Price Fishback: What Do the New Deal and World War II Tell Us About the Prospects for a Stimulus Package?

Economic historian Price Fishback, who recently guest blogged about the original Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, is back for an encore. This time, he tackles the issue of whether the New Deal and World War II are good examples of Keynesian stimuli. If you want to see these sorts of issues tackled in greater detail, check out Newdeal2.

I always thought they were; but using data, Fishback makes a simple and compelling case that they are not.

I learned a lot from his piece, and I suspect many of you will as well. In my opinion, this sort of writing is exactly what academic economists should be doing to help shape the public debate.

What Do the New Deal and World War II Tell Us About the Prospects for a Stimulus Package?
By Price Fishback
A Guest Post

Everybody is talking about the stimulus package, and many are citing the New Deal and World War II as classic examples of successful stimulus programs. In punditry history, the federal government spent large amounts of money on works projects in the 1930’s and munitions in the 1940’s, and these were important stimuli to the American economy. Readers should beware, because the history is more complicated than the two-line descriptions.

The New Deal

Federal spending rose from 4 percent to 8 percent of G.D.P. during the New Deal in the largest peacetime expansion in federal outlays in U.S. history. Yet this was not an example of Keynesian stimulus to the economy. Economists and economic historians have known this for the past 70 years, yet the myth lives on. The accompanying chart, which measures everything in real 1958 dollars for the 1930’s, shows why. The definitive analysis is more complicated, but the figure is a good shorthand way to show this.


The chart shows federal-government outlays, the budget deficit, and the difference between G.N.P. in that year and G.N.P. in 1929. The problem to be resolved was to reduce the huge gap in annual real G.N.P., which had fallen 33 percent below the 1929 level.

The graph shows that federal spending comes nowhere close to replacing that gap. Once we take into account the taxation during the 1930’s, we can see that the budget deficits of the 1930’s and one balanced budget were tiny relative to the size of the problem.

John Maynard Keynes published an open letter to Franklin Roosevelt in major American newspapers saying more spending was not enough; the government needed to run larger deficits. As Keynes’s arguments were fleshed out after the 1930’s, various scholars ranging from Abba Lerner to E. Cary Brown to Claude Pepper have re-examined the New Deal budgets. They all agree that the New Deal cannot be described as a Keynesian stimulus program. We can only hope that the word will finally spread widely enough now to correct the myth.

If not Keynesian policy, what was the New Deal? It was a broad-ranging mix of spending, regulation, lending, taxation, and monetary policies that can best be described as “See a problem and try to fix it.” In many situations the fix for one problem exacerbated other problems. The programs to raise farm prices hurt work relief recipients, while attempts to raise wages and prices contributed to more unemployment, and thus a greater need for relief spending. My focus here is on spending, but the reader can find more information on the New Deal in the material discussed at the end of this piece.

The main New Deal spending programs that might be described as stimulus programs are the relief and public works during the New Deal. The relief programs started with the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (F.E.R.A.), which started in mid-1933 and was phased out after June 1935. The federal government distributed grants to the states for two types of relief: work relief and direct relief in the form of cash, food, and clothing. In the face of 25 percent unemployment rates, this was truly relief for the unemployed and people in dire trouble. Relief administrators evaluated the incomes and basic needs of relief applicants and tried to give them enough direct relief or enough payments for work relief jobs to allow the family to survive at a very basic level of living.

The best-remembered federal relief program is the Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.), which replaced the F.E.R.A. in July 1935 as the primary emergency work relief program. The W.P.A. was created as part of a series of compromises between F.D.R. and the two houses of Congress in 1935. The executive branch was given more control over emergency work relief in the W.P.A., which would eventually be eliminated in 1942. Responsibility for direct relief for “unemployables” was returned to state and local governments. Finally, the Social Security Act established the old-age pensions known now as social security, and created a series of state/federal programs for unemployment insurance, aid to dependent children, old-age assistance, and aid to the blind. The latter group of programs replaced state programs in place in many of the states.

As people invoke the W.P.A. and F.E.R.A. work relief projects as templates for modern stimulus programs, they do not really understand how they worked.

While it’s true that the F.E.R.A. and W.P.A. built many roads, buildings, and public works, they were designed as “relief” programs with work requirements. The goal was to help families reach a minimum level of income, and the average payment per hour on these programs was roughly 40 percent of the wage being paid on the non-relief public works projects described below.

The pay was so low because the unemployment rates between 1933 and 1939 ranged between 14 percent and 25 percent, Roosevelt was trying to keep budget deficits in check, and the administration was trying to help as many people as possible reach a basic standard of living.

This focus on providing a basic standard of living contributed to an improved situation on several socio-economic dimensions. Recent studies of the relief programs in the largest cities suggest that spending an additional $2.5 million in year-2008 dollars (about $200,000 in 1935) on relief was associated with a reduction of 1 infant death, 1 suicide, 2.5 deaths from infectious and parasitic diseases, 1 death from diarrhea, and 21 property crimes.

Despite this success, my sense is that most people are not interested in recreating a system where people are paid such low wages to contribute to building public works for the rest of the society. The modern social-insurance structures of unemployment insurance and a wide variety of health, nutrition, and welfare programs are already in place to help resolve these types of problems.

The New Deal programs that better fit what the stimulus proponents have in mind are less well known and include the Public Works Administration (P.W.A.), the Public Roads Administration (P.R.A.), and the Public Buildings Administration (P.B.A.). There was also the Civil Works Administration (C.W.A.) that paid full wages but ran as a relief program employing 4 million people during four months of the winter of 1933/1934.

These programs built dams, sewers, bridges, roads, and buildings, as did the W.P.A. and F.E.R.A. The difference was that the programs contracted with private contractors, who then hired workers at the typical wages paid in the construction industry.

How successful were they at stimulating the economy? As yet, the only estimates we have are for the combined effects of the public works and relief programs. Studies that examine their success at the county level suggest that an additional grant dollar per person distributed to a county for public works and relief during the period of 1933 to 1939 contributed to a rise in in-migration and an increase in income per person in the county of about 80 cents in 1939. We should remember, however, that this was during a period when there were huge numbers of unemployed workers available for work. Even during this period, some studies find evidence of crowding out of private employment. Today, with unemployment rates below 7 percent, it is likely that such public-works spending would crowd out a significant amount of private construction.

My own recommendation would be to evaluate the modern public-works programs more on the basis of the specific productivity of the programs rather than as stimuli to the economy. We know that we have an aging infrastructure of roads, bridges, and dams. The costs and benefits of the replacements would be my focus in evaluating whether to spend the money or not.

World War II

It is widely held that World War II was a huge Keynesian stimulus that finally brought us out of the Great Depression. On the surface, the facts seem to fit. The federal government devoted 44 percent of G.D.P. to fighting the war and ran very large deficits. Unemployment rates fell below 2 percent even as large numbers of women entered the work force.

In a series of academic papers, Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute has raised doubts about this rosy picture of Keynesian stimulus. The war economy was a very unusual setting. While running large deficits, the federal government took command over large segments of the economy, allocated a large part of the resources to the war effort, put 15 percent of the working-age population in the military, and established wage and price controls.

The official statistics on private consumption during World War II suggest that real consumption expenditures rose, but they use official-controlled prices that misrepresent the true price of consumer goods in the period.

After relatively minor adjustments to reflect the real prices, real consumption in the middle of the war was lower than it was in 1941. Most in the military were risking life and limb in foreign lands. On the home front, people could not buy new autos, tires, and many appliances at any price. Rationing programs sharply limited access to meat, sugar, gasoline, and a wide array of other products.

Life during World War II was largely a continuation of the deprivation of the Great Depression, with two exceptions: Fighting the war put many in the frame of mind that they were sacrificing for a much larger goal of winning the war, and people accumulated savings because there was not much they could buy at the time.

One sign that Keynesian budget deficits were not the key to bringing the U.S. out of the Great Depression is what happened after the war. Every Keynesian predicted that the private economy would go into a recession because the large government budget deficits would be eliminated and so many men would be returning from the war jobless. Instead, as government deficits receded, private consumption and investment boomed. Resources were no longer allocated to producing munitions and instead were devoted to production of typical consumer goods and services.

Some people might misconstrue this discussion as saying that the U.S. should not have fought the war. The point here is that World War II was a period of sacrifice when many Americans experienced deprivation on par with what they experienced in the latter stages of the Great Depression. Vast budget deficits were not a stimulus in the normal sense of the word because the U.S. was a command economy devoted to an all-out war effort. William Tecumseh Sherman famously stated, “War is hell.” We should add the phrase, “even when financed by large budget deficits.”

Wonks Anonymous

And I beg to differ. We all know that the New Deal was weak medicine. The mobilization during WWII worked. The reason that the private economy took up the gap after the war was precisely because of the jobs created during the war.

WWII lowered consumption and increased employment and investment - all those auto plants could produce cars after they stopped producing tanks. Meanwhile households that had come near to bankruptcy were flush with war bonds and ready to buy goods that they had not been able to during the war.

So right now our households are all but bankrupt from playing the patsy in multiple rounds of monetary stimulus - you borrow and spend, we make profits. We have no realistic prospect for increased demand in the near future except the government. Given our problems with energy driven inflation we need to make some serious changes.

Maybe it's time for a national mobilization as in WWII?


sajid khan

world War 11 played a major role in stimulating the economy. If unemployment came down to 2 percent, people in the military and defense production had the jobs
and proabably saved much of it because of the rationing and shortages during the war. After the war the demand increased sharply because people had the money earned during the war. This couldn't have happened without the
war. That is the reason the unemployment was high and demand low before the war. The comparison of the economic situation before and after the war clearly shows
the important role of the war in pulling USA out of the depression.

Sajid Khan, NJ

CT reader

Could you please comment on the GI bill? I recently heard Dr. Robert Shiller speak, and he indicated that after adjusting for inflation, the only real period of growth in real estate prices was post WWII. Perhaps a new GI bill could help stabilize housing.


I have long marvelled at the "works" done back in the 30s and 40s--the national park lodges, trails, overlooks, roads, and so forth. Whatever the economics, those folks did something wonderful for future generations.

I am thinking that the government might kill two birds with one stone by creating a "works" program that was centered on alternative energy. For instance, a grand program to implement the Pickens Plan (the wind part anyway) would put a lot of people to work AND would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Over time, such an endeavor would keep American money at home. The energy companies that receive that money could invest or expand, all serving to create jobs. And I need not go into how that would free America's economy from the whims of OPEC.

Just my thoughts.


The lessons observed here seem to always be forgotten.

Government is a necessary evil but it is never the answer to economic problems.

Jan Christiansen

By comparing performance to 1929 this type of analysis falls into the same trap as a lot of current thinking: the wishful delusion that the peak of a bubble somehow represents a sustainable equilibrium which can be restored if we just pour enough juice to economy.

Forensic economist

On the other hand, if the PWA, CCC, etc hadn't happened the depression would have been worse. It is not that the new deal didn't do anything, it didn't do enough.

bob sallamack

Keynesian budget deficits are simply the idea of using government funds to pump capital into an economy where capital has dried up.

In a weak economy a government can sit by and do nothing or it can take actions to revive the economy.

Government spending during World War II built up the industrial base of the United States and jobs in this industrial base provided Americans with the money to purchase products.

Before government spending the industrial base of the United States lay in ruins because of the lack of capital.

The current industrial base of the United States lay in ruins because of the poor economic policies of the past 30 years and a belief that a large supply of cheap capital would always be available.

Keynesian budget deficits will be needed for years to rebuild the industrial base.

Keynesian budget deficits can be effective when they are used wisely. The current use of over a trillion dollars of Keynesian budget deficits to banks indicate that are ineffective if they are not used wisely.



The lesson of WWII government economic stimulation is so clear, how can anyone not see it? However, there may be a real question about why it worked to end the great depression. After all, war materials have virtually no economic value and all the government money spent on it was an economic waste. The WPA programs which created real products of real economic value didn't pull the country out of the depression. However, there may have been factors at work in the mid 1930's which are not being accounted for in the Fishback analysis. Perhaps the conclusion the could be drawn is that the New Deal government stimulus was just not big enough to end the depression.

Wade K., WI

So... what exactly brought us out of the Great Depression? Was it deficit spending by our families? Was it the increased productivity from all the new infrastructure? Was it a more fair distribution of the newly created wealth (as represented by the ratio of CEO salaries to hourly worker's wages?

It would have been nice if you told us your answer to what it was in addition to telling us what it wasn't.

David Isenbergh

The thrust of this article seems a bit misplaced, for the some of the following reasons:
First, as the article's graph illustrates, the amount of government deficit spending during the 30's was modest by today's standards. Still, the growth in GNP corresponds quite closely to the level of government spending and deficit increase. Productionr growth (as well as employment levels) increased steadily until 1937-1938, when Roosevelt decided to reduce spending while increasing taxes in an attempt to balance the budget: the result, as reflected in our graph, was a sudden downturn in GNP combined with increased unemployment. As soon as Roosevelt reversed gears, the upward trend in GNP & employment resumed.
Second, Price Fishback assumes that our current Federal & State programs designed to keep people fed, clothed, warm and housed are entirely adequate. This view, commonly held by academic and ideological economists and commentators, is very simply wrong. The truth is that unemployment benefits are currently available for a very limited amount of time --mostly less than a year-- and as for welfare, relatively few people are eligible (mostly unemployed single moms and totally disabled individuals) and the payments even then are less than adequate. Thus, in the event of a deep recession or depression, millions of individuals and families will need material support far beyond what the Government's current mandate provides.
Third --it is noteworthy that Fishback's graph does not extend beyond 1940-41. But it was precisely during the war years & their immediate aftermath (1942-1946) that deficit spending really took off: In fact, the Federal deficit as a fraction of the Nation's economy/production was higher during that period than it ever was before, or, for that matter, since. And subsequently the U.S. economy soared as it never had before.
Thus the historical facts in question hardly constitute a refutation of the efficacity of Keynesian deficit spending. Quite the contrary.



I don't think that people are advocating a new New Deal because they have misinterpreted it as a true Keynesian stimulus. I don't think that most journalists understand what that is, and I didn't think anyone believed in classical Keynesianism anymore. Take it from someone who has experienced that theory first hand: it does not work (although it is much preferable to laissez-faire).

People advocate a new New Deal precisely because the New Deal included a broad range of measures, where government regulation was just as important as government spending. It was an overhaul of an outdated economic system, which is what we need today.

The writer touches on the reason why Keynesianism doesn't work, which is the belief that throwing money at something, just anything, will somehow make the economy better. Imagine that you felt like you were missing something in your life, and then went in to a store and started shopping blind folded. Would that make you happy?


Pierce Randall

That the New Deal wasn't particularly Keynesian should be obvious. It was also unsuccessful in 1937, when a balanced budget led to a recession.

World War II is trickier. Yeah, consumption might fall as 15% of the working population is overseas, but the economic stimulus in the US after the war might be the chickens coming home to roost, so to speak, in deferred consumption by those individuals, and their families. Also, debt as a percentage of GDP declined significantly following World War II, but the total value of the debt (what the government does and does not pay off) stayed much more consistant. Public debt by 1950 was still in the $250 billion range. It was $40 billion in 1940.

World War II was a weird war, anway. You look at any other war -- Korea, World War I, the Civil War, 1812 -- the economy slumped significantly as government paid off its debts.


If we truly apply the lessons of the New Deal/WW II, then we can restore the economy in four easy steps

1) reduce consumption
2) increase savings
3) invest in directly productive assets such as factories (rather than leverage-based speculation)
4) blow up the rest of the world's infrastructure, so they have to buy our products

If we aren't willing to do (4), then it's not at all clear what direct solutions we can extract from this period of history.


In the past 100 years, the machine has replaced human labor to the point that the necessities of life can be produced with just a small fraction of our available manpower.

In all of human history, there is no precedent for this situation.

We have had no better idea of how to organize ourselves, our labor, our society, our government, etc., than by working like mad to make stuff for consumption.

Now that's not working anymore.


The other factor for ending the Depression was a complete reversal in trade policy at the end of World War II. The GATT agreement marked a return to freer trade and brought huge economic benefits.


What that Keynesian view seems to be missing is a consideration of productivity. I believe that WW II's key economic outcome was pushing the country to commit to R & D, in spite of necessary sacrifices in other areas. This led to increases in productivity, superior technology to other countries, and consequently more opportunities for everyone.

The modern U.S. has been shirking its commitment to R & D, as well as infrastructure modernization. Government may not be able to develop every new technology itself, but it can play a key role in steering the country toward the right mindset.

Victor Grauer

I heartily agree with Fishback's very logical (though thinly veiled) argument for socialism. If Roosevelt's efforts had been more thoroughly planned and less piecemeal then the various aid packages need not have had such contradictory and inequitable effects. If they had not been watered down by needless compromises, they would certainly have had a greater impact.

As for World War II. The extraordinary insensitivity of economists to basic human values never ceases to amaze me. World War II was far and away the greatest disaster ever to befall humankind. It was good for NOTHING. Its effect on the economy was that we survived it and were able, by some miracle, to move on. Period!


There is no magic bullet, the government cannot fix the economy because the government does not create wealth. Wealth is created by entrepreneurial citizens and hard work. That is what WWII gave us.


Doesn't this ignore the immense public spending on the Marshall Plan and GI Bill which significantly bolstered demand during demobilization?