s):Meltzer, Allan H.
Reviewer(s):Wood, John

Published by EH.NET (January 2010)

Allan H. Meltzer, A History of the Federal Reserve: Vol. II, 1951-85. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. xii + 1424 pp. $150 (two books, hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-226-52001-8 and 978-0-226-51994-4.

Reviewed for EH.NET by John Wood, Department of Economics, Wake Forest University.

Allan Meltzer?s History of the Federal Reserve from its founding in 1913 to near the end of Paul Volcker?s chairmanship in 1987 is primarily an account of the thinking behind monetary policy taken from the records of the chief policymaking bodies ? the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and the Federal Reserve Board ? and the papers of members of those bodies ? the seven governors of the Board and the presidents of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. Meltzer?s searches are a great service to historians and potentially a useful service to reformers. We know what the Fed did ? open market operations and changes in the discount rate and reserve requirements ? but seldom, if ever, its reasons. This history does not give us the reasons because many people with conflicting and often unclear views participated in these committee discussions and decisions, but Meltzer has given us a better chance to understand them or, in many cases, at least to conclude that a coherent rationale for monetary policy was absent.

Meltzer (Carnegie Mellon University) has been following the Fed since he and Karl Brunner prepared a study of The Federal Reserve?s Attachment to the Free Reserves Concept for the House of Representatives Banking and Currency Committee in 1964.

Volume II (the subject of this review) begins with the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord of March 1951 that released the Fed from its obligation to support Treasury bond prices, and thereby recognized its freedom and responsibility to conduct an ?independent? monetary policy. There is more about independence below, but it was qualified immediately by the Accord?s condition that the Fed assist Treasury financing. This qualified independence of the Treasury was given or taken away in the late-1960s and early 1970?s, regained in 1979, and thrown away in 2008 (which is after Meltzer?s History but recognized in the Epilogue).

The years of this volume can be divided into three periods according to inflationary regimes: mostly 1-2% per annum between 1951 and 1966, rising to double digits in the 1970s, and falling to less than 2% in 1985. It is notable that these periods correspond to those of more or less independence. This review is limited to domestic monetary policy, which is the main emphasis of the book, abstracting from regulation and international monetary affairs.

Meltzer?s discussion is organized around the interwoven concepts of structure, independence, and procedures. At the center of the discussion for over half the volume is William McChesney Martin, Jr., the longest-serving chairman of the Board of Governors (1951-70; three months longer than Alan Greenspan. ?The structure of the modern Federal Reserve is, in large part, Martin?s creation? (p. 43).) The Fed?s main instrument, open market operations, is decided by the FOMC, composed of the seven governors of the Board (whose chairman is also chairman of the FOMC), the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (vice-chairman of the FOMC), and four of the other Bank presidents on a rotating basis. When Martin arrived, the FOMC met four times a year, the minimum mandated by the 1935 Banking Act, to decide general policy while its five-person Executive Committee (including the chairman and vice-chairman) met every two weeks to implement the full committee?s objective and instruct the manager of the open market desk. The desk is in New York, where open market operations are conducted, and the manager is a subordinate of the president of the New York Bank, who had dominated FOMC discussions. Over the next few years, Martin persuaded the FOMC to meet more often and abolish the Executive Committee, thereby reducing the influence of New York. The Board?s power was increased but so was that of the presidents outside New York. Meltzer calls attention to the value of the presidents? market view that frequently opposed the governors in Washington who are more subject to political influence (pp. 55-59, 70-75). The presidents have been allies of the chairmen who opposed inflation (Martin, Volcker, and Greenspan) and the chief dissenters of the policies of Burns, Miller, and Bernanke (pp. 507, 934, 991; Wood 2005, pp. 347-49; FOMC Minutes).

Martin also persuaded the FOMC to limit open market operations to Treasury bills, ostensibly to avoid market breaks arising from operations in long-term bonds, but which also limited New York?s discretion and was defense against political pressures to reduce long rates (pp. 59-70).

These structural changes were qualified by the Fed?s understanding of its independence, defined by Martin as ?independence within the government, not independence of the government? (p. 48). This included, following the Accord, the duty to support Treasury financing, which restricted the Fed?s ability to fight inflation by raising interest rates in the presence of government deficits.

?Procedures? refer to the process by which the ideas of FOMC members are converted into policy. They studied economic conditions with the aid of their economic staffs, met, discussed, and voted on ?directives? to the manager of the desk. Sounds simple, but the difficulties in the way of understanding policy are great. The FOMC did not possess an explicit model of the relations between its instruments and its objectives. It was certainly not the Keynesian model prevalent among economists, including the Board?s staff. Its objectives were not transparent. Were they general conditions such as prices, employment, and output as directed by the Employment Act of 1946, or money market conditions, whose relations to the former were not clarified? ?Nothing in the 1950s compares [even to] the Board?s Tenth Annual Report or the Riefler (1930) and Burgess (1927) books.? (Both were Fed advisors.) Even so, the treatment of the effects of monetary policy in the third edition of The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions (Board of Governors, 1954) ?was more complete than mainstream academic views of that time. … Although the various elements [of the transmission process] were not combined in an explicit framework, the emphasis given to expectations, capital values, and relative prices … suggests an underlying sophistication that anticipated much future research? (p. 79) ? although any policy influence of the staff economists is doubtful.

The Fed?s response to the 1953-54 recession, ?its first major trial after it regained independence,? was in many ways characteristic of later episodes, even to the present. It paid more attention to general economic conditions than in the 1920s and 30s, which was in line with President Eisenhower?s reaction to Council of Economic Advisor Arthur Burns? report to the cabinet that a recession had started: Ike ?recalled the Republican party?s commitment to use the full resources of the federal government to prevent another 1929.?

The Fed?s ?performance was mixed. It recognized the slowdown promptly and voted to provide additional ease. In June, a month before the start of the recession, the FOMC decided on a policy of ?aggressively supplying reserves to the market? rather than ?exercising restraint upon inflationary developments? as agreed at the March meeting.? However, the manager?s instructions that ?reserves should be supplied in sufficient volume to prevent further tightening, but not in such volume as to ease the degree of credit constraint? leaves much to be determined because of the lack of agreed measures of ease and other terms. Long rates were falling but short rates were rising, so that the rise in free reserves (because of a decline in member bank borrowing) ?probably misled the manager on this as on other occasions? [notably 1929-33]. ?Martin criticized the desk for ?failing to purchase Treasury bills more aggressively?? and keeping the FOMC informed, but ?rejected any specific measure of ease or restraint? (pp. 107-109).

Meltzer notes in connection with the onset of recession in 1960: ?Several members referred to the decline in the money supply and wanted to end it by using quantitative targets. The manager preferred to concentrate attention on the tone and feel of the market. … There was no agreement about how to define and conduct policy. [New York] President Hayes proposed more active use of regulation Q ceiling rates to signal the direction in which interest rates should change, and Leedy (Kansas City) proposed using an interest rate target. The FOMC could not reach a consensus. … Vague instructions gave the manager considerable freedom to make decisions or perhaps respond to direction from Martin or Hayes? (pp. 208-209).

Returning to 1954, conflicts continued into the recovery phase. ?Until December 1954, seven months after the recession ended, the System continued the policy of ?actively maintaining a condition of ease in the money market?,? although ?Martin expressed concern about a speculative boom. ?[T]here were indications of an exuberance of spirit among intelligent businessmen with respect to 1955 business prospects that seemed to him to be dangerous?.? Fed ?operations remained procyclical. Money growth was higher in the expansion than in the recession? [a tendency that continued into the next century] because ?the decline in member bank borrowing and rise in free reserves [was interpreted] as evidence of ease? (pp. 112-14).

Friedman and Schwartz (1963, pp. 628-31) wrote about this period that the Fed?s new attention to money represented ?a near-revolutionary change,? although it continued to ?lean against the wind.? As in Volume I, Meltzer?s accounts and interpretations of Federal Reserve actions give us no reason to revise those of Friedman and Schwartz, but reinforce them with the System discussions behind them.

The Fed was not free of easy-money pressures from the Eisenhower administration (pp. 135-53), but those were weaker than in the 1960s, especially during the Vietnam War when the seeds of the Great Inflation were sown. Meltzer gives Martin generally low marks, especially for failing to resist the later pressures more strongly. The reasons for the start of the Great Inflation were, first, ?Martin?s leadership and beliefs? (especially his willingness to coordinate policy with the administration). ?Second, neither Martin, nor his colleagues in the FOMC, nor the staff had a valid theory of inflation or much of a theory at all (which might have bolstered their resistance?). And some of their main ideas were wrong.? Meltzer?s third reason, ?institutional arrangements [that] hindered ? timely effective action? ? coordination with the administration and ?even keel? policies ? fit within the first two (pp. 472-78).

Meltzer?s rating of Martin was shared by most economists at the time, Keynesian and monetarist, who held him largely accountable for the longest peacetime inflation (averaging 2.3% over nineteen years) in history. However, many, probably most, students of monetary policy changed their opinions of Martin after the dozen unhappy years succeeding his tenure, when inflation averaged 7.1%. Some of them credit a sophisticated, if informal, model for what they came to see as the Fed?s success in the 1950s (Romer and Romer 2002), although Meltzer finds ?no evidence to support? this claim. ?A more important factor was the Eisenhower administration?s conservative fiscal policy … The Federal Reserve was not under pressure to finance budget deficits most of this decade? (p. 48).

This reviewer shares Romer and Romer?s view, and finds even more theoretical completeness/sophistication than they do. Contrary to his frequent protestations that ?I am not an economist? (p. 476), Martin was more sophisticated than his critics. Meltzer saw no evidence of ?economic explanations of inflation? (p. 476) but his quotations of Martin are filled with incentives, expectations, and the importance of credibility. Martin anticipated Greenspan?s definition of price stability as one in which inflationary expectations are not a factor in business and consumer decisions. He was explicit about the neutrality of money (or absence of a Phillips curve) in the long-run. His bills-only policy was designed to supply money (although he refused to define it) without obstructing the efficient allocation of resources. He understood that the Fed could not permanently reduce interest rates; reducing them led to inflation. He did not talk of real rates, but he understood them. ?The history of money demonstrates the difficulties which men have to distinguish the permanent from the temporary. … [M]aking this distinction is a constant imperative? (p. 843). Above all, he understood and embraced the idea that inflation was the Fed?s responsibility (pp. 59-60, 89, 112, 126, 207, 242). He rejected the argument of Senator Paul Douglas (himself an eminent economist) that inflation was a cost-push phenomenon generated by unions and oligopolistic industries. Martin wrote to Douglas in 1959 (as Greenspan told Congress in the 1990s; Wood 2005, p. 397): ?My interest in a monetary policy directed toward a dollar of stable value is not based on the feeling that price stability is a more important national objective than either maximum sustainable growth or a high level of employment, but rather on the reasoned conclusion that the objective of price stability is an essential prerequisite for their achievement? (p. 243).

Meltzer recognizes this in places. ?Pressure from the administration to increase purchases of long-term debt remained strong [1961]. Martin cooperated within the limits set by his concern about inflation and his beliefs about how monetary policy worked. But he regarded some of [James] Tobin?s [of the Council of Economic Advisors] arguments as ?hopelessly na?ve?? (p. 323).

Martin?s statements, and perhaps more important, the Fed?s performance under his chairmanship, show an almost explicit sophisticated modern model of monetary policy subject to a survival constraint measured by the costs of resisting political pressures, which Meltzer?s reaction to Romer and Romer seems to support.

The 1970s saw improvements in Federal Reserve data, increased transparency in more frequent reports to Congress, a state-of-the-art econometric model, quantitative money and interest targets, economic forecasts in ?green? and ?blue? books, and a distinguished economist (Arthur Burns, 1970-78) as chairman to join the growing number of economists on the FOMC (pp. 582-92). Unfortunately, the result was ?the Fed?s second great mistake? that produced the Great Inflation and stagflation. The reasons given for the excessive money growth are many: mistaken forecasts, an increased natural rate of unemployment (?bad luck?? Velde 2004), unwillingness to bear the social costs of disinflation, reliance on controls, a preference for an ?even keel? approach that inhibited action, and submission to political pressures (pp. 667-81, 843-63).

Underestimations of inflations could not realistically have persisted for years on end. ?The simple explanation of why inflation persisted and rose … through the 1970s is that the Federal Reserve did not sustain actions that would end it? even though it ?was aware that its actions increased inflation.? ?That was basically political,? said advisor Stephen Axilrod (p. 1005).

The summer of 1979 saw high and rising inflation and unemployment, and falling approval ratings of President Carter. He reorganized his administration, sending Fed Chairman G. William Miller to the Treasury and replacing him with New York Fed President Paul Volcker, a known inflation hawk. On October 6, with the Fed funds rate at 11.6% and inflation at 12.5%, the Fed announced that it would no longer control interest rates, but shift to money control. Interest rates skyrocketed ? the Fed funds rate reached 19.85% in March 1980 ? and recession ensued. The Fed was supported by Carter and his successor (Ronald Reagan, elected in November 1980), and it stuck to its guns. Inflation fell below 4% in late 1982, although real interest rates remained high for several years, until the public was persuaded that low inflation was permanent.

The Fed returned to interest targeting in 1982, but as Meltzer says about 1979, the ?change in objective [a genuine commitment to reduce inflation] was more important and more durable than the change in procedures? (p. 1034). The Fed?s aggressive actions in 1979, as in the months leading up to the Accord in 1951, were made possible by the support of a public and Congress weary of inflation, along with grudging acceptances by politically weak presidents (p. 1128).

The lesson that I draw from this book is that the necessary and sufficient conditions for price stability (or low inflation) are a Fed that recognizes its effect on inflation, is committed to its control, and is supported politically.

Meltzer?s primary proposal for ?better results? in the last chapter is to follow the example of inflation-targeting countries. This ?rule-like behavior? reduces short-term policy influences and improves credibility (pp. 1234-39), although he recognizes elsewhere that procedures are less important than objectives.

In any case, as Meltzer reports in his Epilogue on the 2007-2009 crisis, the current Fed shows no sign of having learned anything. Current pressures dominate its actions, it has no credibility (no one knows what it will do), it favors controls (like Burns and the Keynesian critics of Martin), and, after the Volcker-Greenspan era restored independence, ?Chairman Bernanke has acted frequently as a financing arm of the Treasury? (pp. 1243-56).

This book, or parts of it, should be required reading for students of American monetary policy. Those who study textbook chapters or journal articles about what policy is or ought to be learn only a small part of the subject, and that part contains much misinformation. Monetary policy is a complex combination of politics, structure, and monetary theory, and the least of these may be the last. ?The most comprehensive recent statement of modern macroeconomic theory, Woodford (2003), is an elegant, erudite development of the rational expectations model that currently dominates academic thinking. … Many central bank economists use this model. No central banker uses it? (p. 14).

References:

Burgess, W. Randolph. 1927. The Reserve Banks and the Money Market. Harper & Bros.

Friedman, Milton and Anna J. Schwartz. 1963. A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. Princeton University Press.

Meltzer, Allan H. 2003. A History of the Federal Reserve: Vol. I, 1913-51. University of Chicago Press.

Riefler, Winfield W. 1930. Money Rates and Money Markets in the United States. Harper & Bros.

Romer, Christina D. and David H. Romer. 2002. ?The Evolution of Economic Understanding and Postwar Stabilization Policy,? in Rethinking Stabilization Policy. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Velde, Francois R. 2004. ?Poor Hand or Poor Play? The Rise and Fall of inflation in the U.S.,? Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Perspectives.

Wood, John H. 2005. A History of Central Banking in Great Britain and the United States. Cambridge University Press.

Woodford, Michael. 2003. Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy. Princeton University Press.

John Wood, Reynolds Professor of Economics, Wake Forest University, is author of A History of Macroeconomic Policy in the United States (Routledge 2009) and is working on a book provisionally titled The Political and Economic Genius of William McChesney Martin, Jr..

Subject(s):Financial Markets, Financial Institutions, and Monetary History
Geographic Area(s):North America
Time Period(s):20th Century: WWII and post-WWII