Hoover's pro-labor stance helped cause Great Depression, economist says

August 28, 2009 By Meg Sullivan

(PhysOrg.com) -- Pro-labor policies pushed by President Herbert Hoover after the stock market crash of 1929 accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression, a UCLA economist concludes in a new study.

"These findings suggest that the recession was three times worse — at a minimum — than it would otherwise have been, because of Hoover," said Lee E. Ohanian, a UCLA professor of economics.

The policies, which included both propping up wages and encouraging job-sharing, also accounted for more than two-thirds of the precipitous decline in hours worked in the manufacturing sector, which was much harder hit initially than the agricultural sector, according to Ohanian.

"By keeping industrial wages too high, Hoover sharply depressed employment beyond where it otherwise would have been, and that act drove down the overall gross national product," Ohanian said. "His policy was the single most important event in precipitating the ."

The findings are slated to appear in the December issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Theory and were posted today on the website of the National Bureau of Economic Reasearch (www.nber.org) as a working paper.

Hoover's approach is unlikely to be considered today as a means of responding to economic crisis, but it does illustrate the perils of ill-conceived government policies in times of economic upheaval and confusion, says Ohanian, a macroeconomist who specializes in economic crises.

"Hoover's response illustrates the danger of knee-jerk policy reactions in a time of crisis," he said. "Almost always when bad policies are adopted, it's during a period of crisis. The real risk is picking a cure that turns out to be worse than the disease."

While economists have long debated the factors that led to the Great Depression, Ohanian's findings are novel because they don't simply pinpoint — they also quantify — the considerable impact of such labor-market distortions. The findings also challenge Hoover's pro-market reputation. "This was a who had served as secretary of commerce under his predecessor, yet many of the mistakes he made were remarkably similar to those later made by Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose reputation is much less market-based and more pro-labor," Ohanian said.

To isolate the culprit of the Depression, Ohanian spent four years sifting through historic wage data from the Conference Board, information from Hoover's own memoirs and press accounts of the Hoover administration. Ohanian also conducted sophisticated economic modeling that allowed him to see how the economy would have progressed had Hoover's policies not been enacted.

At the time, Hoover was concerned about two potential crises, Ohanian found. He was afraid the collapse of October 1929 would result in a recession with deflation, leading to dramatic wage cuts, as a period of deflation had done just a decade earlier. And because of a series of recent legislative and court decisions that had expanded the power of organized labor, he also worried about the possibility of crippling strikes if such wage cuts were to come to pass.

"Hoover had the idea that if wages were kept high for workers and they shared jobs instead of being laid off, they would be able to buy more goods and services, which would help the economy improve," Ohanian said.

After the crash, Hoover met with major leaders of industry and cut a deal with them to either maintain or raise wages and institute job-sharing to keep workers employed, at least to some degree, Ohanian found. In response, General Motors, Ford, U.S. Steel, Dupont, International Harvester and many other large firms fell in line, even publicly underscoring their compliance with Hoover's program.

Designed to placate labor and safeguard workers' buying power, the step had an unintended effect: As deflation eventually did set in, the inflation-adjusted value of these wages rose over time, effectively giving workers a raise precisely at the time when companies were least in a position to afford such increases and precisely when productivity was beginning to fall.

"The wage freeze effectively raised the cost of labor and, by extension, production," Ohanian said. "If you artificially raise the price of production, your costs go way up and you pass them on to the customers, and they buy that much less."

Reluctant to lower wages due to Hoover's entreaties, employers in the manufacturing sector responded by reducing the work week and laying off workers. By September 1931, the manufacturing sector was already hurting: Hours clocked by workers had fallen by 20 percent and employment by 35 percent.

Overall, the economy suffered, with the GDP falling by 27 percent. In a situation in which wages would have been expected to fall, they remained at about 92 percent of what they had been two years earlier. When adjusted for deflation, they had actually climbed by 10 percent, Ohanian found. Interestingly, during the dreaded period of deflation a decade earlier, some manufacturing wages fell 30 percent. GDP, meanwhile, only dropped by 4 percent.

"The Depression was the first time in the history of the U.S. that wages did not fall during a period of significant deflation," Ohanian said.

The paper, "What — or Who — Started the Great Depression" is not Ohanian's first research on the underlying causes of this dark period in American history. Along with former UCLA economics professor Harold L. Cole (now a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania), Ohanian published research in 2004 indicating that Roosevelt's response also had an unintentionally deleterious effect. By their calculations, fallout from Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) dragged out the Depression for seven years longer than a more market-based response would have.

While several other economists have also implicated Roosevelt in the Great Depression's extensive duration, the UCLA research is unique because it is based on mathematical models that pinpointed the exact extent to which Roosevelt's policies prolonged the Depression, according to the UCLA economists. They calculated that the policies accounted for 60 percent of the Depression's duration.

Similarly, Hoover's employment policies have been cited as a precipitating factor in Depression. But the latest UCLA study uses modern economic tools to quantify the impact of the president's wage freeze and job-sharing policies and also provides a theory for why the major industrial businesses followed Hoover's request. By Ohanian's calculation, Hoover's policies accounted for 18 percent of the 27 percent decline in the nation's GDP by the fourth quarter of 1931.

Often-cited causes of the Depression include banking failures and large contractions of the money supply. The problem is, Ohanian says, neither of these events occurred significantly until mid-1931 — nearly two years after Hoover's fateful wage policies.

Moreover, unemployment did not plague the part of the labor force that was exempt from Hoover's 1929 wage policy. While farm employment would be reduced by Dust Bowl climatic conditions in 1935, at the outset of the Depression it remained surprisingly strong, Ohanian found. In fact, hours clocked in the agricultural sector, which comprised about 30 percent of the workforce at the time, were roughly unchanged through 1931. And unlike in the manufacturing sector, agricultural wages fell dramatically, by 30 percent.

"Wages fell substantially, but farm employment rates held steady until the Dust Bowl," Ohanian said.

Despite continued calls from industry for wage cuts in 1930 and 1931, Hoover held industry to their original promise, Ohanian found. By late 1931, manufacturers requested that Hoover provide relief in the form of increasing their ability to collude for price-setting purposes. Hoover denied this request. In response, industry signaled they would no longer support the wage freeze.

"In late 1931, industry finally did cut wages, but it was too late," Ohanian said. "By this point, the economy was in an unprecedented, full-blown depression."

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

Explore further: Economists' new research shows positive effects of minimum-wage increases

Related Stories

Changes in work force, not pay, narrowing the gender wage gap

August 12, 2008

The apparent narrowing of the wage gap between working men and women in the last 30 years reflects changes in the type of women in the workforce, rather than in how much they're being paid, according to groundbreaking new ...

Study sees potential for acceleration in U.S. emissions

November 13, 2007

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could grow more quickly in the next 50 years than in the previous half-century, even with technological advances and current energy-saving efforts, according to a new study by MIT's Richard Eckaus, ...

Recommended for you

Industrial "edge cities" have helped China grow

August 18, 2017

China's massive investment in industrial parks has paid economic dividends while reshaping the urban areas where they are located, according to a newly published study co-authored by an MIT expert on urban economics.

Ancient species of giant sloth discovered in Mexico

August 17, 2017

Mexican scientists said Wednesday they have discovered the fossilized remains of a previously unknown species of giant sloth that lived 10,000 years ago and died at the bottom of a sinkhole.

The mathematics of golf

August 16, 2017

(Phys.org)—The official Rules of Golf, which are continually being revised and updated as new equipment emerges, have close ties to mathematics. In many cases, math is used to place limitations on golf equipment, such as ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2009
Take it from the poor, give it to the rich.
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2009
Exactly frajo, exactly.
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2009
Victims are willing. The ignorant are willful. Ignorance is bliss. The blissful are victims. QED

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

5 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2009
Socialism takes from the rich and the poor.
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2009
i dont believe it.
5 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2009
Universal truth: From each their abilities to each their needs begets you more needy then able.
not rated yet Aug 28, 2009
"Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism."
~ Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, "The New Nationalism" (August 31, 1910)

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "Second Inaugural Address" (January 10, 1937)

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
~Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, Les Guêpes January, 1849
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2009
Whatever one thinks of the specific conclusions, the good professor does make a point:

"The real risk is picking a cure that turns out to be worse than the disease."
not rated yet Aug 29, 2009
"The real risk is picking a cure that turns out to be worse than the disease."

I hope this line will not be used while referring to Obama's willingness to inject borrowed money to the markets. But I bet there is no such luck, since many even today say that it's medicine that is only lengthening the crisis.
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2009
It's an interesting study, to say the least. It's worth pointing out though that the conclusion Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression is a minority view among economists today, UCLA researchers being the main exception.
2 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2009
Economics is not a science. Using the exact same techniques these guys used, you would find that economists merely look at the past and project it into the future. If they are wrong, which they frequently are, they ignore that failure. If they are right, they give each other high-fives and backslaps.

Cherry-picking data to conform to their political view is what economists do. The only economists who are real scientists are those who look at the actual thermodynamic results of tangible inputs.
not rated yet Aug 30, 2009
Mandan, Roosevelt continued and extended the terrible policies of Hoover; why would you approvingly quote this cretin?

The 1920 recession was more severe than the 1929 recession. What did the fed and president Harding do? They shrank government in half(!), lots of businesses failed, unemployment was crushing. only one year later the malinvestments had been liquidated and were no longer dragging the economy down, the factors of production(land, labour, capital) of the failed businesses had been auctioned off to the highest bidder; the economy was starting from a lower level but it was rapidly growing again. Much of the growth towards the latter half of the 20's was fueled by the fed and was illusory, but most of the growth in the first half was real.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.