Is A Republican President Really Better For The Economy?

Posted In: 2008 Election, Corporate Earnings, Economists, Economy, Financial Markets, GDP, Inflation, Political Parties, Politicians, Productivity, Stocks, U.S. Government, Unemployment, Wages

In the December 11 article “Economists Say Recession Risk Is Climbing,” the Wall Street Journal talked about some of the findings from its latest survey of economists. When asked which presidential candidate would be best for the economy, only half of the 52 economists participating in the survey responded. The Journal reported that 35% of respondents chose Rudolph Giuliani, 19% chose John McCain, and 15% picked Mitt Romney as the candidate who would be best for the U.S. economy. Hillary Clinton was picked by 8% of economists participating in the poll, while 4% chose John Edwards. Ron Paul, Michael Bloomberg, and Alan Greenspan each got a write-in vote. Alan Greenspan?

I’m not surprised that the survey results showed economists felt a Republican White House would be best for the U.S. economy. I’ve always heard that the economy performs better under a Republican president. Even when I was an undergraduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the early nineties, some of my classmates said that it was a shame that President Clinton and the Democrats were reaping the benefits of economic policies instituted by President George H.W. Bush’s administration. So tonight, I’m going to explore the claim that Republican administrations are “best” for the U.S. economy.

sweet.jpg

I call to your attention a study done in December 2006 by Elliott Parker, Ph.D., who is a Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada-Reno. Using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, Dr. Parker first compared the economic performance of Republican and Democratic presidencies from 1929 through the end of 2005. He found that the Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) was 1.9% for Republican administrations and 5.1% for Democratic administrations during this time. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was .7% for the Republicans and 3.8% for the Democrats. However, the professor pointed out that the years comprising the Great Depression and WWII should probably be excluded from the comparison. So economic performance from 1949 (end of Truman administration) to 2005 was compared, which showed Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that “the economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations, and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms.”

The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

Regarding the question of statistical significance, Parker noted:

The differences in growth, unemployment, and the corporate profit share are all statistically significant, and support the argument that the economy may actually perform better under Democrats. The differences in weekly earnings, stock market growth, inflation, and multifactor productivity all favor the Democrats as well, but these differences are not statistically significant.

Addressing the claim heard back in my college days, Dr. Parker also tried to account for a lag effect. He said, “It is a reasonable argument that economic performance early in a new administration is likely to be the result of policies followed by the prior administration.” Therefore, he tested whether lagging the effect of the administration on growth might support the argument that the economy actually performed better under Republicans. The professor found that even with up to four years of lagged effects, there was no evidence that the economy performed better under Republicans.

Dr. Parker drew the following conclusions regarding the claim that Republican presidencies are “best” for the U.S. economy:

But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans.

NOTE: For more on this topic, see September 10, 2008, post, “Are Democrats Or Republicans Better For The U.S. Economy?”

Sphere: Related Content