Senin, 12 Oktober 2020

How Coronavirus will Reshape Healthcare Industry



How the coronavirus will permanently reshape the healthcare industry, according to 26 top industry leaders

Jun 24, 2020, 9:50 PM

From left to right: CVS Health CEO Larry Merlo, Bristol Myers Squibb CEO Giovanni Caforio, Epic Systems CEO Judy Faulkner, and Kaiser Permanente CEO Gregory Adams. CVS Health; Bristol Myers Squibb; Epic Systems; Kaiser Permanente; Shayanne Gal/Business Insider

The healthcare industry is on the front lines of the effort to treat coronavirus patients and cure the disease.The pandemic presents unprecedented challenges for the entire industry, from doctors and hospitals to drugmakers.We talked to 26 top leaders in healthcare about how the pandemic is changing their companies, the industry, and the world.This feature is part of a series based on conversations with more than 200 CEOs on how business will be transformed by the coronavirus. To read more, click here. 

The healthcare industry has been forced to confront the scourge of the coronavirus like no other part of the US economy.

Healthcare workers are on the front lines of the battle against the pandemic, treating sick patients flooding hospitals. At the same time, the outbreak halted many of the most lucrative parts of the industry, such as surgeries and procedures, threatening the financial futures of hospitals and leading to pay cuts and furloughs for workers.

Even as visits and procedures start to resume, doctors are taking extra precautions, limiting the number of patients they can see and raising the cost. Online visits seem to have carved out a permanent place in the system, too.

Meanwhile, biotech and pharmaceutical companies are scrambling to come up with a treatment or a vaccine to halt the coronavirus. More than 140 vaccines are in the works, and dozens of drugmakers are working on treatments for the coronavirus.

At the same time, coronavirus has exposed the industry's vulnerabilities: hospitals ran short of protective gear, leaving workers without masks and gowns to protect them from the virus. While the worst predictions haven't materialized, hospitals in hard-hit areas took extraordinary measures to make space for coronavirus patients, turning lobbies and surgery suites into rooms for patients.

Never miss out on healthcare news. Subscribe to Dispensed, Business Insider's weekly newsletter on pharma, biotech, and healthcare.

Some of the industry's challenges, though, aren't unique. Doctors and nurses are trying to figure out how much of their work they can do over video and by phone, a task similar to the one facing office workers worldwide. And more broadly, executives are trying to navigate a future in which more work, and more healthcare, happens virtually. 

We asked top leaders across healthcare three questions:

How will the coronavirus change your company, your industry, and the world.

Their answers, edited for length and clarity, follow. 

This article was published on May 12 and has been updated.

Ido Schoenberg, co-CEO of American Well: 'We are in for a challenging period as a nation.'
Ido Schoenberg. American Well

People tend to think that the main challenge of this crisis relates to the viral infection, but the biggest burden has actually been on traditional care. The seniors and those who are chronically ill are suddenly stuck at home. Their ability to access the care they need through technology has been an enormous relief.

The demand for telehealth skyrocketed. On average we are now operating at more than 10 times last year. There were lots of barriers that prevented this wonderful tool from being truly adopted that have since been removed.


The current crisis is horrific. It's horrific from a health standpoint. It's also horrific from an economic standpoint. We see that many people are losing their jobs. Many businesses may or may not survive this. And a recession is likely.

In a situation like that, lots of problems happen, right? Healthcare is funded by a lot of self-insured employers, for example. Healthcare is funded by the government, and the government may have a lot on its plate going forward. So I think that we are in for a challenging period as a nation, and everybody will feel the impact in one way or another.

But telehealth is also very, very efficient. And there is a lot to be said about the enormous clinical waste that we see in healthcare today.

Digital connectivity isn't just about videoconferencing. 

That ability to connect data from patients, move it into the cloud, analyze it in real time, and send the right intervention back into their most convenient location, which typically is the home, is this fundamental change. 


And there is a word for that. What you are going to see is the democratization of healthcare.

Giovanni Caforio, CEO of Bristol Myers Squibb: 'We are learning valuable lessons on being nimble, collaborating in new ways and leveraging talent.'
Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO Giovanni Caforio Getty Images

COVID-19 has the potential to enhance the strong collaboration among academia, government and other companies as we focus on treatments and vaccines for the virus.

During this pandemic, it has been abundantly clear that the biopharma industry plays a critical role in the prevention and treatment of viruses like COVID-19. Our industry is working around the clock to find treatments and a vaccine and we are sharing those findings with governments and other companies.


I believe that our ability to partner with other scientific organizations, our development expertise and manufacturing capabilities are what will ultimately help us treat and prevent this virus, and I have been impressed by the collaboration and speed with which our industry is responding. My hope is that collaboration will continue. 

As I reflect personally, I see that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected our society and communities and caused everyone to look at life differently.  The virus has brought out some of the best in humanity, through a strong focus on philanthropy and relief efforts, science and innovation, and incredible support for the health care workers and those on the front lines.

This is an unprecedented time and it is my belief that we are learning valuable lessons on being nimble, collaborating in new ways and leveraging talent in new and different ways. Understanding that every person is navigating this crisis with a different personal reality, our work policies account for flexible hours and schedules, which enables our colleagues to better juggle their responsibilities at home with work.

We are open to taking these lessons and applying them to work in the future. I believe we will be an even stronger company because of the pandemic.

Mark Ganz, CEO of Cambia Health Solutions: 'We're going to have a mental health epidemic that's going to follow this virus.'
Mark Ganz, CEO of Cambia Health Solutions Cambia Health Solutions

We will be probably more of a remote-working company than we were before, because we will learn that we can.

We're going to have a mental health epidemic that's going to follow this virus. We've put a lot of thought into how can we proactively work to address that.

There's an opportunity for this country to realize that mental health and physical health are not so different. They are completely interrelated and one of the paths to people getting physically healthy is going to be paying better attention to their mental health. 

We are in the middle of a game change around more convenient forms of care. 

Why is it that when someone's sick, they must go to the bricks and mortar palace, wait in a waiting room for a long time and then be told, Oh, the doctor will see you now. We could do better than that.

I believe that the only way we're going to come up with a resilient, long term workable solution is going to be public-private partnerships work where businesses can kind of work cheek to jowl or hand to glove with public health agencies and we solve these challenges together.

I'm hopeful that one of the things that will come out of this is that there'll be a reset of the social compact between those in 'the healthcare industry' and those who we serve and that it will be much more focused on the human experience and recognizing that what we're supposed to be doing is taking care of the individual. 

[I'm hopeful that COVID] will unleash a human centered level of innovation because we have to have that in order to be able to get through this. As hard as the Great Depression was, that was also what bore the greatest generation. I believe that something like that is at work here.

Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: 'Our focus is on providing high-quality care.'

Seema Verma, administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

We're having those conversations [with health systems and insurers].

One example that we hear about all the time is telehealth, and that's a great example of a service that is creating greater flexibility and accessibility for our patients. And so we're continuing as part of this effort to really think about what should be maintained and what is part of our longstanding effort, "Patients over Paperwork." That really fits into a lot of what we've been trying to accomplish over the last three years.

We continue to hear from healthcare providers on the front lines about what's burdensome. It has created a lot of discussion even within CMS about some of these items — do they really need to be continued? We will be assessing this fully after we get past the pandemic. 

One of the things that we're also focused on is to make sure that we have strong program integrity and that the changes that we make aren't going to have a negative impact on the Medicare trust fund. Our focus is on providing high-quality care and making sure that we are leveraging technology and modernizing the program to provide high-quality care to our Medicare beneficiaries.

Brent Shafer, CEO of Cerner: 'It's like the foundation is there, the wiring has been laid, but often it's not utilized to its fullest extent'
Brent Shafer. Cerner

Moving our almost 30,000 employees to a virtual organization — while also helping providers address different surges and needs around the world — has been a very intense effort. 

We deal with about 250 million patient records from around the world. And there's about 3 million users on our systems each day. Putting providers in a position where they can deliver the care that's needed through this is really key.

We often say that, in a way, healthcare is mostly digitized — because we were one of the companies that helped to make that happen. On the other hand, it's like the foundation is there, the wiring has been laid, but often it's not utilized to its fullest extent.

When put to use, it can accomplish a great deal. A health system in Seattle, for instance, was one of the first hit with a surge of coronavirus patients in the US. Through a forum on Cerner's platform for patient data, they were then able to share some of their emergency department protocols with a broader group of providers.

I think healthcare groups around the world will show more interest in really using the capabilities around data analytics. So that they can then anticipate what's coming, anticipate the needs, and look at the health of populations in a more organized way than we have in the past.

Neil de Crescenzo, CEO of Change Healthcare: 'Things are just moving a lot faster than they used to.'
Neil de Crescenzo. Change Healthcare

Everybody in the country is trying to figure out what's going on with the spread of COVID, literally on a daily, if not hourly basis. And historically, the healthcare system hasn't been that dynamic or fluid.

There's about $350 billion of payments made to providers with paper checks in this country.

We've been working with our customers to make all of that electronic for a long time, but suddenly — when they're looking at how to minimize the need for people to come into the office — it becomes an even bigger priority. We've also helped people virtually enroll for Medicaid or disability using capabilities like DocuSign. A lot of the regulators required things to be done in person, but now people are finally doing away with those restrictions.

Whether it's operating the clinic or the hospital, whether it's dealing with getting people the financial support they need, or even having payments be facilitated between payers and providers — things are just moving a lot faster than they used to.

Hospitals and regulators have had to adapt very quickly to greater data liquidity and the capabilities we provide to put that data in the hands of anybody, with appropriate consent, who needs it. They're realizing that we, perhaps, should have been even more aggressive and in that coming to pass. And I think that ethos will remain long after the crisis is over.

Janice Nevin, CEO of ChristianaCare: 'We accomplished two to three years of work in about two to three weeks.'
Dr. Janice Nevin, CEO of ChristianaCare Courtesy of ChristianaCare

Our pre-COVID mantra was: "Everything that can be digital will be digital. Everything that can be done in the home will be done in the home."

We expected that work to be the core of our next several years' strategic plan. We accomplished two to three years of work in about two to three weeks once we found ourselves needing to address the COVID-19 issues.

We had one virtual practice. We now have 160 virtual practice sites. We also have a sophisticated data platform called CareVio that aggregates, analyzes, and uses predictive analytics to set alerts to manage populations.

We created a COVID-19 monitoring practice that uses secure texting and alerts to elevate a patient who has a deterioration in their symptoms to do a virtual visit for appropriate management. 

One of my colleagues said, "Now that the genie is out of the bottle, we won't be putting it back in."

I do see providers and patients who are now having a very different experience. They will want to continue to have that experience and to be able to get significant parts of their care digitally from home.

Everything we learned about managing COVID-19 on the virtual monitoring practice can be applied to multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma. 

This move to digital technology, to a virtual platform, will be something that the industry as a whole will embrace to various levels of sophistication depending on where a particular health system might have been before this. This is one of the ways that we create value, impact health, and make care more affordable. 

The other thing that we've learned from this experience is how hospitals play an incredible role in the public health infrastructure and the economy in their communities.

Steve Miller, chief medical officer of Cigna: 'This is actually going to be the permanent opportunity to lower the cost, improve the quality of healthcare.'
Express Scripts Chief Medical Officer Steve Miller Reuters

There's going to be actually some really interesting, good things for healthcare to come out of this.

We really believed that telehealth was going to be important for the future. But as you know, telehealth was off to a really slow start. But now it has gone nuts. The amount of telehealth we're doing now is extraordinary.

We believe that this is actually going to be the permanent opportunity to lower the cost, improve the quality of healthcare.

We've seen an explosion in mail-order pharmacy. So people truly are taking advantage of not only the longer fill you get, the 90-day fill that gives you piece of mind for supply, but they loved the idea that it comes directly to their home. 

Because we have employer-based healthcare in the US, people losing or having to shift their benefit obviously is a challenge for us. We're seeing a real growth in people moving to the exchanges and also we've developed pharmacy capabilities for those recently unemployed.

I think what we're seeing is a level of cooperation both within the industry but also with our provider partners. I think that some of it will go back towards normal when the crisis passes because this is a really expensive way to manage healthcare. 

For the industry we're going to see both challenges, challenges by more people moving to the exchanges. more people moving to Medicaid. But we're going to see advances that are actually going to make for better healthcare system that's lower in cost and personalized. 

We were all moving towards more common areas. Now if you actually have a private office you're feeling a little better about it. We're going to need quite a while until we have a vaccine, so how you social distance in the worksite is going to change.

Tom Mihaljevic, CEO of Cleveland Clinic: 'We are going to see the resurgence of manufacturing domestically.'
Dr. Tomislav Mihaljevic, president and CEO of Cleveland Clinic Courtesy of Cleveland Clinic

Before the pandemic, about 2% of our visits were based on the digital interface. Right now, 75% of our ambulatory care is being provided through digital. That's definitely here to stay.

What is also going to change is that a lot of care will be delivered at home rather than in hospital to keep the hospital environment safe as well as patients way less exposed to infections like this. 

Every country, the US in particular, will make sure our dependency to provide healthcare isn't completely dependent on getting supplies from foreign sources. We are going to see the resurgence of manufacturing domestically that will provide critically important items, including pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, and technology. This will allow us to be not so easily exposed to the shortages that we're currently experiencing. 

We are very likely going to see an accelerated decline in individual private practices or group practices that will simply not be able to withstand the financial pressures of a large pandemic like this.

We're going to see fewer, yet larger, integrated healthcare delivery systems that will be caring for a larger number of patients, and a declining number of smaller systems and some smaller standalone hospitals as well.

People about to start their medical careers will be thinking twice about whether they're going to go into a private practice or join a large integrated healthcare system. One reason is financial, but the other reason is the dependency of technology.

Provision of care through telemedicine, through data analytics and artificial intelligence, is going to be difficult to source if you're a private practitioner. A large integrated healthcare delivery system has the ability to provide the tools for the delivery of 21st century healthcare.

Lloyd Dean, CEO of CommonSpirit Health: 'We must more effectively meet patients where they are.'
Lloyd H Dean CEO of CommonSpirit Health CommonSpirit Health

The new future will be one in which our operations will need to anticipate and meet the demand of rapid surges. Our sustained resilience in the face of unanticipated stresses on our system is going to be more important than ever.

We are taking the lessons from these past few months and undergoing serious planning so we can flex our system in ways we haven't needed to in more than a generation.

More than ever, the spread of COVID-19 has also brought to light how much our health depends on the local environment around us. Healthcare should be more responsive to the needs of everyone, especially vulnerable and underserved populations who have been disproportionately affected by this virus.

We must more effectively meet patients where they are when mobility is limited if brick and mortar care sites are impaired for any reason. One of the positive things that can come out of this tragic pandemic is if we use data to target necessary health services locally and make care more convenient and accessible to our communities.

We now have the tremendous duty to walk with our most vulnerable patients through their medical, behavioral, and social health needs that may have gone unattended during this crisis. My greatest hope is that we will rebuild the healthcare system so that it is stronger and serves all people.

As a global society, there is a realization that we aren't invincible. All of the benefits of our global economy also left us more exposed to the transmission of viruses such as COVID-19. We need to prioritize cooperation on a global scale to ensure early monitoring and detection of outbreaks.

Larry Merlo, CEO of CVS Health: 'We're reaching consumers, we're helping them stay safe'
CVS Health CEO Larry Merlo Courtesy Forbes

We've got a new strategy as part of CVS and Aetna becoming one company. For us it's really more about the affirmation of the strategy, the role that we want to play in people's health. 

We're reaching consumers, we're helping them stay safe. We've waived fees around home delivery, we increased access to critical offerings like telemedicine. We are confident that the strategy that we've been working on building is the right one for the future. This convenience-based model, it's not going to go away.

A lot of what we're doing will become part of the new normal. 

We've talked about three important goals as part of that strategy. The first one being local, whether it's in the community, in the home, work, or now for many in the palm of their hand through digital devices.

We're seeing terrific examples of public-private partnerships. Obviously there's a lot of discussion currently in the news around the role of testing. Are we adequately testing people today? What will be testing needs for the future?

We've forged partnerships, both at a federal and state level in terms of responding to the needs for testing.

That's something that we absolutely don't want to lose. The private sector plays a critically important role in innovation and competition. I hope we can continue to capitalize on any opportunities that can create to bring solutions to unmet needs. 

The world has to work together to avoid the next pandemic. I hope that's something that all of us will never forget what we're experiencing, and how we can avoid that.

Judy Faulkner, CEO of Epic Systems: 'There are going to be bankruptcies. It's going to be a tough, tough time.'
Judy Faulkner. Epic Systems

The health systems in general are in financial distress right now. So that's going to affect their staffing levels and morale, their capital expenditures, and their operating expenditures. There are going to be bankruptcies. It's going to be a tough, tough time.

A lot of our customers have seen a 35% to 55% drop in revenue. That's a lot. And if you do that month after month, you can't keep affording to pay your staff. So that's going to be a big problem. There's already been at least one bankruptcy. And there'll be mergers and acquisitions, as some of the smaller providers will get purchased by larger health systems who can afford to stay afloat.

There may be more interest in doing HMOs and other arrangements where the patients are capitated, because those folks didn't get hit as hard financially. Because they get paid a regular amount every month, and it doesn't matter whether there's a virus.

There's a lot of nice things, too, and more creative thinking. There's been better reimbursement models for digital health, new infection control processes, and far more video visits. We calculated there are 100 times as many video visits as there were in months before the pandemic.

We'll see more remote training, remote patient monitoring, and faster implementations of technology. We ended up doing a whole bunch of implementations in three to five days. They normally take months. We did the Javits Center in New York, we did McCormick Place in Chicago, we did the Navy ship Comfort — all in just a few days. 

I think there'll be more of a focus on public health surveillance and more of a focus, too, on capacity and resource management. For Epic, I think that we will be helping some of the governments in the states and maybe the federal government with their health information.

Jaewon Ryu, CEO of Geisinger: 'Hospitals will think about their supply chain differently.'
Dr. Jaewon Ryu, CEO of Geisinger Geisinger

What will we do differently coming out of COVID? I actually think communication. I always thought we did it pretty well, but wow. We never could have imagined how much we could take it to a different level.

[On telemedicine and mail order pharmacy program] The program has just kicked into a different gear as a result of COVID. And I don't think that we'll go back on that because once consumers, once patients have a taste of the convenience andof the experience itself, I don't see them going backwards.

I do think hospitals will think about their supply chain differently. The name of the game in supply chain was always 'just in time supply' and making sure that you didn't keep too much of an inventory.

But I think this has made most hospitals think about, well that may be fine, but then you've got to be able to tap on a whole lot more capacity in your supply chain pretty quickly in the event you face an emergency.

I think this will change the whole world, but it's this notion that we're all in it together. I do think there's more of that. I see more systems working together. I see more folks working together.

I think going to large, crowded kinds of environments, even after we're on the other side of COVID, I think people will exercise a little more caution before they're going to the big venues.

I think people will be a lot more careful around things like hand hygiene, keeping surfaces clean and, and covering their mouths if they're coughing or sneezing.

George Hager Jr, CEO of Genesis HealthCare: 'Our industry will be much better prepared for the next pandemic.'
George Hager Jr, CEO of Genesis HealthCare Courtesy of Genesis HealthCare

We will make sure in our emergency planning that we have a greater ability to cohort patients and isolate patients upon admission that are potentially COVID-positive or are impacted by whatever the next pandemic is, so that we can do a better job — a more effective job — of protecting that part of our population that is already frail and compromised in the skilled nursing setting from those affected by the virus.

We have at least five facilities that are dedicated COVID-only buildings. We are admitting directly from the hospital patients that have tested positive for COVID-19. Concerns you have here, especially in your hotspots, is that the hospital beds get backed up, and there needs to be a discharge source that is a protected and safe site of service for those patients that tested positive but are stable.

Our industry will be much better prepared for the next pandemic, and we will be able to react much more quickly, to create and establish those dedicated units that are isolated from the rest of a population that is congregating in an institutional setting.

We have a segment of our business that we call PowerBack, which was constructed more recently to handle a short-term, more therapy-oriented population. They're all private rooms. The common space is much larger. The clinical capabilities in these buildings are typically much higher, with a much greater presence of physicians and physician-extender type of clinical skill. The average length of stay in those buildings is 15 to 20 days. 

We know that if we have a pending crisis, what we could do now empty those buildings out very quickly and have them ready — in relatively short notice — to accept affected people by any infectious disease or virus.

David Feinberg, the head of Google Health: 'Access to the right information, at the right time, can save lives.'
Dr. David Feinberg, the head of Google Health Courtesy HLTH

We learn a lot during times like this. It can help us break through the status quo and support efficiencies and innovations that mean better care and outcomes.

For example, it's amazing to see the quick and massive rise of virtual care, coupled with regulatory support for doctors practicing across state lines, that have arisen due to providers reducing or ceasing in-person visits.

The pandemic has also brought to the forefront the usefulness of data towards anticipating healthcare needs and resource allocation. Just as public health authorities cast a wide net to understand COVID-19 and what public and environmental factors may help in predicting its spread, there will be a greater appreciation for how data could also help communities respond to other conditions — whether that's cancer, heart disease, diabetics, poor nutrition, and more.

I think that the industry will come away with more interest, and higher expectations.

We think about how we can bring the best of Google expertise, people and technologies to help connect people to the right resources when they're sick, keep them healthy, and solve big healthcare challenges. In times of an emerging global health threat, this means doing things like boosting authoritative content in Search and YouTube tailored to people's information needs around the pandemic and helping people connect to safe and convenient virtual care.

Access to the right information, at the right time, can save lives. In addition to Google's Cloud offerings for healthcare, we've also been able to stand up new initiatives to help public health officials respond to COVID-19.

I am particularly proud of our COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports which uses anonymized, aggregated location data to help officials make decisions to prevent further spread of the virus.

William Fleming, president of Humana's clinical and pharmacy solutions segment: 'We need to take telehealth to the next level.'
Humana segment president of Humana’s clinical and pharmacy solutions William Fleming Humana

The transformational power of telehealth was steadily rising prior to the pandemic, but its usage has significantly accelerated. If a primary care practice wasn't using telehealth six weeks ago, chances are it is well-versed in it today. 

At Humana, we've been on the telehealth journey for some time, but we need to take telehealth to the next level so we can improve both health and health care.

Now, more than ever, the general public understands and can empathize with things like social isolation. We've long identified this as a social determinant of health that, in particular, affects seniors in our society. But today, it's more real for many of us.

Going forward, we will be able to work in a different, and hopefully more accepting, way to provide whole-person health care – care that encompasses both body and mind, taking into account the many social factors that play a significant role in our overall health and well-being. 

The world needs to be prepared for the potential re-emergence of the coronavirus, either later this year or in 2021. We have a real-world case for change, and it starts with industry and government enhancing our innovation and readiness. This will enable us to build stronger partnerships that will help physicians and other clinicians protect people from the virus as we race towards new treatments and a vaccine.

We have all been reminded about the importance of caring for one another.

Sabtu, 03 Oktober 2020

Economist : The future of the officeCovid-19 has forced a radical shift in working habits



The future of the office
Covid-19 has forced a radical shift in working habits

Mostly for the better

BriefingSep 12th 2020 edition

Self-styled visionaries and people particularly fond of their pyjamas have for decades been arguing that a lot of work done in large shared offices could better be done at home. With covid-19 their ideas were put to the test in a huge if not randomised trial. The preliminary results are now in: yes, a lot of work can be done at home; and what is more, many people seem to prefer doing it there.

This does not, in itself, mean the end of the non-home office. It does mean that there is a live debate to be had. Some companies appear relaxed about a domestic shift. On August 28th Pinterest, a social-media firm, paid $90m to end a new lease obligation on office space near its headquarters in San Francisco to create a “more distributed workforce”. Others seem to be against it. Also that month, Facebook signed a new lease on a big office in Manhattan. Bloomberg is reportedly offering a stipend of up to £55 ($75) a day to get its workers back to its building in London. Governments, on which some of the burden will fall if the pandemic persists, are taking a similar tack, encouraging people “back to work”—by which they mean “back to the office”.

They face a difficult task. For working from home seems to have suited many white-collar employees. As lockdowns have eased, people have gone out into the world once more: retail spending has jumped across the rich world while restaurant reservations have sharply risen. Yet many continue to shun the office, even as schools reopen and thus make it a more feasible option for working parents. The latest data suggest that only 50% of people in five big European countries spend every work-day in the office (see chart 1). A quarter remain at home full-time.

This may be due to the residual fear of covid-19 and the inconvenience of reduced-capacity offices. Until social-distancing guidance ends, offices cannot work at full steam. The average office can work with 25-60% of its staff while maintaining a two-metre (six-foot) distance between workers. Offices which span more than five floors rely on lifts; the queues for access, when only two people are allowed inside one, can stretch around the block.

Some offices are trying to make themselves safer places to work. The managers of a new skyscraper in London, 22 Bishopsgate, have switched off its recirculated air-conditioning. Others have installed hand-sanitising stations and put up plastic barriers. But even if offices are safer, it can still be hard to get there. Many employees do not want to or are discouraged from using public transport—and one-quarter of commuters in New York City live more than 15 miles (24km) from the office, too far to walk or cycle.

However it also appears to be the case that working from home can make people happier. A paper published in 2017 in the American Economic Review found that workers were willing to accept an 8% pay cut to work from home, suggesting it gives them non-monetary benefits. Average meeting lengths appear to decline (see chart 2). And people commute less, or not at all. That is great for wellbeing. A study from 2004 by Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University and colleagues found that commuting was among the least enjoyable activities that people regularly did. Britain’s Office for National Statistics has found that “commuters have lower life satisfaction...lower levels of happiness and higher anxiety on average than non-commuters” (see article).

The working-from-home happiness boost could, in turn, make workers more productive. In most countries the average worker reports that, under lockdown, she got more done than she would have in the office. In the current circumstances, however, it is hard to be sure whether home-working or office-working is more efficient. Many people, particularly women, have had to work while caring for children who would normally be in school. That might make it seem as though working from home was less productive than it could theoretically be (ie, when the kids were in school).

Tumble outta bed into the kitchen

But there are lockdown-specific effects which create the opposite bias, making work-from-home seem artificially productive. During lockdown workers may have upped their game for fear of being let go by their company—evidence from America suggests that more than half of workers are worried about losing their job due to the outbreak. A separate problem is that most studies under lockdown have relied on workers to self-report their productivity, and the data generated in this way tend not to be very reliable.

Research published before the pandemic provides a clearer picture. A study in 2015 by Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and his colleagues looked at Chinese call-centre workers. They found that those who worked from home were more productive (they processed more calls). One-third of the increase was due to having a quieter environment. The rest was due to people working more hours. Sick days for employees plummeted. Another study, looking at workers at America’s Patent and Trademark Office, found similar results. A study in 2007 from America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics found that home-workers are paid a tad more than equivalent office workers, suggesting higher productivity.

The experience of lockdown has simply accelerated pre-existing trends, thinks Harry Badham, the developer of 22 Bishopsgate. That may be an understatement. Although the share of people regularly working from home was rising before the pandemic, absolute numbers remained small (see chart 3). According to one view, the fact that office-working was so dominant until recently reveals that it must be more efficient than home-based work both for firms and for workers. By this logic the success of a country’s emergence from lockdown can be measured by how many people are back at their desks.

But there is another interpretation. This says that home-working is actually more efficient than office-work, and that the glory days of the office are gone. The office, after all, came into being when the world of work involved processing lots of paper. The fact that it remained so dominant for so long may instead reflect a market failure. Before covid-19 the world may have been stuck in a “bad equilibrium” in which home-work was less prevalent than it should have been. The pandemic represents an enormous shock which is putting the world into a new, better equilibrium.

Brent Neiman of the University of Chicago suggests three factors which prevented the growth of home-working before now. The first relates to information. Bosses simply did not know whether clustering in an office was essential or not. The past six months have let them find out. The second relates to co-ordination: it may have been difficult for a single firm unilaterally to move to home-working, perhaps because its suppliers or clients would have found it strange. The pandemic, however, forced all firms who could do so to shift to home-working all at once. Amid this mass migration, people were less likely to look askance at companies which did so.

The third factor is to do with investment. The large fixed costs associated with moving from office- to home-based work may have dissuaded firms from trying it out. Evidence from surveys suggests that firms have in recent months spent big on equipment such as laptops to enable staff to work from home; this is one reason why global trade has held up better than expected since the pandemic began (see article). Such investments are made at the household level too. In many rich countries the market for single-family houses is stronger than for apartments. This suggests that people are looking for extra space, possibly for a dedicated home office.

Pour yourself a cup of ambition

The extent to which home-working remains popular long after the pandemic has passed will depend on a bargain between companies and workers. But it will also depend on whether companies embrace or reject the controversial theory that working from an office might actually impede productivity. Since the 1970s researchers who have studied physical proximity (ie, the distance employees need to travel to engage in a face-to-face interaction) have disagreed on the question of whether it facilitates or inhibits collaboration. The argument largely centres on the extent to which the bringing-together of people under one roof promotes behaviour conducive to new ideas, or whether doing so promotes idle chatter.

Such uncertainty is exemplified by a study in 2017 by Matthew Claudel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (mit) and his colleagues. Their study looked at papers and patents produced by mit researchers and the geographical distribution of those researchers. In doing so, they found a positive relationship between proximity and collaboration. But when they looked at the buildings of mit, they found little statistical evidence for the hypothesis that “centrally positioned, densely populated and multi-disciplinary spaces would be active hotspots of collaboration”. In other words, proximity can help people come up with new ideas, but they do not necessarily need to be in an office to do so.

However, not everything about working from home is pleasurable. In July a study from economists at Harvard, Stanford and New York University found that the average workday under lockdown was nearly 50 minutes longer than it was before, and that people became more likely to send emails after work hours. There is also wide variation between workers in how much they enjoy working from home. Leesman, a workforce consultancy, has surveyed the experience of more than 100,000 white-collar workers across the rich world during the pandemic. It finds that satisfaction with working from home varies according to whether that person has dedicated office and desk space or not.

The tide’s turned and rolling your way

And not everyone has the ability to work from home, even if they want to. Research published in April by Mr Neiman and Jonathan Dingel, both of the University of Chicago, found that across rich countries about 40% of the workforce were in occupations that could plausibly be completed from their kitchen tables. Evidence of actual working arrangements during the pandemic backs up those speculations. A paper from Erik Brynjolfsson of Stanford University and colleagues, looking at American data, suggests that of those employed before the pandemic began, about half were working from home in May.

Indeed, it is uncertain whether the benefits of working from home can last for a sustained period of time. Mr Bloom’s co-written study on Chinese call-centre workers is one of the few to assess the impact of working from home over many months. He and his colleagues found that, eventually, many people were desperate to get back to the office, if only every now and then, in part because they were lonely. Some companies which have tried large-scale remote working in the past have ultimately abandoned it, including Yahoo, a technology firm, in 2013. “Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings,” a leaked internal memo read that year.

The challenge for bosses, then, is to find ways of preserving and boosting employee happiness and innovation, even as home-working becomes more common. One solution is to get everyone into the office a few days a month. An approach whereby workers dedicate a chunk of time to developing new ideas with colleagues may actually be more productive than before.

A study from Christoph Riedl of Northeastern University and Anita Williams Woolley of Carnegie Mellon University, published in 2017, suggested that “bursty” communication, where people exchange ideas rapidly for a short period of time, led to better performance than constant, but less focused, communication. Not much evidence exists that serendipity is useful for innovation, even though it is accepted by many as a self-evident truth. “A lot of people made a lot of money selling this watercooler idea,” says Mr Claudel of mit, referring to the growth in recent decades of open-plan offices, co-working spaces and trendy “innovation districts”.

Coming into the office now and then is not the only way of generating bursty communication. The same can be achieved, say, with corporate retreats and get-togethers. Gitlab, a software company, has been “all-remote” since it was founded in 2014. With no offices, it gathers together its 1,300 “team members”, who live in 65 different countries, at least once a year for get-togethers and team bonding.

Similarly, companies such as Teemly, Sococo and Pragli offer “virtual offices”, making it easier to communicate with colleagues, rather than going through the rigmarole of scheduling a video call. Using video messaging from Loom, a worker can record her screen, voice and face and instantly share it with colleagues—more useful than a conventional video call, as the video can be sped up or rewound. Gitlab’s workers follow a “nonlinear” workday—interrupting work with bouts of leisure. Rather than talk to their colleagues over live video calls they engage in “asynchronous communication”, which is another way of saying they send their co-workers pre-recorded video messages.

More frequent working from home will also demand the use of new hardware, and the withering away of other sorts. At present, many companies host large data-centres, but these have proved less efficient as more people work from home. Goldman Sachs reckons that investment in traditional data infrastructure will fall by 3% a year in 2019-25. In its place, companies are likely to spend more on technology which allows workers to replicate the experience of being in the same physical space as someone else (higher-quality cameras and microphones, for instance). The more utopian technology analysts reckon that within five years, people will be able to put on a vr headset and immerse themselves in a virtual office—bad strip-lighting, and all.

There’s a better life

All this has wide-ranging implications for public policy. At present it is impossible to know whether home-workers will find it easier or harder to bargain with their employer for pay rises and improvements in conditions, though the idea of asking for a raise through a video chat is hardly an appealing one. Employers may also find it easier to fire remote workers than if they had to do it face-to-face. If so, then calls may grow for governments to give home-workers greater protections.

Another problem relates to employment law, argues Jeremias Adams-Prassl of Oxford University. Just as the rise of the gig economy has prompted questions and court cases about what it means to be an employee or self-employed, the increased popularity of home-working puts pressure on laws which were constructed around the assumption that people would be toiling away in an office. No one has yet thought through how firms should go about monitoring contractual working time in a world where nobody physically clocks in, nor about the extent to which firms may surveil workers at home.

Battles over employers’ responsibilities to their home-workers surely cannot be far away. Should a business pay for a worker’s internet connection or their heating in the dead of winter? Grappling with such questions will not be easy. But governments and firms must seize the moment. The pandemic, for all its ill effects, offers a rare opportunity to rewire the world of work. 



Kamis, 01 Oktober 2020

Economist: Starting over againThe covid-19 pandemic is forcing a rethink in macroeconomics



Starting over again
The covid-19 pandemic is forcing a rethink in macroeconomics

It is not yet clear where it will lead


In the form it is known today, macroeconomics began in 1936 with the publication of John Maynard Keynes’s “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”. Its subsequent history can be divided into three eras. The era of policy which was guided by Keynes’s ideas began in the 1940s. By the 1970s it had encountered problems that it could not solve and so, in the 1980s, the monetarist era, most commonly associated with the work of Milton Friedman, began. In the 1990s and 2000s economists combined insights from both approaches. But now, in the wreckage left behind by the coronavirus pandemic, a new era is beginning. What does it hold?

The central idea of Keynes’s economics is the management of the business cycle—how to fight recessions and ensure that as many people who want work can get it. By extension, this key idea became the ultimate goal of economic policy. Unlike other forms of economic theory in the early 20th century, Keynesianism envisaged a large role for the state in achieving that end. The experience of the Great Depression had convinced proto-Keynesians that the economy was not a naturally correcting organism. Governments were supposed to run large deficits (ie, spending more than they took in taxes) during downturns to prop up the economy, with the expectation that they would pay down the accumulated debt during the good times.

The Keynesian paradigm collapsed in the 1970s. The persistently high inflation and high unemployment of that decade (“stagflation”) baffled mainstream economists, who thought that the two variables almost always moved in opposite directions. This in turn convinced policymakers that it was no longer possible to “spend your way out of a recession”, as James Callaghan, then Britain’s prime minister, conceded in 1976. A central insight of Friedman’s critique of Keynesianism was that if policymakers tried to stimulate without tackling underlying structural deficiencies then they would raise inflation without bringing unemployment down. And high inflation could then persist, just because it was what people came to expect.

Policymakers looked for something new. The monetarist ideas of the 1980s inspired Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, to crush inflation by constraining the money supply, even though doing so also produced a recession that sent unemployment soaring. The fact that Volcker had known that this would probably happen revealed that something else had changed. Many monetarists argued that policymakers before them had focused too much on equality of incomes and wealth to the detriment of economic efficiency. They needed instead to focus on the basics—such as low and stable inflation—which would, over the long run, create the conditions in which living standards would rise.

It sounds like a whisper

In the 1990s and 2000s a synthesis of Keynesianism and Friedmanism emerged. It eventually recommended a policy regime loosely known as “flexible inflation targeting”. The central objective of the policy was to achieve low and stable inflation—though there was some room, during downturns, to put employment first even if inflation was uncomfortably high. The primary tool of economic management was the raising and lowering of short-term interest rates, which, it had turned out, were more reliable determinants of consumption and investment than the money supply. Central banks’ independence from governments ensured that they would not fall into the inflationary traps of which Friedman warned. Fiscal policy, as a way to manage the business cycle, was sidelined, in part because it was seen to be too subject to political influence. The job of fiscal policy was to keep public debts low, and to redistribute income to the degree and in the way that politicians saw fit.

Now it seems that this dominant economic paradigm has reached its limit. It first began to wobble after the global financial crisis of 2007-09, as policymakers were confronted by two big problems. The first was that the level of demand in the economy—broadly, the aggregate desire to spend relative to the aggregate desire to save—seemed to have been permanently reduced by the crisis. To fight the downturn central banks slashed interest rates and launched quantitative easing (qe, or printing money to buy bonds). But even with extraordinary monetary policy, the recovery from the crisis was slow and long. gdp growth was weak. Eventually, labour markets boomed, but inflation remained muted (see chart 1). The late 2010s were simultaneously the new 1970s and the anti-1970s: inflation and unemployment were once again not behaving as expected, though this time they were both surprisingly low.

This threw into question the received wisdom about how to manage the economy. Central bankers faced a situation where the interest rate needed to generate enough demand was below zero. That was a point they could not easily reach, since if banks tried to charge negative interest rates, their customers might simply withdraw their cash and stuff it under the mattress. qe was an alternative policy instrument, but its efficacy was debated. Such disputes prompted a rethink. According to a working paper published in July by Michael Woodford and Yinxi Xie of Columbia University the “events of the period since the financial crisis of 2008 have required a significant reappraisal of the previous conventional wisdom, according to which interest-rate policy alone...should suffice to maintain macroeconomic stability.”

The second post-financial-crisis problem related to distribution. While concerns about the costs of globalisation and automation helped boost populist politics, economists asked in whose interests capitalism had lately been working. An apparent surge in American inequality after 1980 became central to much economic research. Some worried that big firms had become too powerful; others, that a globalised society was too sharp-edged or that social mobility was declining.

Some argued that structurally weak economic growth and the maldistribution of the spoils of economic activity were related. The rich have a higher tendency to save rather than spend, so if their share of income rises then overall saving goes up. Meanwhile in the press central banks faced accusations that low interest rates and qe were driving up inequality by boosting the prices of housing and equities.

Yet it was also becoming clear just how much economic stimulus could benefit the poor, if it caused unemployment to drop sufficiently for wages for low-income folk to rise. Just before the pandemic a growing share of gdp across the rich world was accruing to workers in the form of wages and salaries. The benefits were greatest for low-paid workers. “We are hearing loud and clear that this long recovery is now benefiting low- and moderate-income communities to a greater extent than has been felt for decades,” said Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, in July 2019. The growing belief in the redistributive power of a booming economy added to the importance of finding new tools to replace interest rates to manage the business cycle.

Tables starting to turn

Then coronavirus hit. Supply chains and production have been disrupted, which all else being equal should have caused prices to surge as raw materials and finished goods were harder to come by. But the bigger impact of the pandemic has been on the demand side, causing expectations for future inflation and interest rates to fall even further. The desire to invest has plunged, while people across the rich world are now saving much of their income.

The pandemic has also exposed and accentuated inequities in the economic system. Those in white-collar jobs can work from home, but “essential” workers—the delivery drivers, the rubbish cleaners—must continue to work, and are therefore at greater risk of contracting covid-19, all the while for poor pay. Those in industries such as hospitality (disproportionately young, female and with black or brown skin) have borne the brunt of job losses.

Even before covid-19, policymakers were starting to focus once again on the greater effect of the bust and boom of the business cycle on the poor. But since the economy has been hit with a crisis that hurts the poorest hardest, a new sense of urgency has emerged. That is behind the shift in macroeconomics. Devising new ways of getting back to full employment is once again the top priority for economists.

But how to go about it? Some argue that covid-19 has proved wrong fears that policymakers cannot fight downturns. So far this year rich countries have announced fiscal stimulus worth some $4.2trn, enough to take their deficits to nearly 17% of gdp, while central-bank balance-sheets have grown by 10% of gdp. This enormous stimulus has calmed markets, stopped businesses from collapsing and protected household incomes. Recent policy action “provides a textbook rebuke of the idea that policymakers can run out of ammunition,” argues Erik Nielsen of Unicredit, a bank.

Yet while nobody doubts that policymakers have found plenty of levers, there remains disagreement over which should continue to be pulled, who should do the pulling, and what the effects will be. Economists and policymakers can be divided into three schools of thought, from least to most radical: one which calls merely for greater courage; one which looks to fiscal policy; and one which says the solution is negative interest rates.

Take the first school. Its proponents say that so long as central banks are able to print money to buy assets they will be able to boost economic growth and inflation. Some economists argue that central banks must do this to the extent necessary to restore growth and hit their inflation targets. If they fail it is not because they are out of ammunition but because they are not trying hard enough.

Not long ago central bankers followed this creed, insisting that they still had the tools to do their job. In 2013 Japan, which has more experience than any other country with low-growth, ultra-low-inflation conditions, appointed a “whatever-it-takes” central banker, Kuroda Haruhiko, to lead the Bank of Japan (boj). He succeeded in stoking a jobs boom, but boosted inflation by less than was promised. Right before the pandemic Ben Bernanke, a former chairman of the Fed, argued in a speech to the American Economic Association that the potential for asset purchases meant that monetary policy alone would probably be sufficient to fight a recession.

But in recent years most central bankers have gravitated towards exhorting governments to use their budgets to boost growth. Christine Lagarde opened her tenure as president of the European Central Bank with a call for fiscal stimulus. Mr Powell recently warned Congress against prematurely withdrawing its fiscal response to the pandemic. In May Philip Lowe, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (rba), told the Australian parliament that “fiscal policy will have to play a more significant role in managing the economic cycle than it has in the past”.

Standing in the welfare lines

That puts most central bankers in the second school of thought, which relies on fiscal policy. Adherents doubt that central-bank asset purchases can deliver unlimited stimulus, or see such purchases as dangerous or unfair—perhaps, for example, because buying corporate debt keeps companies alive that should be allowed to fail. Better for the government to boost spending or cut taxes, with budget deficits soaking up the glut of savings created by the private sector. It may mean running large deficits for a prolonged period, something that Larry Summers of Harvard University has suggested.

This view does not eliminate the role of central banks, but it does relegate them. They become enablers of fiscal stimulus whose main job is to keep even longer-term public borrowing cheap as budget deficits soar. They can do so either by buying bonds up directly, or by pegging longer-term interest rates near zero, as the boj and the rba currently do. As a result of covid-19 “the fine line between monetary policy and government-debt management has become blurred”, according to a report by the Bank for International Settlements (bis), a club of central banks.

Not everyone is happy about this. In June Paul Tucker, formerly deputy governor of the Bank of England, said that, in response to the bank’s vast purchases of government bonds, the question was whether the bank “has now reverted to being the operational arm of the Treasury”. But those influenced by the Keynesian school, such as Adair Turner, a former British financial regulator, want the monetary financing of fiscal stimulus to become a stated policy—an idea known as “helicopter money”.

Huge fiscal-stimulus programmes mean that public-debt-to-gdp ratios are rising (see chart 2). Yet these no longer reliably alarm economists. That is because today’s low interest rates enable governments to service much higher public debts (see chart 3). If interest rates remain lower than nominal economic growth—ie, before adjusting for inflation—then an economy can grow its way out of debt without ever needing to run a budget surplus, a point emphasised by Olivier Blanchard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think-tank. Another way of making the argument is to say that central banks can continue to finance governments so long as inflation remains low, because it is ultimately the prospect of inflation that forces policymakers to raise rates to levels which make debt costly.

To some, the idea of turning the fiscal tap to full blast, and co-opting the central bank to that end, resembles “modern monetary theory” (mmt). This is a heterodox economics which calls for countries that can print their own currency (such as America and Britain) to ignore debt-to-gdp ratios, rely on the central bank to backstop public debt, and continue to run deficit spending unless and until unemployment and inflation return to normal.

And there is indeed a resemblance between this school of thought and mmt. When interest rates are zero, there is no distinction between issuing debt, which would otherwise incur interest costs, and printing money, which text books assume does not incur interest costs. At a zero interest rate it “doesn’t matter whether you finance by money or finance by debt,” said Mr Blanchard in a recent webinar.

But the comparison ends there. While those who advocate mmt want the central bank to peg interest rates at zero permanently, other mainstream economists advocate expansionary fiscal policy precisely because they want interest rates to rise. This, in turn, allows monetary policy to regain traction.

The third school of thought, which focuses on negative interest rates, is the most radical. It worries about how interest rates will remain below rates of economic growth, as Mr Blanchard stipulated. Its proponents view fiscal stimulus, whether financed by debt or by central-bank money creation, with some suspicion, as both leave bills for the future.

A side-effect of qe is that it leaves the central bank unable to raise interest rates without paying interest on the enormous quantity of electronic money that banks have parked with it. The more money it prints to buy government bonds, the more cash will be deposited with it. If short-term rates rise, so will the central bank’s “interest on reserves” bill. In other words, a central bank creating money to finance stimulus is, in economic terms, doing something surprisingly similar to a government issuing floating-rate debt. And central banks are, ultimately, part of the government.

So there are no free lunches. “The higher the outstanding qe as a share of total government debt, the more the government is exposed to fluctuations in short-term interest rates,” explained Gertjan Vlieghe of the Bank of England in a recent speech. A further concern is that in the coming decades governments will face still more pressure on their budgets from the pension and health-care spending associated with an ageing population, investments to fight climate change, and any further catastrophes in the mould of covid-19. The best way to stimulate economies on an ongoing basis is not, therefore, to create endless bills to be paid when rates rise again. It is to take interest rates negative.

Waiting for a promotion

Some interest rates are already marginally negative. The Swiss National Bank’s policy rate is -0.75%, while some rates in the euro zone, Japan and Sweden are also in the red. But the likes of Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Willem Buiter, the former chief economist of Citigroup, a bank, envision interest rates of -3% or lower—a much more radical proposition. To stimulate spending and borrowing these rates would have to spread throughout the economy: to financial markets, to the interest charges on bank loans, and also to deposits in banks, which would need to shrink over time. This would discourage saving—in a depressed economy, after all, too much saving is the fundamental problem—though it is easy to imagine negative interest rates stirring a populist backlash.

Many people would also want to take their money out of banks and stuff it under the mattress. Making these proposals effective, therefore, would require sweeping reform. Various ideas for how to do this exist, but the brute-force method is to abolish at least high-denomination banknotes, making holding large quantities of physical cash expensive and impractical. Mr Rogoff suggests that eventually cash might exist only as “weighty coins”.

Negative rates also pose problems for banks and the financial system. In a paper in 2018 Markus Brunnermeier and Yann Koby of Princeton University argue that there is a “reversal interest rate” beneath which interest-rate cuts actually deter bank lending—harming the economy rather than boosting it. Below a certain interest rate, which experience suggests must be negative, banks might be unwilling to pass on interest-rate cuts to their depositors, for fear of prompting peeved customers to move their deposits to a rival bank. Deeply negative interest rates could squash banks’ profits, even in a cashless economy.

Take what’s theirs

Several factors might yet make the economy more hospitable to negative rates, however. Cash is in decline—another trend the pandemic has accelerated. Banks are becoming less important to finance, with ever more intermediation happening in capital markets (see article). Capital markets, notes Mr Buiter, are unaffected by the “reversal rate” argument. Central bankers, meanwhile, are toying with the idea of creating their own digital currencies which could act like deposit accounts for the public, allowing the central bank to pay or charge interest on deposits directly, rather than via the banking system. Joe Biden’s campaign for the White House includes similar ideas, which would allow the Fed to directly serve those who do not have a private bank account.

Policymakers now have to weigh up the risks to choose from in the post-covid world: widespread central-bank intervention in asset markets, ongoing increases in public debt or a shake-up of the financial system. Yet increasing numbers of economists fear that even these radical changes are not enough. They argue that deeper problems exist which can only be solved by structural reform.

A new paper by Atif Mian of Princeton University, Ludwig Straub of Harvard University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago expands on the idea that inequality saps demand from the economy. Just as inequality creates a need for stimulus, they argue, stimulus eventually creates more inequality. This is because it leaves economies more indebted, either because low interest rates encourage households or firms to borrow, or because the government has run deficits. Both public and private indebtedness transfer income to rich investors who own the debt, thereby depressing demand and interest rates still further.

The secular trends of recent decades, of higher inequality, higher debt-to-gdp ratios and lower interest rates, thus reinforce one another. The authors argue that escaping the trap “requires consideration of less standard macroeconomic policies, such as those focused on redistribution or those reducing the structural sources of high inequality.” One of these “structural sources of high inequality” might be a lack of competitiveness. Big businesses with captive markets need not invest as much as they would if they faced more competition.

A new working paper by Anna Stansbury, also of Harvard University, and Mr Summers, rejects that view and instead blames workers’ declining bargaining power in the labour market. According to the authors, this can explain all manner of American economic trends: the decline (until the mid-2010s) in workers’ share of income, reduced unemployment and inflation, and high corporate profitability. Business owners may be more likely to save than workers, they suggest, so as corporate income rises, aggregate savings increase.

Ms Stansbury and Mr Summers favour policies such as strengthening labour unions or promoting “corporate-governance arrangements that increase worker power”. They argue that such policies “would need to be carefully considered in light of the possible risks of increasing unemployment.” Ideas for increasing the power of workers as individuals may be more promising. One is to strengthen the safety-net, which would increase workers’ bargaining power and ability to walk away from unattractive working arrangements.

In a recent book Martin Sandbu, a columnist at the Financial Times, suggests replacing tax-free earnings allowances with small universal basic incomes. Another idea is to strengthen the enforcement of existing employment law, currently weak in many rich countries. Tighter regulation of mergers and acquisitions, to prevent new monopolies forming, would also help.

All these new ideas will now compete for space in a political environment in which change suddenly seems much more possible. Who could have imagined, just six months ago, that tens of millions of workers across Europe would have their wages paid for by government-funded furlough schemes, or that seven in ten American job-losers in the recession would earn more from unemployment-insurance payments than they had done on the job? Owing to mass bail-outs, “the role of the state in the economy will probably loom considerably larger,” says the bis.

Talking about a revolution

Many economists want precisely this state intervention, but it presents clear risks. Governments which already carry heavy debts could decide that worrying about deficits is for wimps and that central-bank independence does not matter. That could at last unleash high inflation and provide a painful reminder of the benefits of the old regime. Financial-sector reforms could backfire. Greater redistribution might snap the economy out of a funk in the manner that Mr Sufi, Ms Stansbury and their respective colleagues describe—but heavy taxes could equally discourage employment, enterprise and innovation.

The rethink of economics is an opportunity. There now exists a growing consensus that tight labour markets could give workers more bargaining power without the need for a big expansion of redistribution. A level-headed reassessment of public debt could lead to the green public investment necessary to fight climate change. And governments could unleash a new era of finance, involving more innovation, cheaper financial intermediation and, perhaps, a monetary policy that is not constrained by the presence of physical cash. What is clear is that the old economic paradigm is looking tired. One way or another, change is coming

Editor’s note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for readers of The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our hub

This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition under the headline "Starting over again"

Reuse this contentThe Trust Project