Order Code RL30329
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Current Economic Conditions
and Selected Forecasts
Updated September 17, 2003
Gail Makinen
Economic Policy Consultant
Government and Finance Division
Anne Vorce
Economist
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Current Economic Conditions and Selected Forecasts
Summary
U.S. real GDP has been positive for 7 consecutive quarters and the economy is
considered to be in an “expansion” phase. As of the second quarter 2003, inflation-
adjusted growth was 4.1% above its previous high near the end of the 1991 - 2001
expansion. Real growth picked up in the second quarter to 3.1% from 1.4% (quarter-
quarter, annualized). Most forecasters expect growth to accelerate in the second half.
Formally confirming the good news, the National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER), recently declared that the recession which began in March 2001 ended in
November 2001.1 The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly shorter than the
postwar average (10 months). The NBER’s decision was based importantly on trends
in inflation-adjusted GDP, personal income and sales, all of which had started to turn
upward again during the fourth quarter 2001. As usual, the NBER waited awhile to
make its determination until it was confident of positive developments.
Yet the rebound in growth since the end of the recession has not translated into
higher payroll employment. Payroll employment has continued to contract (- 2.7
million since February 2001). The unemployment rate has risen and now stands at
6.1% (August). Many have referred to this as a “jobless recovery”.
There are positive elements of the economic picture:
(1) A pick-up in output at the same time as employment is declining means that
productivity (or output per worker) is increasing.
As we saw in the 1990s,
productivity growth is the key to raising our standard of living and is not necessarily
associated with weak labor markets over time. We eventually experienced both rapid
productivity and strong employment growth as the recovery broadened and deepened
throughout the decade. In the short run while adjustment is taking place, however,
there is a human toll from the continuing payroll employment losses.
(2) Inflation decelerated in the second quarter. This has raised concerns about
deflation. A low inflation environment is favorable for economic activity.
(3) While overall investment has not yet recovered, information technology-related
investment has been on the rise since early 2002.
Most economists expect the economy to pick up in the second half, with growth
above 3.5%.
The unemployment rate is expected to show little change until
businesses are sufficiently confident of conditions ahead so that they increase hiring.
Inflation is expected to remain low as long as considerable slack remains in the
economy, although near term “headline” inflation may reflect new rises in oil prices.
Fiscal and monetary policies have both been eased since 2001 and the easing has
continued into this year. They are having a positive effect on spending. The external
deficit is large and expected to remain so. This report will be updated monthly.
1 The NBER is the nonpartisan group that dates U.S. business cycles. For its July 17, 2003,
announcement of the end of the 2001 recession, see [http://www.nber.org/cycles].
Contents
Current Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Monetary Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Labor Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The U.S. Foreign Trade Deficit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The U.S. Dollar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Posture of Fiscal and Monetary Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fiscal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Monetary Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Economic Forecasts, 2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Accounting for GDP Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Promotion of Economic Growth: The Importance of Saving . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Figures
Figure 1. Real Dollar Exchange Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2. Yield on Selected U.S. Treasury Securities and
Federal Funds (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. The Growth Rate of Real GDP v. Final Sales, 1991 - 2003 (%) . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Civilian Unemployment Rate, 1991 - 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Rate of Change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
1992 - 2003 (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4. Rate of Change in the GDP Deflators, 1992 - 2003
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 5. Selected GDP Price Indexes, 2002 - present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 6. Rate of Change in Labor Costs, 1992 - 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 7. U.S. Foreign Trade Deficit, 1988 - 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 8. Alternative Measures of Fiscal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 9. The Growth Rates of the Monetary Aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 10. Economic Forecasts 2003 - 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 11. Accounting for GDP Growth: 1994 through 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 12. U.S. Saving By Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Current Economic Conditions and
Selected Forecasts
Current Economic Conditions
Overview
The U.S. economy is considered to be in an expansionary phase again because
it has more than recovered its recession-related losses in real GDP. This situation
was formally recognized on July 17 by the National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER), which declared that the recession starting in March 2001 had ended in
November 2001. As of the second quarter 2003, U.S. real GDP was 4.8% above its
recession low point in the third quarter 2001, and had grown 4.1% beyond its
previous high near the end of the 1991-2001 expansion. U.S. real growth has now
been positive for 7 consecutive quarters.
According to the most recent GDP report, growth in the second quarter 2003
more than doubled, rising to 3.1% from 1.4% in each of the two previous quarters
(quarter - quarter, at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate).2 Growth excluding
inventories looked even more buoyant in the second quarter.3 Contributions to GDP
came mainly from consumption and to a lesser extent from defense spending, but
other activities boosted growth as well. Business investment increased: investment
in information technology was positive for the 6th quarter in a row and is now nearly
5% above its previous peak at the end of 2000; investment in structures was positive
for the first time in almost two years. A widening trade deficit was a drag on growth.
2 The most recent GDP estimate (the second estimate, referred to as the “preliminary
estimate”) reflected a substantial upward revision from the first estimate in July (the
“advance” estimate): from +2.4% (advance estimate in July) to +3.1% (preliminary estimate
in August).
3 The accounting framework that governs the calculation of GDP isn’t always straight-
forward. In the GDP accounting rules, inventories subtract from growth if they are drawn
down more in a particular quarter. However, in some circumstances, the drop in inventories
might point to stronger growth ahead. For example, if domestic demand (defined as GDP
other than inventories) accelerates at the same time inventories are drawn down, the
standard interpretation is that growth will probably be higher in the near future. The reason
why a pick-up is anticipated would be at least technical:
with demand on the rise,
inventories will not be sufficient after a while and new production will eventually be
required to keep up with demand.
New production increases GDP, according to the
accounting framework. A pick-up may also signal underlying acceleration in the economy.
Based on this standard interpretation, recent second quarter data may signal stronger growth
in the months ahead, which would be consistent with consensus forecasts. Caution must be
exercised however because of the complexities of the U.S. economy.
CRS-2
Another positive sign is that profit data have been strong for the first time since the
recovery began. Profits rose by 10.8% (over 50% at an annualized rate) in the second
quarter.
Yet, despite the recovery
Many people are referring to the present expansion
in growth and other positive
as a “jobless recovery” and parallels have been
made to the “jobless recovery” after the 1990-91
signs, concerns remain. The
recession. How do the two compare?
rebound has not translated
into an upswing in payroll
Payroll
employment
losses
in
the
present
employment.4
Employment
expansion are far larger than in 1991-92, measured
has continued to contract and
from several important turning points in the
the unemployment rate has
business cycle:
risen further, even as growth
picked up.
Since February
- Between the start of the recession and now
2001, payroll employment
(March 2001- August 2003), payroll employment
has fallen by around 2.8
has declined by 2.8 million. At the same point in
the 1991 recovery, employment had declined by
million people. Employment
355,000 and had already started to recover.
levels in August 2003 were
around
those
in
October
- By this point in the previous recovery, payroll
1999.
The unemployment
employment had increased by 876,000. In contrast,
rate stood at 6.1% in August,
payroll employment has continued to decline in the
well above the 3.8% low of
current expansion (-1.1 million since the recession
the 1990s expansion.
ended in November 2001).
Measured inflation continues
to be low.
The broadest
measure of inflation for the economy, the GDP price index, decelerated from 2.4%
in the 1st quarter 2003 to +0.9% in the 2nd quarter 2003. The Consumer Price Index
(CPI) followed a similar path. Although it picked up slightly in August on a year-
year basis, it rose by 2.1% each month, May - July, and by 2.2% in August. This
pattern has been heavily influenced by sharp movements in the price of energy.
Excluding energy prices, the CPI decelerated in the year ending in August. Some
economists fear that the recent U.S. experience may mean that a period of deflation
lies ahead which could have a negative effect on growth and employment.
The most recent data are difficult to interpret. The key questions are: To what
extent does the recent improvement in several key indicators point to the long-
awaited acceleration of the economy ? How will this translate in the labor markets
? Will employment pick up with a lag, as it did in the 1990s ? To what extent will
a drag on growth continue from adjustment in the business sector, particularly in the
telecommunications industries, but also in transportation-related industries affected
by security concerns ? Alternatively, the pattern during the 4th quarter 2002 and the
first half of 2003 may simply reflect the typical ups and downs of quarterly growth.
4 The other major employment survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicates that
employment has risen. According to the BLS household survey, employment has increased
by 1.8 million during the same period. See forthcoming report by Anne Vorce.
CRS-3
Growth is not an even process. Even during the fast-growing years of the 1990s, a
quarter of rapid growth often followed a quarter of slow growth.5
Monetary Policy
Beginning in January 2001, Federal Reserve policy has shifted to one of ease.
Since then, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve
System has lowered the federal funds target rate in 13 steps by a cumulative 550
basis points (5.50 percentage points), from 6.5% to, most recently, 1.0% on June 25,
its lowest level since April 1961. The June FOMC decision was related to continuing
growth disappointment and the need to add further support to economic activity from
monetary policy. Inflationary pressures remain subdued, and concerns have turned
to disinflation
The FOMC did not change its monetary policy stance at its most
recent meeting on September 16.
Details
GDP. To understand the most recent macroeconomic developments, it may be
important to understand aspects of the previous business cycle. The growth rate of
GDP since 1991 is shown in Table 1. Its most notable feature is that after a weak
start, the growth rate of GDP averaged more than 4% per year during the second half
of the recent expansion. GDP growth began to slacken during the second half of
2000 and actually contracted during the first 3 quarters of 2001 at an annual rate of
0.8%. This trend was reversed during the fourth quarter, when GDP grew positively,
at an annual rate of 2.7%. The economy continued to expand during the 4 quarters
of 2002, when real GDP grew at annual rates of 5.0%, 1.3%, 4.0%, and 1.4%,
respectively. In 2003, real GDP increased by an annualized rate of 1.4% in the first
quarter, and 3.1% in the second.
Productivity gains have been an important part of the current expansion.6 Most
economists refer to recent trends as reflecting a “productivity-led” recovery. In 2002,
productivity rose by 5.4% at an annual rate; and quarterly growth this year has been,
respectively, 2.1% and 6.8% on a quarter-quarter annualized basis. To put these
numbers into perspective, the underlying productivity trend from 1973-1995 was for
1.4% annual growth; and the “step-up” in productivity from 1995-2000 was to a
2.5% annual rate of growth. In the previous expansion, strong productivity gains
were not part of the initial recovery phase after March 1991 and did not show up in
the aggregate data until 1995.
5 In July, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) usually publishes 3-year revisions of the
GDP figures and its components (known as the “national accounts”). This year, however,
BEA will not publish revisions until December, when it will incorporate them into more
comprehensive benchmark revisions. The revisions can often alter the picture of the
economy. For example, in the late 1990s, GDP revisions indicated that the economy was
considerably stronger than had been thought.
6 Productivity is measured by output per hour. In the current situation, change in both the
numerator and denominator of this ratio have been contributing to higher productivity:
output (the numerator) has been rising and hours (denominator) have been declining.
CRS-4
The Importance of the Inventory Cycle. The growth in GDP since the fourth quarter 2001
has not yet translated into a comparable pick up in production in part because of the
inventory cycle. However, this should not be worrisome because adjustment is taking
place. As Table 1 illustrates, GDP growth rose far less than Final Sales growth in 2001
because inventory liquidation was on-going over the course of 2001.
Inventory
liquidation is normally a good sign, although in accounting terms, it subtracts from GDP.
When inventories are liquidated, additional sales will come from new production and this
will assist the recovery. We saw the process at work in 2002, when inventories were
built up again after being drawn down in 2001. GDP rose by 2.9% (4th-quarter-4th
quarter), but the annualized growth of final sales rose by 2.5%. The difference between
the two was the rise in inventories. Inventories were liquidated again in the first two
quarters of 2003 as production could not keep up with the demand for goods and final
sales accelerated, rising at annual rates of 2.3% and 4.0%, respectively.
Table 1. The Growth Rate of Real GDP v. Final Sales, 1991 - 2003 (%)
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
GDP
-
Year -Year -0.5
3.0
2.7
4.0
2.7
3.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
3.8
0.3
2.4
4thQ - 4thQ 0.9
4.0
2.5
4.1
2.3
4.1
4.3
4.8
4.3
2.3
0.1
2.9
2.5
Final Sales
-
Year - Year -0.2
2.8
2.6
3.4
3.1
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.7
1.5
1.8
4thQ - 4thQ 0.2
4.2
2.6
3.2
2.9
3.9
4.0
4.7
4.2
2.6
1.6
1.7
2.7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Note: 2003 is 2nd quarter 2002-2003.
Labor Markets. The civilian unemployment rate fell from its cyclical high in June 1992
(7.8%) to a low of 3.8% in April 2000, as shown in Table 2. At 3.8%, the unemployment rate
was at a 30-year low. With a weakening of growth and a contraction followed by a modest
recovery, the unemployment rate reversed course and rose. After moving in a narrow band
mainly between 5.6% and 5.9% since the end of 2001, the unemployment rate increased sharply
beginning in March 2003. It stood at 6.4% in June and eased slightly to 6.2% in July and 6.1%
in August.
Since the recession began in March 2001, payroll employment has fallen by approximately
2.8 million. This is unusual. In contrast with the previous business cycle (also referred to
initially as a “jobless” recovery”), the decline in employment is substantially larger now. (See
Box, page 2.) It is important however to understand that this is a net concept. Jobs have
continued to be created during this period, but job creation has not been sufficient to offset the
loss in jobs elsewhere. On balance, this has translated into a net decrease in employment. The
U.S. economy has remained dynamic, even though this is not readily apparent from the
aggregate figures. Following a contraction, labor markets typically improve with a lag after
growth picks up because employers are reluctant to hire until they see that an economic recovery
is firmly in place. Alternatively, some economists argue that recent trends reflect structural
changes in the economy.7
7 See, for example, Erica L. Groshen and Simon Potter, “Has Structural Change Contributed
to a Jobless Recovery ?” Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, Vol.1, Number 8, August 2003. Currently at <www.newyorkfed.org>.
CRS-5
An interesting and perhaps important feature of the present economic recovery is the divergence
between the two main measures of employment. It is well-known that the payroll survey shows
that job losses (some 2.8 million) have increased despite the rise in GDP growth so far in this
expansion. Less well-known is the fact that the other main measure of employment (the
household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics) indicates that employment has increased
by 1.8 million since its low point in January 2002. Is the difference between the two measures
of employment a statistical problem ? Experts do not know. The Census Bureau’s annual
adjustment to population estimates in January 2003 boosted household survey employment that
month by some 575,000, but no adjustments were made to previous months. Some economists
also note that self-employment trends are more accurately captured by the household survey and
that household employment trends have often been reliable forward indicators of coming
improvement in payroll employment in the aftermath of a recession.
Table 2. Civilian Unemployment Rate, 1991 - 2003
(%, seasonally adjusted)
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
1991
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.3
1992
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.4
1993
7.3
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.5
1994
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.6
5.5
1995
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.6
1996
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.3
5.5
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.4
5.4
1997
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.6
4.7
1998
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
1999
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
2000
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.9
2001
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
2002
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
2003
5.7
5.8
5.8
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.2
Source: Department of Labor.
Inflation. The U.S. inflation performance has been remarkable over the past 10 years.
The inflation rate decelerated throughout most of the expansion in the 1990s, as Tables 3 and
4 illustrate. Toward the end of the expansion in 2000, the inflation rate accelerated, but the pick
up was not noticeably different from earlier years of the cycle.
During the 1991- 2001 expansion, the inflation rate increased more slowly on average than
at any time since the early 1960s.
At the same time, growth was stronger and the
unemployment rate lower than experience would have predicted. Inflationary pressures slowed
further with the recession. Moreover, the deceleration in inflation over the 1990s occurred even
as the pace of growth accelerated. In the postwar experience, this combination of developments
is unusual. The rates of growth and inflation have not typically moved in the opposite direction,
particularly when the unemployment rate was sustained at a relatively low level close to 4.0%
in what was generally considered to be an economy at or above full employment.
With the start of the recession in March 2001, inflation decelerated, excluding energy
prices. The increase in consumer prices (the Consumer Price Index or CPI) slowed on a year-
year basis from 2.8% in 2001 to 1.6% in 2002. The rate of increase in the GDP deflator, the
CRS-6
broadest measures of inflation in the economy, decelerated from 2.3% in 2000 to 2.0% in 2001
and 1.3% last year, on a fourth quarter-fourth quarter basis.
Table 3. Rate of Change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), 1992 - 2003
(%)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Dec. over Dec.
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.5
3.3
1.7
1.6
2.7
3.4
1.6
2.4
2.2
Excluding food and
3.3
3.3
2.6
3.0
2.6
2.2
2.4
1.9
2.6
2.7
1.9
1.3
energy
Year Over Year
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.8
3.0
2.3
1.6
2.2
3.4
2.8
1.6
-
Excluding food and
3.7
3.3
2.8
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.4
-
energy
Source: Department of Labor.
Note: 2003 is latest data, August 2002- August 2003.
The exception to the deceleration story is the CPI measured on a December - December
basis. It rose by 2.4% during 2002, versus an increase of 1.5% in 2001. Despite acceleration
in 2002, the rate of increase remained below the pace during most of the 1990s expansion. The
acceleration continued through March 2003 (an increase of 3.0% as measured from March 2002
to March 2003). However, measured on a month-month basis, the CPI fell absolutely in April,
was unchanged in May and rose in June and July. Overall, during the second quarter, the CPI
declined absolutely at an annual rate of 0.7%, based on the three month measurement calculated
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Measured on a year-year basis, the CPI rose by 2.2% from
August 2002 to August 2003, a slowdown from the year-year pace in the first quarter. “Core
prices” (i.e., prices excluding food and energy) rose by 1.3% on an August 2002-2003 basis.
While this pattern reflects, in large measure, the behavior of energy prices, some economists
fear that it portends the on-set of deflation. This, they translate into falling GDP and rising
unemployment.
Table 4. Rate of Change in the GDP Deflators, 1992 - 2003
(%, 4Q-4Q)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Implicit Price
Deflator
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.6
2.3
2.0
1.3
1.5
Chain Type
Price Index
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.6
2.3
2.0
1.3
1.5
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Note: 2003 is 2nd quarter 2002-2003.
In its past three public statements,8 the FOMC has indicated concern over disinflation.
Table 5 presents some of the indicators which have prompted the FOMC statements.
8 June 25, August 12, and September 16.
CRS-7
Table 5. Selected GDP Price Indexes, 2002 - present
(% change, quarter-quarter, annualized)
2002
2003
1q
2q
3q
4q
1q
2q
GDP less food
1.6
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.8
0.4
and energy
Gross domestic
1.2
2.3
1.2
1.8
3.4
0.2
purchases
Personal
1.1
2.7
1.7
1.8
2.7
0.7
consumption
expenditures
Source: Department of Commerce
With the favorable inflation performance of the economy, economists think that several forces
keeping a lid on inflation may be at work:
! In the short-run, the acceleration in productivity improvement is regarded by
some economists as an important factor in the slowdown in inflationary
pressure at the same time growth picked up during the 1991-2001 expansion.
Since 1995, nonfarm business productivity has increased on average by 2.6%
annually.9 In 2002, productivity rose by 5.4% (annual average of each quarter’s
growth) and by 4.4%, fourth quarter - fourth quarter. So far in 2003, first
quarter productivity was 2.6% and second quarter productivity was 4.1% above
comparable periods in 2002. To put recent developments into perspective, the
average annual rate of increase since 1995 is double the average annual rate
from 1973 to 1995 (2.6% versus 1.3%). In concrete terms, this important
change means that the same amount of labor will produce higher output. Over
time, a change of this nature will mean substantially stronger growth in per-
capita income and a higher standard of living.
! Unit labor costs have been decelerating or falling over the past two years,
although one measure suggests a modest pick-up in the first quarter, as shown
in Table 6. With more output produced for each hour worked, firms have their
employee cost per unit of output reduced. Recent trends reflect the pick-up in
productivity growth and slowdown in basic labor costs during the recession
plus continuing labor market weakness in the recovery-expansion phase to-
date. Employee cost trends are also measured in the Employment Cost Index
(ECI). The ECI for private industry accelerated from 1995 through most of
2001 and early 2002, but began to decelerate in the course of 2002 as a result
of weakened labor market pressures. In the first quarter of 2003, however, it
accelerated from the third and fourth quarters due to increases in both the (1)
wage and salary and (2) benefits components. However, both components
eased considerably in the second quarter and the first quarter may have been a
blip.
9 Nonfarm business productivity is the measurement of output per hour.
CRS-8
! Technological advances have led to declining prices for many goods that use
certain information technology components as inputs.
Table 6. Rate of Change in Labor Costs, 1992 - 2003
(in percentages)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Unit Labor Costs
0.4 1.5 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.1 2.4 1.4 4.9 -0.5 -1.6 -1.0
Employment Cost Index
3.5 3.6 3.1 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.4
4.2 3.2 3.5
Source: U.S. Department of Labor.
Note: Unit labor costs are for nonfarm business, 4th quarter-4th quarter.
The Employment Cost Index is for private industry, December - December. For 2003, they are the rates for the
years ending in the 2nd quarter (unit labor costs); and in June (ECI).
The U.S. Foreign Trade Deficit. The U.S. foreign trade deficit (net imports), as shown
in Table 7, recorded a continued and dramatic fall from 1988 through 1991.10 In each of these
years the trade deficit declined as export growth exceeded import growth. During 1992 the
trade deficit began to grow as a fraction of GDP and is now running at a rate in excess of its
previous high in 1987. During the first half of 2003, it averaged 5.5% of GDP (in inflation-
adjusted terms). The increase in the U.S. foreign trade deficit during 1992!2003 reminds us
that the United States still receives a substantial net inflow of capital from abroad.
Table 7. U.S. Foreign Trade Deficit, 1988 - 2003
(as a percent of GDP)
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.4
2.6
3.6
4.3
4.4
5.2
5.5
Source: Department of Commerce. Note: Percentages measure the real trade deficit divided by real GDP.
2003 = 1st half.
The U.S. Dollar. Figure 1 records the movement in the foreign exchange
value of the dollar measured against a trade-weighted index of the currencies of many
U.S. trade partners over the past 15 years. After hitting a low in the second quarter
1995, the dollar rose in real or inflation-adjusted terms (that is, it appreciated) by
over 34% to its peak in February 2002. From then until mid-September 2003, it has
depreciated on balance by more than 7% on an inflation-adjusted basis, with some
ups and downs. As of mid-September, the dollar is now around its July-August 2000
level and remains well above its 1995 low (24%) even after the depreciation. The
10 The foreign trade deficit figure analyzed above is different from the headline trade deficit
reported in the press and another trade deficit ratio often used by economists, although they
are all related and can be reconciled. In this report, the “trade deficit” refers to exports and
imports from the U.S. national accounts, which are the basis for the GDP figures. The
underlying data for the figures cited above are released quarterly and annually and are on
an inflation-adjusted basis (“real”). In contrast, foreign trade figures frequently quoted in
the press are different because they released monthly rather than quarterly, not adjusted for
inflation and are defined slightly differently otherwise.
These figures are usually not
compared to GDP. To make matters even more confusing, economists often refer by
convention to the quarterly trade figures known as the current account. The current account
position includes components not in the figures above and is not adjusted for inflation. For
2002, the current account deficit was approximately 4.8% of nominal GDP.
CRS-9
dollar has depreciated by about the same percentage on a nominal basis (that is, not
adjusted for inflation).
Figure 1. Real Dollar Exchange Rate
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
8019871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
Years
Source: The Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve System.
The dollar has shown more movement against the major world currencies than
the broad trade-weighted index described above suggests.11
From its high in
February 2002 until September 2003, the dollar has depreciated by nearly 16%
against an index consisting of the major currencies that circulate, adjusted for
inflation. After depreciating steadily against these currencies since February 2002,
the dollar reversed course in June 2003 and appreciated on balance by 2.3% since
then. In very recent days, the dollar has depreciated as the markets responded to
language supporting flexible exchange rates in the G-7 communique, in spite of
differing public interpretations by some G-7 countries.
In the Federal Reserve’s
weighted currency index, the euro area is slightly more heavily weighted in U.S. trade
than Canada. On a nominal basis, the dollar has depreciated against the euro by 24%
since late April 2002, although it has appreciated by 5.0% since mid-June. The dollar
has fallen by over 12% against the Canadian dollar since January 2002, including
some dollar appreciation since mid-June.
Posture of Fiscal and Monetary Policy
The course of GDP growth can respond significantly to changes in fiscal and
monetary policy.
11 In Figure 1, the dollar is measured against an index of the currencies of many of the major
trade partners of the United States weighted according to the proportion of trade. This is
referred to as the “broad dollar index”. The Board of Governors also publishes the exchange
rate of the dollar with the currencies of smaller groups of countries or individual countries.
CRS-10
Fiscal Policy
The posture of fiscal policy depends on how it is measured. A generally
accepted method is to examine the ratio of the structural or full employment budget
deficit to full employment GDP. When that is done, as shown in Table 7, fiscal
policy during 2002 was expansionary as the full employment surplus fell from 0.8%
to a deficit of 1.5% of potential GNP. An alternative, although inferior measure, is
the ratio of the actual budget deficit to actual GDP. When examined, fiscal policy
in 2002 was also expansionary as the actual surplus fell from 1.3% to a deficit of
1.5% of actual GDP.
Monetary Policy
Traditionally, the posture of monetary policy has been judged either by the
growth of the monetary aggregates or by movements in interest rates.12 The three
monetary aggregates have all responded positively to the easing of monetary policy.
Their annualized rates of growth over the first seven months of 2003 are substantially
higher than during 2002.
Table 8. Alternative Measures of Fiscal Policy
($ in billions per fiscal year)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Standardized
Budget Deficit
$121
$147
$185
$185
$141
$144
$99
$73
$37
$ 3
$+99
$+80
$153
Full Employment
GDP
5,706 6,088 6,403 6,713 7,030 7,376 7,740 8,137
8,528
8,945
9,442
9,995 10,428
Ratio
0.021 0.024 0.029 0.028 0.021 0.020 0.013 0.009
0.004
0.000
+0.011 +0.008 0.015
Actual Budget
Deficit
$221
$269
$290
$255
$203
$164
$107
$22
$+69
$+126
$+236
$+127
$158
Actual GDP
5,738 5,928 6,222 6,561 6,949 7,323 7,700 8,194
8,655
9,141
9,715
10,032 10,337
Ratio
0.039 0.045 0.047 0.039 0.029 0.022 0.014 0.003 +0.008 +0.014 +0.024 +0.013 0.015
Source: Congressional Budget Office (January 2003).
The positive growth in aggregate reserves over 2001-2003 to-date is also in response
to the aggressive easing of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve as it attempts to
accelerate the growth in aggregate demand. The continued rapid growth of the monetary
base reflects in part the growth in reserves. However, it mainly reflects the growth in
paper currency in circulation since about 90% of the base is accounted for by currency
(the great portion of which does not circulate in the United States). Thus, four of the
quantity measures of monetary policy have recorded a rising rate of growth.
12 For a more comprehensive discussion of monetary policy, see CRS Report RL30354,
Monetary Policy: Current Policy and Conditions, by Gail Makinen and Anne Vorce.
CRS-11
Table 9. The Growth Rates of the Monetary Aggregates
(annualized rates of change)
Time
Aggregate
Monetary
M1
M2
M3
Period
Reserves
Base
88:12!89:12
0.8%
4.2%
0.8%
5.4%
4.0%
89:12!90:12
3.1
9.5
4.0
3.8
1.6
90:12!91:12
9.0
8.3
8.7
3.0
1.3
91:12!92:12
19.6
10.5
14.3
1.6
0.3
92:12!93:12
11.3
10.5
10.3
1.6
1.4
93:12!94:12
- 1.8
8.2
1.8
0.4
1.7
94:12!95:12
-5.0
3.9
-2.0
4.1
6.0
95:12!96:12
-11.2
4.0
-4.1
4.7
7.3
96:12!97:12
-6.6
6.1
-0.7
5.7
9.1
97:12–98:12
-3.5
7.0
2.2
8.8
11.0
98:12–99:12
-7.6
15.3
2.3
6.0
8.3
99:12–00:12
-7.3
-1.5
-3.0
6.2
8.6
00:12–01:12
6.7
8.7
8.3
10.5
12.9
01:12-02:12
2.8
7.2
3.2
6.5
6.5
02:12-03:08
23.5
6.1
9.6
9.0
7.7
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The growth in the reserves of depository institutions results to a large degree from
decisions to move the key federal funds’ interest rate (shown in Figure 2), the principal
tool of monetary policy. These moves have been motivated primarily by a desire to bring
the economy to full employment and then keep it growing at a rate sufficient to maintain
full employment. From time to time, other factors may influence the movement of this
rate. For example, the turmoil in both domestic and international financial markets
cause the rate to be reduced 1/4% on September 29, October 15, and November 17, 1998
at which point it stood at 4.75%. In three equal moves of 1/4% during June, August, and
November 1999, the rate was returned to its pre-crisis level of 5.5%. On both February
2 and March 21, 2000, in the face of mounting evidence that the economy was growing
at an unsustainable rate, the federal funds rate was raised an additional 1/4%, and on May
16 it was raised1/2%, bringing the rate to 6.5%. In six equal cuts of 1/2% (January 3 and
31, March 20, April 18, May 15 and June 27), and a seventh cut of 1/4% (August 21), the
rate was reduced to 3.50%. In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the rate was reduced
to 3.0% on September 17 and in a further move toward easing, it was reduced to 2.5%
on October 2, to 2.0% on November 6, and to 1.75% on December 11. For most of 2002,
the FOMC did not make additional cuts in its federal funds target rate because it wanted
to wait and see how strong economic activity would be following the dramatic cuts in
2001. Toward the end of the year (November 6, 2002), the target was reduced to 1.25%
in the face of a softening in demand growth. For most of the first half of 2003,
assessment of the underlying strength of the economy was obscured by temporary
dampening effects related to the geopolitical tensions earlier in the year. With these
effects diminishing, it became apparent that sustained growth had not yet resulted. On
June 25, 2003, the target federal funds rate was lowered to 1% in order to provide further
support to the economy. Disinflation had also become a concern – although minor. The
FOMC did not alter its stance at its next meeting, on August 12.
CRS-12
Figure 2. Yield on Selected U.S. Treasury Securities and
Federal Funds (%)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Three Month
Federal Funds
Five Year
Thirty-Year
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
As Figure 2 shows, movements in short-term interest rates mimic closely
movements in the federal funds rate. This is not as true for longer-term rates. Their rise
and fall as well as the magnitude of their shifts is often different from the timing and
magnitude of shifts in the federal funds rate. This is due in part to the fact that they
respond to the longer run outlook for inflation, the financing requirements necessitated
by the budget deficit, both current and prospective, and the international flow of capital.
Economic Forecasts, 2002-2003
The forecasts in Table 10 come from three sources. OMB and CBO are well
known. BC stands for the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, a firm that collects the
forecasts from about 50 forecasters in finance, business, and universities. BC Con
represents the consensus or average forecasts of this group. BC T-10 is the average of
the high ten among these forecasts, while BC B-10 is the average of the low ten forecasts.
The overall view taken by the forecasts summarized in Table 10 is that a somewhat
higher rate of GDP growth will occur during 2003, with a strong pick-up coming in the
second half of the year. The pace in the second half of 2003 is expected to be over twice
that in the first half. Growth is forecast to approach or exceed 4% over the next few
quarters. Growth in 2004 is anticipated to be around what is generally considered the
rate of U.S. potential growth.
The rate of GDP growth, according to the consensus
forecast, however, will be insufficient to have much of an effect on the unemployment
rate. The consensus forecast anticipates that the unemployment rate will begin to come
down gradually starting early next year. The inflation rate for the entire economy (as
measured by the GDP price index) is expected to remain below 2.0%. Inflation as
measured by the fixed market basket of the Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers is forecast to accelerate by over half a percentage point to slightly below
CRS-13
2.5%. Both short-term and long-term interest rates are expected to be below their 2002
levels on average this year, and to increase only slightly next year, despite strong growth.
The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve presented the
economic projections of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and Federal Reserve
District Bank Presidents for 2003 and 2004 in testimony before the House Financial
Services Committee on July 15, 2003, and the Senate Banking Committee on July 16,
2003. The Federal Reserve projections for 2003 are that from the fourth quarter 2002 to
the fourth quarter 2003, real GDP will grow between 2.5% and 2.75% and that prices13
will increase about 1.25% to 1.50%. The civilian unemployment rate is projected to be
between 6.0% and 6.25% during the fourth quarter of the year. For 2004, real GDP is
expected to grow between 3.75% and 4.75%, prices to rise between 1.0% and 1.5% and
the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter to average from 5.5% to 6.0%.
From its early September 2003 survey of 35 economic forecasters who are members,
the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) reported that, on average,
GDP is expected to grow at annual rates of 4.5%, 4.0%, 4.0% and 3.8% over the last two
quarters of 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004. In terms of annual forecasts, the
NABE panel anticipated real growth of 2.6% in 2003 in 2003 and 4.0% in 2004; and on
a 4th quarter - 4th quarter basis, +3.3% and 3.9%, respectively. The CPI is expected to
rise by 2.0% in 2003 and 1.8% in 2004 on average, 4th quarter- 4th quarter; and the
unemployment rate is expected to average 6.1% in 2003 and 5.8% in 2004.
13
In its Monetary Report to Congress, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System features in its projections a measure of inflation known as the Personal Consumption
Expenditure (PCE) chain-type price index. This price index attempts to measure inflation
with regard to consumer spending.
CRS-14
Table 10. Economic Forecasts 2003 - 2004
2002
2003
2002*
2003
2004
3*
4*
1*
2*
3
4
Nominal GDPa
OMB
5.1
3.1
3.8
4.0
NA
NA
3.6
4.0
5.0
CBO
5.1
3.1
3.8
4.0
NA
NA
3.6
3.7
5.3
BC T-10
5.1
3.1
3.8
4.0
7.4
6.8
3.6
4.4
6.1
BC Con.
5.1
3.1
3.8
4.0
5.9
5.1
3.6
4.2
5.3
BC B-10
5.1
3.1
3.8
4.0
4.3
3.4
3.6
3.9
4.5
Real GDPa
OMB
4.0
1.4
1.4
3.1
NA
NA
2.4
2.3
3.7
CBO
4.0
1.4
1.4
3.1
NA
NA
2.4
2.5
3.6
BC T-10
4.0
1.4
1.4
3.1
5.5
4.8
2.4
2.7
4.5
BC Con.
4.0
1.4
1.4
3.1
4.5
3.9
2.4
2.6
3.9
BC B-10
4.0
1.4
1.4
3.1
3.4
2.9
2.4
2.3
3.3
Unemploymentb
OMB
5.7
5.9
5.8
6.2
NA
5.6
5.8
5.9
5.6
CBO
5.7
5.9
5.8
6.2
NA
NA
5.8
6.2
6.2
BC T-10
5.7
5.9
5.8
6.2
6.3
6.4
5.8
6.1
6.2
BC Con.
5.7
5.9
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.8
6.1
5.9
BC B-10
5.7
5.9
5.8
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.8
6.0
5.6
GDP Price Index (chain-weighted)a
OMB
1.0
1.6
2.4
0.8
NA
NA
1.1
1.6
1.2
CBO
1.0
1.7
2.4
0.8
NA
NA
1.1
1.5
1.4
BC T-10
1.0
1.7
2.4
0.8
1.9
2.0
1.1
1.7
2.0
BC Con.
1.0
1.7
2.4
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.4
BC B-10
1.0
1.7
2.4
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.1
1.4
0.8
CPI-Ua
OMB
2.2
2.0
3.8
0.7
NA
NA
1.6
2.3
1.7
CBO
2.2
2.0
3.8
0.7
NA
NA
1.6
2.3
1.9
BC T-10
2.2
2.0
3.8
07
2.6
2.4
1.6
2.4
2.4
BC Con.
2.2
2.0
3.8
0.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.8
BC-10
2.2
2.0
3.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.6
2.1
1.1
T-BILL Interest Rate (3 month)b
OMB
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
NA
NA
1.6
1.2
2.0
CBO
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
NA
NA
1.6
1.0
1.7
BC T-10
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.1
2.1
BC Con.
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.5
BC B-10
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.6
1.0
1.1
10-year Treasury Noteb
OMB
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.6
NA
NA
4.6
3.7
4.1
CBO
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.6
NA
NA
4.6
4.0
4.6
CRS-15
2002
2003
2002*
2003
2004
3*
4*
1*
2*
3
4
BC T-10
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.5
4.9
4.6
4.2
5.3
BC Con.
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.1
4.8
BC B-10
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.9
4.6
3.9
4.2
Sources: Blue Chip Economic Indicators, September 10, 2003. Congressional Budget Office, August, 2003; and,
the Office of Management and Budget, July 2003.
* Actual data, subject to revisions. The annual data for nominal GDP, real GDP, the GDP price index and the CPI
are on a year over year basis; and the unemployment and interest rate data are either quarterly or annual averages.
Some of the 2003 first quarter data is actual, but subject to revision.
a Quarterly rates of change are annualized.
b Quarterly averages.
Special Topics
Accounting for GDP Growth
Table 11 records contributions to growth in GDP from 1994 - 2003. These data
record two interesting developments. First, investment spending played an important
role in the 1991 - 2001 expansion. Its contribution to GDP growth was unusually large
during most of that period. And among the categories of investment, outlays for personal
computers were important. This bodes well for the longer run growth in productivity.
Second, purchases by all levels of government played only a small role in that expansion.
The relative contribution of consumption did not change significantly during this period,
although it continued to be the largest single contributor to GDP growth.
Table 11. Accounting for GDP Growth: 1994 through 2003
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Real GDP
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
**
100.0% 100.0%
Growth*
Consumption
59.3
86.2
51.5
63.3
71.1
80.0
105.1
65.1
93.8
Investment
46.7
1.2
42.4
45.5
44.4
30.3
21.6
50.4
-18.1
Govt.
0.8
-6.8
12.0
10.2
10.1
16.3
7.3
23.6
35.6
Purchases
Net Exports
-6.9
19.4
-5.9
-19.0
-25.6
-26.4
-34.0
-39.1
-11.7
Source: Department of Commerce.
* Computed using real GDP at 1996 chained dollars on a 4th quarter over 4th quarter basis. For 2003, data for first half.
** When the small change in GDP is compared with the large change in components, the resulting percentages are so large as to be
meaningless.
CRS-16
Promotion of Economic Growth: The Importance of Saving
Over the longer run, the economic well-being of a nation depends on the growth
of potential output or GDP per capita. Crucial to this growth is the fraction of a
nation’s resources devoted to capital formation. The ability to add to the capital
stock through investment depends on a nation’s saving rate.
Saving comes from several sources. In the private sector individuals
(households) and businesses are responsible for saving. The former save when all
of their after tax income is not used for consumption. Businesses save through
retained earnings and capital consumption allowances.
The public sector can also be a source of national saving and this occurs when
government revenues are larger than expenditures. Budget surpluses, then, can be
viewed as a source of national saving.
Table 12 shows the sources of saving for the United States during the past 40
years. There are several things to note about these data. First, except for the decade
of the 1990s, the gross private sector savings rate has averaged a remarkably stable
17%-19% of GDP, with most of the saving being done by businesses. More
significantly, however, the private sector saving rate net of depreciation, representing
saving available for additions to capital, declined considerably in the 1990s. The
drop in the household (personal) savings rate has been the major factor in the decline
in the private sector saving rate. Thus, even without a federal budget deficit, the
United States would have had a “saving problem.”
Second, over this 40-year period, the saving done by the public sector, as a
whole, has declined. There is, however, diversity as to the contribution made by the
level of government.
The large negative contribution made by the federal
government during the 1980s reflects the widely publicized budget deficit. Even
though state and local governments have been running budget surpluses, they have
not been large enough to offset the federal deficits. This has been reversed beginning
in 1993. The improved budget position of the federal government has been adding
to national saving.
Third, the data show that for 20 of these 40 years, the United States exported a
small fraction of its savings to the rest of the world (i.e., was a net exporter of
capital). This changed during the 1980s when the United States started to import the
savings of the rest of the world.
The United States has been able to sustain its growth and standard of living
since the 1980s because we have been able so far to attract sufficient capital (saving)
from international investors.
Without these saving, the United States has a
“financing gap” in view of its domestic saving shortfall relative to its demand for
investment capital. In the absence of sufficient capital, U.S. interest rates will have
CRS-17
to rise in order to restore balance between investment and a now smaller amount of
saving. Higher interest rates will choke off investment and dampen U.S. growth14.
Should efforts to correct the international trade deficit prove fruitful, the net
inflow of foreign saving will diminish or perhaps on net cease (that is, stabilize).
Should this occur without a significant improvement in either the private sector
saving rate or the negative saving rate of the public sector, the rate of new investment
will fall to a very low level in the United States and with it the means for improving
the well-being of future generations of Americans.
A sudden increase in the national saving rate is, however, not without some
possible adverse consequences. In the short run, a sudden increase in the saving rate
means decreased consumption and/or lower public sector net spending, both of which
depress aggregate demand. Moreover, in either case, the demand for some types of
output would fall to be replaced by an increased demand for other types of output.
As a result, some industries and firms would have to contract while others expand.
Resources would have to transit from declining to growing industries. These short-
run dislocations should be borne in mind if a higher national saving rate becomes the
object of public policy.
14 See also CRS Report RL30534, America’s Growing Current Account Deficit: Its Causes
and What It Means for the Economy, by Marc Labonte and Gale Makinen; and CRS Report
RL31032, The U.S. Trade Deficit: Causes, Consequences, and Cures, by Craig Elwell.
CRS-18
Table 12. U.S. Saving By Sector
(as percent of GDP)
Private Sector
Public Sector
Net Private
Netb
Year
Net of
& Pub.a
Foreign
Depre
State &
Net of
Pers. Bus. Total
c.
Fed. Local Total Deprec.
1960-9
5.7
11.4 17.1
9.6
2.2
1.7
4.0
1.3
10.9
-0.6
1970-9
6.8
11.6 18.4
9.8
-0.5
1.8
1.3
-1.2
8.6
-0.2
1980-9
6.7
12.6 19.2
9.0
-2.2
1.4
-0.8
-3.0
6.0
1.5
1990-9
4.3
12.5 16.9
6.8
-1.0
1.3
-0.3
-2.0
4.8
1.4
1984
7.8
13.2 21.0
11.0
-3.1
1.7
-1.4
-3.7
7.3
2.2
1985
6.7
13.1 19.8
9.8
-3.0
1.6
-1.4
-3.7
6.1
2.6
1986
6.0
12.1 18.1
8.0
-3.1
1.5
-1.6
-3.8
4.2
3.2
1987
5.3
12.3 17.7
7.6
-1.9
1.3
-0.6
-2.9
4.7
3.2
1988
5.7
12.7 18.5
8.4
-1.5
1.4
-0.1
-2.4
6.0
2.2
1989
5.5
11.9 17.4
7.3
-1.2
1.4
0.2
-2.0
5.3
1.6
1990
5.8
11.8 17.5
7.5
-1.8
1.1
-0.7
-2.9
4.6
1.2
1991
6.2
12.1 18.4
8.2
-2.4
1.0
-1.4
-3.7
4.5
-0.2
1992
6.5
12.1 18.4
8.3
-3.5
1.0
-2.5
-4.8
3.5
0.6
1993
5.3
12.1 17.5
7.5
-2.9
1.1
-1.8
-4.1
3.4
1.1
1994
4.5
12.3 17.0
6.9
-1.9
1.2
-0.6
-2.9
4.0
1.5
1995
4.1
12.8 17.1
7.1
-1.5
1.3
-0.1
-2.4
4.7
1.3
1996
3.5
13.0 16.5
6.5
-0.7
1.4
0.8
-1.5
5.0
1.4
1997
3.0
13.1 16.2
6.1
0.4
1.5
1.9
-0.3
5.8
1.5
1998
3.4
12.2 15.6
5.6
1.5
1.6
3.1
1.0
6.6
2.3
1999
1.9
12.7 14.6
4.4
2.2
1.6
3.8
1.6
6.0
3.4
2000
1.8
11.9 13.7
3.6
3.1
1.4
4.5
2.3
5.9
4.4
2001
1.7
12.2 13.9
2.9
1.7
0.9
2.6
0.4
3.3
3.8
2002
2.7
12.5 15.2
2.9
-1.0
0.7
-0.3
-2.4
0.5
4.7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
a Equal to the sum of private sector saving net of depreciation and total public sector saving net
of depreciation.
b Negative sign indicates the export of saving from the United States. Positive sign indicates the
import of saving from abroad.